Quote from: Lobo on 08/02/2013 06:28 amThat could be a 6.5m CCB with a single F-1B on it, which could launch with a single core, 3-core, 4-core, 5-core, or 7-core configuration.Yea, that's about the only way I see this concept as scalable without total redesigns. It's the concept used in Nova 9L:http://astronautix.com/lvs/nova9l.htmSome challenges are:-How do you scale upper stages to match each first stage cluster configuration?-Aerodynamic differences of various configurations up to MaxQ-Making mobile launch platform, tower, flame trench, etc. able to accommodate all of these various configurations.-Does one engine out mean LOM; do you cross-feed in case of engine out?-In case of Nova 9L you have 4 stages. Stage 2 also uses 4 of these F-1 cores. This F-1 must be air startable.
That could be a 6.5m CCB with a single F-1B on it, which could launch with a single core, 3-core, 4-core, 5-core, or 7-core configuration.
Only booster junkies in the sense that that allows scalability. One of the problems with the Saturn V was that if you weren't doing a Lunar mission, or launching a Skylab sized payload to LEO, there really wasn't much way to scale it back feasibly for less than huge payloads.
Saturn INT-20 disagrees with you. No huge complicated S-II stage; and being capable of removing F-1 engines from the S-IC-INT-20 as needed to scale thrust to the payload needed means that you can essentially produce it on the same production line as the full up S-IC-SAT-V, lowering operational costs.F-1A would have been simplified compared to F-1, allowing for cheaper operational costs; q.v.:(F1A vs F1) 21 vs 39 Stage Connections/Engine Interconnections24 vs 37 Servicing Connections8 vs 129 Instruments for acceptance testing6 vs 34 Instruments for flight status6 vs 16 propulsion redlines3 vs 7 Ground Test Restrictions2 vs 15 Monitored Countdown Events (aka launch interlocks)It would have been able to be calibrated before launch to thrust levels between 1.35 and 1.8 million pounds of thrust, and the F-1A would have been capable of throttling up to 300 klbf below the thrust setting, unlike F-1 which had no throttle capability.As for J-2S, the S stood for "simplified"; and there was a lot of work on reducing the operational costs of the engine -- e.g. the stuff that had to be monitored or required GSE while on the pad versus baseline J-2.
Do we need that many stone obelisks in space annually? It's not like NASA could afford anything else. Other option would be to attempt to build a pyramid in LEO but that would require substantial on-orbit assembly and that seems to be out of fashion now.Seriously, what payload could NASA afford to build annually that weighs 100+t wet?
A single 5m or so first stage using a single F1A. Then tri core for a heavy version. Then maybe 5 cores with say 3 upper stage cores all lighting at the same time.
But here's the rub, and it applies to Saturn V redux too. There's only one customer. NASA. And NASA has already "bought" a different solution (SSME-based; SRB-augmented). NASA can't afford both. Ergo, we can't have a kerolox liquid-only first stage solution. End of story.
Quote from: sdsds on 08/04/2013 10:55 amBut here's the rub, and it applies to Saturn V redux too. There's only one customer. NASA. And NASA has already "bought" a different solution (SSME-based; SRB-augmented). NASA can't afford both. Ergo, we can't have a kerolox liquid-only first stage solution. End of story.The cluster might have only NASA as customer but individual "Atlas VI" cores would have others. That should be an incentive for private sector to take part in R&D costs and try to keep them low. Then NASA could concentrate it's resources on payloads such as landers.NASA "bought" Ares V, the Stick, Orion and Altair. Then "unbought" everything but Orion and "bought" SLS. It could "unbuy" the SLS, "buy" Atlas-cluster and then "rebuy" Altair for actually doing something else than chasing small rocks in deep space for the next two decades. La la land dream, I know...but hopefully there's some alternate universe where this happens