Shuttle-C and CEV

[gunsandrockets]

I'm finishing this old book from 1985 entitled "Chariots for Apollo: the making of the Lunar Module." It's a very interesting look inside the Apollo Program.<br /><br />One thing I was struck by is all the problems of the Apollo Program. Things did not run nearly as trouble free as I orginally had the impression. Some of those problems were operations of the Saturn V rocket. Assembling everything into a single large launch stack is not the great problem solver the opponents of Earth orbital rendezvous claim it is.<br /><br />If one little problem crops up in one component of the stack, it stops everything and requires some tear down of the stack to fix the problem before launch. Integrating everything into the stack is tricky too. During one unmanned test launch of a Saturn V, POGO shook the LM free from it's shroud and it fell out of the stack! Because the Saturn V had flown so few times it was practically still an experimental vehicle during all the manned missions.<br /><br />One thing is clear from the book. The most difficult thing was to build very large rockets that worked. Whereas lunar orbital rendezvous, once considered crazy and impossible, actually turned out to be easy and trouble free. Even the Russians acheived automatic orbital docking during the Moon Race.<br /><br />I'm less convinced than ever that heavy lift is a net solution to lift problems. It seems to me that heavy lift exchanges a new set of problems for the set of problems it supposed to solve.

 

[gunsandrockets]

"The near term objective is the Moon. All developements towards that end must be timely and efficient."<br /><br />Here is an interesting document looking at Moon mission alternatives...<br /><br />http://66.102.7.104/search?q=cache:-awXmGYQ0L8J:www.hq.nasa.gov/office/apio/pdf/moon/03_roadmaps_joosten.pdf+lunar+roadmap+alternatives+and+key+questions&hl=en&ie=UTF-8<br /><br />"No more mating Unity to Zarya, and then stumbling around for two years until the next step. "<br /><br />That would seem to relate to option one of the document, Evolution Emphasis. That option seems to be the NASA starting point, in part due to budgetary pressures. And I agree with you that going that route would bore the public.<br /><br />Option two, Early Outpost, is establishing a moon base early in the program. Interestingly this is the option that Lockheed Martin is pushing. Instead of the slow NASA plan, they want to establish a permanent base on the moon by 2020. One of the reasons Lockheed wants to go with a moon heavy route is to avoid repeating what has already been done in the past, such as orbital space-stations and brief moon visits, in order to maintain public interest and political support.<br /><br />

 

[smradoch]

<blockquote><font class="small">In reply to:</font><hr /><p><br />""Shuttle" C - Take two SRBs, lash them together so to speak. Install a second stage atop the stack. Lift 100 Metric tons into orbit." <br /><br />There is no way 2 SRBs and a upperstage could put 100 metric tons into LEO. The figure would be more like 35 to 40 metric tons. One BIG problem with that concept is the facility changes that would have to be made. <br /><br />"There is really no need for a massive ET in a "shuttle" C, afterall, the Shuttle C has no wings." <br /><br />You mean that the elimination weight of the wings alone allows you to get 100 metric tones to LEO? That is not correct at all. <br /><br />" The main thrust for the STS comes from Morton Thiokol btw. ) " <br /><br />True for the lifoff thrust however look at the total impulse that comes from the SSMEs vs the SRB and you will see the SSMEs do most of the work of getting to LEO. <p><hr /></p></p></blockquote> <br /><br />You meant probably 2 SRB without ET at all. I think that ET should be redesigned anyway. It can look like Delta CBM with greater diameter (Boeing actually plans something). It shouldn be much more expensive with empty mass only 2times more or so (40- 50t). No need for tricky ET foam insulation. <br />It can easily get 100t to LEO depending on higher stage and SRB performance.<br />I have no idea about pad modifications but this old pad towers don't seem to be useful for future anyway. Complete redesign of ET (with engines below) cann't cost more than 1B USD or it has no sence to continue to the Moon because there wount be enough money to do the job. <br />So how much money can NASA afford for HLV? I suppose that it should be flight ready around 2015 so there is still some time left.

 

[gofer]

I think, the SDV is only supposed to be used for placing things onto translunar trajectories. It appears SDV concepts push orbit circularization responsibilities onto the payload (unlike any known commercial ELV, I'll add). So things like "100 ton to LEO" are a misnomer of sorts, it's more "100 ton to an altitude of 300 km".

 

[mattblack]

Without Heavy Lift, it'd be like trying to mount an Antarctic expedition by lashing together a bunch of rowboats. It can't be done. <br /><br />**I DID say in my big earlier post that I'd prefer a clean sheet design capable of lifting 140+plus tonnes. Trouble is, it would probably cost $20 billion dollars and a decade to develop such a thing.<br /><br />***I HAVE said that it would be ideal to have the CEV capable of being launched on an Atlas V, Delta IV, one-stick SRB AND Shuttle C. To insist that all the eggs go into one basket (Shuttle C) would be a bad mistake, akin to once abandoning all expendables to launch satellites on the manned Shuttle orbiter!! Sheesh...<br /> <br />**I DID say that a 7-core Atlas V would be a good launcher because it has similar lift power to the basic Shuttle C concept. Also, if a big quantity of booster cores is manufactured the sheer economy of scale would make the 7-core Atlas Heavy cheaper to build and operate than Shuttle C.<br /><br />***BUT: Cost & design time comparisons (rough): Develop a Shuttle derived HLV: 5 years and $5-to$7 billion.<br />CLEAN SHEET: $20 billion and 8-to-10 years.<br />ATLAS V & DELTA IV SUPER-HEAVY: $12-to-$15 billion and 5-to-7 years.<br /><br />The ayes have it: Shuttle Derived it should be, for all the reasons I outlined. You just can't argue with that rationally, unless you've really got a hard-0n for little version Atlas and Deltas. A fetish even!!<br /><br />BUT WAIT, I hear you say: Shuttle derived is expensive and dangerous, outdated technology with a bloated workforce and infrastructure. Keeping a Shuttle-derived lifter will bankrupt Nasa, or worse the U.S.A. Also, you MUST have a sexy Lifting body CEV, because capsules are passe, crappy old technology, heavy lift launchers are wrong, wrong, blah, blah, blah...<br /><br />Well, I'm sorry but you guys are dead WRONG. This isn't a case of: "My Grandpa didn't go to the Moon that way, so we wont do it your way". New ideas are good. But laws of Physics and <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>