Space Flight Evolution, Circa 1970

simonbp

MSFC was (is) always that ambitious, it's just the rest of NASA that gets skittish about 48-man Mars bases and Stardock-class space stations...

Simon ;)

NASA-1.png
 
Michel Van

Michel Van

many thanks a simonbp
i was looking for this PDF at NTSR
for this Discussion
Challenge : A plausible way to recreate the universe of 2001 : A Space Odyssey ?

this 1968 NASA Marshall Center proposal became in 1969 know as The Space Task Group Plan
presented to President Nixon

Nixon play with idea in 1969, but he pushes the decision until 1973 and take instead only the Shuttle.

the progam cost would be huge around $50-60 billion in 1968 US Dollar
(Apollo program so $24 billion, the Vietnam War $120 Billion in 1968 US Dollar)
in today US Dollar thats 750-500 Billion US Dollar
 

grdja83

$500-700. OK it is a big number. But like SEI, we are again talking about a program spanning decades. Per year cost might not have been anything crazy. With some rationalizations and reductions (yes it was too optimistic and too ambitious, compared to this thing SEI is a moderate and modest proposal :) ) it might have been payed for. If price didn't balloon like so many NASA projects.

Crucial point of failure in this is (of course and f#$%ing always) the space shuttle. Without the $/kg launch price promised by using a fleet of dozens and dozens of fully resuable shuttles all programs like this become impossible. Though, it is often claimed that because NASAs budget for iniital development of shuttle was lower than needed, end system you ended up was more expensive than expected.

TSTO fully resuable system with lower stage never reaching orbit and flying back would have been very difficult engineering challenge. Still in 1990es NASA tried to go for a SSTO, and while it failed, no one can be 100% certain that X-33 or DC-X were both dead ends and couldnt have been made in practical vehicles eventualy. So, a two stage fully reusable in 1970'es? Might have been possible. Maybe making engines non reusable and just replacing whole things each flight would have been cheeper and could have made program plausible, it was likely true for shuttle. (reusable SSMEs being a technical nightmare and overcomplicated )

Another killer of IRL shuttle was the NRO and AF tagging along and adding a lot of mission reqs. that simply werent present in original plans for shuttle. Larger and heavier payload capacity, better crosrange = larger wings...

Who knows, maybe a 40-50 ton space shuttle with 4-6 crew and 10-15 ton payload might have been possible on a fully reasuable vehicle and maybe it could have changed history big time. We will never know, only thing you (americans) can do now, is hope to god that project Constalation doesnt die without producing anything.

You might now come and talk about Space-X and Falcon. First, they are still to launch a payload. Second, they have to do it reliably. And finally, there is no guarantie they will succeed in dropping launch prices to where space advocates want them. Falcon 9 might end up as a very reliable vehicle, with launch costs lower than any other USA made LV; and still, if Soyuz and Long March remain still cheeper, nothing happens, no big paradox shift.
 
Michel Van

Michel Van

on grdja83 commend of Space shuttle

in orginal The Space Task Group Plan, the Shuttle had to replace the Saturn B1 rocket.
means 15 - 20 tons payloads, not that NASA/USAF Monstrosity we know today

lower Payload=lower launch mass, means cheaper development and flight cost.

while the heavy payload is launch by uprade Saturn V rockets
 

PMN1

I did have a book which had most of those pictures and a lot more writing in, god knows where it has gone.

:(
 

grdja83

Michel Van said:
on grdja83 commend of Space shuttle

in orginal The Space Task Group Plan, the Shuttle had to replace the Saturn B1 rocket.
means 15 - 20 tons payloads, not that NASA/USAF Monstrosity we know today

lower Payload=lower launch mass, means cheaper development and flight cost.

while the heavy payload is launch by uprade Saturn V rockets
Click to expand...


I know that, check discussion on Chat sub forum about the shuttle.
 
Michel Van

Michel Van

if i was a NASA Ad-mini-stra-tor
(sung with melody of "If i was a rich men" :D )

how look the NASA program for next 30 years, with The Space Task Group Plan as Base ?

1960's
Apollo Program
1968 Apollo 7, Apollo 8 Lunar Orbit Apollo 9 & 10 LM testing
1969 landing of Apollo 11 and 12 (G-Mission short stay, one EVA)

1970's
1970 Apollo 13 and 14 (H-Mission short stay, 2 EVA )
1971 Apollo 15 and 16 (J-Mission with Rover and geologist as LM co-pilot like in OTL Apollo 17)
1972 Apollo 17 and 18 (J-Mission up to 3 days on lunar surface)
1973 Apollo 19 a AAP mission, dual saturn V launch
1974 Apollo 20 a AAP mission, dual saturn V launch
one brings unmanned LM shelter to surface, the 2 men Apollo CSM makes Lunar Orbital Survey Mission.
tow brings LM taxi and 2 men to moon for 14 day (they life in LM shelter)
while one men Apollo CSM makes Lunar Orbital Survey Mission.

1975 Skylab A launch with second production run of Saturn V,
Skylab 1-4 use up of last Saturn IB and Apollo CSM block III
1976 Skylab B replace Skylab A
supply by new Space Shuttle based on Saturn V hardware
1977 Grumman presents the Orbital Tug on base of LM hardware.
1978 Skylab C (6-12 men) launch , replace the Skylab B
(this is prototype for Space Station and Interplanetary Mission Module )
RIFT (reactor in flight test) of Nerva nuclear engine in Orbit
first test of Rockwell (NAA) Mars Exploration Module (MEM) in Low Orbit
1979 second orbital test of MEM (stored over year in orbit)
second RIFT (several ignitions, then refueld and then stored over year in orbit )

1980's
1980 third production run of Saturn V (heavy lift version)
Space Base (24 men) is launch and built together in orbit
construction of 2 Mars Ship in orbit (3 Nerva, IMP, MEM)
1981 launch of Manned flight to Mars
return to Moon by NASA with Tugs and Lunar Orbital Station (24 Men)
several lunar landings
1982 arrival 2 ship At Mars landing of MEM Challenger followed by MEM Discovery
(both lands in their reach the rovers, so they can help in emergency, like MEM malfuction)
1983 return of Mars Ship to Earth
1984 building a Moon Base near lunar south pole (first 12 later 48 Men)
1985 construction of 2 Mars Ship in orbit and launch
1986 landing of MEM Challenger followed by MEM Columbia followed by MEM Atlantis
1987 return of Mars Ship to Earth
1988 over 100 men working in Space
1989 construction of fleed of Mars Ship for a Temporary Base of 12 men (over 1000 day stay on mars)

1990's
1990 building a Temporary Base for 12 men on Mars
1991 construction of 4 Mars Ship in orbit and launch
1992 arrival of the ships at Mars return of 12men after 1000 days to earth,
the Temporary Base is shut down until next expedtion lands
1995 a new Space Base is launch replace the Old one from 1980
1996 Lunar Orbital Station is replace by new one

1997 until Today.....to do
 

grdja83

Yeah, Mercury is a very interesting place, its very likely to be metal rich, though in any timeline that wouldn't be important until quite a bit in future.

Now, 2 SatV launches per year are ok, but latter parts of timeline are very difficult, those things were heavy. And while it would likely be possible to upgrade and redesign it to drop price to maybe even 50% of OTL Saturn V flight costs... Dropping it lower would likely be impossible.

And to have ~50 or more people in orbit, and to have laboratories and material production labs or space sloar... you absolutely need a launch cost at or lower than $1000/kg to LEO. Impossible with Sat5 or derivative.

Maybe there really has to be a true SSTO or TSTO system for those prices to be reached. Something like RHOMBUS or Sea Dragon, if they werent just dreams unfeasible in reality.
 

Dathi THorfinnsson

grdja83 said:
Now, 2 SatV launches per year are ok, but latter parts of timeline are very difficult, those things were heavy. And while it would likely be possible to upgrade and redesign it to drop price to maybe even 50% of OTL Saturn V flight costs... Dropping it lower would likely be impossible.
Click to expand...

Boeing did studies on reusing at least the first stage of a Saturn V. They estimated, IIRC that the cost could drop to 30% of the original price. They even had a plan for reusing the second stage, but that would have dropped the payload to orbit by 70%.

Still, I think a second or third run of Saturns redesigned for reusability (1st stage) and lower cost (2nd) could have dropped the price a lot.
 

PMN1

Dathi THorfinnsson said:
Boeing did studies on reusing at least the first stage of a Saturn V. They estimated, IIRC that the cost could drop to 30% of the original price. They even had a plan for reusing the second stage, but that would have dropped the payload to orbit by 70%.

Still, I think a second or third run of Saturns redesigned for reusability (1st stage) and lower cost (2nd) could have dropped the price a lot.
Click to expand...


I don't know enough to say how correct what is said here is but it does make interesting reading.


http://www.dunnspace.com/leo_on_the_cheap.htm
 

grdja83

One has to be careful. Something being declared reusable doesn't guarantee its affordable. We should think of Poor Lil' Shuttle. It was reusable, but it didn't save much money. New orbiter ~$1.5Bn, single flight ~$0.5Bn... yey for reusability.

Though while it would cut payload, recovering (with a very soft landing prefferably :D) those stages that dont enter orbit and dont have to suffer reentry speeds might have worked.
 

alt_historian

grdja83 said:
Yeah, Mercury is a very interesting place, its very likely to be metal rich, though in any timeline that wouldn't be important until quite a bit in future.

Now, 2 SatV launches per year are ok, but latter parts of timeline are very difficult, those things were heavy. And while it would likely be possible to upgrade and redesign it to drop price to maybe even 50% of OTL Saturn V flight costs... Dropping it lower would likely be impossible.

And to have ~50 or more people in orbit, and to have laboratories and material production labs or space sloar... you absolutely need a launch cost at or lower than $1000/kg to LEO. Impossible with Sat5 or derivative.

Maybe there really has to be a true SSTO or TSTO system for those prices to be reached. Something like RHOMBUS or Sea Dragon, if they werent just dreams unfeasible in reality.
Click to expand...
Are they unfeasible? I don't know much about RHOMBUS... but to my non-expert eye, Sea Dragon seems a good idea. Would you care to explain why not?
 
Michel Van

Michel Van

mission to Mercury and Jupiter and Saturn
you can not fly with Nuclear engine !

why ?

first Mercury move very fast around the sun
you have make several fly-by at Venus ilke MESSENGER space probe
800px-MESSENGER_trajectory.svg.png

fly only chemical it take 7 (SEVEN) Years to Mercury

same problem we have with Jupiter it take 5 year to get there for Manned Mission with only chemical.
with NERVA engine we win only littel time or launch mass

For those Mission we need eletric Ion engine !
they work over long time non-stop (day, weeks, months)
launch from Earth orbit with NERVA stage, then with Ion engine
flying to Jupiter/Mercury takes ONE year or 2 years to Saturn

but there another problem at planets: Radiation !

Solar radiation at Earth is 1400 watt/m2 at Venus 1,9 time and at Mercury 6,6 times more !
a Spacesuit on Mercury must endure at sunside 700°K (+800°F or +426,85 °C)
and in shadoside 100°K (-279°F or -173°C)

Jupiter and Saturn has a deadly Radiation beld
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Jupiter's_magnetosphere#Magnetosphere
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Saturn#Magnetosphere

means a Manned Jupiter Mission has to stay during Jupiter Orbit in "Solar Storm shelter" to be save
and can only land on Jupiter moon Callisto wen the mooon is 8 day outside Magnetosphere

we have same problem at Saturn, but the Astronauts can stay save on surface of Moon Titan
how ever the stuff rains from sky is consider on Earth as chemical solvent
and temprature of 94 K (−179 °C, or −290 °F)
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Top
Top