Although it’s not as sexy as the Shuttle, the Russians have been flying Soyuz and Proton in one form or another since the lat 1960’s, and they’ve never had a HSF gap like we have. So there’s something to be said for simple, cheap, easy, and reliable.
Of course, we now know that while the Soviets were actively conducting the Salyut/Mir program, they were also developing Buran and Energia. That must have cost a lot money and would have made it difficult to pursue a manned lunar program. Maybe if they hadn't decided to spend so much money on the big rocket, the might have been able to use their smaller rockets to go to the moon (this sounds depressingly familiar...).
Good one... Again ... And they haven't ever gone to the Moon either so that's something to consider. They also "saw" the need for a massive, and expensive HLV for about the same "reason" the US did.Despite being "simple, cheap, easy, and reliable" and while they built several Earth-Orbit Space Stations over the decades, up to Mir they still hadn't "quite" found it "sustainable" enough over the long run to utilize the system to develop and deploy anything for manned flight beyond LEO.While it is true the Russians never had the HSF "gaps" the US did, neither for the most part did they seem to take HSF or "space" seriously to the extent that the US did at the time.
It's always actually "amazed" me that the Russians have NOT gone to the Moon given the way they built a "workable" system around Soyuz-Proton. During the "gap" between Apollo and Shuttle I could have seen them putting their steady and increasing space experiance to work to push a modular mission to the Moon having their crew(s) stay longer than ours to prove the "point" (After all the rhetoric was that they would always out "last" a capitalist system )But they couldn't. Various factors, (lack or political, financial support, etc...) combined to keep them from starting "another" space-race and that "battlefield" was set aside until much, much later. And even today though Russians continue to fly into space they've scaled back their operations greatly and in a great part it's because their system may be "simple, easy, and reliable" but I don't think its really all that "cheap" and it still requires a huge amount of infrastructure and people to keep running. Worse yet it actually had a few "advantages" over the NASA/Apollo program in that part of it was paid for by the military for their use and though it was quickly made "obsolete" for military use and devoted to just launching payloads it STILL isn't "cheap" enough or "mass-produced" enough to really gain any advantages.
Looking at what we "know" now versus what people "knew" then I think we're going to be hard pressed to NOT come out to the exact same conclusions under the cited circumstances without a serious amount of hand-waving to get the "results" we want
It seems like the best way to build a Saturn V like LV on the cheap would be to have a heavy and intermediate launch vehicle using the same components. In this case the 1st stage and heavy boosters would be a 6.6m diameter RP core powered by two F-1. The second stage would be the S-IVB stage as is.
Way I see it, a kerolox core, 6.6 meters across with a set of uprated H-1 engines, and a hydrolox stage (J-2) on top, is the way to go. Lash 3, 4, or 5 of those together and you get the capability of a Saturn V (or at least an INT-20) with little hardware that you wouldn't have for purely LEO or space station resupply missions. The H-1 engines can see some use on smaller LVs--apparently, those were used on Deltas in the 1970s. You have this way only two engine production lines, one of those also supplying engines for DoD and smaller unmanned missions. Basically, my suggestion is Falcon Heavy (or Atlas Phase II), but with a somewhat stretched Saturn IB as the starting point.
Quote from: Lars_J on 10/15/2012 10:24 pmIt seems like the best way to build a Saturn V like LV on the cheap would be to have a heavy and intermediate launch vehicle using the same components. In this case the 1st stage and heavy boosters would be a 6.6m diameter RP core powered by two F-1. The second stage would be the S-IVB stage as is.Yea, I had this thought too. Build that 6.6m mono-core kerolox booster, using either F-1 or H-1 engines. And strap 3 or 5 of them together for a heavy lift first stage.However, if you are going to the moon, then you need an EDS. A multi-core first stage using a gas generator (low ISP) engine would be limited once it got past the lower ascent, wouldn’t it? Could an S-IVB stage make up the difference, and then also to the TLI burn? In Saturn, the S-II did most of that upper ascent. The S-IVB didn’t have to do a whole lot in addition. Wouldn’t a multi-core first stage kerolox GG only be useful to about the altitude the S-IC was? And if you need two more stages on top like the S-IC did, then what have you gained? Other than a bit more scalable system.
Well clearly if you are looking for a more affordable system with fewer components, then you might not get Saturn V performance, and so your lunar landing strategy might not favor LOR.As for a TLI burn - my suggestion would be to put a shortened S-IVB as a 3rd/TLI stage for lunar missions. Same tooling and engine as S-IVB.So with two engines (F-1 and J-2), and one tank tooling (6.6m), you could lift anything from 25t with a single stick, to 85t for heavy variants (or perhaps significantly more). Costs could be brought down by mass-production of the above elements. (BTW my performance numbers are just guesstimates, feel free to correct)
Now if they [USAF] could somehow "convince" the "powers-that-be" and THEY needed a Saturn-1 class booster you've got some good traction started..
Quote from: RanulfC on 10/16/2012 09:44 pmNow if they [USAF] could somehow "convince" the "powers-that-be" and THEY needed a Saturn-1 class booster you've got some good traction started..The Air Force did convince the powers that be that it needed the Titan III-C, which was in the same class as the Saturn I (though somewhat smaller than the Saturn IB, or course). I think there could have been an opportunity there to have a Saturn I-class booster used by both the Air Force and NASA. As it was, there were some fierce arguments between the Titan III-C and Saturn camps. There's an interesting Titan III history that's been posted somewhere on this site (by Blackstar?). The Air Force was claiming at one point, for example, that the Saturn's 8-engine cluster was so complex that it wasn't clear it would ever work, let alone be reliable.
However, if you are going to the moon, then you need an EDS. A multi-core first stage using a gas generator (low ISP) engine would be limited once it got past the lower ascent, wouldn’t it? Could an S-IVB stage make up the difference, and then also to the TLI burn? In Saturn, the S-II did most of that upper ascent. The S-IVB didn’t have to do a whole lot in addition. Wouldn’t a multi-core first stage kerolox GG only be useful to about the altitude the S-IC was? And if you need two more stages on top like the S-IC did, then what have you gained? Other than a bit more scalable system.That’s why I thought of the two hydrolox stages both based off the S-IV stage. ...