LM Plan Evolves Atlas to Saturn V-Class Performance

[erauskydiver]

LM Plan Evolves Atlas to Saturn V-Class Performance<br />From Aerospace Daily & Defense Report<br /><br />Lockheed Martin has mapped out an evolutionary development plan for its Atlas launch vehicle that would steadily increase performance to ultimately exceed that of the Apollo program's Saturn V, a company official said. <br /><br />Just as today's Atlas V has its roots in the Atlas ICBM of the 1950s, the "future Atlas evolution" will proceed in a logical manner, with each new phase providing simple and reliable vehicles, according to George Sowers of Lockheed Martin Space Systems. <br /><br />There have been 76 successful Atlas launches in a row. The last Atlas failure was in 1993. The new Atlas plan is in response to President Bush's January 2004 space exploration vision, which will require highly capable space transportation systems for such demanding missions as human flights to the moon and Mars. But one major tenet of the plan is prosaic -- ensuring an ability to capture the low end of the market. The plan stresses creation of a family of launch vehicles for all customers, and building the family from a set of common modular elements. <br />

 

[henryhallam]

So does this mean that the LM-Boeing "United Launch Alliance" has decided to go with Atlas rather than Delta?

 

[mrmorris]

<font color="yellow">"...decided to go with Atlas rather than Delta? "</font><br /><br />What and have Boeing stop soliciting Government contracts to continue refinement of the Delta? Are you mad? They have an obligation to their shareholders to scrounge every penny possible.

 

[spacefire]

so is it going to be an atlas with a cluster of boosters and a bigger upper stage?!?!?! <div class="Discussion_UserSignature"> <p>http://asteroid-invasion.blogspot.com</p><p>http://www.solvengineer.com/asteroid-invasion.html </p><p> </p> </div>

 

[mrmorris]

I might add that there was a post several months back with a similar payload progression to Saturn-V class for the Delta Heavies -- with pretty pictures too. Someone might still have a link to the photo. Don't recall if it was before or after 'The Great Crash of Ought-Four'.

 

[vogon13]

Easiest way to upgrade Atlas to Saturn V performance would be to duck tape an Atlas to a Saturn V.<br /><br />(just a little humor this fine Monday morning)<br /><br /> <div class="Discussion_UserSignature"> <p><font color="#ff0000"><strong>TPTB went to Dallas and all I got was Plucked !!</strong></font></p><p><font color="#339966"><strong>So many people, so few recipes !!</strong></font></p><p><font color="#0000ff"><strong>Let's clean up this stinkhole !!</strong></font> </p> </div>

 

[mrmorris]

<font color="yellow">"The chart that was posted showed that the super heavy Atlas V and Delta IV do not approach a Saturn Five 130 mT to LEO capability."</font><br /><br />I don't <b>think</b> we're talking about the same picture. The one I'm thinking of was from Boeing and only showed the Delta-IV progression. I found notes on Astronautix about the various options -- but not the graphic itself. You can see the list and specs in the delta family page here, and the link for the Next Genertion Delta 100 t is here.<br /><br />The progression was:<br /><br />Delta IV Heavy Upgrade 30 t<br />Delta IV Heavy Upgrade 35 t<br />Delta IV Heavy Upgrade 40 t<br />Delta IV Heavy Upgrade 42 t<br />Delta IV Heavy Upgrade 43 t<br />Delta IV Heavy Upgrade 45 t<br />Delta IV Heavy Upgrade 48 t<br />Delta IV Heavy Upgrade 53 t<br />Delta IV Heavy Upgrade 67 t<br />Delta IV Heavy Upgrade 70 t<br />Delta IV Heavy Upgrade 76 t<br />Delta IV Heavy Upgrade 87 t<br />Delta IV Heavy Upgrade 94 t<br />Next Genertion Delta 100 t

 

[grooble]

Imagine what they would charge per flight!

 

[rocketwatcher2001]

<font color="yellow">Imagine what they would charge per flight!</font><br /><br />Yeah, But I'd prefer to think about how cool that B.U.F.F. is going to sound as it shakes my house off the foundation! <img src="/images/icons/cool.gif" /> <div class="Discussion_UserSignature"> </div>

 

[space_dreamer]

Is this the picture ? I've made the file size a lot smaller.

 

[mrmorris]

<font color="yellow">"Is this the picture ?"</font><br /><br />Pretty sure that's the one SG was talking about. The one I saw was Delta only -- and had about 4 'classes' of upgrades, each of which contained about three lift levels of boosters. I don't recall the exact progression, but each new 'class' upward required some significant technology change -- then going from bottom to top of that class was a matter os evolutionary enhancements. At one of the class changes, I remember that upgraded launch facilities were required. The diameter of the core changed at another... etc.

 

[henryhallam]

I remember seeing that Delta chart as well and I think it was on these forums. If so, it must have been after the "great crash" because that was before I'd found the forums.<br />I will have a better look for it after I get back from work tonight.

 

[wvbraun]

Well, it seems it's too late for them anyway. NASA will go for a shuttle derived vehicle...No need for two HLVs.

 

[krrr]

Somewhat embarassing that an Atlas-V SHLV with 80% of the Saturn V's mass would only lift half of the Saturn V payload to LEO. Similarly the 1700 ton Delta-IV Ultra-Heavy.<br /><br />Problem is that these designs have anemic second (or 2.5th) upper stages.

 

[grooble]

Yeah who will buy flights on those beasts?

 

[summoner]

<font color="yellow">Easiest way to upgrade Atlas to Saturn V performance would be to duck tape an Atlas to a Saturn V.<br /></font><br /><br />That was totally uncalled for, I just blew Diet Coke through the nostrils. <div class="Discussion_UserSignature"> <p> </p><p> </p><p> </p><p> <br /><table cellpadding="0" cellspacing="0" style="width:271px;background-color:#FFF;border:1pxsolid#999"><tr><td colspan="2"><div style="height:35px"><img src="http://banners.wunderground.com/weathersticker/htmlSticker1/language/www/US/MT/Three_Forks.gif" alt="" height="35" width="271" style="border:0px" /></div>

 

[grooble]

Wouldn't have been cheaper to just build a Saturn 5 than waste how many billions in R&D for Lesser vehicles?

 

[radarredux]

> <i><font color="yellow">Wouldn't have been cheaper to just build a Saturn 5 than waste how many billions in R&D for Lesser vehicles?</font>/i><br /><br />I had read and heard multiple times that the Saturn V plans were destroyed, but I have also read several times (including on this message board) that this story is just an urban legend and that the plans do still exist.<br /><br />I can think of several reasons why building a Saturn V might not be promoted (although, I wait for people with more technical knowledge to supply more exact answers):<br /><br /><b><font color="yellow">(1) No one has a vested interest in a Saturn V rocket.</font>/b> The NASA folks and contractors (USA) already have the shuttle system, and a SDHLV would allow them to keep their jobs, their tools, etc. L-M and Boeing each want to promote their products (Atlas and Delta). Who has a financial motive to push for a Saturn?<br /><br /><b><font color="yellow">(2) It would take too many years.</font>/b> Even with the existing Shuttle production lines, machine tools, expertise, etc., a SDHLV will take several years. It seems that if you start with no machine tools, no production line, no human expertise, etc. creating a Saturn V (even with blueprints) would take even longer.</b></b></i>

 

[larper]

<blockquote><font class="small">In reply to:</font><hr /><p>Easiest way to upgrade Atlas to Saturn V performance would be to duck tape an Atlas to a Saturn V.<p><hr /></p></p></blockquote><br />Would that be man rated, or only duck rated? <div class="Discussion_UserSignature"> <p><strong><font color="#ff0000">Vote </font><font color="#3366ff">Libertarian</font></strong></p> </div>

 

[najab]

Your second argument is the more important - it is not the plans that matter, it is the tooling. There is very little [ if any ] Saturn V tooling left. The thousands of contractors are mostly out of business or have been bought up by the defense/aerospace giants. There is no source for parts which meet the Apollo-Saturn specifications, it would take hundreds of millions of dollars just to re-certify the raw-material production facilities. At its peak, Apollo-Saturn employed almost half a million people - that represents an unbelievable amount of `institutional knowledge` and know-how that would have to be regained the hard way [ blood, sweat and explosions ].<br /><br />As to your first argument, Boeing would win either way. They had the contract for the S-1C stage and North American [ later Rockwell [ now Boeing]] had the contract for the S-2.

 

[redgryphon]

I think this is the picture mrmorris was thinking of. <br /><br />Some notes:<br />AUS-60: Advanced upper stage (e.g. RL-60 or the like)<br />RS-68 Regen: RS-68 with regenerative nozzle<br />Dens: Cryogenic propellant densification (=more fuel, same size CBCs)<br />Al-Li: Aluminium-Lithium tanks<br />X-feed: Propellant cross-feed between CBCs (=earlier jettison of strap-ons, more aggressive thrust profile)<br />RS-800: New main engine<br />GEM60: 60 inch diameter solids (as currently used)<br />PLF: Payload fairing

 

[najab]

Note that to get up to Saturn 5 capacity requires - new pad, new first stage engine upgrade, new second stage <b>and</b> a new/modified factory. SDHLV requires development of a payload canister and an expendable SSME if you want to lower costs.

 

[redgryphon]

There's little doubt the SDHLV has lower non-recurring costs than any EELV derived booster with similar performance. I'm not sure of the recurring costs however. I'd be interested to see what fraction of the recurring costs of the STS are due to the Orbiter, the ET and SRBs<br /><br />If NASA needs a booster in the 100 MT class, then Shuttle-derived is probably the way to go. But if the architecture only calls for, say, 60 MT, then the story may be different. <br /><br />Setting aside the question of super-heavy lift, in the case of launching just the CEV for ISS or LEO missions, EELV-derived may be the way to go. (Politically useful too, since it keeps lots of current stakeholders involved). The main alternative is the single SRB case, as discussed in other threads.

 

[najab]

I'd be interested to see what fraction of the recurring costs of the STS are due to the Orbiter, the ET and SRBs <br /><br />I assure you that the vast majority of recurring costs, are due to the orbiter project. Since the SDHLV is essentially a expendable vehicle, it's only recurring costs will be hardware and the salaries of the people required to process it. And before you raise the objection of a standing army, please note that the majority of that army is currently involved in processing the orbiter between flights.

 

[radarredux]

> <i><font color="yellow">The single stick SRB with an upper stage can put a 40,000 pound CEV into LEO.</font>/i><br /><br />Has there ever been any serious discussion about using SRBs to launch satellites?</i>