I have been trying, unsuccessfully, to write "Beyond Ares" that shows what happens to the crew after they return. So far, it involves only York. The passage of the splashdown is part of it. So far, I have some nice moments from the world wide tour they take, her meeting Neil Armstrong, Russia, White house dinner with the Reagans and Bush. Here Bush asks her to serve on the Space Council when he gets elected. They also meet JFK shortly before his death. Why I would love to see Ares 2, I envision a Lunar infrastructure. A small shuttle to fly crew to a space station, which Gershon gets to test fly. Then a reusable Apollo taxi to a Lagrange point lunar station that has a reusable lander to go to the surface. The Russians join the base plan during the Clinton years, using their upgrade N-1 to help in construction. Then a lunar base that in 20 years, becomes a colony on the moon. So by "today" we would have a 100 person base on the moon. It would be then, with commercial flights to the base and the rise of those companies, like we see today, that plans to go to Mars return. And with the experience of the Moonbase (Chaffee Base) that those plans become colonial. The final chapter has an elderly York, in 2030, watching the launch of one of those colony ships with her son, Ben. So, like our Apollo program, we retreat from deep space to the moon, and only after decades of staying in lunar space, do we get back to Mars. Sort of like how we retreat from the moon to low earth orbit.
I have been told that the Ares patch shows up in Baxter's recent novel, Ultima. Apparently it deals with an alternate timeline where Ares crashed. It seams to be a story about multiverses. And this crashed Ares timeline is just a quick mention.
Yeah. I just love the challenge of Apollo to Mars with a Venus fly-by.I feel the plan would be a bit insane IRL though, and there are ways to improve this mission. Still, Baxter did a great job with scientific accuracy.Personally, I feel Eyes Turned Skyward is a more realistic alt-history NASA. No Mars missions in that, but also no Space Shuttle. The Saturn V gets cancelled, but the Saturn 1B gets updated with a F-1A-powered first stage (Saturn 1C) and redesigned Apollo CSM (Block III), and NASA sticks to a long-term plan of space stations. It's more of a compromise between these two worlds. On the plus side, we go back to the moon in the '90s and establish bases there (on something called the Saturn Multibody and Saturn Heavy and the EOR approach), but no Mars mission. It's interesting if you like alt history, and it's free for reading online (thought I don't know where).
I enjoyed Eyes Turned Skyward, but found it unbelievable due to the actual events of the real time line. Baxter's seemed much more believable. I did like the return to the moon aspects, but space stations are so dull. They just go round and round. Not high adventure, unlike the early days of Vostok, Mercury, Voskshod, Soyuz, Gemini, and Apollo. Not going anywhere.useful things can be done in LOE, don't get me wrong.
Batxer's Saturn VB is a logical progression of the Saturn V MLV program, so I think he went with his Saturn VBs having F-1As and J-2Ss. His F-1As also had throtting capability because first-stage throttling was mentioned in the Ares ascent. I can attest to this flying my Saturn VB in KSP RO, because without F-1A throtting and proper SRB thrust curves, I get dynamic pressure on ascent hitting over 50 kPa.
I should mention that on the Austronautix website, they mention a Saturn VB that's nothing like Baxter's. It's just a modified Saturn V first stage called the Saturn 1D with jettisonable outer engines. Just a fun fact. http://www.astronautix.com/s/saturnv-b.html
If they wanted a much cheaper booster than the Saturn VB, but one that could send Apollo CSMs on lunar missions in two launches, I once read of a Saturn 1B replacement concept that would have a single F-1A on a new first stage derived from S-IVB tooling, with the J-2S equipped S-IVB upper stage, but that stage stretched a little for more propellant. This launcher could fly with zero, 2 or 4x Titan III derived solid boosters. The four booster version could get about 50 tons into LEO. Docking a CSM with an S-IVB launched separately could send that CSM to the Moon. A new Lander or an improved Apollo LM could be sent ahead on a separate 2x launch sequence. Though because the Apollo LM is much lighter than a CSM and it's propellant supply; it would need an additional propulsion stage to brake it into Lunar Orbit. Perhaps one derived from another LM Descent Stage, albeit a legless one.
This 50 ton launcher mission architecture has been similarly proposed as a future Chinese Design Reference Mission; not to mention for ESA as well. I would have some doubts that 4x enhanced Saturn 1Bs would be cheaper than a single Saturn VB, but some have suggested that 'bulk quantity' manufacture could standardize and help bring down costs.
ETS makes a good case of avoiding the Shuttle decision while continuing to use the legacy Apollo hardware as much as possible. My problem with ETS is despite the "focus" on space station operations and support they then 'require' the Saturn Multibody and a heavy lift program to accommodate a Lunar Landing program very similar to, (though obviously a bit more robust) Apollo rather than actually using the already developed hardware and infrastructure.
I'm also aware that Baxter's Saturn V-B was based on a real study, which is why it's so easy to create the rocket with FASA because that includes parts for creating most if not all the Saturn V MLV designs. The J-2Ts were aerospike engines and not typical Devall nozzle engines, and in Voyage, I think the Saturn V-B went with J-2Ss, which work fine when I use them on my Saturn V-B replica. NASA probably just modified the MLV-V-4(S)-B proposal with J-2Ss instead of J-2Ts maybe to save cost or complexity because maybe the J-2S was easier to fit into the existing S-II and S-IVB designs than a J-2T owing to the J-2S piping being made to fit on the existing Saturn V upper stages. I also figure the Saturn V-B being from the MLV program is why all of the stages get a M designation in front of them in the book (MS-IC, MS-II, and MS-IVB).
In general, you can think of Kerbal Space Program as both a modelling game and a space flight game, because you can build any rocket you want and fly it around in space under the restrictions of Newtonian mechanics and simple gravity models.
IIRC, around the time of the revived lunar program in ETS, NASA didn't have anything heavy enough to do a lunar mission. All they had was the Saturn IC, and they probably didn't want to bring back the Saturn V for obvious cost reasons. Dunno if they could have lifted their lunar lander on a Saturn IC or not, or using another rocket, or if they needed to develop a heavy lifter like the Saturn Heavy. Plus, with their plan, they wanted to loft a drive stage for TLI, which meant three launches for a lunar mission.Another possibility would be to find a way to make the Saturn V cheaper and still get an equivalent payload capacity.
I seem to recall that they were stated to be J2S' which didn't actually make sense as the J2Ts had higher ISP and altitude compensation but most importantly allowed the Saturn MLV-V-4(S)-B to use the standard Saturn-V connections for the upper stages on the MLP and better fit through the VAB doors. (The aerospikes were much shorter than the J2 and allowed a shorter, more compact interstage which was required due to the first stage tank stretch) they used all the standard J2 fittings and gimbals though they had to redesign the thrust structure itself in general everything was pretty straight forward.
I understand Orbiter is more accurate and somewhat more mod-able overall but KSP is neater and much easier to 'tweak' it seems to me. I have but have not used Orbiter btw.
Do these simulators take into account such things as boil-off of your propellants? That still bothers me about Baxter's mission. And the one model I did based on the Mars One Crew Manual.
Also, can you model NERVA?
Much like how he's SO tired of hearing why the Apollo-N accident could not happen which he is WELL, very well at this point....
Did they really use a Saturn V to launch the ranger in Interstellar? It was always hard to tell with the camera angles in the movie.
Quote from: RanulfC on 11/16/2016 08:37 pmMuch like how he's SO tired of hearing why the Apollo-N accident could not happen which he is WELL, very well at this point....Can you explain please? because the more I read about NERVA the more plausible the accident seems and the more I am glad to was cancelled before something nasty happened.
Protecting the crew from radiation is as important as preventing a nuclear meltdown. Neutron shielding, which can weigh several tons, must be installed between the reactor and the crew, and the distance between the two should be maximized to take greatest advantage of the fact that radiation flux falls off with the square of the distance. Placing the fuel tanks between the crew and the rocket is a very effective way to shield the crew, since hydrogen makes an excellent neutron scatterer. [4]
Yes, it is. The 1/72 model kit of the Ranger comes with a 1/144 scale version that fits a Saturn V model.
Quote from: Dalhousie on 03/10/2017 06:40 amQuote from: RanulfC on 11/16/2016 08:37 pmMuch like how he's SO tired of hearing why the Apollo-N accident could not happen which he is WELL, very well at this point....Can you explain please? because the more I read about NERVA the more plausible the accident seems and the more I am glad to was cancelled before something nasty happened.I did a little research, and from what I can tell, a NERVA containment failure and meltdown is plausible, but the radiation exposure issue may not be. This is because the liquid hydrogen would shield the crew from any radiation the NERVA produced, even in a severe containment failure.In the Apollo-N accident, the S-N stage was still well-packed with LH2, so there was plenty of shielding between them and the failed NERVA rocket, and therefore they should have all survived the accident.From http://large.stanford.edu/courses/2011/ph241/hamerly1/QuoteProtecting the crew from radiation is as important as preventing a nuclear meltdown. Neutron shielding, which can weigh several tons, must be installed between the reactor and the crew, and the distance between the two should be maximized to take greatest advantage of the fact that radiation flux falls off with the square of the distance. Placing the fuel tanks between the crew and the rocket is a very effective way to shield the crew, since hydrogen makes an excellent neutron scatterer. [4]Now this is not to say they weren't in danger during the failure as if they were to separate from their S-N stage and somehow the S-N stage rotated around after sep (which might be common), then they could have received a much higher dose of radiation. They could have also been far enough away from the engine for attenuation to reduce the exposure though.
So, yeah, I'm sure Baxter got a load of "But the LH2 would have shielded them" comments, but he had to ignore that for the sake of the story.
EDIT: I should also mention that I'm sure NASA would have loads of safety features in the NERVA built-in even if the engine was built under a time crunch, such as automatic shutdown if a problem that could lead to a contamination failure were to develop.
Furthermore, Google Kiwi-TNT. This was a NERVA-program test of a Kiwi reactor where they made one go critical on purpose to test the effects of a containment failure. So IRL, the NERVA guys were thinking about "what if the engine explodes Chernobyl-style during use?" among other possible events of containment failure.