NASA to build Saturn VI (in-line SDLV)

[najab]

It is, however, low carb and cholesterol-free.

 

[tap_sa]

And best served chilled.

 

[mrmorris]

Does it have any Trans-fat or sodium?

 

[nacnud]

I suspect that its high in free radicals as well.

 

[strandedonearth]

*Homer voice*: "Mmmmm, salsa tetroxide *drool*"

 

[yree]

http://www.safesimplesoon.com/default.htm

 

[yree]

http://www.safesimplesoon.com/assets/images/300highres/inline.jpg<br /><br /><br />The first CEV missions to Earth orbit will include docking with the ISS. NASA's Exploration Systems Mission Directorate will be responsible for developing and acquiring both crew and cargo services to support the International Space Station, and funds have been transferred to that Directorate. We plan to leverage our nation's commercial space industry to meet NASA's needs for ISS cargo logistics and potentially crew support.<br /><br />Going forward, the Agency will need a launch system for the CEV, one which does not at present exist. Two possibilities exist by which we might obtain such a vehicle. The first is to develop a launch system derived from Shuttle components, specifically the SRB with a new upper stage. The second option is to upgrade the proposed heavy-lift versions of EELV with a new upper stage. As NASA Administrator, I must be a responsible steward of our funds, and a key aspect of the Agency's analysis of alternatives will be to capitalize on existing technical and workforce assets in a cost-effective and efficient way. NASA's goal is to develop a CEV capable of operating safely soon after the retirement of the Space Shuttle. <br />http://www.spaceref.com/news/viewsr.html?pid=17150<br /><br /> Griffin Favors Shuttle Solid Rocket Booster for Launching CEV<br /> <br />WASHINGTON — NASA Administrator Mike Griffin said Monday that he favors launching the proposed Crew Exploration Vehicle (CEV) on a single solid rocket booster based on the ones that for the past two decades have helped lift the space shuttle off the launch pad<br />http://www.space.com/spacenews/

 

[yree]

http://www.safesimplesoon.com/media.htm#

 

[gunsandrockets]

Well yree, you have found a very interesting link. After poking around the ATK web advertisement for SDV I found an interesting factoid.<br /><br />http://www.safesimplesoon.com/charts-lg.htm#cost<br /><br />Starting with the nasawatch story that began this whole thread, the payload of the inline SDHLV has been misreported as 120 metric tons. Because according to ATK themselves the jumbo in-line SDHLV has a payload to orbit of only 240,000 pounds, and that is 109 metric tons not 120.<br /><br />Another part of the ATK page shows orbiter costs as 1/2 of the total costs of current Space Shuttle operations. That fits with figures I have heard from other sources which claimed orbiter costs were 40%. That means the Shuttle program is enormously expensive even without the orbiter.<br /><br />The Shuttle program is bleeding NASA dry. Whether the Shuttle flys or doesn't fly, it costs NASA 5 billion dollars per year. I'm afraid going with a SDV will end up the same way and leaving NASA without the money for VSE. What good is having a Shuttle derived CEV LV and HLV if there isn't any money left over for any payload?<br /><br />Right now the USAF is subsidizing the EELV the same way NASA keeps the Shuttle going. NASA should exploit this to it's benefit. It's only fitting considering the way USAF forced a devil's bargain on NASA, ruining the design of the Space Shuttle in order to fit USAF requirements.<br /><br />

 

[gunsandrockets]

"Griffin Favors Shuttle Solid Rocket Booster for Launching CEV" <br /><br />"WASHINGTON — NASA Administrator Mike Griffin said Monday that he favors launching the proposed Crew Exploration Vehicle (CEV) on a single solid rocket booster based on the ones that for the past two decades have helped lift the space shuttle off the launch pad" -- space.com/spacenews/<br /><br />Boy, that is very misleading. It's clear from reading Griffin's testimony to Congress (report provided by spaceref.com) that Griffin talked about the modified SRB as one of two possible ways to launch the CEV. The space.com/spacenews/ blurb makes it appear the decision has been made to go with the SRB, which isn't true. <br />

 

[yree]

Ares<br />Orbital launch vehicle. Family: Shuttle. Country: USA. Status: Design.<br /><br />The Ares launch vehicle was designed for support of Zubrin's Mars Direct expedition. It is a shuttle-derived design taking maximum advantage of existing hardware. It would use shuttle Advanced Solid Rocket Boosters, a modified shuttle external tank for handling vertically-mounted payloads, and a new Lox/LH2 third stage for trans-Mars or trans-lunar injection of the payload. Ares would put 121 tonnes into a 300 km circular orbit , boost 59 tonnes toward the moon or 47 tonnes toward Mars. Without the upper stage 75 tonnes could be placed in low earth orbit.<br /><br />LEO Payload: 121,200 kg. to: 300 km Orbit. at: 28.5 degrees. Payload: 47,200 kg. to a: trans-Mars trajectory. Associated Spacecraft: Mars Direct. Total Mass: 2,194,600 kg. Core Diameter: 10.00 m. Total Length: 82.30 m. <br />http://www.astronautix.com/lvs/ares.htm<br />

 

[najab]

><i>The Shuttle program is bleeding NASA dry. Whether the Shuttle flys or doesn't fly, it costs NASA 5 billion dollars per year.</i><p>Last I checked the Shuttle budget was running around $3.5B/year. Single-stick CEV and SDHLV would be a bargin at that price - since the CEV would allow for a <b>much</b> higher flight rate (it's going to be a small, easily serviced craft) and just 2 flights a year of the SDHLV provide all the lift of 6 Shuttle flights.</p>

 

[mrmorris]

<font color="yellow">"the jumbo in-line SDHLV has a payload to orbit of only 240,000 pounds, and that is 109 metric tons not 120."</font><br /><br />240,000 pounds is 120 short (US) tons. Isn't it great to have two different measuring systems with the same flipping name? <img src="/images/icons/smile.gif" />

 

[najab]

Well, the metric ton <i>used</i> to be spelled "tonne", but someone decided that was too much trouble to remember.

 

[nacnud]

What do you mean ‘used to’, its still tonne here

 

[najab]

I know, I'm referring to the fact that somewhere along the line people stopped writing "tonne" (5 letters) and started writing "metric ton" (9 letters).

 

[tap_sa]

<font color="yellow">started writing "metric ton"</font><br /><br />And then they short it to MT which gives strong nuclear vibrations to metric-aware reader <img src="/images/icons/wink.gif" />

 

[mrmorris]

<font color="yellow">"Let's go with three SRB's. You get about 200000 more pounds of thrust while losing three engines, and an ET."</font><br /><br />I'm not sure I'm reading your post correctly. It sounds like you're talking about tying three SRBs together, and using them <b>alone</b> as a shuttle-derived launch system. If so -- not viable. Using stock SRB specs, the total thrust and the thrust-to-weight specs look very good -- but it'll never get to orbit. The SRBs provide a <b>lot</b> of thrust, for a <b>very</b> short time. They're sprinters without the stamina to make it to LEO. You have designed the world's biggest sounding rocket.<br /><br />You could certainly vary the grain of the SRBs to make them burn longer... at the cost of much of the thrust and ttw you picked them for in the first place. Their isp is much lower than that of the SSMEs, so by the time you have altered them to the point where they can run for as long as the SSMEs do, you've also reduced their thrust levels to less than what the SSMEs provide.

 

[nacnud]

Running the SSME for a few seconds before the SRBs light up also gives time for a quick diagnostic check to make sure it is running correctly before committing to a launch.

 

[gunsandrockets]

"Last I checked the Shuttle budget was running around $3.5B/year."<br /><br />Everthing I've seen has said Shuttle costs 5 billion dollars per year. Please provide your source for 3.5 billion. Here is some information I found to support the larger figure.<br /><br />"Costs"<br /><br />"While the shuttle has been a reasonably successful launch vehicle, it has been unable to meet its goal of radically reducing flight launch costs, as the average launch expenditures during its operations up to 2005 accumulates to $1.3 billion [1], a rather large figure compared to the initial projections of $10 to $20 million. The total cost of the program has been $145 billion as of early 2005 ($112 billion of which was incurred while the program was operational) and is estimated at $174 billion when the Shuttle will retire in 2010. NASA's budget for 2005 allocates 30 % or 5 billion to Space Shuttle operations. [2]"<br /><br />http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Space_shuttle#Costs<br /><br /><br />http://www.space.com/news/shuttle_cost_050211.html<br />

 

[lunatio_gordin]

i thought they were saying megaton too <img src="/images/icons/tongue.gif" />

 

[gunsandrockets]

"The Ares launch vehicle was designed for support of Zubrin's Mars Direct expedition. It is a shuttle-derived design taking maximum advantage of existing hardware. It would use shuttle Advanced Solid Rocket Boosters, a modified shuttle external tank for handling vertically-mounted payloads, and a new Lox/LH2 third stage for trans-Mars or trans-lunar injection of the payload. Ares would put 121 tonnes into a 300 km circular orbit"<br /><br />So? ATK says it's inline SDV only brings 109 tonnes to LEO. Either the Zubrin 'Ares' design study has some slight errors in it's calculation or the Zubrin 'Ares' booster differs in some significant regard from the actual ATK proposal.

 

[najab]

><i>Everthing I've seen has said Shuttle costs 5 billion dollars per year. Please provide your source for 3.5 billion. Here is some information I found to support the larger figure.</i><p>I find it useful to go directly to the source: NASA 2004 Budget Summary. Scroll down to the bottom of the first page - the 2004 budget request for Shuttle was $3.9B, up from $3.2B in 2003 largely because of RTF efforts.</p>

 

[radarredux]

> <i><font color="yellow">the $3000 cost is as low as the US has ever gone and much lower then current STS costs.</font>/i><br /><br />From a 1999 lecture by Griffin he listed the Saturn V at about $2000 per pound (in 1997 dollars).</i>

 

[radarredux]

> <i><font color="yellow">Everthing I've seen has said Shuttle costs 5 billion dollars per year. Please provide your source for 3.5 billion. Here is some information I found to support the larger figure.</font>/i><br /><br />From the 2005 NASA budget documentation:<br />http://www.nasa.gov/about/budget/FY05_budget.html :<br /><br />FY 2003:<br /><ul type="square"><li>ISS - 1,462<li>Space Shuttle - 3,304<li>Space & Flight Support - 445<li> Institutional Support - 941<li> Total - 6,149<br /></li></li></li></li></li></ul><br /><br />FY 2004<br /><ul type="square"><li>ISS - 1,498<li>Space Shuttle - 3,945<li>Space & Flight Support - 432<li> Institutional Support - 0<li> Total - 5875<br /></li></li></li></li></li></ul><br /><br />FY 2005<br /><ul type="square"><li>ISS - 1,863<li>Space Shuttle - 4,319<li>Space & Flight Support - 492<li> Institutional Support - 0<li> Total - 6,674<br /></li></li></li></li></li></ul><br /><br />All numbers are in the millions of dollars. I have rounded off the decimal points (after all, what is a few hundred thousand dollars between friends?).</i>