Clean Sheet Big Dumb Booster?

[darkenfast]

I am going on memory here, but I believe in that in the case of the N-1's, they never made it to staging. I believe the main culprit was that, being unable to test the article all-up, the rockets had to be launched to find out if they worked. The case of a failure wiping out most of the staff was, I think, a different rocket (A-7 family?). <br /><br />One of the problems plaguing the Soviet designers was transportation. We take it for granted that we can build large stages such as the first two of the Saturn V (10m diameter), and get them to the launch site. The Soviets were restricted to rail and road access to their launch site in a fairly remote part of Kazakhstan. Although their rail system could handle slightly larger items than ours, it still meant that the N-1 had to be built on-site from parts shipped in. The components of the Proton 1st stage are an example of the size limitation at work. Later, of course, they copied our idea of a carrier aircraft for the Buran with the AN-225.

 

[rogers_buck]

The N-1 blew up its pad, but didn't kill anyone. I was confusing it... Here is a link to a good article on the N-1<br /><br />LINK<br /><br />One of the problems was the result of the throttled control system, the rest were failures in the fuel system of one type or another. It never made it to staging, but got within a few seconds (7) on one of the flights, a minute on the other.<br /><br />

 

[rybanis]

Man, I'd hate to be those Russian engineers:<br /><br />"Comrade, it looks as if it shall finally work! Ten seconds until..."<br /><br />KABOOM<br /><br />*insert russian word for crap here* <div class="Discussion_UserSignature"> </div>

 

[publiusr]

Sea Dragon:<br />http://neverworld.net/truax/<br /><br />

 

[mattblack]

N-1: By Matthew Black --<br /><br />This was the then-Soviet Union’s lunar booster, a 30-engine monster with an unfortunate record of total failure. N-1 was the brainchild of Sergei Korolev and Nikolei Kuznetsov; the designer of the NK-33 LOX/kerosene-fuelled engine. Lacking the funding of the United States, the NK-33 was the Soviet Union’s most powerful engine at that time, producing 340,000 pounds (154,000 kg) of thrust versus America’s 1.6 million pound (725,000 kg) F1. As a result, the N-1 needed thirty NK-33s in its first stage to produce the required power.<br /><br />The N-1 produced an almost surreal 10 million pounds (4.53 million-kg) thrust. Because it lacked hydrogen-fuelled upper stages (like the Saturn V’s S2 and S4B), its’ LEO payload was a mere 75 tonnes and the Earth escape performance was significantly less than the Saturn V. Something like 20 tonnes versus the Saturn’s 45 tonnes.<br /><br />This meant the Soviet lunar lander design was only a one-man job, capable of staying on the lunar surface just a few hours versus the Apollo LM’s ability to stay for up to three days with a crew of two. The N-1 had its first test flight on February 21st, 1969, with a reportedly spectacular liftoff. This is the closest the world would ever get to a Nova-type booster. But 66 seconds into the flight when the engines throttled back up after easing dynamic loads, the engines came back too abruptly. A liquid oxygen line ruptured and started a fire. The KORD engine control system malfunctioned and instead of shutting down the offending engine, it over-reacted and shut off all thirty. The wreckage of the first mighty N-1 fell some 45 kilometers downrange.<br /><br />In July 3rd, 1969 the second N-1 tried again. This booster only made it a couple hundred meters into the air before a metal shard entered one of the Liquid Oxygen turbopumps and caused an explosion. The KORD control system got it wrong again, and shut the whole first stage down. The fully fuelled 4000 tonne monster <div class="Discussion_UserSignature"> <p> </p><p>One Percent of Federal Funding For Space: America <strong><em><u>CAN</u></em></strong> Afford it!!  LEO is a <strong><em>Prison</em></strong> -- It's time for a <em><strong>JAILBREAK</strong></em>!!</p> </div>

 

[publiusr]

Very sad how things have turned out.

 

[john_316]

Originally all 3 GnR.<br /><br />I should also have posted RP-1 and not LOX since LOX is already enviromentally friendly. But since now that NASA has begun a parallel review let me elaborate on this beast.<br /><br />The RS-68 or any American made equivalent engine that is simple to manufacture, delivers a high thrust, and of course is cheap and diposable is a big plus for my original idea here.<br /><br />If the total "package" devired to LEO or GEO can be from 50+ tons to 125 tons then why not use a simple solution with existing facilities and equipment.<br /><br />I envisioned certain criteria in this new HLV.<br /><br /><br />1. Provide the Lunar Hardware to Orbit and to the moon with the EDS (Earth Departure Stage).<br /><br />2. The orbiting of a second stage (Nuclear Motor and Fuel) for a MTV (Mars Transit Vehicle) when needed.<br /><br />3. The orbiting of the crew stage for the MTV (Command stage with life support, cargo, and other needed items for Mars crew time is ready for it.<br /><br />4. The possible use of an ET used as an GEO or above LEO orbited station. Possibly like Space Island Groups GEO Stations etc etc.<br /><br />5. the primary premise of my GEO station ideas in the manufacturing industry of a possible partially manned Manufacturing Facility in Orbit or Lunar orbit for moon materials in a smelter and rolled sheet facility that ALCOA would be proud of. ie Thus the start of off planet resource use.<br /><br />Then begins the self dependency of off-planet sustainment. These were just a few of my ideas and I had said I would post pics but so far have not. Sorry I have moved and all and havent had ample time to sit down draw some crazy pics and show you all.<br /><br /><img src="/images/icons/smile.gif" /><br /><br /><br />

 

[gunsandrockets]

"Originally all 3 GnR. "<br /><br /><br />As far as a clean sheet big dumb booster, I like the Truax concept, with some modifications. The original Truax Sea Dragon HLV would have been a pressure-fed two stage rocket with a single engine in each stage. The first stage would have used LOX/RP-1 and the second stage LOX/LH2. The 18,000 tonne GLOW Sea Dragon would have been built out of steel in a shipyard, then towed out to sea for launch. At the launch site the Sea Dragon would have taken on propellant, and then ballasted to a vertical semi-submerged position for launch. Payload to LEO estimated at 550 tonnes! <br /><br />My modifications to the Sea Dragon would be: scaling the vehicle down to place 100 tonnes into LEO - as that seems to be the gold standard for HLV, using LOX and liquid-propane for propellant in both stages, using multiple smaller engines in both stages - perhaps two in the upper stage and five in the lower stage. I think these changes would ease the development and operational limitations of the original Sea Dragon concept.<br /><br />Propane seems like a wonderful propellant very well suited for use in combination with LOX; even t/Space plans on using it for their launch vehicle concept. LOX/propane has an ISP only slightly less than LOX/methane and propane's liquid state overlaps with the temperature range of liquid oxygen. Propane also makes a pressure fed rocket easier to make.<br /><br />Multiple engines cross fed from the same tanks allow some engine out capability without loss of mission. Possibly the same engine could be used in both the upper and lower stages. And a smaller engine should be easier to develop than a huge monster sized engine. Just think of the test stand it would take for static fire tests of a 10 million pound thrust first-stage engine!<br /><br />

 

[jwsmith]

john_316 writes: >>Ok here goes a old one... <br /><br />If we used a clean sheet design and a heavy lift version with simplicity say RS-68 motors or even other versions (not really the subject here) can we build a booster like 2 extended ET types (actually ET sized clean stages) with the capacity to place in GEO and outfit it as needed say for a crew of 50+ that can stay in GEO for lets say over 30 days? <<<br /><br />That would be very easy to do. <br /><br /> />> I was wondering how many people can habitat a modified ET tank that is actually a one piece tank with 2-4 docking ports? <<<br /><br />Volume of ET Cylinder with no outfitting for habitation or radiation protection is approximately 93,000 cubic feet. Once radiation protection is added to fit my specifications the useable habitat area would be 81,000 cubic feet. <br />For anything shorter than 6 months as long as resupply is available you could easily house 30 people in one ET, with 2 docking ports and plenty of room to work. <br />For permanent habitation and less resupply I would suggest that the number never be more than 20. For a space station or space hotel the number would be 10 to 12. <br /><br /><br /> <div class="Discussion_UserSignature"> <p><font size="2">John Wayne Smith, CEO</font></p><p><font size="2">1000 Planets, Inc</font></p><p><font size="2">Http://www.1000Planets.com</font></p><p><font size="2">203 W.Magnolia St.</font></p><p><font size="2">Leesbutg Florida 34748</font></p><p><font size="2">Ph: 352 787 5550</font></p><p><font size="2">email jwsmith42000@aol.com</font></p> </div>

 

[john_316]

Well I am happy they are looking into the RS-68 as a possible main motor rather than just go SSME all the way without a review of it.<br /><br />I would hope they can look at simplicity as well as jobs/budget in order to fulfill this goal. I think the right people talking to congress can get them to add any further funding as needed when needed.<br /><br />I would like to be able to see the maximum possilbe use of a modifed ET as a second stage if at all possible as I have mentioned before. Finally being able to make use of that stage could be beneficial if the manufacturing process can be attempted once minerals on the moon are mined and utlized. But even if the ET tank isnt used for that they can find outher uses for it.<br /><br />I do however feel sorry for the engineers in the programs that are going ot be cut. Thye however should be able to be given new assignments if at all possible. I would say some of the few in management can go because some of them make better doors than they do windows.<br /><br />NASA can clean its act up over some time. Maybe in the next Presidency we can see some more clear objectives. Hopefully CEV and HLV wont be canned and a true space goal is set in stone. Hopefully the footer is being poured now...<br /><br /><img src="/images/icons/smile.gif" /><br /><br /><br /><br />