NASA studies Ares rocket alternatives

[Ghostrider]

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

They not only put all the eggs in one basket, they place the basket above a high-explosive stack and light it up.

 

[RisingFury]

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

Yes... rebuilding Saturn 5 sounds a whole lot better then a rocket that is optimized for today's technology and materials. Hell, at least it's coolness factor is off the charts.[/sarcasm]

 

[T.Neo]

Yes... rebuilding Saturn 5 sounds a whole lot better then a rocket that is optimized for today's technology and materials.

I'd imagine that Saturn V mkII would also use modern technology, it would only resemble Saturn V's basic arrangment.

 

[Moonwalker]

As long as NASA doesn't get more money, they won't be able to distribute any eggs.

 

[Urwumpe]

As long as NASA doesn't get more money, they won't be able to distribute any eggs.

No bucks, no Buck Rogers.






You should have this as bumper sticker. :rofl:

 

[PhantomCruiser]

Well said, Urwumpe.
That's what make those birds go up... Funding.

 

[Ghostrider]

Anyone thinking of resurrecting the Saturn V should consider that:

- Saturn V is now 50 years old technology, we've moved on a lot since then and remaking it would mean essentially reinventing it with current materials and technology. It wouldn't be Saturn anymore.

- Saturn V was built to carry the CSM/LM stack to the Moon. Now, the CSM/LM stack is meant to put a couple of guys on a limited landing area on the Moon and carry them and little else back, which is not what we should be thinking about if we're talking a permanent presence there.

- Saturn V was a wonderfully complex machine that flew 11 times, of which 9 manned. Not enough a sample to guarantee smooth operation over dozens of missions.

Sending up two rockets makes sense, it's actually the most sensible approach because EOR is way better than LOR if you want to send some real mass downrange. It has its issues but it was used with Gemini so it's not new ground by a loooong way.

Having alternatives to Ares makes sense, having alternatives to Orion also makes sense. The USAF and USN operates a good variety of planes, having different kinds of spacecraft would also make sense.

As a longtime Gemini fan, I'd love to see a remake of Big Gemini, because I like simple modular designs. Recovering the landfall capability would also be preferable to ocean splash because the US has Utah for a good reason and since the Thud is not in the inventory anymore it now lacks something to land in. Besides I'd rather land among Mormons than sharks.

 

[simonpro]

More cost effective.

 

[Moonwalker]

- Saturn V was built to carry the CSM/LM stack to the Moon. Now, the CSM/LM stack is meant to put a couple of guys on a limited landing area on the Moon and carry them and little else back, which is not what we should be thinking about if we're talking a permanent presence there.

Don't forget Skylab.

Using an even more powerful remake of the Saturn V launch vehicle can be quite useful for missions to the Moon and to Mars i.e. heavy payloads.

- Saturn V was a wonderfully complex machine that flew 11 times, of which 9 manned. Not enough a sample to guarantee smooth operation over dozens of missions.

A new LV offers new technologies and solutions.

Sending up two rockets makes sense, it's actually the most sensible approach because EOR is way better than LOR if you want to send some real mass downrange. It has its issues but it was used with Gemini so it's not new ground by a loooong way.

That's why I like the current Ares concept.

 

[jinglesassy]

what about using the saturn v mk2 to assemble the stack for interplanetary travel ahead of time in earth orbit then another saturn v with more parts for it and the capsule on top heads out to the stack then rendezvous with the stack set to go to whichever place they need it to go this way they only need to build one rocket and it will look cool on the pad

 

[Urwumpe]

Which brings us already to the key question: How should a Saturn V Mk2 look like? You can't just make a 1:1 translation of the parts of a Saturn V to modern parts. You don't even want to do this. The stages could be easily 30% lighter today, than in the Saturn V and require only 1/10th of the fuel mass as residuals for safe shutdown.

 

[Zatnikitelman]

I don't think they're talking about bolting together the Saturns down at Huntsville and KSC, building a few more copies and lighting the fuse. They're using Saturn V as an analogy for really-big-launcher-launches-stack-in-one-go. While yes, an Apollo-style LOR may not be the best way to go nowadays, it might just gets us there and open the door to future flights with diffent infrastructures.
One thing I wish we would start working on again is Nuclear Thermal Rocket technology. It requires less fuel mass to get the job done, so even if the mass of the reactor offsets the fuel savings, you're still only launching a given amount of LH2 or somesuch.

 

[T.Neo]

One thing I wish we would start working on again is Nuclear Thermal Rocket technology. It requires less fuel mass to get the job done, so even if the mass of the reactor offsets the fuel savings, you're still only launching a given amount of LH2 or somesuch.

Yeah, but with that you will run into political issues...

 

[Ghostrider]

One thing I wish we would start working on again is Nuclear Thermal Rocket technology.

If we could even touch nuclear rocket tech, the Solar System would be wide open by now. Unfortunately we cannot even call MRI by its real name - Nuclear Magnetic Resonance Imagery - because the envirowimps have successfully scared the public into believing anything related to atomic stuff is bad.

It will only change when their precioussss iPhones will start dying because of lack of power, and they'll understand that burning babies is not very efficient to produce energy.

 

[RisingFury]

A nuclear reactor would be used best as a transfer vehicle between two planetary bodies where you need constant, possible high speed trips.

As a launch vehicle it's a terrible choice. Regardless of the environmental impact, it would be far from cheapest way of getting stuff into orbit... especially if it wasn't reusible.

 

[Urwumpe]

But I like Netbooks with an Atom processor...

 

[Andy44]

Anyone thinking of resurrecting the Saturn V should consider that:

- Saturn V is now 50 years old technology, we've moved on a lot since then and remaking it would mean essentially reinventing it with current materials and technology. It wouldn't be Saturn anymore.

Correct, but it would have Saturn's basic layout, which is known to work well.

Of course, technology really hasn't advanced that far in the 34 years since the last Saturn flew. Rocket engines are marginally better, and materials are a little lighter. So you'd have an uprated Saturn clone.

But since we're speaking of Saturn, one of the things that made the Saturn family so appealing was its room for growth. Go to astronautix and look at all the stretched-stage and solid or liquid rocket boosted upgrades that were put on the drawing board for the Saturn V. Saturn IB would have been replaced with a "Saturn II" or something similar.

I see no real means for building a bigger Ares I or Ares V. They look like dead-end designs to me. This big and no bigger. As it is Ares I had already proven to be too optimistic, and they have no way to boost the payload. They're loading it down with shock absorbers and other useles junk.

Sending up two rockets makes sense, it's actually the most sensible approach because EOR is way better than LOR if you want to send some real mass downrange. It has its issues but it was used with Gemini so it's not new ground by a loooong way.

For some, high-mass, missions, yes, multiple launches make sense. But only if you have a launch vehicle reliable enough to not get scrubbed five times every time you try to launch it (ahem...Space Shuttle).

Saturn V launched in bad weather, and even took a lightning strike. Yes, it was a bad idea to launch in a thunderstorm, but at least we found out the vehicle was tough. New launch rules were written after Apollo 12, but imagine if there was a second vehicle waiting in orbit with its LH2 venting away. How bad would the "go fever" be?

 

[Urwumpe]

That makes it sound like go fever is really something bad - if you have it under control and do your homework, it is good to have, instead of aborting a countdown because of dust on the display of a launch controller.

 

[daniash]

[ ]

 

[Unstung]

EDIT: Actually, the idea of two rockets seem better. One for the moon, one for LEO.
NASA needs more money, twice their current budget.