The Myth of Heavy Lift - (Let the fight begin...)

Bill White · 2004-06-25 08:46:51

Now why do you suppose the Shuttle has SRBs?

Yet SRBs are 99.5%+ reliable. After Challenger modifications, none have failed.

How much do SRBs cost? The one link suggests $30M each. How much additional mass can we get into LEO for that $30M?

= = =

Edit: http://www.optipoint.com/far/farbdb.htm]This site proposes making SRBs out of fiberglass or carbon fiber.

If SRBs were deemed 100% expendable would that lower the cost per pound for cargo to LEO via shuttle B/C?

How about a re-useable carbon fiber SRB?

As a rule of thumb, 1 kg of carbon fiber will replace 5 kg of steel. Thus, if the SRB caseing were made of carbon fiber (why not ? - they are being refilled), our percentage would theoretically not be 13 but 2.5! Fiber glass is heavier, but still the gain is substantial. A percentage of 5 seems possible. Immagine a BDB with a 5% structural weight

Okay, what am I missing here?

Grypd · 2004-06-25 16:09:57

The shuttle srbs are not a cheap option i really wish they where.
To make real economic sense would it be possible to create a launcher that cost quite a bit of cash in development but was cheap to use regularily. Or something we could build quickly but still costs the 500 to 600 million$ for each use.

I think the shuttle c is a decent design but it Can be improved and it really if private enterprise was given free reign a good chance to be a lot lot cheaper.

By this we mass produce items we loose the cost plus system, and it is allowed to be sold to private concerns

GCNRevenger · 2004-06-25 16:54:00

Ooooohkay, lets think for a minute...
-AMERICAN rockets, engineers, facilities
-FOREIGN administration

Um. No... The red tape involved would reach such a mass that its gravity would cause it to implode on itself and create a black hole, destroying the Earth and killing all life.

Back to rockets...

Mmmm unfortunatly those minerals aren't the fuel, they're the exhaust (aluminum oxide). SRBs like on Shuttle are powerd mainly by Ammonium Perchlorate (70% by weight) with some Aluminum powder and butyl rubber as a binder. Neither of these chemicals besides the Aluminum powder are available on the Moon.

The Shuttle SRBs are a little pricey, but how pricey are they compared to a comperable EELV shot? Particularly to make the EELV an offical "man rated" system is the question... I personally am not keen on the SRB-CEV idea, since a large SRB has no "off switch" and tend to fail in a "big way," but it is a valid argument that the SRB is the most reliable large rocket available in the US inventory.

I don't think that turning over the "SDV program" to private enterprise entirely is such a good idea, the current arrangement between NASA and the Shuttle contractors (Boeing, LM, Thiokol, et al) works pretty well, its just that the vehicle they are trying to fly is fatally flawed. They know all about the Shuttle hardware already, plus the contractors know about expendable rockets already, give them a little time with minimal politics and they can come up with a great vehicle.

Interesting stuff from that link Bill...

I still put my money on a side-mount Shuttle-C with a pair of RS-68's and 5-segment boosters with a small OMS engine (Shuttle's or maybe the X-37 one). 100MT would be just about right for NASA's DRM-III mission arcitecture.

However, the idea of building current EELVs with larger fuel tanks is also interesting, and if Shuttle-C will wind up costing a pretty penny per-flight, then these vehicles would be great for Lunar missions or for launching medium payloads (large probes, Mars or Lunar payloads to tugs & cyclers).

Right now cramming a minimal CEV ("American Soyuz", just for LEO trips) onto a current EELV without resorting to multiple engines (reducing reliability) is questionable, but I wonder if by using the EELVs with bigger tanks, would this make a single first stage with no boosters enough to lift it?

Don't know if I like the idea of a giant five-barrel/double-engine(?) Atlas-V or a Mega Delta-IV/"Delta-V" tripple-barrel with a gaggle of little SRBs.

Bill White · 2004-06-25 17:01:14

The shuttle srbs are not a cheap option i really wish they where.

SRBs run $30 to $35 million each. ( According to this source: http://www.orbit6.com/crisf/text/shc_to … hc_tom.htm ) It may be out of date.

It appears to me that 40,000 lbs to LEO would require 2 RL-10s on top of an SRB. How much would 2 RL-10s cost?

With astronautix down I cannot verify.

Musk intends to use 1 RL-10 in his Falcon V and to charge $20 million for the entire flight and deliver 20,000 lbs to LEO.

If 2 RL-10s cost $20 million and the combo could put 40,000 pounds in LEO, that would mean less than $2,000 per pound for an all-American medium lift launch vehicle.

40,000 lbs x $1,500 = $60,000,000 right?

A single SRB plus a cryogenic upper stage could be as inexpensive as Zenit-2 for cargo.

= = =

As cheap as alt-space promises to be? Well, maybe not.

Falcon V promises 20,000 lbs for $20,000,000 which is $1,000 per pound. $1,500 per pound to lift a 40,000 lb facility and avoid on-orbit assembly seems like a good deal.

= = =

http://www.spacequest.com/Articles/The% … .doc]Great essay on Elon Musk and Falcon 1 and V.

Falcon V is his new booster plus one RL-10 yet is small medium, lifting at most 20,000 lbs.

One SRB plus 2 RL-10s (or RL-60?) allegedly could lift 40,000 lbs at Zenit prices.

$1500 per pound versus $1000 per pound to send your stuff up in 40K chunks rather than 20K chunks? What is the cost of on-orbit assembly?

Falcon V for crew taxi. $1000 per pound.

SRB + RL-60s for medium lift up to 40,000 pounds.

Shuttle C with RS-68s up to what, 150,000 pounds?

Stretched ET, 5 segment SRBs and a big upper stage for 200,000 pounds plus.

A nice menu of launch options.

Grypd · 2004-06-25 17:12:39

You do know that when the shuttle srb's where first proposed there where cheaper safer options on the table.
But the then president (Nixon) went with thiokol as it was based in Utah and the then senator........

But as it proves they can be created cheaper the central tank is reasonably cheap and it would be easy to turn the shuttle C into a reasonably cheap option certainly real savings can be created and with those savings a realistic mature space infrastructure can be created.

Oh and i agree with GCNRevenger (much as it pains) if you add more goverments than 1 or 2 into a deal it becomes harder and harder to get consensus and we have those horrible cost overuns.
But, if we create a contract to deliver a product by a group of goverments with set agendas it can be done.
But if you allow too much interference and cost checking you get like what has happened to the Euro fighter typhoon over budget, over delayed, under equipped, over priced, goverments withdrawing from the project. It would be easier to set a contract and allow the bidding.

Bill White · 2004-06-25 17:16:22

You do know that when the shuttle srb's where first proposed there where cheaper safer options on the table.
But the then president (Nixon) went with thiokol as it was based in Utah and the then senator........

Yes, I have read that. . . ???

But, the SRB has flown over 200 times and only one failed.

And after the Challenger upgrades its surely safer than before. And, do we really want to start from scratch?

= = =

Different direction.

Super-heavy Ariane, http://www.marssociety.de/emc/proceedin … a.pdf]here.

Grypd · 2004-06-25 18:25:05

But the SRB as originally planned would not have failed as did Challengers! It was of single piece design and as it would have been made in florida it would have been cheaper to use.

We need a cheap heavy lift option the ESA Ariane 5 m has the problem that it is a lot more likely to fail, It carries less cargo to orbit and none of it is reusable and at 1.2 Billion Euros it and its development cost mean that the Shuttle C seems to be winning at the moment.

JimM · 2004-06-26 05:32:20

Super-heavy Ariane, here.

We need a cheap heavy lift option the ESA Ariane 5 m has the problem that it is a lot more likely to fail, It carries less cargo to orbit and none of it is reusable and at 1.2 Billion Euros it and its development cost mean that the Shuttle C seems to be winning at the moment.

The Shuttle or anything derived from it is cursed. The design and execution is fundamentally flawed. And it's not just Shuttle that's cursed, any project built and run by the iron triangle of NASA and its cost-plus pals Boeing and Lockheed Martin is going to cost the earth by the time it gets finished--if it ever gets finished. Why? Because they have zero interest in doing things the cheap way. Why should they? If you get paid on a cost-plus basis, the more it ends up costing the more profit you make--and with public and politicians trained to believe and accept that space is extremely, extortionately expensive, why dissolution them?

What's to be done to overcome this monopoly (and it is an effective monopoly in the US) that amounts to a total roadblock on real progress in space? The answer--the only answer I can see-- is have space move forward somewhere else, enough to frighten the US out of its complacent slumber withe the iron triangle. Today there is only one organisation that has both the knowledge and the money to do this, and that's ESA. (Especially if it can bring in the Russians as 'honorary members', which takes care of getting people up and down from orbit.)

Therefore yes, I'm extremely interested in Mars Society Deutschland's plan to use a European Very Heavy Launcher (which could lift more to LEO than Shuttle C, BTW) derived from Adriane 5 as the basis of a Zubrin-style expedition to Mars. It does not seem to depend on American technology for any of its major components, so if it happened it would break the Iron Triangle's monopolist grip on space by providing serious competition from a non-American yet western organization. (Rather like Boeing and Airbus, if you like.) To get the best results, competition is a necessity. If you don't believe that, you were probably on the wrong side during the Cold War.

-----------

You say none of this ESA vehicle is reusable but imply some of Shuttle C is.

Maybe, but it costs more to reuse the reusable bits than throwing them away would.

(1) It costs more to recover and refurbish a SRB than a new SRB costs.

(2) If Shuttle C is powered by SSMEs, the first question is why? How many little old ladies are you planning on hoisting to orbit on board Shuttle C? The second thing is that SSMEs cost about $55 million each, and you are bound to lose some. The third thing is that those you don't lose will require special, and heavy, re-entry shielding, parachutes, etc. The fourth thing is that each SSME requires to be effectively rebuilt after each flight, at very considerable expense. The fifth thing is there are better and cheaaper (cheaper than refurbishing SSMEs) conventional engines available off the shelf.

So, nothing of Shuttle C is truly worth recovering. And so by now it really is very unlike Shuttle indeed. I have always said that at this point in the space business, reusablity is a snare and delusion, at best no more than extremely expensive pandering to fashion.

Bill White · 2004-06-26 08:42:38

You say none of this ESA vehicle is reusable but imply some of Shuttle C is.
Maybe, but it costs more to reuse the reusable bits than throwing them away would.

We need to follow this logic more. Is re-useable really cheaper?

And yes, there is lots of shady political history behind the segmented SRBs, but after 200+ flights (2 per orbiter) the simple truth is that Thiokol has made them perhaps the most reliable booster America has.

Any disagreement that a lone SRB plus RL-10s or equal could put 35,000 - 40,000 pounds into LEO for less than $2,000 per pound?

A start up American company could buy an SRB off the shelf, buy RL-10s off the shelf, construct a bare bones launch pad in the Carribean and then compete with Zenit on cost for sending bulk supplies into LEO.

= = =

It seems to me that this is very much the Russian approach.

Take tried and true technology and use it, over and over.

How "old" is the Soyuz R-7 booster anyways?

RobertDyck · 2004-06-26 09:31:04

How "old" is the Soyuz R-7 booster anyways?

According to Encyclopedia Astronautica:
The first successful test flight of the R-7 ICBM was August 21, 1957. There were failures before that. It launched Sputnik on October 4, 1957. However the design has not remained static, R-7 is now a family of launch vehicles with various upgrades. Studies for the Soyuz launch vehicle began in 1962 and first launched November 28, 1966. Soyuz FG is the latest incarnation, its first launch was May 20, 2001.

GCNRevenger · 2004-06-26 10:53:08

I don't think NASA is going to get a "space race" kick in the pants any time soon from anybody, the Europeans lack the money and political will even more than we do, Russia is broke, China is still up & coming... the ESA contractors aren't somehow magicly immune from this "profit" thing either Jim, the ESA pays Aerospatiale big bucks to make & develop those medium Ariane rockets that keep blowing up.

"...perhaps I can find new ways to MOTIVATE them." -Darth Vader

Now, while NASA has no competition, they have somthing almost as good nipping at their heels: the worthlessness of the ISS, Shuttle, and all other manned flights compared to their costs, in both dollars and blood, has finally caught up to NASA. Now that the old gravy trains are on death row NASA will need somthing new to justify its exsistence as a manned spaceflight entity, instead of just a $1-2Bn robots, telescopes, and airplane agency.

The cancelation of the OSP program, Shuttle having 15 years of life axed, ISS involvement curtailed to abandonment... its not going to be business as usual this time, NASA has no choice but to do the next thing on humanities' travel itinerary, and thats to leave orbit... or there won't be a NASA anymore. No Shuttle, no ISS, no Congressional justification to keep spending $11Bn on manned flight programs a year - they just won't be able to justify the cost anymore to their fellow Congressmen anymore without "a new thing."

Oh yes, and I would like to note, that The New Thing can be just as open-ended as the Shuttle/ISS debacle... that if we resolve to eventually go and not come back, there is no Apollo "mission accomplished." NASA will have to change its ways, like hiring the F-35 project head, giving O'Keefe the power to eliminate field centers, and now having a clear-ish destination I don't think its unreasonable to believe they will also change how they assign contracts.

Back to rockets...

Hey, isn't it great that the "Shuttle" part in "Shuttle-C" will be gone Jim? The cost of making the orbiter fly is probobly the major chunk of the cost involved with each flight of the stack. There is nothing wrong with the external tank, you could call it "Saturn-V derived," and as Bill pointed out the SRBs are our most reliable rocket available now in a 5-segment version. Nothing wrong with the Pad/Crawler/VAB either, same one used to fly Saturn. And best of all, the thing doesn't have to be man rated at all, eliminating a great deal of money there too.

The solution to avoiding SSME reuseability issues and cargo bay weight is not use SSMEs or a Shuttle-style cargo bay. Use a Titan-IV style payload faring, put that on top of an expendable engine pod with a pair of Boeing's $15M RS-68 engines, include a small engine for orbital adjustment, and use EELV-derived FCS hardware. And throw it all away.

So your right, it won't be like Shuttle, it will be like the post-Saturn NOVA concepts... 100MT to orbit for under $500M is a possible and you wouldn't have to throw away all the exsisting useful infrastructure and knowhow.

Europeans: The idea of making a giant Ariane-V/DRM-III knockoff seems a little hair-brained to me considering its lousy reliability and the whole thing smells a little of "well, if the Americans want to do it alone, so can we." ...cute to note the cost comparison to Gulf War II.

I am a little curious about what the Atlas-V could do with stretch fuel tanks, RL-60 upper stage engine, and small SRBs. Could it reach 40MT-50MT to orbit without exceeding its $100-150M launch cost? Boeing already makes a twin RL-10 upper stage alternatly, and this probobly wouldn't cost that much for a tank upgrade... If so, then it might make an excelent rocket for near-term Lunar missions, and in the distant-er future a cargo launcher for a Mars cycler.

Still skeptical about Elon Musk, anybody notice how the Falcon-I's payload has mysteriously shrunk? Maybe his rocket is succombing to weight-creep... Oh and unless his RL-10 cryogenic model of the Falcon-V can increase his payload to LEO by 50%-100% versus LOX/RP1, then he can forget about manned launches or ISS cargo flights... If his rocket will fly at all (he wants to build it next year?).

SpaceNut · 2005-02-14 06:16:36

Lots of news article on the successful launch.
Europe's Ariane Heavy Rocket Takes Off

Is this also the site for the new russian launch capability as well?

Europe's Ariane 5 super-rocket lifted off Saturday from Kourou, French Guiana

The commercial interest in the ECA is productivity. A launch costs about 150 million euros (195 million dollars), so if two or three satellites can be launched in one go, the costs per satellite are far cheaper than with a single payload.

Other heavy lift players

There is Boeing's Delta 4 Heavy, which made its test flight last December 21, with the capacity to put between 6.4 and 24 tonnes of cargo into space depending on the distance to orbit.
There is also Lockheed Martin's Atlas 5, which made its inaugural flight in 2002, and which has an advertised payload capacity of between 4.9 and 20.5 tonnes.

Grypd · 2005-02-15 11:39:10

The Arianne 5 is designed as a pure satelite launcher but it does not mean ESA has plans for a more capable heavy launcher. The Arianne 5 is designed to get Europe back into the satelite launching buisness with more capability by launching more than one satelite at once.

Still for ESA to go to the Moon as part of its Aurora programme needs a lot heavier launcher (see mars society Germany) or a team effort with someone like the Russians. And with the Russians recently touting Energia again though it will cost Billions of Euros to get going again.

GCNRevenger · 2005-02-15 14:39:51

Actually, the Ariane ECA has about the same lifting capacity as the hypothetical Delta-IV+ "super heavy." It would be big enough to launch a Lunar vehicle and then its TLI stage seperatly, mate in orbit, and head to Lunar orbit.

Euler · 2005-02-15 15:59:29

Ariane ECA is smaller than a normal Delta IV heavy. In fact, even Ariane ECB is still slightly less powerful than Delta IV heavy.

GCNRevenger · 2005-02-15 16:18:35

Is it? I thought that it was more powerful then that.

Euler · 2005-02-15 16:33:45

launcher GTO payload
Ariane 5g 6,800 kg
Ariane ECA 10,500 kg
Ariane ECB 12,000 kg
Delta IV heavy 12,757 kg

Did they reduce the estimated payload for the Delta IV recently? I thought it used to be 13,130 kg, but now Boeing's site says it is 12,757 kg, and Astronautix says that it is only 10,843 kg.

GCNRevenger · 2005-02-15 16:53:11

Hmmmm... I wonder if that differs with how many engines in the upper stage, and if the payload faring weight is included. I also thought that the Ariane rockets' LEO payload was relativly much greater then its GTO payload then Delta-IV HLV.

Anyway, the Ariane rocket is almost powerful enough for a small Lunar mission, something its size or a little bigger could pull it off.

Ad Astra · 2005-02-15 21:09:09

Ariane 5G only failed its first launch, due to loading software for the Ariane 4.

What about the failure of the first Ariane 5 EC-A? The first stage nozzle was deemed to be too flimsy for the flight, as it failed on the way up.

Ariane V has had its fair share of problems too. The challenge for Arianespace is to make sure these are flukes rather than the result of systematic problems in vehicle design, prouction, integration, and launch.

RobertDyck · 2005-02-16 00:00:22

O...k, I guess I have to respond now. Quoting from an 8 month old post, yet. My CD version of Astronautix only lists Ariane 5 launches through July 12, 2001. Yes, Ariane 5 ECA failed its first launch. That makes 2 failures. I believe at the time I made that post someone was trying to claim Ariane was unreliable.

According to the Arianespace web site, Ariane 5 ECA can lift 9,600kg to GTO, but Astronautix says it can lift 10,500kg to GTO at 7° inclination. Arianespace doesn't specify inclination, and the launcher has options for payload fairing length and structural busses for satellite attachment or to carry multiple satellites. Astronautix also says Ariane 5 ECA can lift 16,000kg to 407km orbit at 51.6° inclination; that's ISS's orbit. Before the Columbia accident, Shuttle was capable of lifting 16,050kg to ISS. It appears Ariane 5 ECA is competition for Shuttle, at least for cargo, and competition for Proton. I don't think the match is an accident.

Yang Liwei Rocket · 2005-02-16 04:05:49

Ariane ECB 12,000 kg
Delta IV heavy 12,757 kg
Did they reduce the estimated payload for the Delta IV recently? I thought it used to be 13,130 kg, but now Boeing's site says it is 12,757 kg, and Astronautix says that it is only 10,843 kg.

I'm not usre what happened to Delta-4 Heavy but I recall reading some time back on places like spaceref and spacedotcom about some problems it was having. The older Delta left a satellite in lopsided orbit, second stage engine failed to relight. One recent launch had a big underspeed, a premature engine shutdown and they were still trying to find the faults in Jan 2005, the Delta IV heavy dummy satellite didn't get going right.

I wouldn't worry about it too much because both Lockheed Martin's Atlas launcher and the Boeing Delta rocket have been fantastic rockets in the past. No nation can compare to the number of flights, deep space probes, and craft launched by NASA.

However there is now a focus on the return of shuttle, and this could be a future problem as the shuttle can face dangers when it goes on difficult missions. Right now China is trying to push ahead their space program they have a freindship with Russia, the Chinese are doing a joint Double-Star mission with ESA and they have a good relationship with USA. Chinese however have been far behind in Space and may need some years or decade to catch up. The Europeans may also be trying to push forward their designs and develop better rockets for the future, a lot of times Europe does joint training with its Astronauts in Russia and they do co-operative projects with the US and NASA has lauched ESA missions to Space. Today the ESA may perhaps be looking to launch all their own projects next, become more independant. The are maybe doing improvemenst on their rockets and have done various launches for XXM, Hipparcos, Envisat, Giotto, Smart-1 and so forth, so perhaps as Europe looks more to the Moon and Mars they may improve the Ariane again. As GCNR said in the ' HLLV essay ' thread, the old Energia-Bruan is buried, and the factory roof has collapsed, and ESA doesn't have the goal of manned missions yet plus an Ariane-M type design would take billions of dollars / euros to build. However ESA does have many future missions planned and do have a goal for other explorations they have more money than Russia and surely been looking into launchers for these.Yet Russia is of course doing other stuff, the Russian with their Soyuz may soon be launching from the ESA laucnh pad in South America. As far as I can tell the Russians have been doing agreements with Kouru in French Guiana and the Arianespace and this will allow the Russians to launch more and leave more Space for Space Tourism. Russians also plan to launch the Klipper or Clipper it reminds me of the old Soviet plan for a Buran and Polus during the time of the USSR Empire. Russia will show their Kliper at the air show in French Le Bourget, as for its launch method I'm not sure the Russians already have their Soyuz, I don't think they'll have it lifted by a Angara but with all the wording from Russian news sources it seem the Energia rocket may return someday soon.

NASA has been the king of Space, it won the Space race against the Soviets. Its rockets have been fantatsic and they have done incredible missions, but other nations are growing fast. Can NASA afford another mishap or a large failure like what happened with shuttle, this would be very bad. That's why I think it's important that it all goes well in these next months ahead. I know that NASA has been considering launching astronauts in a Crew Exploration Vehicle aboard either the Boeing Delta 4 or Lockheed Martin Atlas 5. The shuttle return is going to be very important, but it is not without big risks.

NASA is ahead now, and it has some of the best rocket designs but if another mistake were to happen then its likely that other nations are going to catch up fast.

Grypd · 2005-02-16 15:38:28

Though China is more friendly with its neighbour its a simple case of economics that has caused it. Russia has resources and Oil, China needs it.

But it is also this economics that ensures China will now have to pay a lot lot more to get its hands on Rusian space expertise. And it also means with a more forceful and powerful Russia that for China to get its ability to launch using what we call heavy lift it will have to design it itself.

But saying that it can do it. And it can use the experience and mistakes of all the other space agencies to be able to get a quick boost.

Grypd · 2005-02-17 17:54:25

But with ESA being involved with Russia and its capacity to develop new engines what would the likehood of an Arianne class with a Russian engine being made.

And this is for GCN what sort of performance would they get from such a collaboration.

GCNRevenger · 2005-02-17 19:03:24

Well, they wouldn't gain much of anything. If you put Russia's biggest cryogenic engine on the Ariane-V, it wouldn't help much at all since the Vulcain-II engine is already pretty powerful. Modern engines have really reached the limits of what practical, stable chemical fuels can do... its just a matter of how big your rocket is. Ariane-V is not that big.

Swapping out the SRMs for Zenit straptons might increase the payload to match the Delta-IV+ "Super heavy," but probobly not much more then this.

Hardly enough to do the Moon, definatly not enough for Mars.

dickbill · 2005-02-17 21:11:19

matter of how big your rocket is. Ariane-V is not that big.
Swapping out the SRMs for Zenit straptons might increase the payload to match the Delta-IV+ "Super heavy," but probobly not much more then this.
Hardly enough to do the Moon, definatly not enough for Mars.

Not enough to Mars...it depends.
In the "case for mars" one of Zubrin's idea is to make the manned mission to Mars step by step. Put the Habitat first with the In situ propellant reactor and accumulates enough fuel for a return. Note that in the "Case", zubrin included several tons of H2 to make the CH4/O2 mixture with the Sabatier reactor.
This is no longer necessary since we know there is plenty of ice easily accessible in the upper latitudes, meaning H2 and O2 through electrolysis. Robert Dyck said about 13 tons to mars insertion can be sent from a single Ariane V, roughly it means maybe 10 tons on the floor. And "maybe" 10 tons on the floor is now enough since theoritically, the fuel for the return can be completely synthetized in situ. These 10 tons would be entirely devoted to the HAB module and harware.

For the manned spaceship, maybe 2 or 3 modules like this would be necessary, included a nuclear reactor. So, im my opinion, even a Mars mission is feasible with ArianeV. It's just a matter of how many ArianeV you need.
Here on that link ESA even described an ArianeV ES ATV needed to resupply the ISS, with a maximum of 21 tons in low earth orbit :
http://www.esa.int/export/SPECIALS/Laun … ..._0.html

and in this site a description of a future reusable launcher that looks like a compact space shuttle :
http://www.esa.int/export/SPECIALS/Laun … GQD_0.html

Clearly, you go to Mars with the space fleet you have, not the space fleet you whish to have, to quote somebody famous.
I bet that if you ask Zubrin, he still stands to its 15 billions bill for the MArs mission. And I believe he is right.

New Mars Forums

Announcement

#26 2004-06-25 08:46:51

Re: The Myth of Heavy Lift - (Let the fight begin...)

#27 2004-06-25 16:09:57

Re: The Myth of Heavy Lift - (Let the fight begin...)

#28 2004-06-25 16:54:00

Re: The Myth of Heavy Lift - (Let the fight begin...)

#29 2004-06-25 17:01:14

Re: The Myth of Heavy Lift - (Let the fight begin...)

#30 2004-06-25 17:12:39

Re: The Myth of Heavy Lift - (Let the fight begin...)

#31 2004-06-25 17:16:22

Re: The Myth of Heavy Lift - (Let the fight begin...)

#32 2004-06-25 18:25:05

Re: The Myth of Heavy Lift - (Let the fight begin...)

#33 2004-06-26 05:32:20

Re: The Myth of Heavy Lift - (Let the fight begin...)

#34 2004-06-26 08:42:38

Re: The Myth of Heavy Lift - (Let the fight begin...)

#35 2004-06-26 09:31:04

Re: The Myth of Heavy Lift - (Let the fight begin...)

#36 2004-06-26 10:53:08

Re: The Myth of Heavy Lift - (Let the fight begin...)

#37 2005-02-14 06:16:36

Re: The Myth of Heavy Lift - (Let the fight begin...)

#38 2005-02-15 11:39:10

Re: The Myth of Heavy Lift - (Let the fight begin...)

#39 2005-02-15 14:39:51

Re: The Myth of Heavy Lift - (Let the fight begin...)

#40 2005-02-15 15:59:29

Re: The Myth of Heavy Lift - (Let the fight begin...)

#41 2005-02-15 16:18:35

Re: The Myth of Heavy Lift - (Let the fight begin...)

#42 2005-02-15 16:33:45

Re: The Myth of Heavy Lift - (Let the fight begin...)

#43 2005-02-15 16:53:11

Re: The Myth of Heavy Lift - (Let the fight begin...)

#44 2005-02-15 21:09:09

Re: The Myth of Heavy Lift - (Let the fight begin...)

#45 2005-02-16 00:00:22

Re: The Myth of Heavy Lift - (Let the fight begin...)

#46 2005-02-16 04:05:49

Re: The Myth of Heavy Lift - (Let the fight begin...)

#47 2005-02-16 15:38:28

Re: The Myth of Heavy Lift - (Let the fight begin...)

#48 2005-02-17 17:54:25

Re: The Myth of Heavy Lift - (Let the fight begin...)

#49 2005-02-17 19:03:24

Re: The Myth of Heavy Lift - (Let the fight begin...)

#50 2005-02-17 21:11:19

Re: The Myth of Heavy Lift - (Let the fight begin...)

Board footer