Your ultimate launch vehicle

[no_way]

Ultimate launch vehicle ?<br />Well thats an easy one : its cheap, cheap as in dollars per delta-V per kg of payload. For manned launches, its also moderately reliable.<br /><br />Whether its reusable, expendable, single-stage, ten-stage, solid, hybrid or liquid powered, is light, medium or heavy : i just dont care as long as its cheap.

 

[rogers_buck]

>> That sounds like a Shuttle Double-C configuration! <br /> <br />I like "shuttleC sandwich".

 

[paleo]

"I don't see Energia as a big dumb booster. A BIG booster, yes... but not dumb"<br /><br /> Good point. Dumb is making a system so complicated that success or failure is 'guessed at'. Just ask yourself how closely the next Shuttle launch will be monitored and why. It's because 'we just don't know'...not a way to run a space program. We shouldn't have to 'sigh with relief' in 2005 that a launch is successful.

 

[spacester]

But then there's the <i>good </i> kind of dumb, which is implied in BDB:<br /><br />Dumb as in you were too "stupid" to figure out all kinds of new ways to do it. So you "have to" just go with what you know works. You do it robustly for good reliability but since it's established technology, development costs are low. You're "too stupid" to run a standing army, so you get low costs of operations. You're too "dumb" to figure out how to reuse everything, so parts of your rocket are expendable. You can't figure out how to do cargo and people at the same time, so you don't do it.<br /><br />IOW, Dumb as in KISS<br /><br />A KISS approach would result in a lot fewer sighs of relief.<br /> <div class="Discussion_UserSignature"> </div>

 

[thalion]

I forgot about NERVA, which I think would be a great booster. However, I think it would be wasteful if the first stage weren't reused (which might be difficult on a rocket, especially a heavy one carrying radioactive material), so perhaps it would be better as a space-based technology.

 

[mattblack]

In the absence of an upgraded Saturn V:<br /><br />A BIG DUMB BOOSTER!!! Take a basic Shuttle E.T. structure and make an inline configuration: Put 3x RS-68 engines at the base to make a corestage and attach 2x 5-segment SRBs OR 4x Liquid Boosters with an RD-170 engine each. There should be an upper stage powered by 1x RS-68 engine and all this should yield a booster capable of lifting 150 tonnes to LEO and 50 tonnes to Earth Escape. You could mix-and-match the number of strap-on boosters and corestage engines to get different loads to orbit for different missions. For instance: a corestage with 2x RS-68s and an upper stage consisting of 4x RL-50 engines would get you 100 tonnes to LEO and 35 tonnes to Earth Escape (you'll notice that this is the same specs as the basic Energia design). <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>

 

[spacefire]

HL42 piggyback on the Venture Star(X33) <div class="Discussion_UserSignature"> <p>http://asteroid-invasion.blogspot.com</p><p>http://www.solvengineer.com/asteroid-invasion.html </p><p> </p> </div>