Very heavy lift vehicle prospects?

Are there any serious proposals in work now for a very-heavy-lift (Saturn
class) booster? Potential uses might include the space-based laser, getting
future nuclear-powered missions off Earth, tourist hotels built as one units,
etc. Is there enough of a market that anyone is seriously pursuing this?

Thanks,




Matt Bille
)
OPINIONS IN ALL POSTS ARE SOLELY THOSE OF THE AUTHOR

Your last question hit the money -- everyone seems to think there is a
potential for those markets; but I don't know of any serious efforts/funding
to create them. As for heavy-lift launchers there are a few options
available if you needed it within a few years.

One is the Russian Energia rocket which was also used to lift the Russian
shuttle, Buran, into LEO. It has a capacity around 100 metric tons. The
production line is pretty cold, but its a possibility. The downside is that
you're launching from Balkinour, so your orbit inclination is at least 51
degrees. A launch site closer to the equator would allow the Energia to
loft a slightly larger payload into orbit. (I seem to remember the Russians
and Australians recently involved in discussions for using Christmas Island
as a potential launch site for mcuh smaller launchers.)

The other is an American STS variant that people have kicked around for
years, the "Shuttle-C". Take the SRBs and the External Tank, but instead of
mounting an orbiter with wings, mount a shrouded payload and main engines.
All that mass required for wings isn't going to be necessary if you're not
worried about coming back to Earth. I think that might give you something
on the order of 80 metric tons to LEO. Maybe more with the superlight ET
and main engine improvements.

"MattWriter" wrote in message
...
Are there any serious proposals in work now for a very-heavy-lift (Saturn
class) booster? Potential uses might include the space-based laser,
getting
future nuclear-powered missions off Earth, tourist hotels built as one
units,
etc. Is there enough of a market that anyone is seriously pursuing this?

Thanks,




Matt Bille
)
OPINIONS IN ALL POSTS ARE SOLELY THOSE OF THE AUTHOR

"MattWriter" wrote:
Are there any serious proposals in work now for a very-heavy-lift (Saturn
class) booster? Potential uses might include the space-based laser, getting
future nuclear-powered missions off Earth, tourist hotels built as one units,
etc. Is there enough of a market that anyone is seriously pursuing this?

The only concepts on the table with any possibility of being
developed in the near term are Shuttle derived HLVs, and even
those have essentially zero chance of being developed. There
may be HLVs developed in the near future but there's very
little market for them at the moment. There's plenty of
ability to build such a vehicle should the need arise, but it
would basically take someone announcing "I have several 100
tonne payloads I need in orbit and I have a few billion
dollars, would someone be so kind as to help me out?"

"Gavin Mendeck" wrote:
One is the Russian Energia rocket which was also used to lift the Russian
shuttle, Buran, into LEO. It has a capacity around 100 metric tons. The
production line is pretty cold, but its a possibility. The downside is that
you're launching from Balkinour, so your orbit inclination is at least 51
degrees. A launch site closer to the equator would allow the Energia to
loft a slightly larger payload into orbit. (I seem to remember the Russians
and Australians recently involved in discussions for using Christmas Island
as a potential launch site for mcuh smaller launchers.)

The even bigger downside is that you're launching from the *past*.
So invent that time machine quickly (or make a note to your future
self to drop off a time machine for you in the present). Energia
and Buran are dead, dead, dead. Dead. You could as soon buy a
Saturn V launch as an Energia launch. Probably sooner, actually.

"Christopher M. Jones" wrote in message ...

The only concepts on the table with any possibility of being
developed in the near term are Shuttle derived HLVs, and even
those have essentially zero chance of being developed. There
may be HLVs developed in the near future but there's very
little market for them at the moment. There's plenty of
ability to build such a vehicle should the need arise, but it
would basically take someone announcing "I have several 100
tonne payloads I need in orbit and I have a few billion
dollars, would someone be so kind as to help me out?"


I believe you are right unfortunately. There is simply no market for a
heavy lift launcher. Any potential markets for the heavy lifter are
about 10-20 years out at least. Considering it only took about 10
years from the ABMA's Saturn proposal to Apollo 8, if the need arises
plenty of aerospace contractors wiill step up to the plate. That
having been said, it's a crying shame that we ( USA) threw away our
heavy lift infrastructure. Imagine if the railroads in the 1800's had
turned away from high horsepower locomotives in favor of small units
with little tractive effort. Do you think the West would have been
settled as quickly?

Gene

(MattWriter) writes:

Are there any serious proposals in work now for a very-heavy-lift (Saturn
class) booster? Potential uses might include the space-based laser, getting
future nuclear-powered missions off Earth, tourist hotels built as one units,
etc. Is there enough of a market that anyone is seriously pursuing this?

Absolutely, positively, not. The last thing Congress wants to fund is
a new, huge, space megaproject. Shuttle and ISS is more than enough
for them to constantly complain about cost. Not only would a new HLV
be costly, but that's peanuts compared to the cost of any of the
payloads your talking about launching.

Jeff
--
Remove "no" and "spam" from email address to reply.
If it says "This is not spam!", it's surely a lie.

"MattWriter" wrote in message
...
Are there any serious proposals in work now for a very-heavy-lift (Saturn
class) booster? Potential uses might include the space-based laser,
getting
future nuclear-powered missions off Earth, tourist hotels built as one
units,
etc. Is there enough of a market that anyone is seriously pursuing this?

Thanks,


The simple answer is no.

The complex one is the parts are there for something a little smaller the
Saturn but putting them together will not be cheap.

Shuttle C, Araine 5 and the 1980s NLS both show what can be done.

Araine 5 looks like a small version of a proposed Shuttle inline rocket.
Use Shuttle boosters, replace the existing engine with Delta 4, Atlas 5 or
even an old shuttle engine and you get large lift capacity in the 25+ ton
Range to GTO and around 50 tons to LEO.

NLS used 1-4 simplified Shuttle main engines very similar to the Delta 4
main engine.
It would have launched in three versions.
The first was basically a Delta 4 medium giving 8+ tons to LEO.
The second a 4 rocket version with what amounted to a shuttle fuel tank. It
was very similar in performance to the Delta heavy putting almost 30 tons
into LEO.
The last added 2 Shuttle solid rocket boosters and topped out at about 50
tons to LEO more with a second stage and or 4 boosters.

As far as I can tell there is no reason Atlas or SeaLaunch engines could not
be used as well.

Does a market exist?
I would say yes with a little encouragement.

Recently a GSO satellite was built that weighed over 14,000 pounds, only the
Delta or Atlas Heavy could put that in orbit.
At least one of the OSP designs is over 48,000 pounds or about 22 metric
tons again requiring a Heavy class rocket.
Many Space station components fall in this same weight class.

Basically if NASA and DOD decide to support it a market exists but they
must support it.

If NASA wants to retire the shuttle in the next 10-15 years and plans to
maintain an orbital presence I do not see how they avoid developing a heavy
lift ability.

If NASA wants to retire the shuttle in the next 10-15 years and plans to
maintain an orbital presence I do not see how they avoid developing a heavy
lift ability.

The Orbital Space Plane might be mated to a heavy lift rocket. How about
placing it on top of a shuttle C? The launch configuration would include
External tank, 2 solid rocket boosters, the shuttle C orbiter with the Orbital
space plane perched on top of its nose. The Shuttle C Orbiter would haul
additional rocket fuel in its cargo area which would feed into its main
engines. A better idea would be a Shuttle C with a nuclear engine that is not
used until it reaches orbit. A nuclear pulse detonation rocket might be a good
idea.

"jeff findley" wrote in message
...
"Dholmes" writes:
If NASA wants to retire the shuttle in the next 10-15 years and plans to
maintain an orbital presence I do not see how they avoid developing a
heavy
lift ability.

You don't think that Delta IV and Atlas V (and their descendants) are
capable of launching payloads that would reasonably be funded after
ISS is complete? I doubt Congress and the administration will be
funding a mega-project that would require such a beast. Instead, I
see ISS continuing along the lines of Mir. It will be flying far
beyond its intended lifetime because no replacement will be funded.


Not without some good upgrades.

1) The Shuttle can deliver over 60,000 lbs to LEO this IMO is the minimum
size for any cargo vehicle that would replace it.
Neither the Atlas nor the Delta can today put 60,000+ pounds into LEO.
Without such a vehicle you would have a hard time replacing any failing
modules.

2) A communication satellite has recently broken 14,000 pounds. This can
only be launched by the largest rockets available today. The maximum size
satellite will only grow and 30,000 lbs to GTO may not be unheard of in 20
years
The numbers of satellites and boosters exceeding 15000 pounds to GTO will
probably become quite large.

3) The Orbital Space Plane could easily top out at over 40,000 lbs putting
it near the max of what can be delivered to ISS.

4) I find it hard to believe that the military will not be able to use
heavier lift capacity.

5) No matter how long you stretch out the ISS you will need to replace it.
Hopefully this time in a better orbit and a simpler design. A rocket capable
of putting 100,000+ lbs into orbit would make this much easier. 1000 cubic
meters in one launch would be a big help as well.

None of this requires mega projects and might even be cheaper in the long
run.

Several things could be done to encourage the development of heavier launch
capability.

Among them:

1) Help develop a larger second stage rocket engine. . IMO at less then
25,000 lbs of thrust current second stage engines are very underpowered for
LEO launches. I would think something between 100,000 and 200,000 lbs of
thrust would be best. Such engines would also allow development of a three
stage Delta and Atlas for GTO, GSO and interplanetery missions with a
Centaur as the third stage.
2) Choose a design for the space plane at over 40,000 lbs.
3) Commit to a cargo vehicle. Nothing complex just something capable of
delivering about the same cargo as the Shuttle to the station but without
reentry capability. The total for vehicle and cargo should also be well over
40,000 pounds and have a size similar to the Space Shuttle cargo bay.
4) Commit to a follow on to the X-37/X-38 again with over a 40,000 lb mass.
5) Help develop a larger diameter first stage and test with mutiple existing
rocket engines.
6) Provide encouragement to use Shuttle solid rocket boosters with existing
rockets.
7) The last step probably 20 plus years in the future. Help develop a first
stage engine with several times the thrust of current Delta and Atlas
engines.

As I said nothing that takes a lot of money when spread out over 20 to 30
years.

P.S. check out http://www.astronautix.com/lvs/nls.htm for what can be done
largely with existing technology.