NASA to build Saturn VI (in-line SDLV)

[gunsandrockets]

thanx RadarRedux!<br /><br />So 4.319 billion dollars in fy 2005 for the Shuttle. Then there is 492 million dollars for flight support. I wonder how much of that is for support of the Shuttle?<br /><br />I see from a quick google that for fy 2006 the Shuttle budget line increases to 4.5 billion dollars. I think my orginal claim of 5 billion per year was pretty close after all.<br /><br />This source...<br /><br />http://www.space.com/news/shuttle_cost_050211.html<br /><br />Says the Shuttle by 2010 will cost 173 billion dollars for a total of 134 flights. That's 1.3 billion dollars per flight over the lifetime of the program (1 billion per flight for the last 5 years of the program). If fewer than 5 flights per year take place between now and 2010 than the cost per flight is even higher.

 

[strandedonearth]

It could be simpler if we took full advantage of the metric system, just like computer lingo does. We should be used to the kilo-, mega-, giga-, and tera- prefixes. One metric ton (tonne) equals 1000 kilograms equals 1 million grams equals one Megagram, or Mg. The Moon is about 384.4 Mm away.<br /><br />Now, why does the VSE sound more and more like 'flags and footprints?' Mostly because all I hear about are CEV's and landers, nothing about an actual habitat that may be separate from the lander. I'll believe a serious Moonbase effort is in the works when I hear about construction equipment (mainly a bulldozer/backhoe for burying hab modules) and separate hab modules.<br /><br />There an article here somewhere about a plan for a Skycrane to lower the next-gen rover to the surface of Mars. Wouldn't that work on the Moon as well, for cargo deliveries, with the Skycrane salvaged afterwards?<br /><br />A proper Moonbase would need, by my WAG, at least a Gg of material. A SD-HLV in the 100Mg+ class would make it much simpler to get that much mass there. <br /><br />I'm gonna try to start a movement here. I realize I don't post often, but whenever I post throwing large numbers about, I'm going to use fully metricized units, like Mg. Everyone else is welcome to climb aboard my bandwagon <img src="/images/icons/smile.gif" />

 

[radarredux]

> <i><font color="yellow">A proper Moonbase would need, by my WAG, at least a Gg of material.</font>/i><br /><br />One of the arguments for skipping the Moon and going straight to Mars is that Mars would actually require <i><b>less</b></i> material launched into space. There are several reasons for this:<br /><ul type="square"><li>A mission to Mars can use the atmosphere to slow the rocket (for orbital capture and for descent), whereas a Lunar mission must use fuel.<li>A mars colony can take advantage of much greater in-situ material, from oxygen and other chemicals to water.<li>A mars mission can use solar panels since it only experiences ~12 consecutive hours of darkness, whereas a Lunar mission needs nuclear power to survive the ~336 consecutive hours of darkness.<br /></li></li></li></ul><br /><br />A Polar Lunar mission <i><b>might</b></i> address some of these if a suitably safe landing spot can be found at the pole, and if the water really exists in the polar cold traps, and if that water can be easily and safely harvested. Of course, that also pretty much leaves you with a single Lunar landing site.</i>

 

[najab]

><i>I see from a quick google that for fy 2006 the Shuttle budget line increases to 4.5 billion dollars. I think my orginal claim of 5 billion per year was pretty close after all.</i><p>Only inasmuch as a rising tide floats all boats. NASA's budget has been increased significantly for FY05 outwards. Take a look at <b>historical</b> budget allocations and you'll see for the last 10 years or so, the Shuttle budget has held steady at around $3.5B.</p>

 

[gunsandrockets]

"...Take a look at historical budget allocations..."<br /><br />As opposed to cherry picking recent line item costs I have twice posted a link to a historical analysis of lifetime budget costs in current dollars. Lifetime costs to date are 145 billion and that comes to much more than 3.5 billion per year and closer to 5 billion per year.

 

[grooble]

The apollo program was cheaper i think.

 

[drwayne]

A NASA budget plot<br /><br />http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/NASA_Budget<br /><br />Wayne <div class="Discussion_UserSignature"> <p>"1) Give no quarter; 2) Take no prisoners; 3) Sink everything."  Admiral Jackie Fisher</p> </div>

 

[starfhury]

What's the possibility of a clean sheet design happening? I always thought the Kelly Space towed launch LV was pretty decent idea? It's sort of an orbital version of SpaceShipOne. Could a vehicle like that put up 120 tons into orbit? http://www.kellyspace.com/resources.htm <div class="Discussion_UserSignature"> </div>

 

[najab]

><i>Were that not so, then we would be hearing about things like orbiting the ETs and making them available for conversion or use as a water storage tank for propellant.</i><p>Actually, 5 ETs are available, on-orbit, free of cost to any organisation that can warrant that they won't fall onto any populated area. They've been available since Ronald Regan signed a Presidential Executive Order so instructing NASA. I haven't seen anyone step up and claim them yet.</p>

 

[lunatio_gordin]

heh, does rutan know about that? lol...

 

[drwayne]

You can find some organizations with interesting web sites by googling around in this area.<br /><br />I really would like it if somebody would try something in the nature of a wet lab experiment...<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]

The space shuttle program is a bit of a scam really. It was estimated to cost $20m a flight but averages 1.5 billion. You'd think there would be an investigation or something. I wonder if they'd have scrapped Apollo if they realised the true cost of the shuttle program.<br /><br />If the shuttle had only cost $20m a flight it'd have been fantastic. <br /><br />Point being the cost argument they used back then isn't really justified in hindsight. I guess the guys in charge really believed the $20m a flight sales pitch.

 

[yree]

Griffin Favors Shuttle Solid Rocket Booster for Launching CEV<br />Space News ^ | 29 June 2005<br /><br />Posted on 06/29/2005 9:01:13 AM PDT by Magnum44<br /><br />Griffin Favors Shuttle Solid Rocket Booster for Launching CEV 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 /><br />The so-called single stick approach, which refers to the use of a single solid rocket booster, has been touted by solid rocket maker ATK Thiokol as the safest and simplest solution to launching the CEV. The solid rocket would require an upper stage engine.<br /><br />Boeing and Lockheed Martin, meanwhile, have been pushing their respective Evolved Expendable Launch Vehicles (EELVs) -- the Atlas 5 and Delta 4 respectively -- as the right choice for CEV.<br /><br />Griffin has said on numerous occasions that he believes a shuttle-derived launcher is the right choice for the agency's heavy-lift needs -- lofting payloads weighing 100 metric tons or more on their way to the Moon or beyond. But on the issue of launching the CEV, which is expected to weigh 25 metric tons or so, Griffin had so far declined to show a public preference.<br /><br />But in an interview Monday at NASA Headquarters, Griffin said that, all things considered, shuttle-derived looks to be best choice for both heavy lift and CEV.<br /><br />"There would be a bunch of changes that would have to be made to the EELV to human rate it. I don't know that that would be the most fiscally sound path for NASA to go down, and frankly I don't know that the EELV community would welcome us getting into their production lines in order to make those kinds of modifications," Griffin said, "so all that would need to be thought through very carefully. Right now [the path] we think is the most favorable is the shuttle - derived path in part because it gives

 

[yree]

<br />http://www.safesimplesoon.com/assets/images/300highres/inline.jpg<br /><br />

 

[strandedonearth]

The ET's aren't up there right now, but NASA has to put up to 5 ET's in orbit for anyone who can make use of them and not let them re-enter unsafely. Noboby has made use of this because they would be fairly useless as is, since I doubt they offer much for radiation and MMOD protection. IIRC, SG has also stated on the boards here somewhere that in the space environment, the foam on the ET's would soon turn into a cloud of orange dust around the ET.<br /><br />What they need to do is make a large, standardized (preferably mass-produced) stage capable of putting itself and a payload in orbit. The payload wouldn't need to be too large because the idea is to make the stage count as payload. The payload would probably be the equipment to go inside the tanks, but could be something unrelated. A standardized stage designed as a wet lab would have adequate MMOD and radiation protection, be big enough to have a usable volume, and have hatches, mounting lugs, rails, channels etc so that standardized equipment (the payload) could be easily and quickly installed inside. Windows (er, ports) would be nice, but would probably be to difficult, expensive, and/or heavy to include.<br /><br />Of course you'd need some sort of OMS to make on-orbit rendezvous, solar panels (or at least places to mount them), and other details that need fleshing out, but you get the idea. Now, if anyone wants to start a "Designing a Standardized Wet-Lab Upper Stage" thread, I'm game. I guess one key question is how much effort did it take to turn an S-IVb stage into a safely occupiable SkyLab, not counting the unexpected launch damage repair work?

 

[spacester]

Nice post, 1207, you make very good points, thank you.<br /><br />Whatever NASA comes up with is going to be a political rocket (I like that term). It has to be a political rocket, there's no way around it.<br /><br />Griffin is between a rock and a hard place. His mission is NOT to come up with the best possible rockets for the next few decades. His mission is to come up with something that serves NASA's purposes well enough to prevent eventual embarassment.<br /><br />The best possible rockets will come from private industry, not NASA. I take that as a given in this analysis. Therefore what Griffin has to do is find room between the rock of Congressional pork and the hard place of the rocket equation.<br /><br />He just needs to come up with something, anything, that works. Whatever it is will be <i>economically</i> surpassed by private efforts, it's just a matter of how silly NASA ends up looking launching their cash hog alongside the Deming ("evolved Deming" actually, right?) rocket.<br /><br />He keeps mentioning 'workforce issues'. We all know what that means, right? The standing army will see a RIF but cannot stand down entirely, that's the political reality. Those are his political marching orders. So it shall be.<br /><br />What he's doing is positioning NASA to still appear <i>superior</i> to private rockets, to remain "the leader". Even if it's just perception, not economic reality. NASA can do that by having much larger payload capability.<br /><br />The 109 MT is not for 15 comsats, how silly would that be? The 109 MT is for large single pieces of equipment. Nuclear reactors, big habitats, things we need to go there and stay there, wherever that may be.<br /><br />It's not ideal, but it will do the job. It's the best possible Political Rocket he can come up with.<br /><br />As to the single stick CEV, I see it as an interim solution. Griffin would much rather ride on the space tourism bus, hire the rides to LEO and be done with it. But the last thing he can do is <i>assu</i> <div class="Discussion_UserSignature"> </div>

 

[spacester]

Stranded, that was going to be my next post. Very well said, you saved the folks here from another one of my long posts, lol.<br /><br />Second stages are where the game is at, I hope the approach you outline gets some traction. <br /><br />Yes, the orange cloud is a show-stopper. It's one thing for NASA to say the ETs are available, it's another for NASA to work with the customer to deliver a usable product. The ETS may be theoretically available, but they are not available in the real world. <div class="Discussion_UserSignature"> </div>

 

[strandedonearth]

Radar:<br /><br />You make some excellent points. I wasn't thinking of a Moon base as a stepping stone to Mars though, I was mostly just shooting from the hip as to how much mass would be required for a proper moon base. Without a base, any trip to the Moon is just flags and footprints, which I think most would agree is a waste of effort. For that matter, the same estimate probably holds for the mass of a Mars base. Has anyone made an estimate of how much mass needs to be landed on Mars to sustain and return a crew, with or without ISRU?<br /><br />Point well taken about aero-braking, it hadn't filtered through that while it's theoretically possible to land on Mars without using a drop of propellant, attempting the same thng on the Moon (with current technology) would result in the type of landing usually referred to as an impact. The light gravity isn't a big help because it's more about the delta-vee. I wonder, how much delta-vee is expended going from trans-lunar orbit to the lunar surface?<br /><br />Technology brainstorm just occured to me: would it not be possible to set up an electromagnetic landing pad to electromagnetically brake a lunar lander, sort of like a reverse railgun? I suppose an EM field that strong would have some nasty effects. Er, wait, now I'm getting way off topic.<br /><br />Getting back on topic, I think developing a SD-HLV is necessary because eventually we will want to launch a module for something that's just too much of a PITA to break into bite-size chunks. And it'd be much easier to develop now while there's already a trained workforce working with familiar, proven technology than start from scratch later with a green workforce on new equipment.<br /><br />As for insurance concerns, my first question is, do gov't assets even get insured? I'm pretty sure gov't assets don't *have* to be insured, especially if no one will insure it anyways.<br />

 

[strandedonearth]

Spacester, thanks! I've been meaning to float that concept around here for awhile, this just gave me the perfect lead-in.<br /><br />*sigh* I get a lot of great ideas, if only I could find the right people to tell... and then get them to listen!

 

[gunsandrockets]

<<<<<<<<<<<<<<But in an interview Monday at NASA Headquarters, Griffin said that, all things considered, shuttle-derived looks to be best choice for both heavy lift and CEV. <br /><br />"There would be a bunch of changes that would have to be made to the EELV to human rate it. I don't know that that would be the most fiscally sound path for NASA to go down, and frankly I don't know that the EELV community would welcome us getting into their production lines in order to make those kinds of modifications," Griffin said, "so all that would need to be thought through very carefully. Right now [the path] we think is the most favorable is the shuttle - derived path in part because it gives us the best work force transition issues." <br /><br />Griffin said that given the likelihood that NASA will pursue development of a heavy lifter built from space shuttle components, the agency would have to keep Thiokol's solid rocket production line open anyway. <br /><br />The single - stick approach also bodes well for ensuring safe operation of the space shuttle through the very last flight, he said. "You fly the last shuttle safely if the work force on the last shuttle feels there is a path to the future for them." <br /><br />"All in all the best path for NASA appears to be the shuttle-derived approach," Griffin said. />>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>><br /><br />Thanx for posting that text yree.<br /><br />Even though no final decision has been made yet this statement by Griffin is troubling. NASA looks like it will never be free of the Space Shuttle tar baby.<br /><br />And I wonder just what is driving the launch vehicle decision. Logically the exploration plan should drive the launch vehicle choices, but if you do it the other way around choosing your launch vehicle first, the launch vehicle will drive your exploration plans.<br /><br />Since NASA is likely to end

 

[gunsandrockets]

Hey StrandedonEarth,<br /><br />I don't remember the name of the people or the outfit they represent but there is a tiny alt-space rocket company, and as best as I remember their plan, it was to design the structure of the orbital second stage of their rocket to be capable of refit and reuse once in orbit.

 

[holmec]

>This is a get rid of the wings<<br /><br />Shuttle style wings, I concur, are just not suited for a space ship. The Lockheed CEV (I think) wings are bareley wings at all. They seem to hold payload. But if your going to have a reentry vehicle to a rocky planet with atmosphere, you should make as much use as possible of the properties of the atmosphere because it will save on fuel. It just seems all this talk about wings is throwing the baby out with the bath water. Wing shouldn't be the issue. Payload capacity and navigational effectiveness through space and atmoshere should be the issue.<br /> <div class="Discussion_UserSignature"> <p> </p><p><font color="#0000ff"><em>"SCE to AUX" - John Aaron, curiosity pays off</em></font></p> </div>

 

[gunsandrockets]

"Were it not so, we wouldn't be hearing about launching CEVs on the SRBs, the most pollutive part of the STS."<br /><br />I've always thought it odd that there hasn't been more of an uproar from the greenie groupies over toxic rocket exhausts. Just think of the hundreds of tons of highly toxic gases spewed out from something like a Long March, Proton, or Titan rocket.<br /><br />Yet we are warned by many not to speak of the N word for rocket boosters because of the expected environmentalist backlash.

 

[gunsandrockets]

"It just seems all this talk about wings is throwing the baby out with the bath water. Wing shouldn't be the issue. Payload capacity and navigational effectiveness through space and atmoshere should be the issue." <br /><br />Some people seem to have an emotional attachment to certain designs. There are the capsule fans, the lifting body fans, the winged fans, the RLV fans, the HLV fans, the SDV fans and on and on. And fan is short for fanatic.<br />

 

[drwayne]

"Hey StrandedonEarth, <br /><br />I don't remember the name of the people or the outfit they represent but there is a tiny alt-space rocket company, and as best as I remember their plan, it was to design the structure of the orbital second stage of their rocket to be capable of refit and reuse once in orbit."<br /><br />And of course, it was a toss-up for quite a while as to whether Skylab was going to be a wet or dry lab configuration.<br /><br />Wayne <div class="Discussion_UserSignature"> <p>"1) Give no quarter; 2) Take no prisoners; 3) Sink everything."  Admiral Jackie Fisher</p> </div>