Wow, 4 SRB Heavy launcher.

[tmccort]

http://www.spaceref.com/news/viewnews.html?id=1057 (Scroll down to the descriptions of the in-line versions).<br /><br />That would be a massive amount of thrust. Would look pretty cool at take-off too. <img src="/images/icons/smile.gif" />

 

[mattblack]

Now that's what I call HEAVY METAL!!! Ugh, ugh, ugh (Tim Taylor grunts). <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>

 

[rybanis]

HOLY ASSGOBLINS!!!!!!!!!<br /><br /><br />153MT to LEO!<br /> <div class="Discussion_UserSignature"> </div>

 

[botch]

My inner geek is grinning when I look at that picture.<br /><img src="/images/icons/cool.gif" /><img src="/images/icons/cool.gif" /><img src="/images/icons/cool.gif" /><img src="/images/icons/cool.gif" /><img src="/images/icons/cool.gif" /><img src="/images/icons/cool.gif" /><img src="/images/icons/cool.gif" /><img src="/images/icons/cool.gif" /><img src="/images/icons/cool.gif" /><img src="/images/icons/cool.gif" /><img src="/images/icons/cool.gif" /><img src="/images/icons/cool.gif" /><img src="/images/icons/cool.gif" /><img src="/images/icons/cool.gif" /><img src="/images/icons/cool.gif" /><img src="/images/icons/cool.gif" /><img src="/images/icons/cool.gif" /><img src="/images/icons/cool.gif" /><img src="/images/icons/cool.gif" /><img src="/images/icons/cool.gif" /><img src="/images/icons/cool.gif" /><img src="/images/icons/cool.gif" />

 

[space_dreamer]

Yer man! That's what the World/NASA needs. If you’re going change the foot print anyway you may as well have 4SRBs. We can launch some real interplanetary space ships!

 

[grooble]

"Scaled up versions using clusters of four to <b>six</b> SRBS and groups of RS-68 engines on the tank and SSMEs on the upper stage could produce a huge launcher capable of lifting 200 metric tons into orbit."<br /><br />200! A Saturn-5 beater right?

 

[grooble]

What could you do with 200 tons to orbit? Build my space taxi?

 

[nacnud]

Launch the ISS in two launches...

 

[grooble]

<img src="/images/icons/smile.gif" />

 

[grooble]

Do you think they could launch one of these 200 ton lifters for under $1b? That'd be $2500/lb

 

[grooble]

Why do the SSME's cost millions? What is in them that is so expensive?

 

[drwayne]

Well, they are specialty high performance, reusable engines. As such, they are in somewhat of a niche market.<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]

But the ones on the lifter won't be reused will they? If they are then you don't have to factor in 240m to every single flight.

 

[najab]

<blockquote><font class="small">In reply to:</font><hr /><p>But the ones on the lifter won't be reused will they? If they are then you don't have to factor in 240m to every single flight.<p><hr /></p></p></blockquote>You have to factor it in because that's what they cost. If Rocketdyne manages to build the lower-cost expendable version they say they can, then the cost will obviously go down.

 

[gladiator1332]

Man think of how easy it will be to launch a real lunar base. Instead of the one lander style Apollo base, we can actually launch several modules. <br />Maybe I'm wrong about this, even though the Inline will cost as much as the Shuttle to launch, won't you be getting more bang for your buck? What the Shuttle has done in severla mission can be handled in one or two Inline missions.

 

[nacnud]

As a rough SWAG I'd say it would take five or six shuttle launches, one very full year of STS missions, to orbit the same amount of hardware as a single SDHLV ILC launch.

 

[najab]

><i>I bet they are the "bottom line" price. </i><p>They are the "bottom line" price for the SSME. However, Rocketdyne has indicated that they can build a cheaper "single use" SSME. How much cheaper remains to be seen, but it could be as little as $30M/engine - tested and delivered.</p>

 

[gladiator1332]

This is exaclt what we need. Shuttle C is a temporary solution. If we are going to build a Moon base...common we can't just plant flags and stay few days like we did with Apollo...and if we are going to really explore Mars, we are going to need a booster with these capabilities. If we have the oppurtunity to build a launcher capable of launch 200 tons of hardware, then we need to take it. Think of how many Mars rovers we can put on Mars with that thing...we can launch a whole constelation of satellites in one shot...<br /><br />200 tons...we can launch a whole bunch of confetti with that thing.

 

[nacnud]

Er sorry.<br /><br />I'm getting muddled with the number of acronyms. It should have been SDV ILC or Shuttle Derived Vehicle, In-Line Cargo of which the article mentions three types, 1 lifts 110 MT, 2 lifts 120MT, 3 lifts 158 MT. I was meaning SDV ILC-1.<br /><br />Clear? <img src="/images/icons/crazy.gif" /><br />

 

[radarredux]

Shuttle-C: 50 months, $2.8 B, operational 2010<br /><br />New side-mounted: 98 months, $5.9 B, operational 2014<br /><br />ILV: 134 months (?), $8.4 B, operational 2017 (?)<br /><br />What wasn't clear to me from the article was, for the ILV, is the additional 36-48 months above the side-mounted SDV or the shuttle-C timeline. If the former, then you get the estimates above. If the latter, then the ILV and the side-mounted SDV take about the same amount of time to develop.<br /><br />It seems to me that one of the primary advantages of the ILV is the upside potential. Yes, it costs more to develop and change the launch pad infrastructure, but these changes can also be used to support a Mars mission. If you go with the side-mounted approach, you may be stuck with only the Moon.

 

[nacnud]

So that would be $240M for the four needed for the SDV ILC. Ah I understand <img src="/images/icons/smile.gif" /><br /><br />$160M for the budget versions

 

[nacnud]

I was confused as well untill you mentioned the $60M figure. $240 per engine sounded excesive.

 

[ehs40]

sweet!!

 

[tmccort]

<br />astronautix says that the NOVA would have been able to put about 453 mt into LEO.<br /><br />So not quite, but I think 200 mt is still pretty respectable <img src="/images/icons/smile.gif" />

 

[grooble]

$160m for the 4 SSME's, how much will the SRB's cost each? how much for 6?<br /><br />