Meadville Space Center
Welcome, Guest. Please login or register.
October 31, 2020, 08:29:37 PM

Login with username, password and session length
Search:     Advanced search
25068 Posts in 2094 Topics by 2266 Members
Latest Member: twa517
* Home Help Search Login Register
+  Meadville Space Center
|-+  Orbiter Mars Direct
| |-+  Development
| | |-+  Modelling (Moderators: Iceversaka, smoothvirus)
| | | |-+  Sprint Ferry
« previous next »
Pages: [1] Print
Author Topic: Sprint Ferry  (Read 6021 times)
aftercolumbia
Project Team Member
Full Member
****
Posts: 95


View Profile WWW Email
« on: March 31, 2006, 03:40:21 PM »

I've started this thread to discuss issues specifically related to the crew ferry version of Sprint, currently selected to ascend on a Falcon 9 single block launch vehicle.

The current "official" version of Sprint crew ferry in my own studies (i.e. After Columbia Project) ascends on a Greenstar 1140 (new numbering) with similar LEO performance to the Falcon 9.  I'll be honest in saying that this is still my favorite...however, Greenstar is a selling point of a book I'm currently working on titled _Ascent: The Next Commercial Step Into Space_ and so I should have a bit of propriety about it.  Design prudence of course calls for any device to be designed for the worst case of operating conditions that it needs to survive.  For the Descent Module, this means an entry so nasty that there is no launch vehicle that'll even make it shrug...unless it blows up of course.

Designing the Crew Ferry Service Module basic structures to axial 6g lateral/radial 2g QSL with and without the fairing in place to a DSF of 1.5 should be adequate to launch the Crew Ferry on any launch vehicle big enough to carry it.  With an LV adapter that can stem from a standard booster interface to the selected 1.666m diameter basic SM structure, only two major components change from booster to booster: this adapter and the partial fairing.  Then, by splitting the partial fairing to two sets joined by welding (most likely FSW if metal is chosen) or merely in the tooling for a co-cured lay-up (if the more likely CFRP is chosen), even fewer modifications are needed to switch boosters.  The fairing split would be just above the Service Module/booster separation plane, what's above that needn't change at all (unless we do something silly, like put it on the Ares or CaLV, boosters waaaaayyy too big for Sprint.)

Crew Ferry should be compatible with these boosters:

Greenstar 1140, 1150 (current After Columbia selection)
Falcon 9 (current OMDP selection)
Delta IV M+4.2
Atlas 402
Sea Launch
ESAS CLV (but is major overkill)
Logged
Zachstar
Sr. Member
****
Posts: 317

Is it Star Trek?


View Profile
« Reply #1 on: March 31, 2006, 05:00:41 PM »

Ok because its actually not in production yet I guess we can leave the topic here for now.

AC did you read my idea to give each Ferry Sprint shot a 2nd unmanned objective? What do you think about that idea?
Logged


-------------------------------------------
aftercolumbia
Project Team Member
Full Member
****
Posts: 95


View Profile WWW Email
« Reply #2 on: March 31, 2006, 05:54:16 PM »

It's pretty likely that we can put recoverable experiment payloads from schools into the Crew Ferry so that when we launch off to Mars, the Sprint reenters after a week or two and then the experiments are recovered.  Because we are launching into a ~200km staging orbit (we leave LEO after two days at the most), the orbit won't last very long.  This isn't something we need to implement in Orbiter, it would be mostly an imagination thing.  The Sprint is designed primarily as a piloted spacecraft.
Logged
Zachstar
Sr. Member
****
Posts: 317

Is it Star Trek?


View Profile
« Reply #3 on: March 31, 2006, 06:20:14 PM »

Ya I was thinking a couple of weeks is a good idea to make the money good spent.

How much mass could we alot to science payloads?
Logged


-------------------------------------------
aftercolumbia
Project Team Member
Full Member
****
Posts: 95


View Profile WWW Email
« Reply #4 on: May 09, 2006, 05:28:38 PM »

It is highly unlikely that it would be money well spent on Sprint to ride secondary science payloads.  Sprint would also be able to operate the International Space Station, and if not, it is likely that the proof-of-concept Outbound tether space station would be available for these, and for cheaper.

Also, it would be expensive, we'd have to be certain that the payloads would not threaten the spacecraft, and they'd have to fit in a not very generous flight performance reserve for the ascent and contingency aborts...the more I think about it, the less I like it.
Logged
Pages: [1] Print 
« previous next »
Jump to:  

Powered by MySQL Powered by PHP Powered by SMF 1.1.10 | SMF © 2006-2009, Simple Machines LLC Valid XHTML 1.0! Valid CSS!