Need for a new Booster - Heavy-lifters for the future

Ad Astra · 2003-10-04 08:24:25

There have been numerous debates raging in this forum about building a shuttle-derived vehicle or reviving the moribund Energia to launch a Mars mission. While both these options are viable for a crash-program for getting to Mars, an all-new heavy lifter is needed for sustained exploration of space.

Both the shuttle stack and Energia were optimized for launching a laterally-mounted, 90 tonne spaceplane. This is not the way to maximize your payload. Starting from a clean slate of paper, the rocket designers would draft something where the engines, payload, and propellant were all in a straight line. The SDV and Energia would have to be redesigned and re-stressed to meet this payload configuration. And the SDV has the disadvantage of having its engines off-center and gimballing to match the thrust vector.

Strap-on boosters are also a problem in the event that one engine should fail. We've seen how bad an SRB failure would be. An LRB failure would cause a loss of control in the vehicle. It would be better to have just one first stage, like on the Saturn V, but perhaps dropping some booster engines on the way to orbit like the Atlas.

My "ideal" HLLV would look much like the Saturn V, except that the rocket would have only two stages. The first stage would first run on Kerosene, then drop its four booster engines and run on Hydrogen for the sustainer engines. The second stage would send the payload to the Moon, Mars, or an asteroid. Heavier but cheaper tankage would be used, making this rocket truly a "big dumb booster."

RobertDyck · 2003-10-04 09:45:12

Designing a new vehicle is always more expensive than adapting an existing one. Your arguments have merit, but it would cost money. The Ares is a Shuttle Derived Vehicle (SDV), but modifies the oxygen tank to be cylindrical instead of tear-drop shaped, and stacks the upper stage on top. That is Robert Zubrin's design. The engines of Ares are still off center, but the payload is on-center. Moving the engines would require rebuilding a Mobile Launch Platform (MLP); the exhaust holes are cut for the current shuttle engine locations. The Images and Charts section of the Mars Society main web page has this chart of Ares.

Both shuttle orbiters massed over 100 tonnes. The American Space Shuttle Orbiter masses 104.3 tonnes plus 28.8 tonnes of cargo, the Buran Orbiter massed 75 tonnes plus 30 tonnes of cargo. (Buran didn't have main engines; they were located on the Energia core module.) You can find out about Space Shuttle from NASA, and Buran from the Russian Manufacturer Molniya or Encyclopedia Astronautica.

The Energia has lifted an 88 tonne satellite to 200km orbit, but with its upper stage it is rated to lift 120 tonnes. The large option for Energia is known as Vulkan (pronounced Voolkan, with oo as in boot). It would use 4 RD-0120 engines mounted directly under the core stage, an upper stage with 1 RD-0120 engine, and 8 strap-on boosters. The core and upper stages use LOX/LH2 but the boosters each use a 4-chamber RD-170 engine with LOX/Kerosene. You can find data on the configuration as proposed in 1976 from Encyclopedia Astronautica, but I got a letter directly from the Rocket Space Corporation Energia that stated they would be willing to build Vulkan from modern Energia components. It would have 8 boosters, an upper stage with the same diameter as the core, and lift capacity of 170 tonnes to 200km orbit.

The bottom line with all this is money. You can build anything with enough money.

Ad Astra · 2003-10-05 08:42:12

Both Ares and Vulkan would require considerable new development because the cores of those boosters were not designed for an axially-mounted payload. My belief is that the money to redesign these existing launchers would be better spent towards an entirely new design that eliminates the flaws inherent in the older designs. Yes, we would be spending more money to build something new. But this is a long-term investment in our future that offers room for new growth.

Ian Flint · 2003-10-06 08:47:53

I think that we should modify the energia right now and get some people to Mars as soon as possible. What concerns me is the diameter of the payload for energia.

Energia and Ares could put a hab on top with a diameter of 6 - 8 meters. That is fine for the early explorers, but normal people are used to having a lot of floor space. When colonization begins I think we will need a Big Fat Booster.

Here's an idea that looked nice on my sketchpad, at least.

We start with a core booster with a diameter of 10 - 11 meters. The Saturn V was 10 meters wide. On top we put a hab 14 - 15 meters wide. And to finish it off we strap on two first stage boosters. These can start out as expendable and later be designed for fly back.

RobertDyck · 2003-10-06 09:25:07

Here's a better idea. Design the habitat to be inflatable. Astronauts only need a capsule large enough to enclose their seats during landing on Mars. I had argued for a reusable space habitat for Earth orbit to Mars orbit. Use a Mars Ascent Vehicle with Insitu Propellant Production on the surface of Mars, but only with a cabin large enough for seats and sample containers. In fact, don't even pressurize the cabin of the ascent vehicle; astronauts would ride in spacesuits and the cabin would act as a fairing to protect them from Mars atmosphere during ascent. Then the MAV would dock with the orbiting interplanetary spacecraft and boost it toward Earth. That means the MAV would be the Trans-Earth Injection stage. This permits the interplanetary habitat to be purpose-built for interplanetary travel. The surface habitat would not require a micrometeor shield since Mars surface does not have micrometeors; Mars has an atmosphere. The surface habitat would require protection from dust storms.

In terms of a launch vehicle, this means the final size of the surface habitat is not the launch size. We can then use a launch vehicle with a narrower diameter.

I think we should plan the first manned mission to Mars to either use Shuttle-C or Energia with no modification. In 1997 the cost to restore Energia to full production was between $60 and $100 million US dollars, and the cost per launch including the EUS Energia Upper Stage was $120 million. With the EUS it could lift 120 tonnes to LEO, but the EUS only had a diameter of 5.2 meters. The cost today would be substantially higher than 1997; the roof of the high bays of the Russian vehicle assembly building (building #112) collapsed on May 12, 2002. It hasn't been repaired since, so rain and snow would have caused further damage. The extra RD-0120 engines would have been stored in that building; we can hope the engines were stored in the low bays, but the low bays were used for staging ISS modules so probably not. In any event, according to the individual who was safety engineer for Energia when it was in production, the RD-0120 engine safety certification would have expired some time in 1997. I'm told the factories that build the engines kept all the jigs and tooling, but over time tools have a way of getting used for other projects.

Shuttle-C would use the existing vehicle assembly building at KSC, and the Shuttle's launch pads, MLP's and other launch facilities without modification. Shuttle-C would also use the existing external tank and SRB's without change, so you don't have to modify the production lines. It would use SSME's and OMS pods; and if the engine pod was made recoverable it could land at either KSC or the Salt Flats. (How accurate can you steer a parafoil? The paratroopers at air shows seam to land on a dime.) All those politicians who want to retain current jobs would be pleased that Shuttle jobs would be retained after Shuttle is replaced with a combination of OSP and EELV. I still think to replace Shuttle we also need a remotely piloted on-orbit tug. We also need an unmanned cargo craft to carry water, food, reboost ISS, and carry fuel for the tug. You can argue whether that cargo craft can be a combination of the Russian Progress and European ATV, or whether America needs to build one as well. Let's leave that argument for another thread. This thread is for a launch vehicle. Any new launch vehicle does have to be part of an integrated plan. You can't develop just a single vehicle as a stand-alone project without consideration for what it will be used for.

My argument is that Shuttle-C with 3 SSME's can provide the launch capability we need. Energia without its EUS could provide that same capability. Actually, the EUS would make a nice upper stage for Shuttle-C, and Shuttle-C would have a greater lift capacity than Energia without its EUS, so Shuttle-C with EUS would have an even greater lift capacity. Russian government doesn't want to invest money in Baikonur since it's in Kazakhstan, they want to shift launch operations to Plesetsk since it?s in Russia, so it might be easier to get everyone to agree to that. Oh, for those who like the RD-68 engine instead of SSME, one reason I like SSME is that it?s reusable.

dickbill · 2003-10-06 13:39:29

I think we should plan the first manned mission to Mars to either use Shuttle-C or Energia with no modification.

It is clear that the technical tools are there, they already exists or they need little development.
Just the need for such powerful launching capabilities doesn't exist yet. And the need is only the Mars exploration. I see nothing else which would require to launch 120 tons in a single shot. Do you ?

But rather to "invent stories to justify the invasion of Mars" it is better to say the truth: even if we discover a cathedral of pure gold on MArs, it would not worth to go there for that.
So, if some are tempted to claim loudly
"We know for sure that their is gold on Mars" or
"We have clear evidence that life does exist (or doesn't)" or again
"Martian life is a thread, we need to go there before a martian biological mushroom cloud is spread over New York (in the next 45 minutes)" or even better
"We have absolutely no doubt of the presence of ancient french rockets on MArs", no no no no, notin' of that is true, we have evidence of notin', rather we need to find good and true reasons to go there. I found one "justification" among other, which I will soon post in another thread but I am afraid it would not convince the US congress. But I think it might help.

Ad Astra · 2003-10-06 19:37:59

I agree that we need an interim heavy lifter that can be built with minimal modifications as soon as possible. Energia is a possible solution, but the infratructure has deteriorated so much that SDV might be cheaper because most of the components are in production. Perhaps the Delta or Atlas 5-meter payload shroud could even be used (with minor modifications) on the SDV to reduce costs for commercial and non-manned payloads. Adding a 5th segment to the SRBs would also be a growth option with minimal development cost.

If a manned Mars program has a launch rate similar to Apollo, it would justify using an interim heavy lifter (like an SDV) instead of a new design. But a few Mars Direct-type missions should be viewed as a foot in the door that might call for more frequent launches and a true big dumb booster. After all, a permanent base will need to be re-supplied. The more supplies, the better.

robcwillis · 2003-10-07 18:22:04

The charaterization of Energia as "moribund" is misleading. In fact, the most important element of the system remains in production, and continues to be launched on a regular basis. I refer to Zenit; in particular it's Boeing Sea Launch incarnation. RD-180(half an RD-170 as used on Zenit) is in production for use on all current versions of Atlas.

Perhaps two dozen RD-0120s were aparently being stored somewhere at MIK 112 at the time of the high bay roof collapse. However, a former Energia RSC employee told me that as far as he knew, almost 100 of these motors had been produced (including test stands). As for the safety certification having expired, it should not be difficult to service or refurbish the motors as required. The RD-0120 design centre/manufacturer Kosberg TKSB aparently still exsits, although I have no idea what they are doing at the moment. If adequate supplies of RD-0120 are not forthcoming, some combination of RS-68 and/or Vulkain 2 could be used for the core stage, with surplus SSME to power the upper/TMI stage on a modernized Vulkan configuration.

There has obviously been some deterioration of infrastructure; rusting launch pads etc., but many former Energia/Buran support facilities at Baikonur remain in relatively good condition, and new Energia launch facilites could be built by the ESA at Kourou. Although the original Energia/Buran teams have been largely broken up, these people can be tracked down. All detailed technical data and operating manuals have been preserved.

A modernized, internationally produced Energia derived system remains the best option to deliver Mars payloads equal to, or considerably greater than any SDV. Most major components of such a system can be drawn from current commercial production, or have commercial potential. Compared to SRB, the clean burning Zenit offers markedly superior specific impulse, true reusability, much lower relative dry mass, full range thrust control, and multiple start-stop capability. No contest.

Shaun Barrett · 2003-10-07 19:46:00

Welcome back, Robcwillis!!
I don't remember seeing you here for quite some time now.

RobertDyck · 2003-10-07 21:26:04

Welcome back Rob Willis. You're the one who told me there were 100 RD-0120 engines produced. I know that 4 engines were used to launch Buran the one time it went up. Another 4 were used to launch Polyus. A total of 12 were used on the 3 Energia core stages stored in the high bays of MIK (Russian acronym for Building of Assembly and Test) #112. That would leave 80 engines less however many were used for tests. It would be a shame if they were all wasted.

I checked the web site for Kosberg. The RD-0120 engine was fired 800 times for a total of 170,000 accumulated seconds including the two launches. The engine was rated for 500 second operation time. The chronology described by Encyclopedia Astroanutica indicates 2 test firings of Energia prior to launching Polyus. It appears both tests were the same vehicle that launched Polyus. That still raises the question of of how many engines were used for tests before integration with Energia.

I also advocated the Russian Energia until May 12, 2002. A salesman at Orbital Sciences tried to tell me the inside of the buildings showed the roof supports were rusting, but pictures from April 1997 and April 2002 showed a pristine building with no rust. It was less than 1 month after I argued with this salesman that Energia could be easily and inexpensively restored that MIK #112 collapsed. It shocked me into keeping my mouth shut. It is also a major destruction of infrastructure. More important are the announcements on NTV and Tass that the Russian government wants to discontinue use of Baikonur. Once Angara 5 is operational from Plesetsk they intend to discontinue Proton; just as the US discontinued Titan once the first Atlas V and Delta IV rockets were operational. I still don't see how they can launch Soyuz from Plesetsk to ISS. There are Soyuz launch pads there, but its latitude is 62?40' north, that's above the ISS inclination of 51.6?.

It's hard to continue to advocate Energia when the Russian government doesn't.

Ad Astra · 2003-10-08 06:18:18

One Energia problem that I never noticed until now was the lack of redundancy in the booster engines. Although the RD-170 series engines did go through a long test period to work out all of the problems inherent in a high thrust engine, the potential exists for an engine failure. In the event of engine failure on an Energia booster, control would probably be lost and the mission aborted.

The problem isn't extremely difficult to remedy. Replace the RD-170 with four of its single-chamber derivative, the RD-191. Again, this would mean more re-design. We would want to avoid re-designing the rocket until it no longer looks like an Energia.

robcwillis · 2003-10-08 09:44:08

Good Morning Mars folks. It's good to be back.

In addition to the lengthy and intense test programme, RD-170/171 has performed flawlessly on the dozens of Zenit/Sea Launch flights. It is without a doubt one of the most reliable rocket motors ever built. There is no serious lack of redundancy: each four chambered RD-170 is in many respects two seperate engines capable of semi-independant operation, hence the quick and easy development of RD-180. In particular, the Vulkan configuration can provide such enourmous excess thrust capacity that many premature shutdown or underthrust scenarios can be compensated by a combination thrust adjustments and gimballing of the various booster sets. SRB don't gimball.

To further address Ad Astra's redundancy concerns, pairs of Pratt and Whitney RD-180s could supplement the supply of Energomash RD-170s with little or no re-design of the Zenit. This is a better idea than sets of four RD-191s. Also, Energomash has continued development of the basic RD-170, including tests of RD-172.

More to come. Cheers.

Ad Astra · 2003-10-08 21:33:31

Having four separate thrust chambers in the RD-170 is a good start on dedundancy, but all four chambers are doomed if the common turbo machinery fails. Using two RD-180s gives you twice the redundancy in this area; four RD-191s gives you four times the redundancy. I can't help but remember back to Apollo 13 when they lost a second-stage engine but were able to continue the mission because they still had our good ones.

As for the RD-0120, I think it would not be worth using if the tooling was destroyed. The RS-68 is already in production and it offers more thrust anyway. I don't know how much redesign would be needed to mount four RS-68's to the Energia. It might be better in the end to scale up the Delta IV core by a factor of four and use that instead.

My feelings on the idea of a heavy lifter all boil down to economics. The total cost of vehicle development, construction, and operations must be weighed against the effectiveness of the booster. With an SDV, the development cost would be minimal, construction cost fairly low, but the operations would be somewhat pricey. With Energia, it is unknown whether development and construction would be low or moderate, depending on how much tooling was destroyed prior and during the hangar collapse (and I'm loathe to believe optimistic assessments by Energia officials--back in 2001, they boasted that they'd be resuming development of the booster only to back away from that announcement.) Cost of rebuilding the infrastructure would be moderate to high depending on the damage, and operational cost would probably be similar to the SDV.

With a new design, the development costs and the cost of building a new infrastructure will both be high, but the production cost could be made cheaper than either SDV or Energia. And advances in engines and materials would make this new booster more capable.

Clearly, there is a tradeoff here between using the old heavy lifters and a new one. My belief is that the added abilities and safety margins that can be built into a new booster justify the investment.

robcwillis · 2003-10-11 15:08:29

If the RD-170 is fitted with dual turbopumps (twin RD-180 equivilant), then the chances of both sets of turbo-machinery/gas generators failing in the same Zenit booster on any given flight are incredibly remote. What I agree is very useful is the ability, if need be, to burn the full propellant load if one of the two sets should fail.

No production of tooling of any kind was destroyed by the collapse at MIK 112 because no such tooling was ever there. The building was used only for the final assembly of the completed stages, and the mounting of the entire launch stacks on the TVA transporters.

RobertDyck · 2003-10-11 16:57:18

No production of tooling of any kind was destroyed by the collapse at MIK 112 because no such tooling was ever there. The building was used only for the final assembly of the completed stages, and the mounting of the entire launch stacks on the TVA transporters.

But where were the remaining RD-0120 engines stored? Are they intact? As for tooling, are you sure that KBKhA Kosberg hasn't used the tooling for something else? They developed the RD-0750 engine based on the RD-0120. Encyclopedia Astronautica states "Some components tested in RD-0120TD technology demonstration in cooperation with Aerojet." Kosberg's web site states

In 1993-1998 large volume of design, analysis, research and experimental works on development of three-propellant engine on the base of RD-0120 have been conducted as an initiative of KBKhA. The propellants of the engine are: liquid hydrogen, kerosene, liquid oxygen.
Studies and recommendations of the leading Russian R&D Institutes and foreign firms shown an economic feasibility of application of dual-mode three-propellant engines to advanced launch vehicles (especially single-staged) have become the ground for three-propellant engine works performance. The engine at the first mode operates on oxygen and kerosene with the small addition of hydrogen and at the second operational mode - with oxygen and hydrogen.
As a result of this work, for the first time, in practice of LRE development, three-propellant dual-mode preburner successfully bench tested in KBKhA and in RD0750D demonstrator conditions at NIICHIMMASH has been developed.

robcwillis · 2003-10-13 01:05:11

I don't know how many RD-0120s still exist, their exact status or location. Considering what EADS pays for Vulkain, what NASA pays for SSMEs and RS-68s, and what it cost to develop RD-0120; is it not reasonable to assume that they have been stored away as carefully as possible? It makes sense that only those scheduled for realatively immediate use would have been delivered to MIK 112 in the first place.

Even if the tooling is being used for something else along the lines you descibe, active rocket engine development at Kosberg suggests that bringing RD-0120 back into production remains possible. At least the tooling aparently still exists.

In the event that significant numbers do not remain intact, and/or funding cannot be found to restart production; there are good alternatives. An advanced Vulkan could mount two RS-68s and two Vulkain 2s on the core. This configuration has both technical and cost advantages over a set of four RS-68s.

RobertDyck · 2003-10-14 09:49:42

robcwillis, your arguements make sense but the sensible thing is not always done. There are many examples of dumb things done by space executives in both Russia and America. Rather than argue over what might be, why don't you find out. In December, 2000, I did write to RSC Energia and did get a response. The director of the international division responded from his office in Korolev, a suburb of Moscow. They set-up a display of their Energia rocket at the following Mars Society conference at Stanford. Why don't you contact KBKhA Kosberg and find out how many RD-0120 engines still exist, their location and condition, and the state of tooling to manufacture more. If everything is in as good condition as you say, then it will greatly benefit or efforts to get to Mars. While you're at it, ask them about the RD-0750 engine; that sounds like a good one as well. Please report your findings back to this message board.

I look forward to your findings.

robcwillis · 2003-10-14 14:58:51

Hello RobertDyck,

RSC Energia set up a display at the Stanford conference?? Thanks for mentioning it, but it was actually ME who set up and hosted that display! The 1/85 scale Super Vulkan with TVA was actually scratchbuilt by myself and a fellow Toronto Chapter member. As much as I would love to be on the Energia payroll, my little show-and-tell at Stanford was a purely volunteer effort undertaken at my own expense.

I have already made several attempts to find out about the exact status of the RD-0120s. These efforts have included contacting the likes of Mark Wade, James Oberg, Vadim Lukashevich, and Anatoly Zak. They all replied that they themselves were uncertain. On a somewhat unrelated note, several of my past attempts to contact various American aerospace corporations about their own products have resulted in responses rangeing from silence to outright paranoia. So much for a free and open society.

I'm extremely lazy. My Russian language skills are pathetic. Perhaps you could save me the trouble, and try to get in touch with Kosberg on our behalf? You might have as much luck with contacting them as you had with RSC Energia.

RobertDyck · 2003-10-14 17:43:21

RSC Energia set up a display at the Stanford conference?? Thanks for mentioning it, but it was actually ME who set up and hosted that display!

Oop! Sorry, someone who went to the conference mentioned it and assumed RSC Energia created the display. I wasn't able to attend that year.

GCNRevenger · 2003-10-14 22:02:46

Hmmmm I think i'll have to put my weight behind a SDV setup... Shuttle right now is the only vehicle that can lift 100 tons or so needed for a reasonable Mars ship, the only big problem with it is the insane fixation on reuseability, the boosters are a little underpowerd, and the fact that its main engines are unfortunatly built inside of a 80-ton airplane.

If old "used" SSME engines, the ones swapped/being swapped out for safer ones are laying around, lets use them... otherwise, instead of three SSMEs I would redesign to accomodate a pair of the nicer and cheaper RS-68s. The Shuttle-C concept ought to go on a diet as much as possible; if it doesn't need OMS engines drop them, if the Mars ship or Lunar base module can withstand liftoff or even better main engine torque, then omit the entire Shuttle-C design except for a nose cone and the engine "pod".

Lastly, use the updated "stretched" SRBs if at all possible, and if they can be made expendable and lighter like the Graphite/Epoxy motors on Delta IV/Atlas V, all the better. This would be especially nice if it would permit dropping the OMS engines off the Shuttle-C.

Current functioning infrastructure without having to make serious changes to the VAB or launch pad, only modest changes to the booster section, and 100 tons to orbit is all we really need to get us to Mars. In the future, a new super booster would obviously be nice, but chemical rockets are already pushing the limits of practical fuels themselves, so such a program might be better postponed until we create air-breathing scramjet boosters or the like.

RobertDyck · 2003-10-14 23:02:35

Welcome GCNRevenger. Reducing mass to the absolute minimum does reduce cost, however the OMS pods only mass 0.238 tonnes, and their fuel masses 10.9 tonnes. The Orbital Manoeuvring System is what circularises orbit, which means it keeps the payload in orbit. The cost of the OMS is insignificant compared to the rest of the launch vehicle, and its function is indispensable. You could replace the SSMEs with RD-0750 engines, which would permit replacing the SRBs with kerosene/LOX fuel tanks. A single set of engines with drop-off tanks could reduce launch mass. That would also permit replacing SRBs with graphite/epoxy tanks; the fact that kerosene is storable at room temperature makes it easily storable in composite tanks, and a MS member who is an aerospace engineer with Lockheed Martin told me that company has developed graphite/epoxy tanks compatible with LOX. The problem with such a design is that it means designing a new vehicle from scratch.

dickbill · 2003-10-15 07:55:56

I am not specialist, so it's not entirely clear for me why you guys fight to find what is better: the russian energia engines or the space shuttle engines, is that correct ?

From what you said it seems the russian design is better, but since it is russian (no offence here, but there is a big debate right now in the US about the jobs lost or moved to other countries) and since it is abandoned, why to worry ? Shuttle C or Z, as described many times in this forum, does the job.
I bet that when a Mars manned mission is announced "a la Kennedy", NASA will focuse on that C or Z versions of the space shuttle.

GCNRevenger · 2003-10-15 10:27:29

Hmmm from my rudimentary understanding of orbital mechanics, the SRB+SSME/RS-68 combo puts the payload/engine module section into an excessivly eliptical path, and thus requires the OMS engines to circularize?

If we aren't planning on making the engine module reuseable, and the OMS engine would only need to fire once or twice for a known time/thrust, then how about dropping the OMS engines with their expense and complexity and use scaled up cheap solid rockets, like the ones used to boost smaller satelites to GEO. I would think that the fewer moving parts involved, the better the reliability would be and the lower the cost. It would be ~really bad thing~ to send up a several billion dollar NTR/NEP transfer stage or Mars surface payload and lose it on the way up.

Lastly, I would have to agree that we ought to avoid any redesign of the SRB/fuel tank as much as possible outside more powerful boosters that are already half way here, including ommitting top-mounted payload setups or Shuttle-Z upper stage, and even though Russian hardware is more efficenct for Big Dumb Booster arrangements. Changing what we have already will add big money and big delay... A serious trip to Mars or a small Lunar city will be an expense thats hard to swallow already. The technology for Mars and Moon exsist TODAY, adding more unessesarry delay and expense make these future glory days that much further off.

robcwillis · 2003-10-16 09:02:41

We discuss the relative merits and availability of RD-0120, SSME, Shuttle ET, Vulkain 2, Kourou, KSC, RS-68, RD-170 etc., because that is what this stream is about. We are attempting to define the best, safest, most reliable, flexible and cost effective earth to orbit transport system required to support the most politically, technically and economically realistic near term programme for the Human exploration of Mars. Forgive me, but what does Russia's potential contribution of RD-0120s to such a programme have to do with "US jobs lost or moved to other coutries"?! Has the CSA's ISS Canadarm 2 caused job losses in Germany? Have Soyuz flights to the ISS resulted in layoffs at Lock Mart and/or EADS? Did shuttle flights to Mir result in layoffs at Krunichev and/or Mitsubishi? If the the ESA were to order EADS to start production of Energia derived core stages for an International Humans to Mars programme, exactly how would this harm the Japanese, American, or Chinese aerospace industries?

People, please try thinking out of the box. The widespread fixation on a 100% all American programme that utilizes only 100% American hardware, facilities, and personell is an enormous barrier on the road to Mars. Anyone who thinks that the rest of the planet will be willing to help fund such a scheme is insane. The current administration in clearly obsessed with spending every cent possible on the Mega-Death-Kill Money Burning Machine.....er... I mean..."Department of Defense". Dubya and Co. are busy maximising the deficeit to mind bending, nauseating, undreamed of heights. Under such cirmumstances, Congress will never be willing provide the enormous sums of money required for the U.S. to go it alone to Mars at any time in the forseeable future. An Energia derived, semi-reuseable, Big Smart Booster is the best launch vehicle concept ideally suited to international production and deployment. American's who reject the concept of an internationally funded and executed Mars programme in favor of an America Only plan seem to want all of nothing, rather than to be a big part of something.

dickbill · 2003-10-16 11:07:36

We discuss the relative merits and availability of RD-0120, SSME, Shuttle ET, Vulkain 2, Kourou, KSC, RS-68, RD-170 etc., because that is what this stream is about. We are attempting to define the best, safest, most reliable, flexible and cost effective earth to orbit transport system required to support the most politically, technically and economically realistic near term programme for the Human exploration of Mars.

Rob, I didn't mean that way, but more simply that it "seems" that NASA already has a heavy booster, in the form of ShuttleC, so why to look away of it ?
I am not specialist again, maybe the energia configuration is way superior, it must be good apparently. Understand that I have nothing against international cooperation or russian cooperation. If you were talking about the Ariane5 as much as the energia, I would be similarly surprised (by the way, are you refering to Ariane vulkain engines, or is that another vulkain that you mentioned) , because In a way it's like saying: yes Shutlle C is good ... but not so good finally compared to this or that.
I understand that you guys are interested to find the best technical solution and that's great.
I just needed a feed back on that question that Shutlle C is not gonna be, necesseraly or so obviously as I thought it was, the heavy lifter that's the Mars manned mission needs.

American's who reject the concept of an internationally funded and executed Mars programme in favor of an America Only plan seem to want all of nothing, rather than to be a big part of something.

When I wrote the stuff about the jobs lost, yes, It wast with a political view. I had in mind the program Apollo and the actual endless political discussions about the situation of the US economy. If you want to interest the US public, maybe it would be good to include a project that will have a positive technological effect on the US economy, even in the long term, as did the Apollo project. Because you need to SALE the idea to the US public. If too much of russian, or european technology is included into a US led Mars mission, the conservative in the US gonna say STOP ! You cannot just ignore the conservative feelings just because you don't agree with them, they are a big part of America. Politic matters too.

Unless that mission becomes really international of course, with a "huge coalition" a la Dubya.

New Mars Forums

Announcement

#1 2003-10-04 08:24:25

Re: Need for a new Booster - Heavy-lifters for the future

#2 2003-10-04 09:45:12

Re: Need for a new Booster - Heavy-lifters for the future

#3 2003-10-05 08:42:12

Re: Need for a new Booster - Heavy-lifters for the future

#4 2003-10-06 08:47:53

Re: Need for a new Booster - Heavy-lifters for the future

#5 2003-10-06 09:25:07

Re: Need for a new Booster - Heavy-lifters for the future

#6 2003-10-06 13:39:29

Re: Need for a new Booster - Heavy-lifters for the future

#7 2003-10-06 19:37:59

Re: Need for a new Booster - Heavy-lifters for the future

#8 2003-10-07 18:22:04

Re: Need for a new Booster - Heavy-lifters for the future

#9 2003-10-07 19:46:00

Re: Need for a new Booster - Heavy-lifters for the future

#10 2003-10-07 21:26:04

Re: Need for a new Booster - Heavy-lifters for the future

#11 2003-10-08 06:18:18

Re: Need for a new Booster - Heavy-lifters for the future

#12 2003-10-08 09:44:08

Re: Need for a new Booster - Heavy-lifters for the future

#13 2003-10-08 21:33:31

Re: Need for a new Booster - Heavy-lifters for the future

#14 2003-10-11 15:08:29

Re: Need for a new Booster - Heavy-lifters for the future

#15 2003-10-11 16:57:18

Re: Need for a new Booster - Heavy-lifters for the future

#16 2003-10-13 01:05:11

Re: Need for a new Booster - Heavy-lifters for the future

#17 2003-10-14 09:49:42

Re: Need for a new Booster - Heavy-lifters for the future

#18 2003-10-14 14:58:51

Re: Need for a new Booster - Heavy-lifters for the future

#19 2003-10-14 17:43:21

Re: Need for a new Booster - Heavy-lifters for the future

#20 2003-10-14 22:02:46

Re: Need for a new Booster - Heavy-lifters for the future

#21 2003-10-14 23:02:35

Re: Need for a new Booster - Heavy-lifters for the future

#22 2003-10-15 07:55:56

Re: Need for a new Booster - Heavy-lifters for the future

#23 2003-10-15 10:27:29

Re: Need for a new Booster - Heavy-lifters for the future

#24 2003-10-16 09:02:41

Re: Need for a new Booster - Heavy-lifters for the future

#25 2003-10-16 11:07:36

Re: Need for a new Booster - Heavy-lifters for the future

Board footer