2001: A Space Time Odyssey (Version 2)

[SpaceGeek]

So you're talking about spending years of development and billions of dollars on a nuclear stage that's exclusive to Mars? That's money much better spent elsewhere if it's at all practical--making a better shuttle, building a larger Shuttle fleet if necessary, the actual Mars transfer habitat, lander, surface hardware, etc.

A Mars Program without NERVA would be difficult. If we were to rely on chemical propulsion, the result would be a scaled down mission with a total mass in LEO of 1,900 tonnes, requiring 71 Space Shuttle flights to assemble and refuel!

It would be much simpler, safer, easier and cheaper with the nuclear shuttle and allow two full-scale expedition spacecraft traveling in convoy (allowing full and total redundancy & backup, something important for 600+ day mission).

The original NASA plan for the Nuclear Shuttle would be that it would be used for the Lunar Program & Mars Program (and sending large payloads tp Geosynchronous orbit if desired). The entire point of the Integrated Program Plan as designed was for the hardware elements to be capable of performing multiple missions and having multiple applications so they could all be justified independently of the Mars mission and have other useful applications.

Chemical Tug: Launching Space Probes & Satellites, A Two-Way crew-cargo Lunar Lander, A One Way cargo lunar lander, A manned spacecraft for servicing and refueling satellites and telescopes in different orbits etc.

Nuclear Shuttle: Launching large amounts of cargo and crew to the Moon, Mars or Geosynchronous Orbit with significantly lower propellant mass.

Space Station Module: An Earth Orbiting Space Station, A Lunar Surface Habitat for lunar base, A habitat for a Manned Mars spacecraft, A habitat for a Manned Mars Surface Base. A Geosynchronous orbit station if desired.

The IPP is created in such a way that the only major hardware element that actually needed to be developed specifically for Mars is, the Mars Excursion Module (MEM, the lander & temporary surface habitat essentially). Hardware commonality was a major theme of the entire proposed program. The Nuclear Shuttle would save money in propellant cost and allow a greatly expanded lunar base program in addition to the Mars program.

Or just fly dedicated tanker missions, maybe even with a specifically modified orbiter able to transfer the propellant from its own ascent tanks to the depot. The rest is a flight rate question, and more flights is better there--it helps spread the costs of the standing army, and better justifies the development of a fully reusable Shuttle

The plan would be for the Saturn INT-21 to launch the Nuclear Shuttle in a single piece (no need for on-orbit assembly) and then have Space Shuttles in tanker mode refuel it. On the Nuclear Shuttles first missions, it would require a single Space Shuttle to top off the tank. On later missions it would require 6 Shuttle tanker missions to fully refuel its tanks and 2 to deliver all the necessary payload.

We're open to criticism and changing most elements of our Timeline except for this one. The Nuclear Shuttle stays and that's final. It's really necessary for what we're doing. The program we're attempting can't be achieved with Chemical Tugs substituting the Nuclear Shuttle.

 

[SpaceGeek]

In November 1967 the was a special meeting of MoM, with the Soviet Academy of Science, high ranking officials of the Military and the Politburo ministers.
Their goal was to determine the future of Soviet Space program after the manned Lunar landing for coming five-years plans.
The Military wanted low orbit manned space station for reconnaissance, to counter the USAF MOL program.
Also the Academy of Science was interesting in manned space station to study human effect on long term stay in space.
So they came to common Agreement and it was authorized under name "Tema: Salyut“ (Salute Study) codedname under civilian OS-7k and military OSP-7k
First flights had to happen in the beginning of the Ninth five-Year Plan 1971-1975, with extension of the program during the Tenth five-Year Plan 1976-1981 if successful.

The next point was the limitation of the LOK/LK system in landing one cosmonaut on Moon surface. The Academy of Science was eager to send geologists to the Moon.
Sergei Khrushchev announced the 7K-SM concept, which could replace the current Soyuz LOK/LK design in 1970s as the L3M Three man for moon and as Six man spacecraft 7K-SM
While Vladimir Barmin proposed the construction of a manned lunar base.
Those Lunar projects were authorized, combine under name "Tema: Columb“ (Columbus Study), First flight had to happen in the beginning of the Tenth five-Year Plan 1976-1981

Next point was demand of the Academy of Science of manned Mars/Venus mission. In case the Soviets lost the Moon race with the Americans,
They need something impressive to counter, Cosmonauts on Mars would be the thing they need. Besides, even if they beat the Americans to the Moon, it would make an interesting long term goal.
The 7K-SM concept as L3M needed an upgraded N1 rocket with Hydrogen Engines in the upper stages anyway. This could be use to launch heavy interplanetary spaceship parts into low earth orbit.
But it needed High Power Rocket engines, either Nuclear thermal or Nuclear Electric.
This project study were authorized under name "Tema: Aelita“ (Alita Study), the first step would specify the needed hardware during Ninth five-Year Plan 1971-1975
If selected as Program, Hardware R&D construction start in Ten five-Year Plan 1976-1981, first Aelita mission would then hopefully fly during the end of the Eleventh five-Year Plan 1981-1985.

What had to be build for Mars and Venus exploration probes was also defined. The first Probes would already fly during eighth five-Year Plan 1966-1970.

A International participation and cooperation program called Interkosmos, provided Instruments for Soviet Space Probe. Possible option of bring astronauts from allies and other socialist nation to OS-7k space Station.

The entire Planning of Human exploration of the Earth Orbit, Moon, Venus and Mars was combined under name Galatika (Galaxy).

One copy of the meeting's conclusions made an extraordinary journey.
Ripped in pieces, it landed into a waste paper basket in a MoM office, salvaged partially by a cleaning lady [1] working for CIA, over Moscow US embassy to Unites states of America to CIA HQ in Langley.

Footnotes

[1] Allot of the best spies are cleaning ladies at the enemy offices, the German invented this practice in 19 century…

 

[RanulfC]

Double? Really? Considering that the OTL and presumptive ITTL upper stage engines of the N-1 were supposed to get nearly 350 ISP, "double" would mean 700--far superior to hydrogen-LOX at a theoretical max under or maybe pushing 500!

Yep I overstated a "bit" IIRC about low 400s for a "good" LH2/LOX engine, mid-range 380s for "good" Methalox and somewhere north of 360s for a cryo-propane/lox but higher thrust than hydrolox. On par for methalox but denser.

What the Soviets actually did, OTL, in the Seventies and up to the collapse of the USSR, was develop a synthetic reformulation of hydrocarbon fuel known as "Sintin" or "Syntin," (apparently depending on the whims of how one transliterates from the Cyrillic to Roman alphabet). This stuff, I gather, provided most of the performance improvement margin I've usually seen cited for methane (the few figures for the latter I've seen being disappointingly less than one would guess from the doubled proportion of hydrogen) and required neither pressurization nor cryogenic temperatures.

Similar to the US JP10 from what I understand, ie: a really "dense," storable synthetic hyrdrocarbon fuel. Downside is it's slightly toxic and really expensive and there are "other" fuels that could probably be used to get the same performance if you "really" want to go that way.

Again I suspect you're right that the "simple" answer is basically if you are going to "go" that route LH2, despite its "issues" would seem to be more logical. More modern "common-wisdom" aside

Randy

 

[RanulfC]

So it had a total assembled run time of 0 minutes and 0 starts? Also, note that total run time for an engine in ground testing may include tear downs--there were SSMEs that racked up hours of time on the stands but still they were removed for refurbishment after every flight.

Just FYI but at "this point" the hardware except for the reactor is quite "flight-proven" since its all J2 hardware which was developed from the NERVA engine hardware.

Worse, even if they can achieve 115 minutes of run time, as I noted, that's insufficient to justify the resulting vehicle when a chemical tug can do much the same job 90% as well, and save billions in development costs that the nuclear shuttle can't eliminate in operations costs. Considering that even a steady $5 billion in nominal dollars is unlikely, they need to find elements like this that are ultimately unnecessary and cut them to have a chance of doing to important elements right.

Thing is for any 'real' BLEO space program the NERVA was seen as the key enabler and once its development was canceled all BLEO plans went by the wayside. Part of the original assumptions was that longer lasting, more efficient reactors were going to be developed but in order to do so both research and flight was going to have to happen.

On the "other hand" abundant chemical as an architecture is still possible but in either case you're going to have to build up a significant in-space infrastructure in either case.

As an "aside" ever checked out the "architecture" for a "robust-nuclear" space age presented in "NUCLEAR SPACE PROPULSION by Holmes F. Crouch" (1965) referenced here:
http://www.projectrho.com/public_html/rocket/realdesigns.php

Of course, I remain interested to see what you guys have in store.

Same

Randy

 

[Shevek23]

In my opinion, quite a lot of good can be done chemically, in the Earth/Moon system anyway, using aerobraking to return a reusable orbital transfer vehicle to low Earth orbit without needing propellant for that phase. But going over the figures, in a long "show my work" post most of you all have seen too many of from me I do have to admit, going nuclear will deliver a lot more mass to BLEO destinations out of a given payload orbited from from Earth.

Anyway, we expect such grandiose schemes in this TL that assumes an ongoing space race and more robust and long-lived Soviet Union in competition with a USA spurred into giving its all.
-----
The argument about whether or not to use nuclear OTVs also derailed me from another such rambling, dialectical post in which I hoped to flesh out the characteristics of a methane-LOX engine, by consideration of molecular and energy balances as they affect chamber pressures and temperatures and pumping loads as well as tankage volumes. I was going to consider the exercise of taking well-known OTL engines, ker-lox and hydrogen-LOX, and respectively upgrade and downgrade them to substitute methane for their fuels, to explore what modifications would be needed, what constraints might be loosened and which become more stringent, and come up with the thrusts and burn times of respectively a meth-lox version of those Soviet engines used in the N-1 (much higher ISP than the F-1A, though of course also much lower thrust) and the good old RL-10 Centaur engine.

But I'm tired now, and feeling abjectly humbled by the esoteric debates (heavily laden with contempt by the all-knowing for all deviants and newbies) I find at NASASpace.com. There are things I painfully am aware I don't really understand about rocket engines, and presumably other huge considerations I remain blissfully ignorant of.

 

[Astronomo2010]

another great update spacegeek , lets see what NASA ,and Maybe ESA, will do in union to beat the soviets . Cant hardly wait for the next part .

 

[Michel Van]

So it had a total assembled run time of 0 minutes and 0 starts? Also, note that total run time for an engine in ground testing may include tear downs--there were SSMEs that racked up hours of time on the stands but still they were removed for refurbishment after every flight.

Worse, even if they can achieve 115 minutes of run time, as I noted, that's insufficient to justify the resulting vehicle when a chemical tug can do much the same job 90% as well, and save billions in development costs that the nuclear shuttle can't eliminate in operations costs. Considering that even a steady $5 billion in nominal dollars is unlikely, they need to find elements like this that are ultimately unnecessary and cut them to have a chance of doing to important elements right. Of course, I remain interested to see what you guys have in store.

according those source NASA used Turbopumps on there NERVA test Models (I HATE IT, wenn NASA data is contradictory)
http://www.aerospaceamerica.org/Documents/Augustine Commission Reports/Rover_NERVA.pdf
http://ntrs.nasa.gov/archive/nasa/casi.ntrs.nasa.gov/19660002339.pdf
http://pbhistoryb1b3.grc.nasa.gov/NERVA.aspx
http://fas.org/nuke/space/nerva-spec.pdf

There Engines Turbopumps have complete different "environment" to work but they make own Problems

The SSME is High Pressure Rocket engine using "Pre Burners" who directly power the Turbopumps to work on pressure of 6526 psi and 4351 psi for burn of 8.5 minute

The NERVA low Pressure Engine use "hot gas bleed-turbine drive cycle" means it tap hot gas from actor and power the TWO Turbine

The NERVA reactor pressure is 450 psi compare to 2994 psi of SSME combustion chamber.
While SSME turbo pumps run at 5150 rpm, lies at NERVA around 7600 rpm, also are Run time different 8.5 minute vs 45 minutes max (of total 600 minutes )
biggest problem the NERVA Turbo pump will face, is the radioactive hydrogen gas from Reactor core it use, the radiation makes the turbo pumps brittle!

Most Study mention of inspection maintenance and replacement of parts on NERVA engine after flight.
Rockwell proposed to detach the NEVRA from N-Shuttle and bring it to earth with Space Shuttle, i not joking !
Aerojet and Westinghouse went for option of orbital inspection maintenance and replacement of parts by remote controlled robots.
in other words a Space Tug with Manipulator arms.

 

[guinazacity]

I'd love to see the reds on the red planet first, but I'll be damned if venus wouldn't be cool as hell.

 

[Athelstane]

I'd love to see the reds on the red planet first, but I'll be damned if venus wouldn't be cool as hell.

But it's not the sort of place where you can do an EVA. Come to that, for the time being, it's not the place where you want to land anything, unless it's disposable.

 

[Michel Van]

I'd love to see the reds on the red planet first, but I'll be damned if venus wouldn't be cool as hell.

you mean a manned landing on Venus ?

 

[guinazacity]

you mean a manned landing on Venus ?

Forgot to add (and probably impossible) to the first post.

 

[RanulfC]

In my opinion, quite a lot of good can be done chemically, in the Earth/Moon system anyway, using aerobraking to return a reusable orbital transfer vehicle to low Earth orbit without needing propellant for that phase. But going over the figures, in a long "show my work" post most of you all have seen too many of from me I do have to admit, going nuclear will deliver a lot more mass to BLEO destinations out of a given payload orbited from from Earth.

All-chemical is all you really "need" for Cis-Lunar space and that's fine as long as that's the limit of your ambitions

Having a nuclear lunar shuttle at least gets it out there and workable.

Anyway, we expect such grandiose schemes in this TL that assumes an ongoing space race and more robust and long-lived Soviet Union in competition with a USA spurred into giving its all.

Pretty much a "given" with a "2001" theme as a basis

The argument about whether or not to use nuclear OTVs also derailed me from another such rambling, dialectical post in which I hoped to flesh out the characteristics of a methane-LOX engine, by consideration of molecular and energy balances as they affect chamber pressures and temperatures and pumping loads as well as tankage volumes. I was going to consider the exercise of taking well-known OTL engines, ker-lox and hydrogen-LOX, and respectively upgrade and downgrade them to substitute methane for their fuels, to explore what modifications would be needed, what constraints might be loosened and which become more stringent, and come up with the thrusts and burn times of respectively a meth-lox version of those Soviet engines used in the N-1 (much higher ISP than the F-1A, though of course also much lower thrust) and the good old RL-10 Centaur engine.

Don't mind the anylasis actually and its not as bad here as it can get on NSF. (No Jim's one or two word responses at least )

RL10 was run on methalox btw.

But I'm tired now, and feeling abjectly humbled by the esoteric debates (heavily laden with contempt by the all-knowing for all deviants and newbies) I find at NASASpace.com. There are things I painfully am aware I don't really understand about rocket engines, and presumably other huge considerations I remain blissfully ignorant of.

An aside but I've been reviewing a number of "alt-space" threads here and note the propensity of choosing the Titan as an "after-Apollo" LV (and your arguments against which I agree with BTW) but a distinct lack of follow through on that line of reasoning which we DID address on NSF.

To anyone considering using Titan as a NASA/manned LV, you might want to consider how that plays out in 1986. To wit; it's JUST as likely the faulty SRBs go to the Cape instead of Vandenberg...

Randy

 

[Das Amerikan]

I'm extremly confused.

 

[e of pi]

I'm extremly confused.

About anything in particular? Current topics of discussion, the TL in general, quantum mechanics (because...really, who wouldn't be!?)...? Maybe we can help!

 

[Dathi THorfinnsson]

A

RL10 was run on methalox btw.

When did they do that? And why?

Do you have a reference?

With a quick google of RL-10 and methane, I didn't see anything relevant.

 

[RanulfC]

When did they do that? And why?

Do you have a reference?

With a quick google of RL-10 and methane, I didn't see anything relevant.

About the only reference you can find is some stuff on yarchives because the actual reports are very hard to find and very obscure. The main reference was the need to insert custom tubes into the cooling channels to handle the methane as opposed to the standard hydrogen flow for nozzle and combustion chamber cooling.
Why? Someone asked them to so they did. The RL10 has been run on a LOT of propellants, (I can find no proof but my theory has always been that there may have in fact been alcohol involved and it may or may not have been used a fuel for the engine but more likely the engineers ) including Florine but there was never a definitive propellant study. Everything was (as far as anyone can tell, I've never had access to the actual reports) pretty much on a case-by-case basis for various requests from relevant agencies.

The RL10 was the first gas-gas combustion engine built so it would stand to reason as other proposed propellant combinations were suggested that they would use that as a basis for testing similar property propellants.

Randy

 

[Dathi THorfinnsson]

About the only reference you can find is some stuff on yarchives because the actual reports are very hard to find and very obscure. The main reference was the need to insert custom tubes into the cooling channels to handle the methane as opposed to the standard hydrogen flow for nozzle and combustion chamber cooling.
Why? Someone asked them to so they did. The RL10 has been run on a LOT of propellants, (I can find no proof but my theory has always been that there may have in fact been alcohol involved and it may or may not have been used a fuel for the engine but more likely the engineers ) including Florine but there was never a definitive propellant study. Everything was (as far as anyone can tell, I've never had access to the actual reports) pretty much on a case-by-case basis for various requests from relevant agencies.

The RL10 was the first gas-gas combustion engine built so it would stand to reason as other proposed propellant combinations were suggested that they would use that as a basis for testing similar property propellants.

Randy

Cool. Thanks.

 

[Michel Van]

I'm extremly confused.

Das Amerikan, On What ?

RanulfC, the RL10 will play important role in Odyssey Hardware architecture.

 

[Das Amerikan]

Das Amerikan, On What ?

RanulfC, the RL10 will play important role in Odyssey Hardware architecture.

You lost me when you guys started talking about nuclear propuslion. Help plz.

 

[Michel Van]

You lost me when you guys started talking about nuclear propuslion. Help plz.

sorry about that
but if we "Space Jockeys" take off, then in detail...

on nuclear propulsion like NERVA, It use the heat generated from a nuclear reaction to heat up propellant
is like water boiler but instead water with Liquid Hydrogen and the burner is replaced by Nuclear Reactor on full power
what brings more speed or more payload but also some disadvantage, like Radioactive radiation.