Shuttle C vs. Ares V

If if can be developed faster and cheaper than the Ares V, and it is
also a heavy lift vehicle suitable for going to Mars, how is it that
the Shuttle C wasn't the first idea NASA chose when Bush decided to go
back to the moon?

On Apr 18, 8:28�pm, "F/32 Eurydice" wrote:
If if can be developed faster and cheaper than the Ares V, and it is
also a heavy lift vehicle suitable for going to Mars, how is it that
the Shuttle C wasn't the first idea NASA chose when Bush decided to go
back to the moon?

NASA wanted new money to hand out for pork projects...........

Shuttle C was obvious for heavy lifting

Atlas / delta heavies for manned launches

F/32 Eurydice wrote:
If if can be developed faster and cheaper than the Ares V, and it is
also a heavy lift vehicle suitable for going to Mars, how is it that
the Shuttle C wasn't the first idea NASA chose when Bush decided to go
back to the moon?

Side-mount concepts have higher operational costs than inline and don't
scale up as well.

Nothing new here; every study of side-mount SDLV vs. inline came to the
same conclusion. Side-mount makes sense only in the context of continued
shuttle operations since you can share facilities. In the context of
shuttle retirement, inline SDLV buys back its increased development
costs fairly quickly.

The External Tank

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Space_S..._external_tank

equipped with;

(1) an improved thermal protection system for ballistic 'nose first'
re-entry.
(2) a multi-chamber truncated aerospike engine built around RS-68
pumpsets at its base
(3) fold-away wings for gliding flight as subsonic speeds
(4) under-carriage for glide landing at an airfield
(5) improved cross-feed of propellant

Would form a fully-reusable element in a multi-element launcher.

Such a system is developed for less than $2 billion and each built for
$100 million, and flown for less than $1 million per flight, with over
1,000 flight cycles. A fleet of 21 elements would be quite capable
and cost less than $5 billion overall.

The engine configured this way produces over 450 sec Isp (4.5 km/sec
exhaust speed) carries the same 730 tonnes of propellant when full and
mass 50 tonnes empty (double the current empty weight) and produces
1,100 tonnes of thrust.

Extending the inter-stage to carry a payload that is ejected sideways
- an ET modified in this way carries 59 tonnes to orbit (more than the
shuttle can carry)

Adding a second ET to the side - and using the second ET to feed the
first when its attached, to create a two stage system capable of
putting 162 tonnes into orbit (more than Saturn V could carry) The
first stage separates, re-enters ballistically down range. Slow to
subsonic speeds. Deploys fold away wings. Glides to a recovery
airplane loitering down range. Is towed back for release at the
launch center.

Adding a third ET to the side - with a central stage in the middle
acting as second stage - and the two outboard elements feeding the
central stage forming the first stage - increases the payload to orbit
to 256 tonnes.

Adding four more elements - creating a new first stage - and treating
the preceding two stages as the second and third stage increases the
payload to orbit to 760 tonnes. This is large enough to lift
another ET atop the other 7. That is, to carry another 56 tonnes
through another 9.2 km/sec delta vee. In short, enough to send 56
tonnes to the Moon or Mars and bring it back to Earth!!

The seven element system looks like this when viewed from the front;

(1)(2)
(3)(4)(5)
(6)(7)

Where
tanks 1 and 6 feed 3
tanks 2 and 7 feed 5
tanks 3 and 5 feed 4

at lift off

then 1,2,6,7 are dropped, re-enter, slow, glide, and are recovered by
their own aircraft loitering downrange

3 and 5 feed 4 - and all proceed further

then 3 and 5 are dropped, re-enter, slow, glide, and are recovered by
their own aircraft loitering downrange

and 4 proceeds to orbit.

Carrying 760 tonnes - which could actually be another 830 tonne
element sitting stop the nose of the element 4 - and a small fraction
of propellant would be expended to bring the full payload to orbit -
but would also proceed to inject the element into lunar transfer
trajectory - and then descend directly on to the lunar surface -
landing by rocket. Take off the same way.

Actually, since the delta vee requirement to get to the moon's surface
and back is less than the delta vee to get to orbit in the first
place, 100 tonnes are placed on the lunar surface by the 8th element
here, and returned safely to Earth - with recovery of all components.
190 tonnes are sent one way - with recovery of the empty element
after.

Twenty-one elements form a very flexible system. Operated at three 3
stage RLVs - one flight to the moon per week takes place. Half the
flights provide one way shipments of materiel. Half the flights
deploy and retrieve crew members onto the surface.

At one half tonne per person - 200 people are carried on the piloted
flights. Only a skeleton crew of 20 are needed on the cargo flights.
Since a tonne maintains a person for a year - 95 people may be added
per week with this modest fleet - to the lunar surface. In two years
a village of 10,000 people will exist on the moon.

At $5 million per ton of lunar hardware - and 10% of the weight this
hardware (the other 90% is consumables) Each cargo flight requires
$100 million to sustain it. With $10 million per flight - 100
flights per year would cost $1 billion and the cargo would cost $5
billion. Over two years $12 billion puts 10,000 people on the moon
permanently.

A single element vehicle lofts several communications satellites into
orbit per launch - allowing the low cost deployment of a global
wireless hotspot worth $85 billion per year in revenue generation.

A three element vehicle lofts a power satellite into orbit per launch
- allowing the capture of hundreds of billions of dollars in energy
revenue.

A seven element vehicle carries people and materiel to the moon and
mars and back, and returns all the elements for reuse.

For a system this size, an undercarriage is replaced with less weight
in surplus propellant than the weight of the undercarriage. That
propellant is then used to light up the rockets on the base, and
execute a powered touchdown moving from glider mode to vertical
landing mode - like tail sitter aircraft of old - (Lockheed XFV)

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lockheed_XFV

The ET with fold-away wings deployed glides in from re-entry and is
collected by an aircraft loitering downrange to recover the ET. Once
snagged the ET is then towed to the launch center. There it is
released and the ET glides in for a landing. As it approaches the
touchdown point, the engine lights up, and the ET glider executes a
climb to vertical, and then reduces thrust to come in for a landing
like a tail sitter. Engine off, and wings folded back again the ET is
then secured to its base, and the base moved to a point where the ET
is joined to other ETs simply.

SINGLE STAGE TO ORBIT

External Tank Derived Heavy Lift Launcher (ETDHLL) is 50.8 meters long
and 8.4 meters in diameter. It masses 26.5 metric tons of structure
and carried 760.0 metric tons of propellant (629.24 MT LOX, 106.26 MT
LH2) The vehicle is equipped with an aerospike engine built around
three RS-68 pump sets with a total mass of 19.8 metric tons and
producing 1,031.4 metric tons of thrust with an Isp of 468 seconds.
It carries 50 metric tons of payload (double that of the Space
Shuttle) in an stretched inter-tank region that is 8.4 meters in
diameter and 10.8 meters in length (twice the volume of the space
shuttle) There is also 20.2 metric tons of added thermal protection
and fold-away wings to allow the empty stage to operate as a glider.
The system is fully reusable 2,000 times.

TWO ELEMENT TWO STAGE TO ORBIT

Equipped with Cross Feed a two element two stage system is made. The
booster element feeds propellant to the orbiter element at lift off.
This vehicle carries 157.2 metric tons to orbit in a 33.9 meter long
inter-tank region in the orbiter. Thus, the booster element is
73.9 meters long while the booster element is 46.9 meters long. The
system is fully reusable 2,000 times.

THREE ELEMENT TWO STAGE TO ORBIT

Two outboard booster elements feed propellant to a central stage at
lift off. The booster elements are 46.9 meters long while the orbiter
element is 101.7 meters long. The vehicle carries 253.9 metric tons
payload.

SEVEN ELEMENT THREE STAGE TO ORBIT

A central element operating as a third stage is fed at launch by two
outboard elements forming a second stage. Each of the second stage
outboard elements are each fed by two additional outboard elements
creating a first stage. The four first stage elements are drained
first, the two second stage elements are drained next. These six
booster elements are each 46.9 meters long while the orbiter element
is 186.8 meters long. The vehicle carries 648 metric tons to
orbit.

MISSIONS

SINGLE LAUNCH MARS ROUND TRIP

The 648 metric ton element , 41 meters long, carries 6.1 metric tons
to Mars surface and back, reusing the spacecraft.

DUAL LAUNCH MOON ROUND TRIP

The 648 metric ton element, 41 meters long system transfers 583.6 tons
of propellant to the two element two stage launcher orbiter on orbit.
The orbiter carries 105.5 tons to the moon and back returning the
spacecraft.

DUAL LAUNCH MARS ROUND TRIP WITH IN-SITU REFUELING

The 648 metric ton element, 41 meters long system transfers 583.6 tons
of propellant to the three element two stage launcher‘s orbiter
carrying 253.9 metric tons of payload. The vehicle lands 253.9 metric
tons on Mars’ surface. Once there, 583.6 tons of propellant is made
on Mars surface from local water supplies and solar energy. 156.4
metric tons of payload is left permanently on the surface of Mars
while 97.5 metric tons of payload is returned to Earth, along with the
vehicle, which may be reused 2,000x.