What's the Biggest Rocket Concievable? - How big can you really build it?

publiusr · 2005-08-24 16:42:50

You wouldn't need very many for a durable station. In the era of Kansei, Three Gorges, the Burj Dubai skyscraper--and Troll--it is actually modest--and simpler to build than most ships. MLLV would carry more--but would have cost more.

Sea Dragon used cheaper shipbuilding tech at least.

publiusr · 2005-08-25 11:58:50

This all chemical booster would be a rival to Orion:

http://www.astronautix.com/lvs/mllv.htm
http://www.up-ship.com/apr/contents.htm

More on pressure-feds--the Big Dumb Booster approach
http://www.astronautix.com/lvfam/truax.htm

A more modest option--which also needs no pads.
http://www.astronautix.com/lvs/exclibur.htm

Similar:
http://www.spaceandtech.com/spacedata/e … _sum.shtml

Misc.
http://www.xprizenews.org/index.php?p=1059

publiusr · 2005-08-26 14:38:21

Artwork:
http://forum.nasaspaceflight.com/forums … 10&start=1

--Cool
http://www.axeman3d.com/models2.htm

Palomar · 2005-08-26 15:07:34

*Gennaro, I hope you don't mind that I ask this question:

How much larger than the Saturn V could a rocket be and still launch in a similar manner?

--Cindy

GCNRevenger · 2005-08-27 08:31:18

Modified versions of the Saturn-V may have been able to lift ~350 metric tonnes without radical modification to the basic design by adding large SRBs to the sides.

The Saturn-V is probobly close to the limit of a rocket that is practical to transport on land or assemble vertically.

Palomar · 2005-08-31 06:36:10

Modified versions of the Saturn-V may have been able to lift ~350 metric tonnes without radical modification to the basic design by adding large SRBs to the sides.
The Saturn-V is probobly close to the limit of a rocket that is practical to transport on land or assemble vertically.

*Thanks GCN. Didn't Russia have a moon rocket in the works which was just a bit larger than the Saturn V? I'm fairly certain I saw a model comparison or perhaps it was a chart illustration at a space museum in 1999. It looked (if memory serves) similar to a gigantic Soyuz and had a rounded "nose."

:?:

It wasn't substantially larger than the Saturn V, perhaps a foot or two taller and a tad bit wider. But I suppose every little centimeter adds up as getting the thing off the ground goes.

Hopefully this is a memory and not a dream fragment.

--Cindy

GCNRevenger · 2005-08-31 07:14:21

This rocket?

http://www.astronautix.com/lvs/n1.htm

The Soviet N-1 was about the same size as Saturn-V, but it burned only Kerosene instead of Hydrogen in its upper stages, which would have given it a payload about 2/3rds as much as the "stock" Saturn-V.

What fuel you burn in what stage is important too.

Here is the Saturn-V concept that I mentioned. It would have needed modification to the first stage, including extra cross-feed fuel lines/tanks and SSME-class upper stage engines, but its hard to argue with the 367MT payload. I bet it could hit 400MT with the more powerful F-1A engines.
http://www.astronautix.com/lvs/satv4260.htm

Versions following the same strategy but without substantial modifications could have lifted about 250MT.
http://www.astronautix.com/lvs/satv25sb.htm

publiusr · 2005-08-31 15:26:30

Those are some real monsters.

It seems that the big solids and Sea dragon would have used about the same kind of steel.

The all-liquid option:

http://www.astronautix.com/lvs/saturnc8.htm

Palomar · 2005-08-31 15:31:36

This rocket?
http://www.astronautix.com/lvs/n1.htm
The Soviet N-1 was about the same size as Saturn-V, but it burned only Kerosene instead of Hydrogen in its upper stages, which would have given it a payload about 2/3rds as much as the "stock" Saturn-V.
What fuel you burn in what stage is important too.

*Yep, that's it. Thanks. I saw a model of it (memory jog). It's still weird to think about rockets using kerosene because I always associate kerosene with 19th century table lamps.

How big could a nuclear-powered rocket be built?

And would nuclear provide as much or more (not sure how to say this) lift/thrust per square centimeter/inch as a chemistry rocket of the same size?

(quit snickering...I'm trying to be coherent! Teehee)

--Cindy

publiusr · 2005-08-31 15:33:01

Andrews wanted a Gryphon SSTO with a gas core.

GCNRevenger · 2005-08-31 21:06:25

How big could a nuclear-powered rocket be built?
And would nuclear provide as much or more (not sure how to say this) lift/thrust per square centimeter/inch as a chemistry rocket of the same size?
(quit snickering...I'm trying to be coherent! Teehee)
--Cindy

Oooh when you say "nuclear" there are a number of types of rockets:
-Solid core thermal, basically an atomic boiler, that boils Hydrogen and squirts it out the back. About double the efficiency of Hydrogen/Oxygen engines, but has some drawbacks: low thrust/weight ratios, and very very big fuel tanks, and the mass of radiation shielding. With these drawbacks, the thing is not much good for a first stage, but as an upper stage you get about 50% more payload versus chemical. Technologically easy, but there might be a liiiitttle radioactive exhaust. Absolutely frightening fallout though if it were to accidently reenter.

-Gas core thermal, ultra-high performance, a modest sized single-stage rocket could carry hundreds or a thousand tonnes. Very difficult technologically, almost impossible to avoid high amounts of fallout. Not real practical for ground launch, despite its awsome power. Reduced accident risk since the nuclear fuel could be flushed out with each firing... of course you could only safely flush into space, which limits where it could be operated.

-Orion pulse type, which is a whole different beast, no hydrogen "fuel" persay... where the ship basically has a huge metal plate on the back and drops small nuclear bombs behind it, riding the blast. Payload ranges from thousands or tens of thousands of tonnes... needless to say, there would be issues building or launching such a beast, and would be fantastically expensive. Technologically pretty easy however.

New Mars Forums

Announcement

#26 2005-08-24 16:42:50

Re: What's the Biggest Rocket Concievable? - How big can you really build it?

#27 2005-08-25 11:58:50

Re: What's the Biggest Rocket Concievable? - How big can you really build it?

#28 2005-08-26 14:38:21

Re: What's the Biggest Rocket Concievable? - How big can you really build it?

#29 2005-08-26 15:07:34

Re: What's the Biggest Rocket Concievable? - How big can you really build it?

#30 2005-08-27 08:31:18

Re: What's the Biggest Rocket Concievable? - How big can you really build it?

#31 2005-08-31 06:36:10

Re: What's the Biggest Rocket Concievable? - How big can you really build it?

#32 2005-08-31 07:14:21

Re: What's the Biggest Rocket Concievable? - How big can you really build it?

#33 2005-08-31 15:26:30

Re: What's the Biggest Rocket Concievable? - How big can you really build it?

#34 2005-08-31 15:31:36

Re: What's the Biggest Rocket Concievable? - How big can you really build it?

#35 2005-08-31 15:33:01

Re: What's the Biggest Rocket Concievable? - How big can you really build it?

#36 2005-08-31 21:06:25

Re: What's the Biggest Rocket Concievable? - How big can you really build it?

Board footer