New Mars Forums

Official discussion forum of The Mars Society and MarsNews.com

You are not logged in.

Announcement

Announcement: As a reader of NewMars forum, we have opportunities for you to assist with technical discussions in several initiatives underway. NewMars needs volunteers with appropriate education, skills, talent, motivation and generosity of spirit as a highly valued member. Write to newmarsmember * gmail.com to tell us about your ability's to help contribute to NewMars and become a registered member.

#26 2004-06-01 14:32:45

Bill White
Member
Registered: 2001-09-09
Posts: 2,114

Re: Assembly in Orbit

Oh and if you may recall... Saturn-V used the same VAB, the same crawler, and the same launch pads as Shuttle does today. Even the STS main tank is built in the same factory as the Saturn-V tankage was.Its simple really, try to learn how to build a too-expensive rocket from the past all over again, or build a new rocket out of things that we already have that are just as good... Oh, and we know how to build rockets around the modern hardware already too. (Delta, Zenit, Atlas, Shuttle, etc)

This past February - - when I went all nutso about shuttle derived - - the fate of the VAB, Pad 39 and the crawler were high on my list of concerns. My worry?

Shifting to EELV (Delta IV) for 10 or 15 years and not deploying shuttle derived now runs the risk of allowing the VAB, crawler and Pad 39 to deteriorate to an un-useable state. Then to build new infrastructure come 2018 or 2020 or 2024 will greatly kick up the total cost of a new HLLV making it less likely the "on to Mars" leg of Bush vision actually gets done.

Maybe PlanBush morphs into a "bait and switch" where we collect a few lunar rocks in the late twenty-teen years and then kaputski!

Using a cargo only shuttle C combined with EELV CEV to return to Moon preserves this infrastructure, offers more options for things like JIMO, and is a stepping stone towards bigger shuttle derived like Ares, or an even bigger superbooster I read a comment about which contemplated using a shuttle derived ET and main engines as a 2nd stage!

Offline

#27 2004-06-02 13:03:32

GCNRevenger
Member
From: Earth
Registered: 2003-10-14
Posts: 6,056

Re: Assembly in Orbit

But say for a minute that you did want to do a clean-sheet no-people HLLV vehicle with a target price of $1Bn per-shot, i'm curious as to what kind of vehicle would take shape...

Cryogenic first stage based on STS ET powerd by a trio of RS-68 on the bottom with an upper stage of varying size powerd by multiple RL-60s or a lone RS-68 and with a varying number of 4 or 5 segment SRBs depending on payload requirements...

"Son of Saturn" 150MT three-stager with 4-5x RD-171 for 1st based on Atlas-V hardware, 2-3x RS-68 for 2nd, and RL-60s for 3rd plus 0/2/4 SRBs or Atlas/Delta CCBs as boosters. Third stage optional.

Perhaps somthing from the Nova monsters?

For the moment though, the best route looks like Shuttle-C progressing to Shuttle-Z as needed, which would require the least amount of new hardware be designed and use the maximum of exsisting infrastructure.


[i]"The power of accurate observation is often called cynicism by those that do not have it." - George Bernard Shaw[/i]

[i]The glass is at 50% of capacity[/i]

Offline

Board footer

Powered by FluxBB