LM Plan Evolves Atlas to Saturn V-Class Performance

[najab]

><i>Airbus is struggling to just to get enough customers to break even.</i><p><br />Correct me if I'm wrong, but I believe that while Airbus doesn't yet have enough firm orders, they have more than enough options to break even, if they are excercised.</p>

 

[spacefire]

let's reinvent the wheel because some idiot congressman (that's an oxymoron) decided to destroy all hardware used to build the Saturn V. <div class="Discussion_UserSignature"> <p>http://asteroid-invasion.blogspot.com</p><p>http://www.solvengineer.com/asteroid-invasion.html </p><p> </p> </div>

 

[spacefire]

what you say makes more sense than the story I've heard. thanks for clearing that out. <div class="Discussion_UserSignature"> <p>http://asteroid-invasion.blogspot.com</p><p>http://www.solvengineer.com/asteroid-invasion.html </p><p> </p> </div>

 

[grooble]

I wonder what Morris would come up with if he tried to redesign the Saturn 5 with modern tech, like he did with the gemini?

 

[mrmorris]

<font color="yellow">"I wonder what Morris would come up with ..."</font><br /><br />An evolutionary improvement rather than a revolutionary one. G-X3 works as well as it does because the electronics were such a high percentage of the original. Switching to modern ones with a Trifecta win in mass, volume, and power consumption allowed for a massive improvement in capability. By contrast, only a small fraction of the Saturn V would have been electronics. Mind you I don't doubt that modern tech and new alloys/composites in a Saturn V wouldn't have made a considerable difference, but I doubt a payload improvement of more than 20%, and probably less. Figure a jump from 130 tons to ~150 tons. Just a *very* quick guess, mind you... <img src="/images/icons/smile.gif" />

 

[shyningnight]

I vote Sea Dragon instead.... <img src="/images/icons/smile.gif" /><br /><br />http://www.astronautix.com/lvs/searagon.htm<br /><br />Paul F.

 

[drwayne]

"idiot congressman"<br /><br />That is a redundancy.<br /><br />Wayne <div class="Discussion_UserSignature"> <p>"1) Give no quarter; 2) Take no prisoners; 3) Sink everything."  Admiral Jackie Fisher</p> </div>

 

[drwayne]

There is an Apollo joke in there somewhere about a multiple redundancy, but that too would be redundant.<br /><br />Wayne <div class="Discussion_UserSignature"> <p>"1) Give no quarter; 2) Take no prisoners; 3) Sink everything."  Admiral Jackie Fisher</p> </div>

 

[grooble]

I bet modern machine plants would cut down build cost and time too.

 

[grooble]

550 tons? Insane. <img src="/images/icons/laugh.gif" /><br />

 

[SpaceKiwi]

It seems unlikely we are going to get a BDB in the Saturn-V class so long as a Shuttle-derived lifter remains in Griffin's thoughts. Which is why LockMart will develop their family of boosters to a point which will still fall way short of Saturn-V capability anyway. You would have to think strapping that many CBC's together to rival Saturn-V performance would be a weight and operational nightmare too.<br /><br />Would like to see you work up a BDB concept though, MrMorris. Even with the lesser gains to be had, it would still be as interesting an exercise as your 'Gemini' proposal. <div class="Discussion_UserSignature"> <p><em><font size="2" color="#ff0000">Who is this superhero?  Henry, the mild-mannered janitor ... could be!</font></em></p><p><em><font size="2">-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------</font></em></p><p><font size="5">Bring Back The Black!</font></p> </div>

 

[spacester]

The guys at SpaceX are working up a BDB right now and for real. Falcon X, stay tuned for announcements later in the year, I'll predict 90 tonne to 400 km circular orbit.<br /><br />Not Saturn V class, but much larger than Mr. Griffin's new toy.<br /><br />Just because NASA's going to make a big gummint launcher happen doesn't mean we don't also need an even bigger private launcher. <br /><br />Doesn't that future sound about right? The gummint has assured access to space much bigger than anything else on the planet, with access to a very much bigger vehicle if they feel the need. Should another country catch up to NASA, we still have the Musk Machine as an ace in the hole. Makes perfect sense to me, but I'm sure I sound crazy to some folks some of the time.<br /><br />If not SpaceX, then who?<br /><br />Well, come to think of it, the folks here could do it. Someone could start a "Let's Build a BDB" thread as an intellectual exercise and see where it goes. Someone else, that is, I'm too busy. <img src="/images/icons/laugh.gif" /> <div class="Discussion_UserSignature"> </div>

 

[spacester]

What is Musk going to do with Heavy lift?<br /><br />You mean <i>besides</i> all the stuff we're going to need to Settle Mars? <img src="/images/icons/laugh.gif" /> J/K, I'll try to set that aside for this thread.<br /><br />As one of the folks who said for years that "Build it and they will come", I guess the question needs a good answer.<br /><br />For starters, Rome wasn't built in a day. Falcon V will be flying before you know it, and it can launch payloads that do significant things at the lowest price. This will attract a high enough flight rate to fuel the optimism to build Falcon X. Elon only needs 5-6 flights a year for the first two years to pull the trigger on Falcon X<br /><br />So we can assume he's building it and indeed the question now is "Will they come"? (pardon me while I celebrate again some more)<br /><br />I say 90 tonne, and we're looking at appx 2009 for the maiden flight. That's a lot of time for space to develop and get the kind of buzz going that happens in the early stages of something big.<br /><br />Sp you're asking what will fly in 2009 on SpaceX. They probably only need 2 flights that year and 4 to 6 the year after to be hugely successful. Remember that they're going to be making a lot of money per launch because they just scaled up Falcon V (not really, but there's savings there).<br /><br />How about a little science fiction just to show that the question can be answered:<br /><br />2009 Falcon X Flights:<br />Nuclear power plants for the Moon and Mars<br /><br />That was easy, what about after that?<br /><br />2010:<br />Large ISRU factories, Large habitats and Large greenhouses for the Moon and Mars. Six flights and we're just getting started.<br /><br />Hey, we haven't even put anything big into Earth orbit yet, how about:<br /><br />2011:<br />Two flights for Space Hotels<br />One flight for orbital refueling equipment<br />One flight for an Asteroid Mining operation<br />Two flights for food commodities for the Moon<br />Three flights to Mars to begin the Sett <div class="Discussion_UserSignature"> </div>

 

[shyningnight]

OK.. so the specs for the SeaDragon are a little grandiose...<br />Maybe start with a half scale SeaDragon... Say, a LakeLizard.. only 200 tons to LEO... <img src="/images/icons/smile.gif" /><br /><br />I don't know that it could ever be a practical launcher..<br />But I have to admit.. with all the talk of many launches for, well.. pretty much any big scale project...That's just crazy..<br />Needing what, 30 flights to build the ISS? Cripes... for the cost of JUST those flights, the SeaDragon could have been developed, and the whole things launched in THREE launches.<br />OK.. gross oversimplification.. I know..<br />But still..<br /><br />If we don't practice thinking big once in a while, the really worthwhile projects (those radio telescopes on the moon, asteroid mining, solar power sats, etc) aren't going to get done with Atlas, Delta's, and SDV's! <br /><br />Paul F.

 

[gunsandrockets]

Sea Dragon! Very cool. Until now I had never heard of it.<br /><br />What I find striking about the Sea Dragon is how little conventional space infrastructure would be required to build and fly that huge monster.<br /><br />"The design was reviewed with Todd Shipyards, who concluded that it was well within their capabilities, and not too unlike making a submarine hull. 8 mm thick maraging steel was used, similar to the Aerojet 260 inch solid motor of the time."<br /><br />Todd Shipyards described it well. The Sea Dragon is more ship than spacecraft, and any nation with a decent shipyard industry and enough technical know how to build a submarine could build a Sea Dragon. The 18,000 tonne Sea Dragon is dinky as far as oil tankers go.<br /><br />Plus a nation wouldn't need the typical launch pad infrastructure to launch Sea Dragon. I'm really surprised some ambitious nation with a space program, such as Japan, hasn't followed up on the Sea Dragon idea. I suppose it's a case of copying the leader and ignoring what the leader ignored. Too bad.

 

[gunsandrockets]

"How the heck did you come up with 45 metric tons [for the Shuttle C]?"<br /><br />I said 45 to 77 metric tons to LEO for the Shuttle C. And I did post a link to the information supporting my statement. Here it is again...<br /><br />http://www.astronautix.com/lvs/shuttlec.htm <br /><br />And here is the relevant portion from that link...<br /><br />"The final report of the study envisioned two generations of Shuttle-C's. Generation 1 would be an expendable CE [Cargo Element] with a 4.6 m x 24.7 m cargo bay, using two SSME's, and capable of deliverying 45,000 kg to orbit. The CE would have an empty weight of 31,750 kg, using the shuttle thrust structure, and be fitted with shuttle engines and computers at the end of their useful lives. Three to four flights per year could be accomplished using the expendable approach, while NASA believed it had a requirement for 10 to 12 per year. Generation 2 would have a new-design recoverable CE, powered by 3 SSME's, and capable of delivering 77,000 kg in a 7.3 m x 29.3 m volume. "<br /><br />Here is even more information on the original Shuttle Orbiter...<br /><br />http://www.braeunig.us/space/specs/orbiter.htm<br /><br />And the relevant text...<br /><br />"Dry mass: 82,288 kg OV-102, 78,448 kg OV-103, 78,687 kg OV-104, 79,135 kg OV-105<br /><br />Performance: OV-103/104/105 can deliver 24,990 kg into 204 km LEO; they are called 55K Orbiters because of their 55,100-pound capacities (the design goal was 65K). OV-102 can only handle 21,140 kg because of its greater dry mass"<br /><br /><br />

 

[gunsandrockets]

"Try making your BDB concept project using existing First Stage hardware, and developing better UPPER STAGES. That is the weak point today that modern technology could fill for dramatic gains. "<br /><br />Hear! Hear!<br /><br />Check out Titan Timberwind, a modified Titan IV that could put 64 metric tons into LEO!<br /><br />http://www.astronautix.com/lvs/timtitan.htm<br /><br />Or pehaps something a little more modest, like a replacement for the LH2/LOX RL-10 used in the Centaur upper stage?<br /><br />http://www.astronautix.com/lvs/timntaur.htm<br /><br />http://www.nuclearspace.com/A_PWrussview_FINX.htm<br /><br />I think an NTR Centaur has great potential. NASA could kill two birds with one stone. Not only could a nuclear upperstage provide much greater lift to LEO, these stages could also be used as transfer stages for deep space missions to the Moon or Mars.<br /><br />A modest little nuclear Centaur would be worth more to space exploration than having the Saturn V back again.<br />

 

[henryhallam]

I think we would have to be very very lucky for an NTR second stage to fly (or third stage if it's 3 stages to orbit).<br />Now as an Earth Departure Stage, and for returning from the moon or Mars, that is much more likely... although not essential for a Mars base!

 

[hiro2002]

How about it?<br />GX (Galaxy Express)<br /><br />http://space.skyrocket.de/index_frame.htm?http://space.skyrocket.de/doc_lau/gx.htm<br /><br />

 

[najab]

Ah, I see. The problem is that the term 'Shuttle-C' has been applied to many different vehicle configurations. The SDHLV that I am talking about doesn't use a recoverable engine pod or cargo module. That's why I mentioned the expendable version of the SSME earlier in the thread (or maybe it was on the other one?).<p>Making the vehicle reusable significantly cuts into the payload capacity (we'd have a 40 ton launch shroud instead of the 100-ton one called the Orbiter) and would require massive amounts of labour to refurbish between launches.</p>

 

[mattblack]

Using 2x RS-68s instead of spending hundreds of millions developing expendable SSMEs makes more sense. I know an RS-68 weighs much more than an SSME and has a slightly less ISP, but RS-68s are relatively cheap and exist now. Also, they are of course already expendable.<br /><br />SSME: 7,500lbs, 397 klb thrust at 106% percent. 450 second ISP.<br />RS-68: 14,460lbs, 650 klb thrust. 410 second ISP.<br /><br />3x SSME thrust at sea-level: 1.19 million lbs.<br />2x RS-68 thrust at sea-level: 1.3 million lbs. 9% percent inferiority in efficiency to SSME, but has 10% percent higher thrust. Even higher if slightly uprated. The net result would be a negligible difference operationally, perhaps making the RS-68 a better, already existing choice, for an expendable SDHLV. This would be especially true if 5-segment SRBs are used. With 2x 104% percent thrust RS-68s, 5-segment SRBs and Aluminium/Lithium External Tank, an SDHLV would lift about 88-90 Metric tons to LEO. The changes to Launchpads 39A & B and the Crawlers would be trivial.<br /><br />There is no need for a 140 ton HLV: An SDHLV or clustered Atlas V-derivative would be quite adequate for the Space Initiative, especially with the limited funding available and we can be fairly sure that Mike Griffin knows all this. <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>

 

[najab]

><i>Using 2x RS-68s instead of spending hundreds of millions developing expendable SSMEs makes more sense. I know an RS-68 weighs much more than an SSME and has a slightly less ISP, but RS-68s are relatively cheap and exist now. Also, they are of course already expendable. </i><p>The understanding I have is that the expendable SSME wouldn't require a major engineering effort and could be in service in very short order.</p>

 

[redgryphon]

Does anyone have rough numbers on the production costs of an SSME and RS-68? I've tried googling, but haven't had much success.

 

[drwayne]

I am reminded of the words of, I believe Henry Spencer who has stated on a number of occasions that most any engine using regenative cooling is in principle reusable.<br /><br />Wayne <div class="Discussion_UserSignature"> <p>"1) Give no quarter; 2) Take no prisoners; 3) Sink everything."  Admiral Jackie Fisher</p> </div>

 

[najab]

><i>...most any engine using regenative cooling is in principle reusable. </i><p>And, as we all know, there's no difference between theory and practice. (In theory.)</p>