NASA to build Saturn VI (in-line SDLV)

[wvbraun]

Way cool! <br /><br />From nasawatch.com:<br /><br /><i>Word has it that Mike Griffin's team has more or less settled on <b>a 120 metric ton payload, in-line, Shuttle-derived Heavy Launch System.</b></i><br /><br />

 

[henryhallam]

That would be awesome. Presumably this would need VAB mods as well as pad mods, but how extensive?

 

[spacester]

If this 120 MT beauty is for real, I predict the CXV will go forward without NASA's help simply because there would be strong reason to believe the CXV will have destinations: Big Friggin Space Hotels in LEO and other cool stuff.<br /> <div class="Discussion_UserSignature"> </div>

 

[wvbraun]

"They could go in just a few years instead of 20 years or so."<br /><br />Not so sure about that. From an article about Griffin's visit to the Michoud plant:<br /><br /><i>Although Griffin's comments suggest Michoud would continue as one of NASA's pre-eminent manufacturing facilities, he pointed out that there may be a gap of two to four years between the end of shuttle tank production and the beginning of tank production for the next-generation cargo vehicle, known in NASA circles as a "shuttle-derived vehicle."</i><br /><br />So if we assume tank production for the Space Shuttle will end in 2010 that means the SDHLV would be ready in the 2012-14 timeframe. I'm a bit worried that this project might get cancelled with Griffin (and Bush) out of office so I hope they start development right away (read: this year) but that seems unlikely given that there is no money allocated for it even in the FY 2006 budget... Maybe they can shift some funds around?

 

[radarredux]

> <i><font color="yellow">It will be the least expensive way to go to the moon.</font>/i><br /><br />While the payload on top of the stack will boost more into space, it will take more money and time to develop than a side mounted strategy.<br /><br />I eagerly await NASA's new architecture for exploration (due in July) to see how they plan to use the 120 metric tons.<br /><br />I could see a couple of advantages. First, the extra lift would clearly distinguish the SDHLV from the EELVs. Second, putting the payload on top will make it a safer vehicle if you want to launch humans on it.<br /><br />For those Zubrin fans out there, this could lead to a Mars Direct plan within a decade. Several (including Zubrin) have argued (1) Mars is where the science is, and (2) experience with the Moon offers little advantage to going to a Mars. So they want to bypass the Moon and go directly to Mars. This could be the ticket.</i>

 

[wvbraun]

Radar agrees with you, shuttle_guy...<img src="/images/icons/wink.gif" />

 

[arobie]

Thank you wvbraun. Glad to hear this. <br /><br />120 tonnes. Awesome!

 

[wvbraun]

"I eagerly await NASA's new architecture for exploration (due in July) to see how they plan to use the 120 metric tons. <br />I could see a couple of advantages. First, the extra lift would clearly distinguish the SDHLV from the EELVs."<br /><br /><br />Could it be that Griffin is trying to set up the EELV proponents by creating an architecture that cannot work with anything less than a 120 ton HLV? Since a clean sheet design would be very expensive he can then portray shuttle-derived as the obvious way to go...<br /><br />

 

[starfhury]

I still have trouble getting over the shuttle wings being blamed for so much problems. How about that it's the launch configuration? Hell SpaceShipOne uses wings and no one complains about that. The shuttle uses wings and it's the end of the world. Hell, if the shuttle had launch above the ET instead of beneath it, there'd be a lot less problems. Ofcourse that configuration present its own problems. Yes, the shuttle needs to be replace, but the proposed replacements seems a return to less capabilites. What we need is a more technological advance solution over the shuttle that than the current proposed ideas floating around. Most of them seem a rehash of the way it's been done for the past 60 years. And that's gotten us how far? Although no one wants to pay for it, we need a clean break from the past and to really invest big bucks into pursuing alternatives means of getting to orbit. Perhaps we can combine an aerospike engine with a meta-stable hydrogen propellant to enhance combustion and thus overall efficiency. More power, less overall propellant and an increase mass fraction for better payload utilization. I think this is better than reviving old technology or reusing the same technology that has kept us in orbit for 30 years already. I think SDLV will put us another 30 years behind where we really need to be. <div class="Discussion_UserSignature"> </div>

 

[gunsandrockets]

"Word has it that Mike Griffin's team has more or less settled on a 120 metric ton payload, in-line, Shuttle-derived Heavy Launch System."<br /><br />Good God I hope not. At least the Shuttle C had the virtue of minimal development cost and use of existing facilities. An in-line SDHLV starts to get into clean sheet area.<br /><br />I'm already skeptical the money could be found to put a Shuttle C into service, so where will NASA find the money to put the even more expensive proposition of the in-line Shuttle re-design with all the new VAB and pad facilities it will require?<br /><br />And what is the benefit of a larger than Shuttle C SDHLV? Unless you plan on recreating the exact same Apollo Project moon flight architecture of landing only two men on the moon (been there done that) you can't get to the moon and back with a single launch of jumbo SDHLV. Multiple launches per mission can not be avoided to achieve VSE objectives whether you are talking about using EELV, SDLV, SDHLV or jumbo SDHLV. <br />

 

[starfhury]

How so? We are still following the same philosphy from the 50's and 60's. There has been no significant advance over what was done in those early days. There's not a single new proposal that will top the Saturn or shuttle in any meaningful way. SDLV is 70's technology at it's heart. Maybe we do need a new space agency that will take chances NASA is too old and afraid to take. Private industry is just not to the level yet to take the challenge of space on directly, but that will change over the years. Ask any of them if they want to use technology from the 50s, 60s, or 70s. Those technology are as expensive then as they are now. <div class="Discussion_UserSignature"> </div>

 

[scottb50]

No the problem with wings is they cause problem during launch. The lift produced affects the profile of the launch, either you expend more thrust countering the lift of the wings or you attempt an aerodynamic fix that creates more drag, which uses more propellant....<br /><br />While the weight of the wings definitely affects the load capability of the system the aerodynamics have much more of an affect. <div class="Discussion_UserSignature"> </div>

 

[starfhury]

I'm sure you understand the need for wings on the shuttle. Just imagine landing 13k kilos under a parachute. Now try imagine landing 91k kilos under a parachute. The quote about the payload capacity reduced by 70% was about the Winged Saturn V. We don't know if the same is true for the shuttle. Go ahead. Try and build a reusable or partially reusable orbiter with 70s technology. Tell me you can do twice as good as the engineers who built the shuttles. Again, I'll say I think the idea of the winged shuttle was sound, however bad the implementation might have turned out to be. Unless we come us with some seriously powerful engines that can land a vehicle from orbit, we will need parachutes or wings to reduce the power requirements on the return from orbit. <div class="Discussion_UserSignature"> </div>

 

[vt_hokie]

The 120 metric ton figure quoted on nasawatch.com is higher than any previous payload figure I've seen for Shuttle-C. Wouldn't this put it roughly on par with the Saturn V? I'm assuming they would have a cargo module powered by three SSME's. One easy way to boost performance might be to add segments to the SRB's. <br /><br />Will this vehicle have any return capability, or is it likely to be expendable? Seems like we're not making much progress...I understand that a shuttle derived launch system is easy to develop and has certain political advantages, but it seems like it would be an expensive beast to operate, much like the current STS, and it would have a lot of throw-away hardware.

 

[starfhury]

I'm not sure about landing 200,000 lbs with parachutes. I suppose it's possible, but I've not heard of it. BTW, the shuttle does in fact return payload to earth. What do you think Leonardo, Rafaello, and I think Danotello are? Each of them weight in at over 4082 kilos(9,000 lbs). Regarding the T/space CXV, that is designed to take people to orbit only. It's certainly not design to return 4,000 kilos to earth. It really depends on what your purposes are. If we want to create real commerce in space, even T/space's design is lacking in capability. <div class="Discussion_UserSignature"> </div>

 

[vt_hokie]

NASA should never had abandoned X-38. They could have had a perfectly good crew transport vehicle by now, although man rating a launch vehicle to send people up on would have been a requirement.

 

[rocketwatcher2001]

<font color="yellow">The Shuttle doesn't bring anything back with it, save one satellite long ago.</font><br /><br />That's not exactly correct, the Shuttle Orbiters have bought back hundreds of tonnes of expriments and equipment over the years. Spacelab, etc... No other spacecraft could have done that. <br /><br />I'm a big fan of this SSDV, but I still don't want to completely scrap the Orbiters.....just incase we need them again for something that pops up, after all, they have a very unique capability. <div class="Discussion_UserSignature"> </div>

 

[tuckerfan]

<blockquote><font class="small">In reply to:</font><hr /><p>I'm a big fan of this SSDV, but I still don't want to completely scrap the Orbiters.....just incase we need them again for something that pops up, after all, they have a very unique capability.<p><hr /></p></p></blockquote>You mean if a giant asteroid the size of Texas shows up and we need to send a crew of rough 'n ready oil drillers to it, so that they can plant a nuke on it, and split it in half? <img src="/images/icons/wink.gif" />

 

[SpaceKiwi]

I'm a bit undecided if this is good news or not. The tons to orbit is the big positive, but I wonder if the changes required to put everything inline don't make it simpler to just start with a clean sheet design. To me at least, it sounds like SDLV in name only.<br /><br />What is really going to be staying 'as-is' under this plan? If the ET has to be significantly redesigned to accomodate payload above and engines below, then it ceases to be the STS ET to all intents and purposes. Which then begs the question, "if we're significantly redesigning an existing element, perhaps we should look at entirely new designs as well?"<br /><br />With the ET re-worked, does the environment for the SRB's change also? Does the accumulated knowledge gained from the currrent STS config become somewhat or even largely irrelevant? Then there are the changes to the pad and vehicle processing infrastructure ......<br /><br />As SG noted earlier, this is the most expensive route to go down but I am beginning to wonder if it's the smartest one. If utilising the existing hardware is your aim, I think the side-mounted payload cannister would be the way to go. That is truely shuttle-derived in my view because it requires minimal changes to the hardware. The plan expressed here sounds like, in reality, only the name is being kept and not much else.<br /><br />Would any of the real Rocketeers like to weigh in on my thoughts? <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>

 

[rocketwatcher2001]

No, I was refering to perhaps the ability to return very large and heavy things from orbit, amoung other things. I don't think the Orbiter would do much good as an asteroid stopper, considering the job of the Orbiter is to orbit.......that's kinda how it got it's name <img src="/images/icons/wink.gif" /> <div class="Discussion_UserSignature"> </div>

 

[botch]

I haven't a clue about whether this is a smart move or not, all I'm thinking about at the moment is how is NASA gonna pay for a SDHLV a CEV and all the related hardware. <br />Is NASA counting on a huge budget increase?<br />How solid are their plans to finance this?

 

[mattblack]

If Griffin can get the money for a high-performance inline Shuttle-derived HLV, then I'd be grateful and happy. However, its been stated time and again by many of the aerospace company studies that a side-mounted 80-90 ton to LEO booster would be good for Lunar Missions and adequate for Mars missions. Plus, doing a side mount version would keep the VAB, Crawler and Launchpads largely the same. An inline development would cost several billion bucks more and add 2 or 3 years to the development schedule.<br /><br />Also, did you read about Sen. Bill Nelson and Kay Hutchison wanting to keep the Shuttle around for a few more years beyond 2010?<br /><br />http://www.space.com/news/050623_shuttle_bill.html<br /><br />I wouldn't keep them flying more than a year (2011) beyond the retirement date, and even then only as a built-in hold for weather and other delays to the ISS build schedule. <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>

 

[botch]

mattblack said <br />'However, its been stated time and again by many of the aerospace company studies that a side-mounted 80-90 ton to LEO booster would be good for Lunar Missions and adequate for Mars missions. Plus, doing a side mount version would keep the VAB, Crawler and Launchpads largely the same.'<br /><br />If this is the case then how is he going to justify the billions extra for this in-line version?

 

[mattblack]

How does he justify the money? Well, that was my point exactly. We'll have to wait and see. Because I like "big dumb boosters", I hope he can pull it off. If the economy was doing better, maybe he'd have a chance.<br /> <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>

 

[botch]

Maybe in the end he'll have no choice but to do a side mounted vehicle.