Best future booster design

For Bushes new space plan are we better off building a NEW version of the
saturn 5 or assembling everything in modules with a delta heavy?

It would be costly to resurrect a saturn 5 type booster but look at ISS
launched in fewer larger modules it might be more efficent.

On 24 Jan 2004 21:48:33 GMT, (Hallerb) wrote:

For Bushes new space plan are we better off building a NEW version of the
saturn 5 or assembling everything in modules with a delta heavy?

It would be costly to resurrect a saturn 5 type booster but look at ISS
launched in fewer larger modules it might be more efficent.

It depends on the scale of the program. If we're looking for several
missions per year to the Moon, then we should probably fund a big
booster (and a Shuttle derivative is by far the fastest and cheapest
route to one today) if it's only a couple of missions a year, use the
EELVs and pay the penalty of some duplication of effort.

Brian

(Hallerb) wrote:
For Bushes new space plan are we better off building a NEW version of the
saturn 5 or assembling everything in modules with a delta heavy?

It would be costly to resurrect a saturn 5 type booster but look at ISS
launched in fewer larger modules it might be more efficent.

It's more efficient, but is it more cost effective to build a special
purpose booster that will only fly a few flights?

D.
--
The STS-107 Columbia Loss FAQ can be found
at the following URLs:

Text-Only Version:
http://www.io.com/~o_m/columbia_loss_faq.html

Enhanced HTML Version:
http://www.io.com/~o_m/columbia_loss_faq_x.html

Corrections, comments, and additions should be
e-mailed to , as well as posted to
sci.space.history and sci.space.shuttle for
discussion.

Ok, it is not the question but...I doubt Bush wants to spend billions $$$ to
do "more of the same".
If I was him I'd go for the bigger firework. i.e. Saturn VI, iykwim



"Hallerb" schreef in bericht
...
For Bushes new space plan are we better off building a NEW version of the
saturn 5 or assembling everything in modules with a delta heavy?

It would be costly to resurrect a saturn 5 type booster but look at ISS
launched in fewer larger modules it might be more efficent.

It's more efficient, but is it more cost effective to build a special
purpose booster that will only fly a few flights?

Well how many flights would a BIG booster need? Moon base, Mars, and hopefully
some asteroid missions plus supporting whatever space station.

On Sun, 25 Jan 2004 06:19:26 GMT, (Derek
Lyons) wrote:

(Hallerb) wrote:
For Bushes new space plan are we better off building a NEW version of the
saturn 5 or assembling everything in modules with a delta heavy?

It would be costly to resurrect a saturn 5 type booster but look at ISS
launched in fewer larger modules it might be more efficent.

It's more efficient, but is it more cost effective to build a special
purpose booster that will only fly a few flights?

This is all academic until we know exactly what the Moon / Mars plan
will be. But it sounds to me that Bush has proposed _sustained_
exploration, which means we probably will have need for considerably
more than "a few" flights, however we launch the missions.

Brian

On 24 Jan 2004 21:48:33 GMT, (Hallerb) wrote:

For Bushes new space plan are we better off building a NEW version of the
saturn 5 or assembling everything in modules with a delta heavy?

It would be costly to resurrect a saturn 5 type booster but look at ISS
launched in fewer larger modules it might be more efficent.



They have the opportunity to do it right this time. Hopefully they
will. The only way to make meaningful progress is to get launch costs
down and that means something like Sea Dragon. Relatively cheap
constructon. Reusability.

Brian Thorn writes:
This is all academic until we know exactly what the Moon / Mars plan
will be. But it sounds to me that Bush has proposed _sustained_
exploration, which means we probably will have need for considerably
more than "a few" flights, however we launch the missions.

If these flights are spread out sufficiently (say two manned missions
launched per year towards the moon or one every few years to Mars),
then I doubt at NASA would "need" a new HLV.

Given the budget projections for NASA, I'd say a new HLV is not in the
cards. Lunar and Mars missions will be slow and deliberate, unless
NASA funding is increased far more than Bush proposes.

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

On 24 Jan 2004 21:48:33 GMT, (Hallerb) wrote:

For Bushes new space plan are we better off building a NEW version of the
saturn 5 or assembling everything in modules with a delta heavy?

It would be costly to resurrect a saturn 5 type booster but look at ISS
launched in fewer larger modules it might be more efficent.



If we don't do the Shuttle-C, one 'Saturn' approach would be F-1
powered core and strap-on stages with the Delta upper stages above it,
just as the Saturn 1B and the Saturn V shared the S-IVB stage.




----== Posted via Newsfeed.Com - Unlimited-Uncensored-Secure Usenet News==----
http://www.newsfeed.com The #1 Newsgroup Service in the World! 100,000 Newsgroups
---= 19 East/West-Coast Specialized Servers - Total Privacy via Encryption =---

jeff findley wrote in message ...
Brian Thorn writes:
This is all academic until we know exactly what the Moon / Mars plan
will be. But it sounds to me that Bush has proposed _sustained_
exploration, which means we probably will have need for considerably
more than "a few" flights, however we launch the missions.

If these flights are spread out sufficiently (say two manned missions
launched per year towards the moon or one every few years to Mars),
then I doubt at NASA would "need" a new HLV.


When I strip out the orbiter hardware costs from NASA's
annual budget, I get something like $160 million per
flight for ET and SRB. I would guess that a cargo carrier,
perhaps with RS-68 propulsion, might up the hardware costs
to a total guesstimate of $250 million in hardware costs
per pseudo-shuttle-derived launch. Adding estimated
operations costs on the order of $500 million per year
(to run the launch site, integrate the vehicle and
payloads, etc.) gives the following.

Flights/Year $Total Per Flight
---------------------------------------
2 $1.00B $0.50B
4 $1.50B $0.38B
6 $2.00B $0.33B
--------------------------------------

An EELV-based lunar mission might require 5-6 EELV heavy
launches. Assuming that NASA could negotiate a volume-based
deal at $150 million per flight, the launch costs for each
lunar mission would be $0.75-0.9 billion.

Five-six EELV launches could put 125-150 tons into LEO.
A shuttle-derived (SDV) might be able to orbit 100 tons,
so a lunar mission based on such a vehicle would require
more than one launch (either two SDVs or one SDV and one
or two EELVs) and would cost $0.65 to $0.8 billion per
mission, assuming a low annual SDV flight rate.

Based on this estimate, I see a weak argument for
developing a 100-ton class SDV for a lunar program that
involves one or two missions per year. The discussion
might get interesting if four or more lunar missions
were performed each year, or if a 150-ton class SDV were
possible . Note that I have not considered the estimated
$3-4 billion SDV development costs, or any (likely lesser)
costs required for upgrading the EELVs.

- Ed Kyle