NASA to build Saturn VI (in-line SDLV)

[starfhury]

I think you miss took what I meant. I meant I'd love to have the ISP of an ion engine combined with high thrust levels. That'd be the best of both worlds and apparanty an incredibly difficult thing to achieve by any physics I know off. This includes fusion/antimatter since those are beyond our means even decades from now. The thing with the ion engine is that it electrostatically accelerations ions. We are talking about a relatively low number of particles highly accelerated. What it really means is that we are imparting energy to those ions. The more energy we can impart to any single one, the better our efficiency and the higher our thrust levels. The difference between chemical and ion is that chemical do it by huge volume but low energy density. Meanwhile ion does it by high energy density and very low low volume. NTR splits the difference some where there. It can have high flow rate and high energy density which is what we are looking for. That leads to better performance for missions with astronauts aboard. <div class="Discussion_UserSignature"> </div>

 

[no_way]

Mass drivers with nuclear power source will get you high thrust.<br />Its all in the fantasyland, though. We all know that for the next couple of decades, chemical will get us there and back.

 

[gunsandrockets]

not a reply, just a continuation of the SDLV thread<br /><br />New information is leaking out about the new NASA exploration plans revised under Griffin's direction, here is the link...<br /><br />http://www.space.com/spacenews/050704_business_monday.html<br /><br /><br />Here is the most important text...<br /><br /><br /><br />"Nevertheless, NASA gave a small group of outside experts an update on the Exploration Systems Architecture Study the week of June 27 and, according to a Washington-based source who had been briefed in turn, laid out a lunar exploration architecture that includes as many as six flights a year to the Moon. <br /><br />According to this source, key elements of the lunar exploration architecture are coming into focus. For example:<br />* The CEV would be a reusable capsule capable of carrying four passengers to the Moon. <br />* NASA would use a three-person version of the CEV capsule to ferry astronauts to and from the international space station three times a year. <br />* An unmanned version of the CEV would be used as a cargo carrier, conducting three space station resupply missions a year. <br />* Both the CEV launcher and the heavy-lifter would be shuttle-derived and cost about $3 billion a year once in service. <br />* The CEV would launch atop a single solid-rocket booster whose design is virtually the same as those that help lift the space shuttle off the launch pad. <br />* The heavy-lift vehicle initially would be sized to lift 100 metric tons into orbit for Moon missions but could evolve to loft 120 metric tons for Mars missions."<br /><br /><br />Costs<br /><br />So then, the shuttle program lives on. At least the cost will reduce from 5 billion per year to only 3 billion per year (but somehow I doubt that cost will hold). I wonder if the 3 billion number includes development funding and infrastructure construction costs.<br /><br />CEV mass<br /><br />And the CEV will en

 

[najab]

><i>I do not believe this Moon Direct architecture is the best way to go to the moon and it has little if any application to going anywhere else but the moon.</i><p>I agree it is less than perfect...unless the second mission goes the same place as the first and uses the 'base' set up by the first mission, which means their cargo lander can be food, -habitat, +rovers,etc and the next mission can be -rovers, +propellant propulsion equipment and so on<p>It's not the best way to explore the Moon, but it's not a bad way to establish a base.</p></p>

 

[gunsandrockets]

"It's not the best way to explore the Moon, but it's not a bad way to establish a base"<br /><br />Actually the problem with Moon Direct is it is very very mass inefficient for establishing a moon base. The main benefit of Moon Direct is anytime aborts despite moon surface lattitude. The purpose of Moon Direct is direct flight to several different locations on the moon with maximum abort capability . So Moon direct is the worst method for sending a series of manned spacecraft to a single moon location for the least effort (as you might want to do for establishing a permanent lunar base).

 

[najab]

><i>Actually the problem with Moon Direct is it is very very mass inefficient for establishing a moon base.</i><p>I would think the one-way cargo flights of the HLV would be ideal. Maybe I'm missing something here. Yes, I must be.</p>

 

[gunsandrockets]

The mass problem of Moon Direct is with the two-way manned flights not with the one-way cargo flights.

 

[wvbraun]

The problem goes away once in situ ressource utilization is employed.

 

[gunsandrockets]

"The problem goes away once in situ ressource utilization is employed. "<br /><br />Of course. Just about any architecture works great once in In-Situ Resource Utilization is in play, but what about moon travel before ISRU is in play? Moon Direct will drain NASA's mass budget and only ****** progress to the goal of ISRU or establishing a permanent moon base.

 

[halman]

Could it be that the guys at NASA are struggling with microscopic budgets, (the United States at this time is spending 5 billion dollars a month in Iraq,) and goals that incorpate minimum risk to personnel? Maybe they are planning for 'Moon Direct' to only last a couple of years, until Congress wakes up and starts spending some real money on space. Maybe they are desparetely hoping that a few successes might get the public enthused about space.<br /><br />Originally, NASA wanted 7 space shuttles, which would have made the flight rates possible that they talked about when developing the shuttle. With only 4, it was impossible. Those are the kinds of realities NASA has to live with all the time. <div class="Discussion_UserSignature"> The secret to peace of mind is a short attention span. </div>

 

[halman]

no_way,<br /><br />I cannot refute most of what you say, however, I continue to believe that heavy lift will have a major part in the future of space exploration. But we will not see great demand for it for another 10 to 20 years, probably. If we are truly going to develop industry in space, which I think is imperative, then we will need the ability to put heavy items into Low Earth Orbit.<br /><br />But instead of trying to build a super heavy right now, why don't we focus on the top two stages? We can build a monster first stage a few years down the road, when we have a proven second and third stage to work with. Recent history has shown that funding for large scale projects is hard to come by, so we should start now building the launch vehicle which will be the workhorse of the 21st century.<br /><br />Everyone is all wrapped up in keeping what we have flying right now, in some form or another, but we hopefully will be using launch vehicles for another 75-100 years, unless the Space Elevator suddenly becomes a lot cheaper, and a lot easier. So we should develop a design that is easy to mass produce, has good performance without being overly complex, and is adaptable to a wide range of payloads. This design should come on line in about 10 years, and be proven within 15 years, so that it can be ready for developing Lunar and orbital industry.<br /><br />Once the design is perfected, hire a contractor to launch the things, and move on to other projects. Aviation history is replete with technological advancements that were developed for governement aircraft, which accelerated the introduction of these advancements into civilian aircraft. This is one of the primary functions of government, to fund the development of technology for the private sector. That is what NASA was supposed to be created for.<br /><br />We need to keep a long-term view, and believe that the future will bring growth of many kinds. With that growth will come the need for modern, up-to-date launc <div class="Discussion_UserSignature"> The secret to peace of mind is a short attention span. </div>

 

[georgeniebling]

any pics of what this would look like? <br /><br />EDIT: WOW ... I just went through the rest of the thread and WOW! impressive ..... sounds like a good use of existing technology with a proven concept ....<br /><br />now ... how would this compare to the oft-discussed but never-built (though the land was purchased for the launch pads) Nova launch system ... the original follow-on to Saturn.<br />

 

[yree]

bmup

 

[mattblack]

Check this out:<br /><br />http://astronautix.com/lvfam/nova.htm<br /><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>

 

[rocketwatcher2001]

Imagine how cool watching a Nova blast-off would be! Shuttle-Guy, I'm very jealous of you for getting to watch the Saturns, especially from the VAB! <div class="Discussion_UserSignature"> </div>

 

[john_316]

<br />So Shuttle_Guy I would assume that the Inline SDHLV version will still be smaller than Saturn just stubblier?<br /><br />Like Magnum?<br />

 

[john_316]

Does anyone have any information to the future use of the the RS-83/RS-84 and the TRW-107 rocket engines?<br /><br />These motors are all 1 million pound thrusters so anyone hear anything about there future use in HLV at all?<br /><br />

 

[nacnud]

An SRB can't make orbit, even if you clustered three or so together you would still need a liquid upperstage. A pure solid launch vehicle would have a very small payload compared to its weight. The propellant fraction would need to be very high.

 

[najab]

The thing is, you probably <i>could</i> launch the single stick 6 times for less than a billion dollars! Especially if you got into serial production of the upper stages.

 

[tap_sa]

Do you know what's the status of P&W's RL-60 and RLX? I'd like to see those more bening expander cycle engines in future vehicles. (Before pressure tanks made of CNT cloth render turbopumps altogether obsolete <img src="/images/icons/wink.gif" />)

 

[yree]

bump

 

[yree]

http://www.safesimplesoon.com/assets/documents/derivatives-video.asx