jsw
|
|
Titan IV blows up
| 
Sep 2 10:54 UTC 1998 |
From: John Wolter <johnswolter@wolterworks.com>
To All:
_Another_ Air Force Titan IV blew up this morning at about 8:25 a.m.
launching a well known type of satellite. Maybe they are thinking of a
different kind of booster to get their work done?
John Wolter
Wolter Works
--------------------------------------------------------
From: Frank Johnson
For what it's worth, this was the last of the Titan 4A models. The new
Titan
4B has improved solid-fuel rocket motors. The solids were the cause of
the last
Titan 4 hard start, and probably this one as well.
-Frank
--------------------------------------------------------
From: Allen Sherzer
Hi Frank,
It didn't look to me like it was the solids. The film I saw showed the
rocket taking a sudden turn downrange and then blowing up. It may be
that
the dynamic pressure of this change tore it up (like Chalenger) or
perhaps
range saftey pushed the botton.
Allen
--------------------------------------------------------
From: Frank Johnson
Hi Allen,
Well, that was purely conjecture on my part, since it spontaneously
disassembled itself fairly shortly after liftoff. And I think the last
two
American ELV failures (the Delta in 97 and the Titan in 94) were SRM
problems.
Later,
-Frank
--------------------------------------------------------
From: John Wolter
To all:
The time on that mishap was 7:25 a.m. not 8:25 a.m. EST.
John Wolter
Wolter Works
--------------------------------------------------------
From: John Wolter
To all:
Has anyone proposed a commerical replacement for the Titan IV? A
report
on CNN stated that the Titan IV has a record of 2 failures in 25
launches. The commerical Delta has 2 in about 90 launches. I don't
know if the reason is the Delta being commerical. Maybe Titan's lift
category is ripe for competition.
John Wolter
Wolter Works
--------------------------------------------------------
From: Frank Johnson
Well John, it depends what you call "commercial."
The Evolved Expendable Launch Vehicle programs are designed to develop
government launchers for all lift categories (light, medium, heavy),
corresponding to Delta, Atlas, and Titan. It's goal is to reduce launch
vehicle cost by 50%, mostly by using common components on all stages
and
simpler engines.
The original plan was to have the USAF award only one, $2 billion
contract
to either Boeing or Lockmart to develop the EELV. However, someone in
the
gov't eventually woke up to the fact this would be very
anti-competitive,
since having all that development money would give the winner a
tremendous
advantage in the commercial launch arena. So two, smaller contracts
were
awarded to each of the aerospace design bueraux (er, companies). Boeing
and
LockMart will pay off whatever investment they make with future comsat
launch
sales.
Each EELV proposal has a Titan IV class heavy lift model. It is
unlikely that
they will ever be used to launch comsats, since they are much too big.
But,
the components of the heavy lifters will be modular and common with
the smaller rockets. So they shouldn't be "quite" as expensive as a
Titan IV,
which everyone agrees is obscenely expensive, but the military has to
use it
to launch their spysats since it's the "largest American ELV."
Of course, many of the space launch startups are not happy with EELV,
which
they see as distorting both the capital and launch vehicle markets.
Mike Kelly,
of Kelly Aerospace, has testified in congress about EELV. He agrees
that the
government has a unique need for heavy lifters. He thinks that EELV
should only
be allowed to launch commercial payloads if they reimburse the gov't
for the
development costs.
-Frank
--------------------------------------------------------
From: John Wolter <johnswolter@wolterworks.com>
Frank, Frank, Frank. What can I say? The Titan IV is broke. The same
people who blew it up are now saying just one more try and we can get
it
right. I am not a believer in their ability to produce the next
generation of heavy lift boosters. Their demonstrated performance at
this task of building and operating these kind of boosters is on the
record. 2 total failures in 25 launches other part failures, the worse
in the world. If they had spend stockholders money this way they would
be fired and be drumed out of the business. My opinion is it is time
to
try a new approach outside of government to generating and operating
the
next heavy lift design.
As far as marketplace for the heavy lift transport services, the U. S.
government is one customer. Additional customers could choose to use
this capability if it was cheap. reliable and _user_ friendly, robust
in
a word. How about not just big items but also multi-satellite
launches,
ESA is doing that with Ariane? The government will ask for the
creation
of a purpose specific and inflexible design, an overly complex
operating
environment, and based on Shuttle experience not user friendly.
I tried to commericalize a B-52G for air-launched of orbiting rockets
and found the government organizations resentful, uncooperative, and
only willing to look at accommodating government centered requirements.
NASA, the Air Force, Commerce dept., FAA, all were the worse enemy of
any effort to innovate. One clear comment came from a highly placed
NASA manager when asked about helping the effort said, "Why would I
help
anything that puts NASA people out of work". The government centered
space industry has developed a social-political-economic structure that
wants things to stay the same. It is not a big conspiracy, it is a big
incompetence flying in formation.
The solution to this carrier aircraft problem was solved completely
outside of government. A Lochheed L-1011 was modified to allow it to
carry the rocket _and_ when not being used as a launcher it carries
cargo for UPS! One more comment w.r.t. marketplace is to note the
Shuttle manifest if being overflowed with Space Station support
flights. Space Station support or competition with that facility may
open the need for some heavy lift launch services.
The idea of one customer and one design set of requirements means no
chance for wider applications.
John Wolter
Wolter Works
--------------------------------------------------------
From: Christopher Little
Can you guys take your bickering off the A2S2 mailing list? I used to
get
a few messages a month, and now I'm getting 10-20 in the last week. I
am
not on this list to hear your differences of opinion, and I doubt
anyone
else appreciates it either.
Many thanks,
Chris.
------------------------------------------------
| *\\***********//* |
| Christopher Little **\\*********//** |
| Project Engineer ***\\*******//*** |
| BRL & Co. ****\\*****//**** |
| *****\\***//***** |
| \|/ ******\\*//****** |
| & *** & ******\|/****** |
| & *** & ******/|\****** |
| && * && ****//*\\**** |
| &&***&& ***//***\\*** |
| Concedo Nulli *//*****\\* |
| Clan Little ******* |
| *** |
------------------------------------------------
--------------------------------------------------------
From: John Wolter
Christopher:
Today Space Society uses EMail as its sole online communications
linkage. We use it to keep up to date on the Society's happenings,
current events in space and also to discuss issues of interest to our
members. All discussion are between friends and always to be
informative as well as to express opinions, prespectives, speculations,
and ideas to further the Society's mission of Human Habitation of
Space.
An additional way to carry out that goal could be to have somekind of
newsgroup setup where all could join the discussion. That would also
allow individual topic threads to be followed at the same time. So
far
the membership based EMail has served the Society well. I can imagine
the day will come when we may want to look at the additiional
arrangements. Do you want to suggest to the membership that we setup a
newsgroup now? How will it be hosted and managed? Let me know what
you
think?
John Wolter, President
Ann Arbor Space Society
--------------------------------------------------------
From: Frank Johnson
Well, John, I'll take this off the list since we have appeared to have
a
complaint. Perhaps as President of a2s2 you might want to post a note
clarifying whether this is a discussion list or an announcement list.
Anyway I basically agree with your assessment of the inability of gov't
contractors to develop a commercially competitive design. That is why
it is
so important that we change the public perception that space travel is
something that can only be achieved by governments.
WIth regards to the B-52G/L-1011, were you referring to the Pegasus? If
so, the
reason that I've heard that OSC bought the L-1011 was that the Pegasus
XL was
too heavy to be carried on the B-52's wing pylon. I'm not disputing
your point,
just saying what I have heard.
Later,
-Frank
--------------------------------------------------------
From: Christopher Little
Please remove me from the mailing list.
Thanks,
Chris.
------------------------------------------------
| *\\***********//* |
| Christopher Little **\\*********//** |
| Project Engineer ***\\*******//*** |
| BRL & Co. ****\\*****//**** |
| *****\\***//***** |
| \|/ ******\\*//****** |
| & *** & ******\|/****** |
| & *** & ******/|\****** |
| && * && ****//*\\**** |
| &&***&& ***//***\\*** |
| Concedo Nulli *//*****\\* |
| Clan Little ******* |
| *** |
------------------------------------------------
--------------------------------------------------------
From: John Wolter
Frank:
Well, I guess our EMail serves as both information EMail and a
discussion list. Maybe a newsgroup would help and promote addition
interest in the Society and lessen the burden on readers. I don't know
about the support overhead.
About Pegasus weight, during the time I was looking at the problem it
was within the weight limits of the pylon. An additional pylon sits in
Boeing's Wichita Kansas facility in ready storage. The idea was to
take
a B-52G that was mothballed and modify it with that pylon and do a
depot
level aircraft overhaul. That would ready the B-52G and beefup the
pylon capacity to about 60,000 lbs. A drawback was that the rocket
was
more off the centerline of the B-52G aircraft than on the L-1011. That
asymetric loading was of some flight dynamics concern to me, but I was
assurd by the Boeing engineers that it could be done.
In the end the L-1011 started with better economics but also had better
flight dynamics. The B-52 while very capable but was a dedicated
military aircraft built completely for its bombing mission. The L-1011
is a commerical transport aircraft with optional configurations in
mind. One problem was Pegasus's rear tail/rudder projected upwards
into
the fusalage cabin area. The solution I saw was a box built into the
area where the tail stuck upwards. It all fit pretty well cargo and
all. I still wonder about the sepration and drop dynamics during
launch, never saw any data on that. I stopped following the issues
soon
after OSC's announcement about the aircraft.
The B-52G conversion while not successful was very educational for me.
I learned alot about project management, finance, and dealing with the
then current government oriented approach space development. Sort of a
how-to try something new in space. I came away also with the
understanding that I needed to minimize my involvement with government
for my next space related project.
John Wolter
Wolter Works
--------------------------------------------------------
From: "Franklin Ratliff"
> From: Franklin Ratliff
> To: mdecotis@flatoday.infi.net
> Subject: Titan vs Shuttle-C
> Date: Friday, August 14, 1998 1:28 PM
>
> Dear Mark,
>
> Shuttle-C was to have been an unmanned heavy lift rocket consisting
of an
> expendable lightweight cargo pod mounted to a shuttle external tank
and
> solid boosters with the main engines being in a detachable re-entry
module
> mounted to the base of the cargo pod. Tuesday's Titan explosion was
> another argument for not developing Shuttle-C having been one of the
> biggest bonehead decisions of the last twenty years. We would have
gotten
> the same basic system that has to date proven more reliable than
Titan.
We
> would have gotten a partially reuseable system with much greater
payload
> capacity than Titan. We would have gotten the economies of scale
available
> with a system that shares many of its elements (external tank, solid
rocket
> boosters, etc) with the space shuttle. We would have gotten a system
that
> could have received the same upgrades now being applied to the
shuttle
(the
> lightweight external tank and the projected liquid propellant flyback
> boosters). And we would have gotten a system that uses the non-toxic
> combination of liquid oxygen and hydrogen instead of the toxic and
> carcinogenic combination of nitrogen tetroxide and hydrazine.
>
> Sincerely, Franklin Ratliff
--------------------------------------------------------
From: John Wolter
Frank:
Shuttle itself is man-rated but very expensive, $500,000,000.00 per
launch plus the actual onboard flight activity. I thought I would
write
down all of those zeros for you. The cost is sky high. This is where I
start to talk about Shuttle being a social-political-economic block
rather then a space development activity. I have heard shouts of 'jobs
program' and 'pork barrel' etc. Well, after hearing a certain number
of
those cat calls I started to think about the nature of the Shuttle and
other government supported programs.
A somewhat larger block example is the electric power industry. The
electric power industry is supported by power utility companies,
banks,
construction and operating unions, plant builders & manufacturers,
federal state regulators & tax authorities, U.S. Energy department,
elected officals, and more. That is a powerful
social-political-economic infastructure that supports electric power.
They have their way. Deregulating that industry as well as the
telecommunications industry, another example, is a continuing war. An
analogy on a smaller scale to the current space programs could be made.
What to do? The current structure will continue, directly confronting
that structure will only create enemies that will slow space
development. It should be possible to start to grow a replacement
structure without paying much attention to the other withering
structure. That space development replacement, like deregulated
electric power, needs an infastructure that supports its way of doing
business. The support structure should be more directed to the
commerical development, namely explotation, of space. A more economic
approach will self-sustain the drive into space. In short for lack of
a
better words from the movie Wallstreet, "greed is good".
John Wolter
Wolter Works
--------------------------------------------------------
Subject: Re: Fw: Titan vs Shuttle-C
John,
It's a lot easier to toss around dollar figures and sayings like "greed
is
good"
than it is to come up with real solutions.
When you have projects like [name changed to protect the innocent]
where
the guy in charge has a bee in his bonnet telling him that a spinning
4,000
pound aerospike engine is somehow lighter and simpler than a
conventional
turbopump then it is hard to see how private enterprise is an automatic
solution.
Then when you have projects like X-33 being up against the brick wall
of
cost being inversely proportional to weight it gets even harder to see
a
breakthroughs on the horizon.
Sincerely, Franklin Ratliff
--------------------------------------------------------
From: "Franklin Ratliff"
John,
It's a lot easier to toss around dollar figures and sayings like "greed
is
good"
than it is to come up with real solutions.
When you have projects like [name changed to protect the innocent]
where
the guy in charge has a bee in his bonnet telling him that a spinning
4,000
pound aerospike engine is somehow lighter and simpler than a
conventional
turbopump then it is hard to see how private enterprise is an automatic
solution.
Then when you have projects like X-33 being up against the brick wall
of
cost being inversely proportional to weight it gets even harder to see
a
breakthroughs on the horizon.
Sincerely, Franklin Ratliff
--------------------------------------------------------
From: "Franklin Ratliff"
John,
Actually, I think there is a variety of concepts and technologies that
could be exploited to reduce the cost of spaceflight tremendously,
either
by themselves or in combination.
1. The big dumb booster (a big multi-stage rocket using pressure-fed
"blowdown" systems).
2. A sub-category of the big dumb booster: a hydrogen peroxide
monopropellant first stage.
3. Rocket planes that (like the X-15) are actually flown by pilots
through
non-fly-by-wire systems.
4. Air launch of large vehicles. (In the early seventies, Boeing
engineers
designed a one million pound airplane capable of carrying a two million
pound payload.)
Sincerely, Franklin
|