A US Space WI: Barbarian flies!

I have been considering how the US space program might be effected by a surviving USSR that was active in space during the 90s.

I'm imagining a Soviet space program that uses as its main launchers the Soyuz rocket, the Zenit, Energia-M and more rarely the full Energia (some of those launching the Buran orbiter, some launching special heavy payloads), with the main programs being Mir-2, improved military satellites, perhaps a Hubble-beating space telescope, an orbital radio telescope and a few interplanetary probes (such as an Energia-launched Mars sample return mission).

Now, I have a hard time seeing the US giving much more funding to NASA given the political limitations of both Congress and NASA itself at the time. But even so, if the Soviets are being particularly active in space, would the US cut back on NASA as much as they did OTL? This I also doubt.

I can see political pressure over a "booster gap" being particularly strong, so I read up on American heavy lift booster concepts of the 80s and early 90s and found Barbarian MM, perhaps the heaviest version of the Titan rocket conceived. Not only does the rocket have a catchy name, it also has the ability to launch over 45 tonnes to LEO, 11 tonnes more than the Energia M.

So assuming that NASA and the USAF get enough extra funding to develop the Barbarian and it is ready to launch by the mid-90s at the latest, what could the US actually use it for? I imagine that launching Space Station Freedom all in a single package (this would be a smaller station that OTL's ISS of course) is a likely use. Are there other NASA missions such a booster would enable or OTL missions a bigger expendable booster would change? And what how would a booster like thing change things for the Airforce?

fasquardon
 
Had the soviets Launch energia sooner
Babarian Could have become a Reality
As quick to Build rocket out Titan III Series (and Tank Build with Shuttle ET Tools)

But Sadly energia Launch in End of 1980s at End of Reagan presidency
Not in it Beginn or in high Time of SDI program.
Here has USAF the justifcation to Build Babarian MM
And USAF Had some payload like zenit Laser Prototyp to Test in Orbit
NASA Could Jump on bandwagon and use Babarian as Heavy Lauscher.
For payload heavier for Shuttle like Launch Parts for Space Station
 
Had the soviets Launch energia sooner
Babarian Could have become a Reality
As quick to Build rocket out Titan III Series (and Tank Build with Shuttle ET Tools)

My impression, based on the admittedly vague information on the astronautix page, as well as the information on the Zenith Star page, is that both concepts were in play until the Bush administration. Do you have a better idea of the timeline of this rocket study?

Probably best to do Shuttle-C instead. Bigger payload, cheaper and faster development.

Hmm. I'd thought that Shuttle-C was cancelled in the 80s. Looks like it continued up to 1990. Had a similar payload to Barbarian too (up to 52 tonnes according to Astronautix).

The costs they were estimating for the Shuttle-C are crazy though!

Astronautix said:
At the end of the study NASA decided that the development cost for Shuttle-C would be $ 1.8 billion. The Office for Technology Assessment estimated the cost as only $985 million, a rare case indeed where NASA made a high-ball estimate. Cost per launch would be $424 million for the Generation 1 design, or $9350 per kg. 14 Space Shuttles and 10 Shuttle-C's could be launched per year using existing Kennedy Space Center facilities.

$1 billion (at best) to develop a system that could deliver payload at a cost of $9350/kg and that with a launch schedule that is almost certainly beyond NASA's reach in the 90s!

According to an earlier study on the Shuttle-C, the costs/kg for competing launch systems was:

opposed to $1720 for the Delta II, $ 1800 for the Titan IV, or $ 3400 for the shuttle

If the cost estimates are correct, Shuttle-C isn't going to fly unless the Soviets start building a Mars base...

fasquardon
 
fasquardon
The Shuttle-c was far into 1995 in NASA planning
Like to Launch Parts for Space Station Freedom
And with 80 tons payload superior to Babarian mm
Next to that USAF Had Shuttle Launch pad at vandenberg.

They Had to Build a new Launch complex at vandenberg for Babarian
What Rise the Cost on R&D and Production of that launcher
 

Archibald

Banned
Barbarian was a frankenstein rocket build from a number of Delta II and Titan III elements latched togethers. It was to launch the 100,000 pounds Zenith Star laser battlestation

laserstation.jpg


https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/McDonnell_Douglas_Barbarian

Had the Soviet managed to orbit Skif-DM, also known as Polyus, things might have been different. There would have been pressure to launch Zenit Star, and there you would need Barbarian

quick to Build rocket

Michel is right - Barbarian was to be a one-of-a-kind rocket build from a single mission - orbiting Zenit Star, a one-shot laser battlestation.
 
Last edited:
fasquardon
The Shuttle-c was far into 1995 in NASA planning
Like to Launch Parts for Space Station Freedom
And with 80 tons payload superior to Babarian mm
Next to that USAF Had Shuttle Launch pad at vandenberg.

They Had to Build a new Launch complex at vandenberg for Babarian
What Rise the Cost on R&D and Production of that launcher

The 5.8 m core proposal for Barbarian was planned to loft 45.4 tonnes to a 300 km/28.5 degree orbit. The shuttle-c page on Astronautix outlines a few variants. The first study quoted indicates that to reach the same orbit the launcher could carry only 52 tonnes of payload.

A later design study is quoted as saying:

Generation 1 would be an expendable CE with a 4.6 m x 24.7 m cargo bay, using two SSME's, and capable of deliverying 45,000 kg to orbit.
(Note it doesn't say which orbit there.)

There was also a plan for a second generation:

Generation 2 would have a new-design recoverable CE, powered by 3 SSME's, and capable of delivering 77,000 kg in a 7.3 m x 29.3 m volume.
Which I guess is the version you are thinking of?

I confess, I only noticed the first design study quoted on Astronautix in my first read-through of the page. So yes, the shuttle-c would either be in exactly the same class or much heavier, depending on its generation.

According to Astronautix, the shuttle-c was cancelled in 1990. Are you sure you aren't thinking of the NLS, which apparently ended under Clinton?

I take your point about infrastructure costs as well as development costs being an issue.

Do either of you know why the estimated launch costs of shuttle-c were so very high?

When I first got curious about how the US would respond to continuing space-Soviets in the 90s, I initially started checking if the US could adapt the STS into an Energia-style rocket, when I read up on the cost estimates and the politics (particularly the enthusiasm for more advanced launch systems such as scramjet propulsion) I just figured there was zero chance of the US actually building either shuttle-c or the NLS, even with the Soviets bleeding their space program white to showboat with the occasional full Energia launch.

fasquardon
 
To get Barbarian (though it would more likely receive a Titan IV/V Name if it ever entered service) you need a number of payloads to justify the Launch Vehicle.

If Zenith Star is all they have, then there's little, if any, hope of it being built at all.

And this is where Shuttle-C has a major advantage.

Unlike Barbarian, Shuttle-C uses a lot of tooling and parts which don't require any modification to be brought out (namely the ET and SRBs) only demanding that the Manned Orbiter be replaced with an expendable cargo pod for the large payloads. The key reason why its development costs were so low relative to other, more purpose-built systems IMHO. It's other advantage was that by being used for STS as well, the overall operational costs could be kept lower than would otherwise be the case, if only on a per-launch basis.

Its Gen.1 per-KG Cost seems rather high, since for the same amount of work (and likely cost) you're getting 45-52 Tonnes versus up to 77 Tonnes with the Gen.2 which does go against it.

So to sum up. Yes, Barbarian could be built to meet the 45 Tonne Class, but the real question here is, why would they?
 
Barbarian was low cost alternative build from Existing Rocket parts

McDonnell-Douglas proposal needed:
Three Space Shuttle SRB
cluster of six Delta Thor XLT-C.
and a 1 x Delta Thor XLT-C (probable in center of that cluster)
it bring 45,400 kg (100,000 lb) to a 300 km orbit at 28.00 degrees.
with launch Price of $500 million in 1987 dollars.

Martin Marietta Astronautics Group proposal
five of Titan UA1207 SRB
first stage build like shuttle tank with five LR-87-11 Engines
second stage build like shuttle tank with one LR-87-11 Engine
it bring 45,400 kg (100,000 lb) to a 300 km orbit at 28.00 degrees.
with launch Price of $500 million in 1987 dollars.

But there were two other systems

Shuttle-C (Martin Marietta Astronautics Group study)
A orbiter strip down to cargo bay, two SSME engine, two OMV pods and a flight avionics
it bring 45,400 kg (100,000 lb) to a 300 km orbit at 28.00 degrees.
with launch price of $85 million in 1987 dollars (estimation, more likely $500 million)
upgraded with advance bigger cargo bay, three SSME engine.
it bring 77,000 kg (169,000 lb) to a 300 km orbit at 28.00 degrees.

and there was also from, USAF The Advanced Launch System (ALS) founded in 1987
For orbit payloads from 2,400 kg to 90,000 kg and using Fly back Booster
but the end of cold war terminated the ALS and it payloads fast so 1989 after two years the project was dead.

So Babarian were in Hell of contests with two other launch systems in end of 1980s

by the way
the last attempt for the Zenith Star laser satellite was to launch it in two pieces with Titan IV and rendezvous it in Orbit
as the program was stopped...
 
Do you know where to find more details on the shuttle-c and Barbarian studies?

fasquardon
I know you can turn up some things on Shuttle-C on NTRS searching "Shuttle-C", "sidemount HLV" or "SDHLV".

Anyway, when you compare Shuttle-C's 75-ton payload and lower development cost for the same ~$500m/flight price point as the 45-ton Titan-based Barbarian as per other's information above, I think it's easy to make a case that Shuttle-C is the faster, cheaper, and better alternative.
 
Do you know where to find more details on the shuttle-c and Barbarian studies?

fasquardon

I tried
only the McDonnell-Douglas and Martin Marietta So far
it very likely there only one that proposed Babarian and main info is at Astronautix

on Shuttle-C
there next Astronautix, the Secret Project forum and Nasa space flight forum
Or Space Historian Scott Lowther on his aerospace projects review blog see section Shuttle
also is the NASA Technical Report Server wer i found most Shuttle-C stuff

I try "Barbarian" at NTRS gave zero results on Shuttle-C 546 mostly as PDF to download.
 
Last edited:
Hmm... for full effect, we should have a nuclear thermal upperstage, possibly called High Altitude Nuclear Assist (since it would only light beyond the atmosphere).

So, in addition to the base Barbarian, you'd have a HANA-Barbarian. :):p
(Someone should make a cartoon of that....)
 
Hmm... for full effect, we should have a nuclear thermal upperstage, possibly called High Altitude Nuclear Assist (since it would only light beyond the atmosphere).

So, in addition to the base Barbarian, you'd have a HANA-Barbarian. :):p
(Someone should make a cartoon of that....)

Hah!

Now that would be one heck of a response to Energia.

fasquardon
 
Hmm... for full effect, we should have a nuclear thermal upperstage, possibly called High Altitude Nuclear Assist (since it would only light beyond the atmosphere).

So, in addition to the base Barbarian, you'd have a HANA-Barbarian. :):p
(Someone should make a cartoon of that....)

OMG, you talking about Project Timberwind
that would have make a True "Barbarian" Rocket...
 
Top