More detailed info on SRB-J2S CEV launcher.

GWH, Henry Spencer, and others who were wanting more specific info on
the SRSM-J2S SAIC Reliability study--Scott Horowitz gave us lots of
very detailed info after he left, however, the files are pretty big
(the reliability study is 7 MB), so I'll only send them on email if you
email me to ask for them. (tom.cuddihyATgmail.com).

The SAIC reliability study is the most interesting, especially this
paragraph from the executive summary:
--------
The potential alternatives include the vehicles derived from the
elements of the shuttle and the use of alternative vehicles. The
alternative
vehicle set includes those currently available and those that might be
developed
either from new or existing launch elements. In the case of these
alternatives
the simpler designs would be expected to offer the greater potential
for inherent
reliability and with an equivalently effective escape system this
should translate
into greater crew safety. However, the simpler designs derived from the
currently
available EELVs invariably limit the payload to LEO. In particular
single engine,
single core versions have been unable to meet the payload requirements
suggested for the currently envisioned CEV[1]. Therefore, NASA would
either be
compelled to reduce the mass requirement for the CEV, or maintain the
requirement and thereby forgo the benefits of the single core for the
higher
payload capabilities of the triple core, or so called "Heavy"
versions of these
vehicles.

<<the footnotes read:>>
[1]Current estimates of the CEV mass requirement indicate a mass of
50,000 pounds. This value
is in excess of the indicated single core capability for EELVs such as
the Atlas V and Delta IV,
which have a capacity of approximately 25,000 pounds.
[2] SAIC assumed that all worse case accidents, that is, case burst
events, would not be
survivable. The SAIC physical models indicate that some at least, if
not all,

As you can see, from somewhere, current estimates of the CEV mass
requirement are >50,000 lbs, and I'm not sure where that comes from,
no.


George William Herbert wrote:
> Damon Hill <damonunoseisuno@xxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
> >gherbert@xxxxxxxxx (George William Herbert) wrote:
> >> Either BoeMart's EELVs cost too much, in which case there is market
> >> opportunity for vendors to undercut, or they don't cost too much,
> >> in which case the government is not paying too much to use them.
> >
> >I sort of like Boelock as a contraction; sounds like bollock...
> >which may kind of sum up the situation.
> >
>
> -george william herbert
> gherbert@xxxxxxxxx

.

Quantcast