Refurbish the Saturn V Rocket

On 10 Sep 2003 00:38:21 -0700, in a place far, far away,
(andy2001) made the phosphor on my monitor
glow in such a way as to indicate that:

I agree a genius idea, if anything better than a prize. I'd suggest
though sending a check or goverment bond rather than a stack of cash,
so a smaller, existing LV can be used (Delta 2 perhaps?)

Nope. That would be revocable. It has to be bills similar to the
millions already in circulation.

--
simberg.interglobal.org * 310 372-7963 (CA) 307 739-1296 (Jackson Hole)
interglobal space lines * 307 733-1715 (Fax) http://www.interglobal.org

"Extraordinary launch vehicles require extraordinary markets..."
Swap the first . and @ and throw out the ".trash" to email me.
Here's my email address for autospammers:

On Thu, 11 Sep 2003 21:30:25 +0000 (UTC), in a place far, far away,
Sander Vesik made the phosphor on my
monitor glow in such a way as to indicate that:

I agree a genius idea, if anything better than a prize. I'd suggest
though sending a check or goverment bond rather than a stack of cash,
so a smaller, existing LV can be used (Delta 2 perhaps?)

Nope. That would be revocable. It has to be bills similar to the
millions already in circulation.


The main problem is that it would enourage a bunch of once-off attempts
with hardware you would never productice or even use for any long running
program.

Not necessarily. It's certainly not the way I'd go about doing it.

But a solution to that might be to put multiple caches, with timers on
them so that each one could only be retrieved a certain period of time
after the previous one was, and any attempt to get it sooner would
destroy it.

I'm sure there are lots of problems with this--just thinking out loud
here...

--
simberg.interglobal.org * 310 372-7963 (CA) 307 739-1296 (Jackson Hole)
interglobal space lines * 307 733-1715 (Fax) http://www.interglobal.org

"Extraordinary launch vehicles require extraordinary markets..."
Swap the first . and @ and throw out the ".trash" to email me.
Here's my email address for autospammers:

Tom Merkle wrote:

(TKalbfus) wrote in message ...
I agree a genius idea, if anything better than a prize. I'd suggest
though sending a check or goverment bond rather than a stack of cash,
so a smaller, existing LV can be used (Delta 2 perhaps?)

Actually million dollar bills were printed in the 1930s. All thats required is
for the Federal Reserve to print more of them and you could have 150,000 of
those bills stacked up and put into a single box that an ordinary rocket could
send to Mars.

Tom

Better idea that doesn't cost the federal government a penny, and is
sure to entice lots of risk-takers, who would rapidly set up an
industry that would result in ever-increasing market for products made
in space:

Have the fed declare that all narcotics manfactured off-planet are
legal.

This would probably also have the strange effect of catapulting
Columbia to the front of the technology market... it is a viable
industry that does billions in trade worldwide, though.


Tom Merkle

Oh, they don't have to develop it themselves, Columbia could simply
become the 'investment bank' for anyone trying to develop the
technology.

But as with most of their 'other' dealings, expect not one cent until
you come through....

(Public Service Announcement: "Do you know that your 'harmless' drug
pays for terrible things like space flight?")

Might there be some kind of incentive that would make Saudi Arabia
similarly interested in getting into space?

Any other vices we can turn to our advantage? First casino and/or
brothel on the Moon? (No, I know there are too many simpler ways to do
those here, but rest assured, they will eventually 'ride along' once
other motivations get us out there...)

Putting the Jarvis into production would make my day. But what mission
would justify it?

"jeff findley" wrote in message
...

"gmw" writes:

After Challenger someone suggested, (I can look it up later if anyone is
interested) in AWST a Saturn/Shuttle vehicle. Recreate the first stage
of
the Saturn and then use de-rated SSME for a new second stage. This was
to
be a cargo only version. No third stage. anyone need 220,000 lbs to
LEO?
and later a third stage. Build pad 39c and reconvert part of the VAB to
support a low rate of Saturn/shuttle flights. It was a very well
thought
out proposal that lacked only one thing. A compelling reason to spend
the
money to create/recreate a Saturn class vehicle.

We don't need no stinking SSME powered launch vehicle. Seriously,
what you describe is a HLV that's a bit large for today's needs.

I always liked this concept:

http://www.astronautix.com/lvs/jarvis.htm

You use ET derived tanks (to significantly reduce tooling costs) and
build an ET diameter launch vehicle with two F-1 engines on the first
stage and one J-2 engine on the second stage. The third stage used
R-4D engines (originally developed for attitude control of the CM and
LM, and used later on the third stage of the Atlas II). Payload to
LEO over 80,000 lbs.

Jarvis was a great design but no part of it exists today.
The reason to use shuttle based is the parts exist today.
Parts that could be used that are being built today include several Russian
Rd-170, Rd-180s or Shuttle solids for a first stage and a R-68 second stage.


I'd imagine that the third stage (with appropriately sized fuel tanks
and enough power) ought to be functionally equivalent to the
propulsion module on a Progress or Soyuz, enabling payloads to be
docked to ISS or grappled by the SSRMS.

Way to big, Soyuz puts less then 1/3 as much in orbit.

"jeff findley" wrote in message
...
"Dholmes" writes:

"jeff findley" wrote in message
...

Jarvis was a great design but no part of it exists today.
The reason to use shuttle based is the parts exist today.
Parts that could be used that are being built today include several
Russian
Rd-170, Rd-180s or Shuttle solids for a first stage and a R-68 second
stage.

You must have missed the part that describes the tanks (double as the
structure, just like the shuttle), are essentially variations on the
ET's hydrogen tank. You just make the things in the correct length by
using the correct number of barrel sections. That's essentially off
the shelf.

Yes, I should have mention your use of the ET.



Jarvis is an old concept and there are certainly more engines to chose
from today, especially with the availability of high thrust, high ISP,
Russian LOX/Kerosene engines. Since it was a paper design, there
isn't any reason you couldn't use the same concept with newer
engines.

It is not so much newer that I think is important but already in production
or as you put it earlier of the shelf.
It is my opinion and I could be wrong that using items already in production
lower costs by quite a bit.


The thing I like about the concept is reusing the shuttle ET tooling
and the possibilities opened up by that. ET diameter payloads are
really cool. Imagine an Apollo CM shaped spaceship that's the
diameter of the ET. You could return a lot of ISS payload racks in
that beast and still reduce the overall density of the craft,
resulting in lower reentry G's and a lower terminal velocity, making
recovery systems easier. That would be a fun design to explore.

Almost anything you do with something that big is interesting from a space
station in one shot, an interplanetary rocket or a 50 man orbital vehicle.


I'd imagine that the third stage (with appropriately sized fuel tanks
and enough power) ought to be functionally equivalent to the
propulsion module on a Progress or Soyuz, enabling payloads to be
docked to ISS or grappled by the SSRMS.

Way to big, Soyuz puts less then 1/3 as much in orbit.

I meant the concept of the third stage could be changed such that it
was functionally equivalent to the Progress/Soyuz propulsion module.
That is, it would be bigger and once in orbit, it would have similar
delta-V and have the control authority to dock its payloads to ISS.

I miss understood my apologies.