The second stage will have a liquid engine capable of restarting multiple times. The payload will sit atop this second stage inside a large aerodynamic payload shroud.
During the study several shuttle-derived heavy launch vehicle options were considered. An old favorite, designed in the late 1980's would have replaced the shuttle orbiter with a payload canister which would more or less replicate the existing orbiter's payload interfaces - sans the orbiter. Existing launch infrastructure would stay mostly the same. This configuration has its limitations in terms of the size of payload that could be launched and was rejected in favor of the in-line design, which has greater capacity for growth and performance.
The in-line design will be a rather immense vehicle more on the scale of a Saturn-V. It will require substantial modifications to the existing launch pads and payload handling facilities.
The second vehicle to be pursued is based on a 5 segment Solid Rocket Booster (SRB). Atop the SRB will be a new liquid-fueled upper stage and the CEV. While this vehicle is being developed for CEV launching, Mike Griffin has spoken of a cargo version of the CEV as well. With the announcement of this new space architecture, no one can say that Mike Griffin is not serious about conceiving and building the systems needed to get humans back to the Moon and on to Mars ASAP.
("Light This Candle")
Article comments
1 - Tan The Man
Wow. Our future in space looks bright.
2 - gonzo marx
part of me is hopeful from these decision
part of me thinks it is more about the whole lobby/money thing and less about getting the job done
still no reason for choosing the Boeing designs over the Delta Clipper have ever been made public
a damn shame too...the Delta Clipper was truly a breakthru in the approach to the problem
but what the fuck do i know, eh?
Excelsior!
3 - Bennett
Yeah Tan, I can't wait to see a five stage SRB take off (hey, I did one of those with Estes engines and a carpet core tube!).
In fact, I've waited long enough. The wife and I will have to check out a shuttle launch in person. After all, they'll only be around until 2010.
It would be nice if they launch one in early February.
Early February in Vermont is wicked cold.
4 - Bennett
Gonzo - I agree, but NASA has got to pick a direction and go for it. Personally, the t/Space system of a high altitude air launch makes more sense than ANY ground based launch, short of a long track catapult as in "Mistress".
We'll see how much of the burden private industry can shoulder. If the cost/delivery is right, go private.
5 - gonzo marx
i hear ya...we will see how it goes, and keep our tentacles crossed...
on a lighter note, enjoy the week end holiday
slaughter and bar-b-q a fatted calf for me, work is closed down for the week, and wife is still in italy...so a long week of chores at the Round House in store for me
..:::bows, hand over fist:::..
Excelsior!
6 - Victor Plenty
I'm glad we're making something Mars-capable right from the design stage. I know many people are all jazzed up about the moon, but I suspect it will keep looking less and less attractive as we learn more about the lunar surface.
When more people finally wake up to the superior opportunities available on Mars, it would be good to have launcher designs already capable of getting us there.