• Hi Guest! Forum rules have been updated. All users please read here.

The Jarvis Launcher

starviking

ACCESS: Top Secret
Senior Member
Joined
Sep 29, 2006
Messages
1,060
Reaction score
145
The Jarvis was a heavylift launcher proposed by Hughes and Boeing in the wake of the Challenger Disaster. It was named in honour of Gregory Jarvis, a Hughes Payload Specialist who perished in the disaster.

It used Shuttle and Saturn technology, being powered at launch by two F-1 engines. The design evolved to a Shuttle-derived vehicle only, with 2 SRBs and one SSME on a modified Shuttle external tank.

Starviking


References:
http://www.flightglobal.com/pdfarchive/view/1986/1986%20-%202002.html
http://www.flightglobal.com/pdfarchive/view/1986/1986%20-%202355.html
http://www.flightglobal.com/pdfarchive/view/1986/1986%20-%202780.html
http://www.flightglobal.com/pdfarchive/view/1986/1986%20-%202885.html
http://www.astronautix.com/lvs/jarvis.htm
 

Attachments

  • Jarvis Comparison.jpg
    Jarvis Comparison.jpg
    188.5 KB · Views: 658
  • Jarvis Launch.jpg
    Jarvis Launch.jpg
    196.5 KB · Views: 616

Archibald

ACCESS: Top Secret
Senior Member
Joined
Jun 6, 2006
Messages
4,213
Reaction score
1,739
I'd discovered this project here http://www.astronautix.com/lvs/jarvis.htm

IMHO it was bit re-inventing Saturn INT-20 twenty years after its cancellation

Saturn INT-20 had no S-II, as a consequence some F-1 were removed to diminish acceleration.
This also reduced payload, which was close from Jarvis.
 

starviking

ACCESS: Top Secret
Senior Member
Joined
Sep 29, 2006
Messages
1,060
Reaction score
145
Archibald said:
I'd discovered this project here http://www.astronautix.com/lvs/jarvis.htm

IMHO it was bit re-inventing Saturn INT-20 twenty years after its cancellation

Saturn INT-20 had no S-II, as a consequence some F-1 were removed to diminish acceleration.
This also reduced payload, which was close from Jarvis.

From what I can remember at the time it was seen as being more reliable, having proven Saturn Technology in it.

It's interesting you use the term 're-invented', as I discovered what is probably the inspiration for the finalised SDV-design Jarvis referenced in the Flight for the 24th of July 1982. ;D

Voilà!

Starviking

Reference: http://www.flightglobal.com/pdfarchive/view/1982/1982%20-%201905.html
 

Attachments

  • Boeing SDV.jpg
    Boeing SDV.jpg
    123.7 KB · Views: 547

CFE

ACCESS: Secret
Joined
Sep 1, 2007
Messages
259
Reaction score
3
Awesome pics and info. But it doesn't appear that Hughes or Boeing put much thought into the difficulties of bringing the F-1 back. That would have probably been a deal-breaker.
 

starviking

ACCESS: Top Secret
Senior Member
Joined
Sep 29, 2006
Messages
1,060
Reaction score
145
CFE said:
Awesome pics and info. But it doesn't appear that Hughes or Boeing put much thought into the difficulties of bringing the F-1 back. That would have probably been a deal-breaker.

Cheers CFE ;D

I think they intended to use F-1s leftover from the Saturn Programme initially, then switch in new-builds. The costs of restarting production must have been one factor in the final Jarvis design being an SDV.

Starviking
 

Archibald

ACCESS: Top Secret
Senior Member
Joined
Jun 6, 2006
Messages
4,213
Reaction score
1,739
CFE said:
Awesome pics and info. But it doesn't appear that Hughes or Boeing put much thought into the difficulties of bringing the F-1 back. That would have probably been a deal-breaker.

http://www.thespacereview.com/article/588/1
 

Orionblamblam

ACCESS: Above Top Secret
Top Contributor
Senior Member
Joined
Apr 5, 2006
Messages
7,907
Reaction score
1,140
Website
www.aerospaceprojectsreview.com
Triton said:
Single-SSME Boeing/Hughes Jarvis Design, 1986

From the Boeing archives, with an inset showing a manned lifting body as payload. Looks not unlike a cross between the HL-20 and the X-38.
 

Attachments

  • Image52.jpg
    Image52.jpg
    81.2 KB · Views: 613

Proponent

ACCESS: Confidential
Joined
Aug 12, 2008
Messages
57
Reaction score
1
Archibald said:
IMHO it was bit re-inventing Saturn INT-20 twenty years after its cancellation

Two F-1s in the first stage plus a J-2-powered second stage? How about re-inventing the Saturn C-3 twenty-four years after it was dropped from consideration? Similar payload to LEO and first-stage diameter too.
 

XP67_Moonbat

ACCESS: Top Secret
Joined
Jan 16, 2008
Messages
2,160
Reaction score
55
I'm digging the little lifting body. Wonder what sort of missions would require it to be shrouded.

Moonbat
 

Orionblamblam

ACCESS: Above Top Secret
Top Contributor
Senior Member
Joined
Apr 5, 2006
Messages
7,907
Reaction score
1,140
Website
www.aerospaceprojectsreview.com
Archibald said:
A lifting body within a payload fairing ? :eek:

Not the most mass-efficient way to orbit people (that being a capulse *without* a shroud), but it solves certain problems like pitching moments caused by the lifting body. This setup necessitates a door in the shroud to get people in and out on the pad.
 

Orionblamblam

ACCESS: Above Top Secret
Top Contributor
Senior Member
Joined
Apr 5, 2006
Messages
7,907
Reaction score
1,140
Website
www.aerospaceprojectsreview.com
XP67_Moonbat said:
True, very true....Still curious as to the story behind this.

Don't know for sure; it was just a random bit of artwork in the archive, no story behind it. Note, though, that the spaceplane has USAF markings, not NASA.

PUREST SPECULATION: The payload was something... interesting. A Zenith Star type laser, a neutral particle weapon system, something. The spaceplane carried the crew that was to oversee orbital checkout.

LESS INTERESTING SPECULATION: It was just a bit of art to show the spiffiness of the launch systems and what sort of capabilities it had.
 

Triton

Donald McKelvy
Senior Member
Joined
Aug 14, 2009
Messages
9,719
Reaction score
501
Website
deeptowild.blogspot.com
Thanks for posting the artwork Orionblamblam. Very interesting to see the little spaceplane inside. This was about the time that they were looking at the Air Launched Sortie Vehicle (ALSV). Interesting how the US Air Force never stopped wanting a mini-spaceplane/lifting body since the late 1950s.

Thanks for information about the fairing. I was watching Marooned (1969) the other day and the launch of the fictional XR-V lifting body. I thought that the addition of the fairing was a way for them to use Titan launch stock footage in the film, but thought that they wouldn't have used it in reality.
 

Orionblamblam

ACCESS: Above Top Secret
Top Contributor
Senior Member
Joined
Apr 5, 2006
Messages
7,907
Reaction score
1,140
Website
www.aerospaceprojectsreview.com
Triton said:
I was watching Marooned (1969) the other day and the launch of the fictional XR-V lifting body. I thought that the addition of the fairing was a way for them to use Titan launch stock footage in the film...

Exactly so. Stock footage of a launch is *much* cheaper than any special effect launch.

, but thought that they wouldn't have used it in reality.

Depends greatly on the designs involved. Dyna Soar would have flown fairing-less, but it drove the SRMs to have some pretty impressive thrust vectoring requirements. In this particualr case, it may have simply been the case that the launch vehicle *already* had a fairing that the spaceplane conveniently fit within. If that's the case, then putting the spaceplane within might make sense. It makes abort scenarios entertaining, however.
 

quellish

I am not actually here.
Senior Member
Joined
Aug 6, 2007
Messages
2,151
Reaction score
158
Orionblamblam said:
PUREST SPECULATION: The payload was something... interesting. A Zenith Star type laser, a neutral particle weapon system, something. The spaceplane carried the crew that was to oversee orbital checkout.

Pffft. Scott probably just checked the Jarvis payload and fairing figures against the blueprints for TIMBERWIND he uses as placemats. Speculation! Sheesh!
 

Orionblamblam

ACCESS: Above Top Secret
Top Contributor
Senior Member
Joined
Apr 5, 2006
Messages
7,907
Reaction score
1,140
Website
www.aerospaceprojectsreview.com
quellish said:
Orionblamblam said:
PUREST SPECULATION: The payload was something... interesting. A Zenith Star type laser, a neutral particle weapon system, something. The spaceplane carried the crew that was to oversee orbital checkout.

Pffft. Scott probably just checked the Jarvis payload and fairing figures against the blueprints for TIMBERWIND he uses as placemats. Speculation! Sheesh!

Here's a hint: when you see me *not* being a smartass about a topic... that's the time to sit down, shut up and start taking notes.

Of course, it's generally wise to take notes when I'm being a smartass as well.

OH: and if I suddenly drop off the board without warning... make sure to back up anything I've posted in the week or two prior.
 

quellish

I am not actually here.
Senior Member
Joined
Aug 6, 2007
Messages
2,151
Reaction score
158
Orionblamblam said:
Here's a hint: when you see me *not* being a smartass about a topic... that's the time to sit down, shut up and start taking notes.

Of course, it's generally wise to take notes when I'm being a smartass as well.

OH: and if I suddenly drop off the board without warning... make sure to back up anything I've posted in the week or two prior.

It still amazes me how much money SDIO managed to put into interesting and sometimes promising launch vehicles, large and small.
But at the same time, they never though much about how to refuel their big billion dollar payload!
 

Proponent

ACCESS: Confidential
Joined
Aug 12, 2008
Messages
57
Reaction score
1
Orionblamblam said:
Depends greatly on the designs involved. Dyna Soar would have flown fairing-less, but it drove the SRMs to have some pretty impressive thrust vectoring requirements.

How would the slender Titan IIIC boosting Dyna-Soar have coped with the large bending moments arising from the wings on top and the counteracting TVC-ing at the bottom? Very tight wind-shear criteria on launches?
 

Archibald

ACCESS: Top Secret
Senior Member
Joined
Jun 6, 2006
Messages
4,213
Reaction score
1,739
Well the Jarvis was build from the shuttle 8.4 m diameter tank right ?

A 8.4 m diameter fairing should be large enough to "swallow" a lifting body, which wingspan is not very much.
I've checked the HL-20 at astronautix; span = 7.4 m.
So that's fit by a decent margin.
So would a X-24 (4.16 m span)
 

Triton

Donald McKelvy
Senior Member
Joined
Aug 14, 2009
Messages
9,719
Reaction score
501
Website
deeptowild.blogspot.com
The proposed Jarvis medium launch vehicle (MLV) would incorporate Saturn propulsion system features and structures and STS electronic systems. The MLV would be 205 ft tall, 27.5 ft in diam, and would be capable of placing 85,000 lb into LEO or 17,500 lb into GEO. The all-liquid fueled booster could place up to six GPS satellites simultaneously or carry two GPS satellites into LEO and two communications spacecraft into GEO on the same launch. The first and second stages, built with tooling for the External Tank, would be powered by Saturn F-1 and J-2 engines, respectively. The kerosene/oxygen fuel burns would provide 3 M1b thrust. Fully-redundant avionics systems would be completely tested on the launch pad, which could be located at Vandenburg, Cape Canaveral, or Johnston Island in the Pacific Ocean. Development of the MLV is dependent on Air Force procurement of the capability.

Source:
Smith, B. A. "Hughes Jarvis launcher would use technology from Saturn, Shuttle" Aviation Week and Space Technology (ISSN 0005-2175), vol. 125, Aug. 4, 1986, p. 34-36.
http://adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/1986AvWST.125...34S
 

Grey Havoc

The path not taken.
Senior Member
Joined
Oct 9, 2009
Messages
11,775
Reaction score
1,911
Pity Boeing didn't revive the concept this decade. Might have actually saved the space program. As it is.... :(
 

hesham

ACCESS: USAP
Senior Member
Joined
May 26, 2006
Messages
26,688
Reaction score
3,479
And from Flieger Revue 12/1988.
 

Attachments

  • Jarvis.png
    Jarvis.png
    525 KB · Views: 352

mithril

ACCESS: Confidential
Joined
Mar 12, 2009
Messages
113
Reaction score
4
interesting. swap the F-1's for the Shuttle's RS-25's and you've basically got the 'new' Space Launch System.
 

luke strawwalker

I really should change my personal text
Joined
Nov 28, 2012
Messages
41
Reaction score
0
mithril said:
interesting. swap the F-1's for the Shuttle's RS-25's and you've basically got the 'new' Space Launch System.

The F-1's eliminated the need for SRB's entirely... so not really like SLS at all...

The RS-25's don't have enough thrust and the massive LH2 tankage required hurts performance on a booster stage compared to a kerosene first stage.

The twin F-1 powered Jarvis was much more like a gigantic version of a Titan I (twin LR-87 kerosene first stage engines, single LR-91 upper stage engine IIRC) than SLS... just about as simple a launch vehicle as you can get... sorta like an enormous Titan II, with twin engines on the first stage, and a single upper stage engine, just swapping F-1's on the first stage and J-2S on the second stage for the LR-87's on the first stage and LR-91 on the second stage of Titan II (and burning kerosene on the first stage and hydrogen on the second stage, versus the Titan II burning all hypergolics).

Later! OL JR :)
 

luke strawwalker

I really should change my personal text
Joined
Nov 28, 2012
Messages
41
Reaction score
0
Triton said:
As a post Challenger-accident project, did the United States Air Force not want a launch vehicle that used SRBs?

Well, they developed and operated Titan IV, so saying that they didn't want a vehicle with SRB's doesn't seem appropriate.

Thing was, Titan IV ended up costing SO much that it basically equaled shuttle for launch costs. For an unmanned, expendable vehicle, that was too much. Hence EELV.

Now, the Air Force had plenty of experience with large solid rocket motors-- after all, the entire ICBM fleet was made up of them, save for the Titan II's that remained in the inventory. They had plenty of experience operating satellite launch vehicles equipped with solid rocket motors, in Titan III. Over time, however, the costs of a vehicle with both large SRM's AND liquid propellant core and upper stage(s) got really expensive... not just the hardware, but the programs to procure and support it as well. It's fairly apparent that the Air Force wanted a simpler, and much cheaper, vehicle. Titan IV wasn't it.

Hence, when the EELV program came around, they looked at new approaches and went with the common core booster design-- a vehicle that could launch with just the core (or the core augmented by small solid boosters, which apparently didn't suffer the same sort of extreme costs that large solids did) or with a pair of cores acting as boosters on either side of the central core, all of basically similar to identical construction, for the EELV "heavy" configuration.

Now, the Air Force COULD have issued a requirement in the proposals that the new EELV boosters being considered HAD to use the existing Titan IV SRM's, or an equivalent large solid booster-- but they didn't. It's pretty clear that if they had, they would have ended up with a system just as expensive as Titan IV...

That's why I just have to laugh when the military gets all uptight about the possibility of NASA going away from big solid rocket boosters... they whine and complain about how it's going to "raise prices for solid propellant motors" and the industry will "lose their industrial base and skills" if they're not manufacturing large SRB's for NASA... yet at the same time, the Air Force certainly was amenable to getting rid of the large solids in their Titan IV replacement vehicle, the EELV, not once, but TWICE (in both the Delta IV and Atlas V designs, which both featured a triple-core boosted "heavy" configuration, although only Delta IV heavy was completed...)

Why should ditching big solids be a good idea for the Air Force, but NOT for NASA?? If the military is concerned about solid propellant cost increases or the industrial base suffering from not making large solid rocket motors, why don't they push for a new ICBM program or increase their orders of solid propellants?? The military CERTAINLY has MUCH more money for such things than NASA does!

Later! OL JR :)
 

blackstar

ACCESS: Top Secret
Senior Member
Joined
Sep 26, 2008
Messages
1,778
Reaction score
156
luke strawwalker said:
That's why I just have to laugh when the military gets all uptight about the possibility of NASA going away from big solid rocket boosters... they whine and complain about how it's going to "raise prices for solid propellant motors" and the industry will "lose their industrial base and skills" if they're not manufacturing large SRB's for NASA... yet at the same time, the Air Force certainly was amenable to getting rid of the large solids in their Titan IV replacement vehicle, the EELV, not once, but TWICE (in both the Delta IV and Atlas V designs, which both featured a triple-core boosted "heavy" configuration, although only Delta IV heavy was completed...)

These are legitimate budget and policy issues. Calling it "whining and complaining" is rather shallow--are they not supposed to say anything at all?

And I'd note that it is not just DoD that benefits from NASA. NASA gets a lot of DoD benefit as well. Dryden and Marshall are both located on military bases. DoD pays for security, firefighting, and a lot of basic support. KSC gets a lot of benefits from Patrick AFB.

Industrial base issues are real, and they have to be considered when major policy decisions are being made.
 

sferrin

ACCESS: USAP
Senior Member
Joined
Jun 3, 2011
Messages
13,387
Reaction score
1,429
luke strawwalker said:
Triton said:
As a post Challenger-accident project, did the United States Air Force not want a launch vehicle that used SRBs?

Well, they developed and operated Titan IV, so saying that they didn't want a vehicle with SRB's doesn't seem appropriate.

Thing was, Titan IV ended up costing SO much that it basically equaled shuttle for launch costs. For an unmanned, expendable vehicle, that was too much. Hence EELV.

Now, the Air Force had plenty of experience with large solid rocket motors-- after all, the entire ICBM fleet was made up of them, save for the Titan II's that remained in the inventory. They had plenty of experience operating satellite launch vehicles equipped with solid rocket motors, in Titan III. Over time, however, the costs of a vehicle with both large SRM's AND liquid propellant core and upper stage(s) got really expensive... not just the hardware, but the programs to procure and support it as well. It's fairly apparent that the Air Force wanted a simpler, and much cheaper, vehicle. Titan IV wasn't it.

Hence, when the EELV program came around, they looked at new approaches and went with the common core booster design-- a vehicle that could launch with just the core (or the core augmented by small solid boosters, which apparently didn't suffer the same sort of extreme costs that large solids did) or with a pair of cores acting as boosters on either side of the central core, all of basically similar to identical construction, for the EELV "heavy" configuration.

Now, the Air Force COULD have issued a requirement in the proposals that the new EELV boosters being considered HAD to use the existing Titan IV SRM's, or an equivalent large solid booster-- but they didn't. It's pretty clear that if they had, they would have ended up with a system just as expensive as Titan IV...

That's why I just have to laugh when the military gets all uptight about the possibility of NASA going away from big solid rocket boosters... they whine and complain about how it's going to "raise prices for solid propellant motors" and the industry will "lose their industrial base and skills" if they're not manufacturing large SRB's for NASA... yet at the same time, the Air Force certainly was amenable to getting rid of the large solids in their Titan IV replacement vehicle, the EELV, not once, but TWICE (in both the Delta IV and Atlas V designs, which both featured a triple-core boosted "heavy" configuration, although only Delta IV heavy was completed...)

Why should ditching big solids be a good idea for the Air Force, but NOT for NASA?? If the military is concerned about solid propellant cost increases or the industrial base suffering from not making large solid rocket motors, why don't they push for a new ICBM program or increase their orders of solid propellants?? The military CERTAINLY has MUCH more money for such things than NASA does!

Later! OL JR :)

You don't know what the term "industrial base" means do you? ::)
 

mz

ACCESS: Top Secret
Senior Member
Joined
May 28, 2007
Messages
681
Reaction score
8
One thing is that ground infrastructure and ground operations for large solid rockets are very expensive, as they have to be moved around fully fueled. The low specific impulse and the whole pressurized structure just pile up the weight even more.

Liquid launch vehicles are transported to the pad light and empty, and fueled there.

Segmented solids avoid some of that since the segments can be transported separately, but then you get other problems.

Here's some comparison numbers, the fueled SRB:s weigh nine times the empty Saturn V:

Saturn V empty mass: 131,000 kg
Saturn V fueled mass: 3 million kg
2xSRB empty mass: 136,000 kg
2xSRB fueled mass: 1,2 million kg
 

Byeman

ACCESS: Top Secret
Joined
Jan 8, 2010
Messages
794
Reaction score
19
luke strawwalker said:
Triton said:
As a post Challenger-accident project, did the United States Air Force not want a launch vehicle that used SRBs?

Well, they developed and operated Titan IV, so saying that they didn't want a vehicle with SRB's doesn't seem appropriate.


Not true, there is a distinction between SRB's and SRM's. Titan IV uses SRM's and not SRB's. SRB's are
 

Byeman

ACCESS: Top Secret
Joined
Jan 8, 2010
Messages
794
Reaction score
19
luke strawwalker said:
1. Now, the Air Force COULD have issued a requirement in the proposals that the new EELV boosters being considered HAD to use the existing Titan IV SRM's, or an equivalent large solid booster-- but they didn't.


2. It's pretty clear that if they had, they would have ended up with a system just as expensive as Titan IV...


2. ATK's EELV proposal was such a vehicle


2. Unsupported claim


And Titan IV wasn't as expensive as the shuttle. It was expensive but not that expensive and anyways, the shuttle couldn't do most of the TIV missions.
 

luke strawwalker

I really should change my personal text
Joined
Nov 28, 2012
Messages
41
Reaction score
0
Meh, justify it all you want, but if the military is the one's SO worried about the solid rocket motor manufacturing base, then THEY should be using large solids on their boosters... NOT pressing NASA to stick with a super-expensive solid-boosted vehicle just to keep prices down for future military procurement... after all, the military budgets are many times what NASA's budget is, and will remain so...

If our "leadership" had the sense to do an INTEGRATED systems approach across both military and the civilian space program, then it might make sense to stick NASA with solids to keep prices down for both... but the "leadership" isn't, doesn't, and frankly, can't work that way... they're too divided and devoted to partisan politics...

Later! OL JR :)
 

Triton

Donald McKelvy
Senior Member
Joined
Aug 14, 2009
Messages
9,719
Reaction score
501
Website
deeptowild.blogspot.com
Aviation Week & Space Technology August 4, 1986 pp.34-44
Aviation Week & Space Technology August 11, 1986 p.69
 

Attachments

  • 1986080437_2.jpg
    1986080437_2.jpg
    30.7 KB · Views: 118
  • 1986080437_1.jpg
    1986080437_1.jpg
    78.4 KB · Views: 121
  • 1986081186_3.jpg
    1986081186_3.jpg
    31.1 KB · Views: 113

Triton

Donald McKelvy
Senior Member
Joined
Aug 14, 2009
Messages
9,719
Reaction score
501
Website
deeptowild.blogspot.com
Boeing Jarvis concept with SRBs.

Aviation Week & Space Technology December 15. 1986 p.22
 

Attachments

  • 1986121531_1.jpg
    1986121531_1.jpg
    104.8 KB · Views: 120

Similar threads

Top