"3+3 engines" Super SLV >>> The BEST version of the FAST-SLV

gaetanomarano · 2006-05-21 18:03:37

.

In my previous articles and posts I've suggested two versions of a possible Single Launch Vehicle for a "resized" 3-astronauts-only moon mission with "resized" CEV, SM, LSAM, etc.

But, now, I've found the BEST solution to build a FAST-SLV with the ready available, man-rated, 110+ successful launched and cheap Space Shuttles' engines!

The new version of "my" rocket can be built also with the RS-68 but only for a the cargo-CaLV.

Full story of the Super SLV here: www.gaetanomarano.it/articles/006_superSLV.html

What do you think about?

.

GCNRevenger · 2006-05-21 21:29:43

Insufficent performance, especially the added dry mass of non-propellant booster components would cause a pretty serious hit. No way it would lift much more then 100MT.

gaetanomarano · 2006-05-21 23:10:20

Insufficent performance, especially the added dry mass of non-propellant booster components would cause a pretty serious hit. No way it would lift much more then 100MT.

not true, since the (existing) "Shuttle version" (without the 3rd SRB) ALREADY lifts 115+ mT (the Shuttle and its payload) also, that figure is only the max abort-mode Shuttle's weight at lift-off (since the Shuttle must land with its cargo-payload and full OMS fuel) but the real max shuttle+payload weight may be (probably) 10+ mT more!

...the first NASA version of the SDHLV was with 4-SSMEs (only one SSME more than my design) with the 5th SSME as "optional"...

..."my" Super SLV design is VERY CLOSE to the NASA new CaLV (with two differences that mean $20+ Billion saved with my design: the Super SLV uses ready available, man-rated, standard Shuttles' engines while the CaLV uses NON-STANDARD parts NOT AVAILABLE yet NOR man-rated, also, my Super SLV is the ONLY rocket while the CaLV is one of TWO rockets) ...then... if the Super SLV can't fly... also the CaLV can't!!!

...the total lift-off thrust of three 4-segments SRBs is 20% more than two 5-segments SRBs

...the Super SLV 1st stage thrust (SSME version) is 10% more than the SaturnV 1st stage thrust (that was able to lift up to 147 mT of payload in the last Apollo missions)

...the CLV 2nd stage (after SRB's separation) will be able to put in orbit the 25 mT CEV/SM with only 130,000 kbf of thrust of its J-2x (the total thrust of three SSME in the vacuum reach 700,000 kbf, 5+ times one J-2x)

...the CaLV/SLV will have a 2nd-stage/EDS (very light if compared with the SaturnV's 2nd stage + 3rd stage + payload!) to reach the orbit with its 125 mT payload...

however... if the three SSMEs of my design will be not sufficient to lift the full payload, NASA can (simply) add a 4th SSME in the center of the rocket to reach (or exceed) the total payload... I don't think it's necessary, but, if NASA will add the 4th SSME, my design still keeps all its advantages vs. the CaLV: one rocket, made with standard engines, years of time and $20+ Billion saved!!!

sorry GCNRevenger... my idea/design is EXCELLENT

.

GCNRevenger · 2006-05-22 06:55:18

What an obtuse little man you are... totally unable to remember anything

The Shuttle stack can't lift 115MT, Shuttle itself with payload weighs around 90MT even, and at best you'll only yeild a few tonnes by putting the payload on top of the tank for a little under 100MT.

The simple fact is that you get diminishing returns when you add more SRBs because of the added dry weight of each booster, NASA considerd switching to five-segment boosters earlier to boost Shuttle payload to the ISS, and even then it would have been less then 115MT total. Now you want to do something worse, since now you will have three heavy SRB nozzles, three thick steel end-caps, and three heavy-duty parachute recovery systems instead of two. Strapping a fourth SSME to the bottom doesn't fix this problem.

And so what if CaLV needs five-segment boosters, we're building them anyway for the smaller CLV.

Finally, your big red-text "$20Bn!" figure is a stupid figure, thats just absurd. Plus, since you'll be burning expensive SSMEs instead of RS-68s, your rocket will cost an additional ~$100M a flight, which adds up to three quarters of a billion a year when we start Mars missions...

...or twenty billion over the life of the vehicle. Convienant, no?

SpaceNut · 2006-05-22 07:26:03

After reviewing a few SDV it would appear that there is a large deviation as to how much we can loft to orbit by using the 4 or 5 segment srb's and combinations of SSME.

Cargo LV

The Cargo LV would use two five-segment versions of the shuttle's RSRM rocket motors as lateral boosters (the standard RSRM had four segments). The core would be a stretched version of the shuttle's external tank, with five expendable versions of the shuttle SSME engine mounted on the base. This basic vehicle could deliver 106 tonnes to low earth orbit.

Manufacturer: NASA. LEO Payload: 106,000 kg. to: 500 km Orbit. at: 51.6 degrees. Payload: 60,000 kg. to a: translunar trajectory. Liftoff Thrust: 3,600,000 kgf. Total Mass: 2,800,000 kg. Core Diameter: 8.40 m. Total Length: 106.80 m.

ATK Thiokol concept for a shuttle-derived heavy lift vehicle.
The shuttle orbiter would be replaced by a 6.5 m diameter x 35 m long cargo container, powered by three Space Shuttle main engines. The shuttle RSRM motors would have a fifth segment added, and the External Tank would be stretched to 56 m long. Availability would be six years after go-ahead.

Manufacturer: Thiokol. LEO Payload: 91,000 kg. to: 500 km Orbit. at: 51.6 degrees. Core Diameter: 8.70 m. Total Length: 66.00 m.

GCNRevenger · 2006-05-22 08:08:51

It seems that even my figures were over-optimistic...

And, as SpaceNut has pointed out, apparently SSME is even more expensive then we thought: $80 million each!

...Which will mean that RS-68 would save $180M a flight over an equal number of SSMEs, and the SLV would require at least $345M just for engines.

gaetanomarano · 2006-05-22 08:12:52

The Shuttle stack can't lift 115MT, Shuttle itself with payload weighs around 90MT even...

NASA Shuttle Basics... "End of mission: 104,326 kilograms" (without its payload and OMS fuel) http://spaceflight1.nasa.gov/shuttle/re … index.html

STS-98 Atlantis Press Kit... "Orbiter/Payload Liftoff Weight: 254,694 lbs." www.shuttlepresskit.com/STS-98/index.htm

The simple fact is that you get diminishing returns when you add more SRBs because of the added dry weight of each booster...

ALL rockets (and SRBs) are built to lift "itself" and "something more" (tons of payload...)

...five-segment boosters, we're building them anyway for (unnecessary) smaller CLV...

...thats just absurd. Plus, since you'll be burning expensive SSMEs...

the total number of moon mission until 2025 will be around 12 only (or 20 with the Super SLV thanks to the R&D+hardware Billion$$$ saved!) then, the total extra-costs of the expendable-SSME, will be around $1.2 Billion (for 20 moon missions) compared with $20+ Billion saved!!!

sorry GCNRevenger... my idea/design is PERFECT

.

gaetanomarano · 2006-05-22 08:18:21

apparently SSME is even more expensive

the SSME is expensive because it is reusable, then, made in a few units (with its very high R&D costs shared on few engines!)

the expendable-SSME may have a lower cost because it will be built in dozens units!

also, since the SSME already exist (and don't needs to be man-rated) its (further) R&D costs will be ZERO

.

gaetanomarano · 2006-05-22 08:28:35

After reviewing a few SDV it would appear...

these are not the NASA figures for the CaLV ...but... if these figures are TRUE... the new moon missions will NEVER fly!

.

gaetanomarano · 2006-05-22 09:58:50

.

just moment... both CaLV and Thiokol rockets can lift their (astronautix's) "100 mT" payload at... 500 km. 51.6 degrees!!!

it's the same ISS' orbit but 100 km. above it!

the Shuttle can lift up to 24 mT to a 200 km. orbit but only 12 mT to the 400 km. ISS' orbit!

the CaLV don't needs to put the EDS/LSAM to a 500 km. parking orbit but only to a lower (but safe) orbit, maybe 200-300 km.

and "my" Super SLV don't needs to lift its payload to a 300 km. parking orbit, but only to the MINIMUM orbit to start a safe TLI

then, ALL these rockets (CaLV, Thiokol and Super SLV) can lift in orbit the full payload for their missions!

.

GCNRevenger · 2006-05-22 22:39:15

Fool, not only do you once again try to compare a rocket to a program plan, but you can't even compare rockets right...

The payload to orbit is obviously just a mean of comparing different vehicles' lift capacity in a convienant way, much like the milage a car gets, even though a particular cars' milage varies with how its used.

Any rocket of the CaLV's scale can push a payload on a TLI trajectory, the question is simply how much. In the case of NASA's ESAS plan, it can push quite a bit, but it increases mission payload and safety more to pick up a crew in orbit first. Sure there is a payload penalty for doing a circulization burn, but its not very big, and so the SLV doesn't save much mass. It does however sacrifice safety, since you aren't in a stable orbit if you have to abort before TLI burn.

And your figures are a jumbled mish-mash, you don't even know what you are quoting...

The "end of mission" mass is not nessesarrily without payload, because Shuttle can return payloads to Earth, so this is the sum of the vehicle mass plus the maximum payload it can bring back down.

And the figures are all over the place, different orbiters weigh slightly different amounts, different orbits impose different total mass restrictions, and the two different types of fuel tanks permit bigger or smaller payloads...

...In this case, I think defference should be given to SpaceNut's numbers for Shuttle-derived HLLVs, imparticularly Shuttle-C, which if you simply bolted on a third SRB still wouldn't top 100MT I would imagine.

Your idea is not perfect, your idea is terrible, because it wastes so much mass dragging extra heavy SRB components and uses the hyper-expensive SSME engines to make a rocket with less lifting power and saves no money over its design life.

"the expendable-SSME may have a lower cost because it will be built in dozens units!"

That $40M price tag IS with economies of scale, how else could NASA reduce its price by HALF?

Your incessant ignorant jibbering and abnoxious writing style are starting to really clutter this board.

Edit: Reading through the thread that SpaceNut referenced over at the BA/UT forums, quite amusing... Really gaetano, you keep on asking us not to think less of you, but your writing makes it quite difficult.

gaetanomarano · 2006-05-23 05:39:02

..."end of mission" mass is... and the two different types of fuel tanks permit bigger or smaller payloads...

what is important for my evaluation is not the max shuttle+payload for a safe abort of the mission, but the MAX payload that two SRBs, three SSMEs and the better ET can lift

it's incredible that you find "bad" the Super SLV since it's is very close to the original SDHLV of the ESAS plan

10 SRB's segments in total on the SDHLV, 12 SRB's segments on the Super SLV

4 SSMEs on the SDHLV, 3 SSME (but may be four, if necessary) on the Super SLV

if the ESAS plan's SDHLV can lift 125 mT, the Super SLV (with its higher thrust) can lift 135+ mT

why my design is "bad" if it's very close to (or better than) NASA design?

then, if you post critics to the Super SLV, it's (exactly) like post critics to NASA and its SDHLV

.

GCNRevenger · 2006-05-23 07:13:07

Oh wow, excuse me while I take a minute to laugh at you...

...okay...

You actually think that your rocket will lift more payload then the bigger CaLV just because it has more thrust? Surely you can't be serious, I mean after hanging around NewMars and BAUT forums you can't possibly be that ignorant, so I think you are trying to push your rocket as being waaay superior and then using the "but I'm entitled to my opinion, now who else agrees with me?" trick.

Thrust alone is irrelivent, it does not determine how much capacity either rocket has, and infact the calculations where thrust is a variable with multistage rockets are not easy to do. I seriously doubt that you have botherd to go through this relativly difficult process to get a good aproximation of SLV's performance. I find it amusing that your mass numbers seem to be creeping up as time goes along... first your rocket was 100MT, then 115MT, now >135MT but none of the rockets are much different other then slapping a third SRB on the latter model.

Your design is not very close to the original "baseline" CaLV design, adding a third SRB is a radical change, and alters many parameters associated with design and flight dynamics. But speaking of changes, your rocket is more like Thiokol's uprated Shuttle-C then it is the CaLV, which uses a similar engine configuration as your planned SLV. Thiokol's concept, "Heavy Lift Carrier 2011" at Astronautix, will only lift 90MT even with the five-segment boosters.

Sure the extra booster will make a little difference, but you consistantly ignore the fact that it will be a diminishing return, the original Shuttle-C with regular four-segment boosters could lift a little under 80MT, while adding two segments to yeild Thiokol's Carrier 2011 only lifts 90MT. Adding two additional segments won't even get you to 100MT, because you are adding substantial dry mass to the rocket. The dry mass of the rocket is important, and here is where the SRB does poorly, because the high thrusts require thick metal construction with powerful thrust vectoring systems.

Adding two segments will increase performance, but adding a third end cap, booster thrust vectoring, and parachute set will reduce it by about as much, yeilding you a rocket under 100MT, none of this "135MT+" stupidity.

SpaceNut · 2006-05-23 07:37:21

gaetanomarano's saturn style Super SLV as far as I can see will still not save the cost of the deletion of the CLV/CEV/EDS programs budget since those same dollars will end up in the bigger rocket which he proposes. The latest concept to use a 3 srb and 3 SSME still equates to the same costs as the CLV and CaLV combination since 2 flight are still needed per year from either Nasa's efforts or by gaetanomarano's saturn style Super SLV.

By going with the saturn style Super SLV we may have a problem in that the vehicle would be taller than the launch tower.

You can use these numbers for the CEV capsule weight as proposed by the drop test that has been done.

The drop tests were conducted June 24-25 under Lockheed Martin funding to demonstrate technology and risk reduction for space exploration. The 5,216 kg/11,500 lb capsule mass simulator was designed using the mass and center of gravity properties of astronaut crew capsules that are being considered for the future.
During a series of tests, the capsule simulator was dropped from various heights and inclinations. The airbag system performed as expected with each impact, demonstrating that the modeling techniques were right on target.

gaetanomarano · 2006-05-23 07:52:51

...two segments will increase performance, but adding a third end cap, booster thrust vectoring, and parachute set will reduce it by about as much...

the main advantages to use the man-rated 4-segments SRB and the man-rated SSME is to save GIANT quantities of TIME and MONEY

if three SSMEs will be not enough to lift 135 mT (as you claim) NASA can add 1/2 SSMEs (like the early SDHLV) to the base Super SLV

that will cost more in the first 12 moon missions (about $1 billion) but they still save Billion$$$ and YEARS

.

GCNRevenger · 2006-05-23 08:19:57

You keep on saying that it will save money, how?

Two five-segment SRBs cost less then three four-segment boosters. SSME costs double or tripple what RS-68 does. CaLV will spend more money on development, but less money on engines. If CaLV is flown many times, it might just be cheaper, but you don't address this at all.

Slapping on an additional SSME or two won't fix the SLV, and it will increase the price of each launch. If you are slapping on more SSMEs, the original ESAS CaLV with twin five-segment boosters probably has the same performance as your tripple four-segment boosters because of the added dry weight. So you are left pushing a rocket thats more expensive and more complicated than CaLV, but has no better performance and still has less performance then you need.

CaLV with RS-68 is even cheaper and these engines are off the shelf too, no need to spend a billion dollars on modifying the SSME to the expendable version.

Edit: Oh! And another thing, the Shuttle and CaLV tanks have to have booster attach points between the LOX and LH2 tanks, yes? But if you stretch the main tank but don't stretch the SRBs, then the attach point will be above the top of the SRB. The structural modifications to fix this would be extensive, expensive, time consuming, and heavy

gaetanomarano · 2006-05-23 08:49:19

...will still not save the cost of the deletion of the CLV/CEV/EDS programs budget since those same dollars will end up in the bigger rocket which he proposes...

my evaluation of the money saved is based on NASA claims about R&D costs:

$5 Billion R&D for the early (4-seg. SRB 1st and 2nd stage) CLV...... SAVED

$2 Billion of extra-R&D for the 5-segments SRB ($3B in recent news)..... SAVED

$5 Billion of (optimistic!) "hardware" costs for the first 25 (ISS and Moon) CLV rockets..... SAVED

the three SRBs of the Super SLV don't increase its cost since three "dumb" SRBs will cost $120M in total, probably the same price of (or LESS than) two 5-segments SRBs

but the MOST INCREDIBLE MONEY SAVING may come from the TIME SAVED (5+ years saved with ONE rocket to build!)

don't forget that NASA is a big agency that costs many Billions "by itself"

it's "standard" budget exceeds $16 Billion per year, no matter if they launch one or ten Shuttles, one or ten probes, etc.

5+ years of time SAVED to launch the first moon mission, will be a money-saving so high no one can evaluate (nor imagine!) now !!!!!

maybe $5-10 Billions or more !!!

about "taller than the launch tower"... no, it is EXACTLY like the CaLV (I've used the NASA drawings of CaLV)

however, the Super SLV will need some changes to the launch pad to fit its 3-SRB shape

also, the Super SLV can be built larger, with a 10 mt. tank, like planned in the new version of the CaLV

.

GCNRevenger · 2006-05-23 20:25:48

You wave and you wave, but just flapping your arms does not make it so... You also keep on talking about your rocket and how wonderful it is, but you aren't selling a rocket, you are selling a program: you want to return to the Moon with your rocket, but also you want to give up American access to the ISS. As much as I would prefer not to bother with the ISS anymore, NASA ultimatly is controlled by politics, and the current policy clearly states that NASA must maintain access to the station. As your plan does not, your plan is inherintly, immediatly not acceptable. You keep on trying to compare your plan to NASA's rockets, which are apples to oranges.

Anyway... your rocket simply can't provide the kind of payload needed. All you've done is taken the Shuttle stack, stretch the tank a little, and stuck on a third booster. The Shuttle stack can hardly lift 100MT, and adding a third booster and fourth SSME will only raise this by ten or twenty tonnes at most, because the extra booster means using the old SRB fuel and having to lug along three SRB end caps, nozzles, and parachutes instead of two. Sticking with short boosters but longer fuel tanks also means you'll need a structural adapter, which will add a few tonnes too.

No way it will lift more than the CaLV, which your rocket will be no larger and have no more engines but has more weight, which is much less then the ~150MT you need for a single launch.

So, your plan won't work, and your rocket won't work either. Which leaves you pretty much with nothing but brightly colored lies and exclamation points.

Edit: And this...: "LOOK AT THE Super SLV IMAGE IN THIS PAGE! WHAT DO YOU SEE? IT'S EASY!

THE SPACE SHUTTLE!!! The Super SLV design is (EXACTLY!!!) like the Space Shuttle!!!"

Its easy... because the picture is spiffy? And if its "just like Shuttle" then it will be hyper-expensive, unreliable, and no good just like you've been saying. Except your rocket won't be, it will be worse, it will be even heavier because of the extra and shorter boosters, and even riskier with 50% more chance of a Challenger-like burnthough explosion. Oh, and don't forget the expense of modifying and man-rating SSME over again too, unless you want to pay $80M a copy.

Edit: Remember, NASA will be buying up to 200 copies, which with 4X SSME would cost an extra $160M each or an extra $32 billion over SLV's life, which doesn't include three $30M boosters versus two $40M ones, an extra $2Bn. So, if your plan saves $20Bn in development and CLV copies, you actually LOSE $14Bn over all versus expendable SSME. Versus NASA's CaLV with RS-68 its even worse, closer to $20Bn with a less safe rocket, and have no ISS access to show for it. And thats after sutracting the $20Bn you'd "save" by skipping CLV.

And you mention that "super-SLV" can be made more like the CaLV with its bigger fuel tank and RS-68 engines? The CaLV can probably lift about 120-125MT, so if you take this rocket and trade its twin five-segment boosters for tripple four-segment ones, this is supposed to increase its payload by 20MT+? Nonsense, it might even reduce it because of the extra weights cited above, the inferior older solid rocket fuel, and increased air drag. It just won't work... Not to mention reduce reliability and require man-rating RS-68 since people will ride it.

gaetanomarano · 2006-05-24 06:00:38

...you are selling a program...

no, I post/publish only my opinions

...current policy...

"current" is the right word about "policy" since it change every day

...your rocket simply can't provide the kind of payload needed...

the max payload of "my" rocket is about 10 mT more than the original SDHLV, then, if "my" rocket don't works, also the NASA design is wrong

...the ~150MT you need for a single launch...

no, the NASA "resized" (5mt. CEV, etc.) moon missions' hardware needs about 140 mT of payload, while, "my" version needs about 125 mT, then, the (evaluated) payload of the Super SLV exceeds the specs

...like Shuttle" then it will be hyper-expensive, unreliable...

the Shuttle is dangerous because it's an old vehicle, built with old technologies, then, it must be retired sooner (like all old vehicles)

also the stones know that its high costs are due to maintenance, work, one launch per year, extra-R&D (to solve its problems like "foam"), etc. while, its hardware costs per launch is under $150M (two SRBs, one ET, fuel, etc.)

...would cost an extra $160M each...

the cost of an expendable-SSME is higher than an RS-68 but it is evaluated around $40M each and you can't grow up this figure with tons of words only to push "your" RS-68.....

then, the total cost of the SSME for "my" Super SLV in the first 12 moon missions will be ( 3 x 12 ) -15 = 21 x $40M = $840 million

the total number is "21" (instead of "36") since NASA already has 15 (already paid!) reusable (once more...) SSMEs: nine on the Shuttles and six as spare parts

that's incredible!

you (REALLY!!!!!!!!!!!) want to demonstrate that, build ONE rocket, costs MORE than build TWO rockets!

.

GCNRevenger · 2006-05-24 11:46:56

You opinion is a policy, a policy of abandoning the ISS. Since your policy is directly counter to the orders NASA has been given, your plan is inherintly unacceptable. Yes this might change, and the ISS be abandoned later anyway, but right NOW this is not the case.

The maximum payload you cite is simply not possible. You are adding many tonnes of dead weight to your rocket thanks to the additional booster, so it just can't lift much more, if any. Infact, it will possibly lift even less.

The NASA resizing has done no such thing, subtracting a few inches from the diameter of the CEV makes almost no difference in its mass. Even if it did make a whole tonne of difference, that would still make it above 145 the estimated payload of both CLV and CaLV still adds up to 148-150MT.

"the Shuttle is dangerous because it's an old vehicle, built with old technologies, then, it must be retired sooner (like all old vehicles)"

And you are singing the praises in big bold colored letters about how good it is that SLV will use Shuttle parts.

The regular SSME costs $80M, the expendable SSME costs $40M and the RS-68 costs $20M, what is confusing about that? And the total savings you get developing your rocket must be weighed against the increased cost of parts per-flight over the life of the vehicle, which I have estimated to be up to 200 flights, that is the benchmark, not the first dozen Lunar flights. We will, of course, be using this rocket for Mars too.

gaetanomarano · 2006-05-24 15:14:57

You opinion is a policy, a policy of abandoning the ISS..

don't worry, I can't (nor want to) "close" the ISS

the very little and poor ISS can survive 20+ years with two Soyuz/Progress (and Shenzhou?) launches per year

the cargo/crew CEVs don't adds so much... they are only 10 times more expensive!

...maximum payload you cite is simply not possible...

it's is sufficient because it exceeds the specs of a moon mission

...about how good it is that SLV will use Shuttle parts...

an old shuttle is dangerous like an old car is equally dangerous

SRB and SSME are the most reliable parts of the Shuttle (don't forget that all ESAS vehicles are designed with them...)

...which I have estimated to be up to 200 flights, [b]that is the benchmark, not the first dozen Lunar flights. We will, of course, be using this rocket for Mars too...[/b]

with NASA (annual+extra) funds???

probably you've DREAMED this figure, NOT "extimated"...

.

GCNRevenger · 2006-05-24 16:44:13

America still has an obligation to provide support for the ISS even after it is "completed" and Shuttle is retired, plus congress still demands American access to the station (which we have largely funded), and we can't do either one without some means of getting there. Buying foreign launch vehicles indefinatly isn't likly going to happen, since congress will resist excessive sums of money going to foreign countries then American aerospace contractors.

CLV is the answer, it gives us domestic access to the station, plus increases the mass available to the Lunar program and decreases the risk associated with it.

"it's is sufficient because it exceeds the specs of a moon mission"

All you are doing is repeating this line like a mindless parot...
-You say that it is, but give no reason
-I say that it will not, but give several reasons

If you can't come up with a way to "fix" your rocket, show that the problems I have noted are not show-stoppers, or otherwise defend your position from my accusations then there is no point in you responding, you'll just be re-printing what you have already written.

I have already noted why NASA will be buying up to 200 copies, thread , if you think its wrong, give a reason, or be quiet.

If NASA starts Moon missions on time in 2018, they will need three CaLVs anually to build a base minimum. If Mars missions start 20 years from now, run concurrently with Lunar missions, and NASA uses the DRM-III plan they will need seven launches anually, adding up to 164 between now and 2046. If we keep using the ESAS Lunar plan and DRM-III Mars plan until 2050, and tack on a few for initial testing, thats about 200.

gaetanomarano · 2006-05-24 18:54:06

...Buying foreign launch vehicles indefinatly...

NASA don't (exactly) buys "foreign vehicles" but "seats" of "foreign vehicles" at about $20M per seat and that price is very cheap compared with $7 Billion planned (so far.........) to develop the CLV and the high price of each CLV/SM/CEV hardware

why spend 20-30 times for the same "service"?

the ISS is an "house for three" and these "three" are internationl astronauts, not only american

Russia will launch all its astronauts with the Soyuz

China (if will be a new partner) will use its Shenzhou

with its low budget, ESA can't buys the CEV "seats" then, they will use the Soyuz

other countries and space-tourists buy (and will buy) the very "cheap" (for rich people) Soyuz trips

also some americans astronauts will use the Soyuz (when a CEV will be not ready)

then... how many americans per year will use the CEV for an ISS missions?

probably 2/3 per year... at a very very very very high price!

but... if NASA... "don't has money"... "don't has money"... "don't has money"... "don't has money"... "don't has money"... WHY BURNS ITS MONEY ???

...way to "fix" your rocket...

I've fixed "my" rockets and its specs are those explained in my article

but, you say, my evaluation is "some tons" higher then real

well, if I'm right the Super SLV will be sufficient for a full 4-astronauts mission

but, if you are right, that don't change so much my proposal and its advantages, because it can be done in two ways

1. add more engines to "my" design to reach the right payload

2. resize the missions to launch it with the real payload of the Super SLV

both solution can match the rocket with the mission

my proposal is NOT the rocket, my proposal is the ARCHITECTURE (the "single-launch" architecture)

no matter the changes the rocket/mission will need to match the s.l. architecture

...NASA will be buying up to 200 copies...

I don't see one company or government agency of the world that buys the products they need 20+ years away

NASA "plans" to buy, NOT "buys"... we will see "what" they buy (and "how many") only when that will (really) happen!

...starts Moon missions on time in 2018... three CaLVs anually... Mars missions start 20 years from now... seven launches anually... up to 164 between now and 2046... DRM-III Mars plan until 2050...

sorry, but (since I'm not american...) can you say me when your Congress have authorized NASA to print banknotes ???

NASA cuts the toilet-paper budget to launch (or "hope" to...) one Shuttle per year... but you're sure that NASA will buy 200 engines in the next 40 years to go Mars, launch seven missions per year...!!!

you're completely crazy... the only thing (already) gone on Mars is your head!

.

SpaceNut · 2006-05-24 19:16:22

...way to "fix" your rocket...

I've fixed "my" rockets and its specs are those expalined in my article
but you say that my evaluation is "some tons" higher
but, if you are right, that don't change so much my proposal and its advantages because it can be done in two ways
1. add more engines to "my" design to reach the right payload

Adding another engine will only give you a small change since the force that it produces is from the consumption of fuel at a given rate, without adding more fuel as well as a larger heavier tank you will run out of fuel to soon. This means a lower apogee with a heavier payload.

my proposal is NOT the rocket, my proposal is the ARCHITECTURE (the "single-launch" architecture)

As I put it you have a saturn style Super SLV, to do this design look back at the numbers for the saturn V but start at the top to correct for new numbers so as to minimize the number of changes to engine count and fuel tank sizes per stage.

gaetanomarano · 2006-05-24 20:02:28

...Adding another engine will only give you a small change... since the force that it produces is from the consumption of fuel at a given rate, without adding more fuel as well as a larger heavier tank...

the rocket don't needs any "big changes" to reach the right payload, one or two engines may be sufficient (but some payload savings may come from resizing the full mission or part of it)

of course, extra-engines needs extra-fuel and extra-tank... but the final result will be POSITIVE (like with ALL "heavy" version of a mid or small rocket), not negative!

as I've said about the extra-SRB "dry mass"... ALL rockets are able to lift "its own weight" and "something more" (some tons of payload)

then, we can (seriously) discuss only about "how much" extra-payload it can lift, NOT "if" it can lift that extra-payload

.

New Mars Forums

Announcement

#1 2006-05-21 18:03:37

Re: "3+3 engines" Super SLV >>> The BEST version of the FAST-SLV

#2 2006-05-21 21:29:43

Re: "3+3 engines" Super SLV >>> The BEST version of the FAST-SLV

#3 2006-05-21 23:10:20

Re: "3+3 engines" Super SLV >>> The BEST version of the FAST-SLV

#4 2006-05-22 06:55:18

Re: "3+3 engines" Super SLV >>> The BEST version of the FAST-SLV

#5 2006-05-22 07:26:03

Re: "3+3 engines" Super SLV >>> The BEST version of the FAST-SLV

#6 2006-05-22 08:08:51

Re: "3+3 engines" Super SLV >>> The BEST version of the FAST-SLV

#7 2006-05-22 08:12:52

Re: "3+3 engines" Super SLV >>> The BEST version of the FAST-SLV

#8 2006-05-22 08:18:21

Re: "3+3 engines" Super SLV >>> The BEST version of the FAST-SLV

#9 2006-05-22 08:28:35

Re: "3+3 engines" Super SLV >>> The BEST version of the FAST-SLV

#10 2006-05-22 09:58:50

Re: "3+3 engines" Super SLV >>> The BEST version of the FAST-SLV

#11 2006-05-22 22:39:15

Re: "3+3 engines" Super SLV >>> The BEST version of the FAST-SLV

#12 2006-05-23 05:39:02

Re: "3+3 engines" Super SLV >>> The BEST version of the FAST-SLV

#13 2006-05-23 07:13:07

Re: "3+3 engines" Super SLV >>> The BEST version of the FAST-SLV

#14 2006-05-23 07:37:21

Re: "3+3 engines" Super SLV >>> The BEST version of the FAST-SLV

#15 2006-05-23 07:52:51

Re: "3+3 engines" Super SLV >>> The BEST version of the FAST-SLV

#16 2006-05-23 08:19:57

Re: "3+3 engines" Super SLV >>> The BEST version of the FAST-SLV

#17 2006-05-23 08:49:19

Re: "3+3 engines" Super SLV >>> The BEST version of the FAST-SLV

#18 2006-05-23 20:25:48

Re: "3+3 engines" Super SLV >>> The BEST version of the FAST-SLV

#19 2006-05-24 06:00:38

Re: "3+3 engines" Super SLV >>> The BEST version of the FAST-SLV

#20 2006-05-24 11:46:56

Re: "3+3 engines" Super SLV >>> The BEST version of the FAST-SLV

#21 2006-05-24 15:14:57

Re: "3+3 engines" Super SLV >>> The BEST version of the FAST-SLV

#22 2006-05-24 16:44:13

Re: "3+3 engines" Super SLV >>> The BEST version of the FAST-SLV

#23 2006-05-24 18:54:06

Re: "3+3 engines" Super SLV >>> The BEST version of the FAST-SLV

#24 2006-05-24 19:16:22

Re: "3+3 engines" Super SLV >>> The BEST version of the FAST-SLV

#25 2006-05-24 20:02:28

Re: "3+3 engines" Super SLV >>> The BEST version of the FAST-SLV

Board footer