NASA studies Ares rocket alternatives

[Moonwalker]

http://www.orlandosentinel.com/news/local/os-nasa-rocket-alternatives-20091112,0,4497977.story

My personal choice: the modern version of the Saturn V. That is something I'd love to see and "hear" lifting off from the Cape. But I guess it's too expensive anyway.

It seems that using Shuttle technology could make the race of the future of Constellation. Maybe something like Ares V lite using Shuttle SRB's.

 

[Spicer]

It needs to be Atlas V for the Orion vehicle and an Ares V for heavy launches.

 

[Orbinaut Pete]

My personal choice: the modern version of the Saturn V. That is something I'd love to see and "hear" lifting off from the Cape. But I guess it's too expensive anyway.

The article in question says the modern version of the Saturn V is "considered [the] cheapest to operate".

 

[Moonwalker]

The article in question says the modern version of the Saturn V is "considered [the] cheapest to operate".

Do you believe in it? I don't. It would involve two completely new SRB's I think. A DIRECT or Ares V lite concept, using existing 4-segment SRB's, seems to be the most efficient and cheapest to operate "if" NASA would not continue with the current plans.

 

[Sky Captain]

Well, the Russian RD 171 (used in Zenit rocket) engine is the most advanced kerosene fueled engine in the world so it would make sense to use those on a first stage. A rocket with five RD 171, 4 - 6 strap on srb`s from shuttle and H2 fueled upper stage could launch 250 - 300 tons of cargo to LEO - that`s entire ISS in just two lunches.

 

[Zatnikitelman]

Do you believe in it? I don't. It would involve two completely new SRB's I think. A DIRECT or Ares V lite concept, using existing 4-segment SRB's, seems to be the most efficient and cheapest to operate "if" NASA would not continue with the current plans.

An all-liquid-fuel heavy-lift rocket described as a modern version of the Saturn V that carried the Apollo astronauts. It's a powerful new design using Russian-made engines and kerosene as the main fuel for the first stage. Considered the cheapest alternative to operate, it cuts costs by doing away with solid-rocket boosters. KSC was originally designed to handle liquid-fuel rockets.

The Saturn V thing would use only liquid fuels. Much better and safer than solids.
However, much as I dislike solids, I too think Direct would be a better option because it uses the same technology we've been using since 1981 (plus a few upgrades )

 

[BHawthorne]

The only thing this tells me is they're asleep at the wheel and indecisive.

 

[Shadow Addict]

I personally favor DIRECT, though using the SSME's as single-use engines seems wasteful.

That modern Saturn V looks incredibly awesome.

 

[garyw]

I personally favor DIRECT, though using the SSME's as single-use engines seems wasteful.

It is which is why Rocketdyne came up with a downgraded version of the SSME for single use flights that cost just $40 million each.

 

[Orbinaut Pete]

Do you believe in it? I don't. It would involve two completely new SRB's I think. A DIRECT or Ares V lite concept, using existing 4-segment SRB's, seems to be the most efficient and cheapest to operate "if" NASA would not continue with the current plans.

There wouldn't be any SRB's involved. The boosters would be liquid-fuelled.

I know that both DIRECT and Ares V lite concepts might suffice for Lunar missions, but I don't think that they would be able to provide sufficient payload lift capacity for Mars missions.

I think we need a rocket that will fulfil all our future needs, so yes, I do believe in it.


Also, I have to admit, if I had to choose which rocket I could get to ride in the future, then the "modern Saturn V" would win every time! :lol:

 

[Urwumpe]

It is which is why Rocketdyne came up with a downgraded version of the SSME for single use flights that cost just $40 million each.

Just 40 is a good joke...the RS-67 costs just about half as much.

 

[Moonwalker]

So the Saturn V version 2 uses two liquid fuel boosters. But it uses two new boosters anyway

The Saturn version also is my favourite. But I can't just imagine that it would be the cheapest to operate. The Space Shuttle already was anything but cheap, but expected to be cheap. I think that's just always a hope. I doubt that a program beyond LEO would be anything but cheap. That's pipe dreams. If NASA doesn't get more money, nothing will happen beyond LEO anyway.

 

[Urwumpe]

The Space shuttle is actually cheaper than the Saturn V, in all aspects. It is just more expensive as the "alternatives". And extremely expensive if you look at the reduced NASA budget.

Also the fact that you can't directly launch the Shuttle unmanned is a problem.

 

[Moonwalker]

Of course the Space Shuttle is cheaper than the Saturn V. But the Shuttle is not that cheap and a workhorse NASA thought it could be. I'm not an economics freak in the space flight business. But I think everything else than the Shuttle, a program which goes beond LEO, wouldn't be something that could be called cheap anyway. I think that NASA needs more money in any case. I also doubt that DIRECT would be cheap. Maybe on papers, and maybe for LEO missions. But as soon was NASA wants to get beyond LEO, costs will explode. There is just so much stuff and work that needs to be done beside just launch something like DIRECT...

 

[Urwumpe]

To just say the obvious: What ever you do, you will technically ALWAYS need to reach LEO. Optimizing a launcher for direct ascent to ejection burn is possible, but usually making the launcher too specialized.

 

[jinglesassy]

i think the saturn 5 v2 sounds the best and it looks cool too and it should be cheaper because you only need to launch one thing not 2 things and i never was a fan of the constellation program because it sounds like to me they are trying to copy the apollo program using modern day stuff exactly except for the rockets and rovers

 

[Donamy]

Has anyone ever heard the one about putting all the eggs in one basket ?

 

[Moonwalker]

To just say the obvious: What ever you do, you will technically ALWAYS need to reach LEO. Optimizing a launcher for direct ascent to ejection burn is possible, but usually making the launcher too specialized.

Yes.

By missions beyond LEO I don't mean direct ascent. I generally mean missions that are supposed to happen beyond LEO like a lunar landing missions. DIRECT might be cheap for missions to the ISS. But if NASA wants to go beyond LEO, to the Moon, they need to carry much more payload, no matter if it needs to be put into LEO first. They need a lunar lander, an earth departure stage, they need scientific equipment, they need to develope the whole stuff. There is a lot of people and work required. I doubt it would be possible to return to the Moon or to fly to Mars without a significant budget boost. I even think that NASA won't go to Mars on its own. They'll have to chose the international way just like they did for the ISS. I don't believe in a US flag on the surface of Mars. Less than ever do I expect a manned mission to Mars within my life time, well within the lifetime of most of the people who read this lines right now. It took less than a decade to virtually start at 0 and land on the Moon. And 4 decades later we come up with Ares I-X, which might never make it into LEO, and if at all, not within the next years anyway. Progress? You decide...

The whole thing that happens right now, looking for what can be done by current budget, is the wrong way in my point of view. On the other hand, NASA has no differenct choice yet. The only thing NASA really needs is more money. A lot of. Otherwise nothing will happen beyond LEO, just the way it didn't happen again since 1972. Skylab and the Shuttle already was the result of not enough money to continue missions beyond LEO. While the Shuttle was a real progress. Not in terms of going beyond LEO but in terms of engineering. But Skylab was a soapbox. Something that was build by remains of a past era, or at least an era that was going to become past due to low budget. A botch job, although that station was an amazing piece of hardware. To cut Apollo and decide for the Shuttle was a bad mistake though. It caused a huge gap, plus it did take away the capability of going beyond LEO for decades. Almost 30 years later we now have the outcome of that bad path. Again a huge gap and an uncertain future regarding missions beyond LEO. If NASA has to continue to struggle with low budget and is forced to continue with botch jobs, it'll be an endless loop of developing stuff of not being capable to go to the Moon, less than ever to Mars. The talk about extending the Shuttle flights and the ISS life time right into the 2020's already is a "good" indication...

 

[Andy44]

Has anyone ever heard the one about putting all the eggs in one basket ?

NASA's eggs are always in one basket. They can't afford more than one basket.

 

[T.Neo]

IMO developing an entirely new launch system (Saturn V mk II) will be as troublesome and costly as developing Ares, if not more.

I think a DIRECT-style launcher is best, perhaps upgraded with 5-seg boosters at some point in the future.