Author Topic: Alternate Joint NASA/USAF "STS" System.  (Read 39225 times)

Offline speedevil

  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 4406
  • Fife
  • Liked: 2762
  • Likes Given: 3369
Re: Alternate Joint NASA/USAF "STS" System.
« Reply #80 on: 03/20/2018 01:47 am »
If NERVA hadn't been cancelled, then a nuclear second stage on the Saturn IB could have produced a LV capable of Energia-level performance with 80-100 tonnes to LEO.

On this topic - https://beyondnerva.wordpress.com/2017/12/15/leu-ntp-nasas-new-nuclear-rocket-part-1-where-weve-been-before/ goes over NERVA history and possible upgrades with todays tech.
Officially cancelled in 77.

Offline Lobo

  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 6915
  • Spokane, WA
  • Liked: 672
  • Likes Given: 437
Re: Alternate Joint NASA/USAF "STS" System.
« Reply #81 on: 03/23/2018 10:25 pm »

There is a definite moment when Saturn IB lost to Titan III, but it is not related to manned spaceflight but to robotic exploration.

*snip*

One can ask why didn't they brought back Saturn IB Centaur for Viking, the answer was that by 67-68 Saturn production had been frozen (not cancelled, just frozen) so they went for Titan III instead.

Interesting stuff.  Thanks for sharing and summarizing (I haven't had a chance to mull through those links yet though)

Yea, since Saturn 1B was no longer in production, and would require new development to adapt a 3rd stage to it, while Titan already had a 3rd stage variant, made a good case for using Titan. 
And I'm not sure of all the timelines, but by the early 70's when Viking and Voyager were in the works, a reusable Space Plane concept for the Post Apollo Program of Record was pretty well decided upon.  With any chance of going back and using Saturn 1B, and restarting production not really in the cards any more.



« Last Edit: 03/23/2018 10:36 pm by Lobo »

Offline Archibald

  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 2611
  • Liked: 500
  • Likes Given: 1096
Re: Alternate Joint NASA/USAF "STS" System.
« Reply #82 on: 03/24/2018 06:13 am »
The official start of the space shuttle program was between december 1967 and july 1968, Voyager had already been cancelled (July 1967) and Viking was on very early planning stages. 

What is sure is that there was a large number of Saturn IB left by Apollo (SA-209 to SA-216, minus ASTP, AS-210 in the end that's SEVEN rockets, not all them complete). But as you said, they crucially lacked the Centaur stage.

Bringing back the Saturn-Centaur in 1968 would have duplicated Titan IIID-Centaur (that was the name back them, it become III-E later) but also probably the future Space Shuttle, as you noted.

 Surely, during its funding quest for the shuttle, NASA had very hard times proving OMB and Congress the Shuttle would bring any cost improvement compared to the Titan, so imagine if the Saturn IB was there, too.

More generally, by 1968 Saturn IB was already a relic of the past, at least in NASA eyes.
« Last Edit: 03/24/2018 10:02 am by Archibald »
Han shot first and Gwynne Shotwell !

Offline Jim

  • Night Gator
  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 37440
  • Cape Canaveral Spaceport
  • Liked: 21451
  • Likes Given: 428
Re: Alternate Joint NASA/USAF "STS" System.
« Reply #83 on: 03/26/2018 02:31 pm »

During Voyager 1.0 NASA considered Titan III for the first time, but back then they disliked military boosters because of bad experiences, notably with Atlas and Titan.


Not true.  NASA managed its own Atlases.

Offline Lobo

  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 6915
  • Spokane, WA
  • Liked: 672
  • Likes Given: 437
Re: Alternate Joint NASA/USAF "STS" System.
« Reply #84 on: 03/26/2018 06:30 pm »
The official start of the space shuttle program was between december 1967 and july 1968, Voyager had already been cancelled (July 1967) and Viking was on very early planning stages. 

So that's when NASA had pretty much decided they'd pivot away from Saturn/Apollo after they'd flown their funded missions out, rather than continue with any of them.  But when did USAF get on board with it then?  When did they start having input into the Shuttle requirements and designs?
It's really at that point in our alternate history where some sort of alternate "STS" Joint launch system would need to be inserted.  At that point, USAF must have decided they'd go with the joint system with NASA to replace Titan for their heavier lift needs.  So that's when [theoretically] they'd have been open to some other alternate joint system instead of Shuttle.  The extra carrot with something like a 1970's version of Falcon 9 using all H-1 family engines is that USAF would have had a joint system that 1)  Wouldn't need a human crew to launch, and 2) They could have launched from their own Titan pads (with modifications), instead of depending on NASA facilities) , and 3)  It could probably (possibly?) be set up that USAF and control over their boosters, and didn't have to work through NASA as they did with Shuttle. (Jim talked about this on the 1st page of this thread).  Once a collaborative design had been finalized, then USAF would purchase what they needed for their needs, and take delivery, process, and launch them from their own facilities.  Really completely independent from NASA.
I can only imagine those things would have been even more attractive to USAF than Shuttle was. 

I think NASA would have been the easier of the two to get on board with something like that.  USAF had their own LV's and didn't really need to switch, but NASA needed something post-Apollo.  USAF could have just kept upgrading Titan to Titan IIIM and then some sort of Titan IV after.  Plus I don't think their budgets were in the balance as much because they were tied to Defense budgets, rather than the separate NASA budgets.  So getting them on board would probably be the harder thing.  For NASA, really a reusable Space Plane shuttle of some sort would probably be "futuristic" and reusable" enough, even with an expendable booster.  Especially if the booster could later be upgraded with perhaps an SRB like parachute water landing for at least Shuttle level booster reusability.  USAF probably wouldn't have really cared about that, but NASA may have have.


What is sure is that there was a large number of Saturn IB left by Apollo (SA-209 to SA-216, minus ASTP, AS-210 in the end that's SEVEN rockets, not all them complete). But as you said, they crucially lacked the Centaur stage.

Bringing back the Saturn-Centaur in 1968 would have duplicated Titan IIID-Centaur (that was the name back them, it become III-E later) but also probably the future Space Shuttle, as you noted.

 Surely, during its funding quest for the shuttle, NASA had very hard times proving OMB and Congress the Shuttle would bring any cost improvement compared to the Titan, so imagine if the Saturn IB was there, too.

More generally, by 1968 Saturn IB was already a relic of the past, at least in NASA eyes.

Good points.  And yea, I think that's probably how it played out.  (From my limited understanding of the politics and history of the era).

On paper it seems like such an easy thing to just say, "Why didn't both NASA and USAF just use Saturn 1B?  It was already developed, and pretty much had a performance range they were looking for...or could be relatively easily upgraded to.  Why didn't they just do that?"

But the details of the era, such a thing was anything but simple.  For those reasons you and Jim and others have noted.
Which is why I was thinking had there been maybe a little more pragmatism at the time, maybe a more modest system than STS could have been implemented that would have achieved many of the goals of STS, but for just a fraction of the development and operating costs, as well as NASA/USAF cost sharing.  And Maybe more interesting things could have been done sooner than worked out with Shuttle in real history.  And been safer for humans to fly on as well.

I like my "1970's Falcon 9" concept.  A joint LV that was a Titan derivative would probably have been more likely in real history, but I like the Titans less for the NASA human Space flight side, for a few reasons than the 1970's Falcon 9 concept.
« Last Edit: 03/26/2018 06:45 pm by Lobo »

Offline Lobo

  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 6915
  • Spokane, WA
  • Liked: 672
  • Likes Given: 437
Re: Alternate Joint NASA/USAF "STS" System.
« Reply #85 on: 03/26/2018 09:31 pm »
Archibald,

Since the Title of the thread is alternate joint "STS" System, and realistically in history, aside from Shuttle, a joint expendable LV for both would have most likely been a Titan derivative, what might a joint Titan Based "STS" system have looked like?  Something that'd have filled the needs for both?

There was something like the Titan IIIL concept, which had a wider core and I think larger 7-seg boosters, compared to the U1207 boosters on Titan IIIM and Titan IVA.  (They look bigger in the link below anyway, although they both say 7-segment boosters.)

http://www.aerospaceprojectsreview.com/blog/?p=66

But then there's less commonality, as USAF probably wasn't interested in a wider core Titan.  (or were they?)

Is there a Titan variant that both would have been theoretically likely to adopt in an alternate joint "STS" system?

Some interesting potential candidates over here on this thread:

https://forum.nasaspaceflight.com/index.php?topic=40012.0


« Last Edit: 03/26/2018 09:41 pm by Lobo »

Offline Archibald

  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 2611
  • Liked: 500
  • Likes Given: 1096
Re: Alternate Joint NASA/USAF "STS" System.
« Reply #86 on: 03/27/2018 11:38 am »
Hard to guess.

Titan III-M maybe, if MOL survived (see Blackstar extensive writtings on the subjet. In spring 1969 the KH-10 MOL nearly survived and the KH-9 was nearly killed instead. Nixon took that decision in April but reversed it two months later, and the MOL died in june).

I would say first scrap the shuttle and get Big Gemini as NASA space station logistic vehicle.

The funny thing, Big Gemini is superficially similar to the MOL, maybe NASA and the Air Force could get a kind of hybrid of the two spacecrafts, launched by a Titan III-M.

This done,

Improve the Titan by cutting the gap between Titan II and Titan III.

There is two ways to achieve that.

Solution A) Cut the SRMs.
Titan III-C had 5-seg SRMs, Titan III-M had 7-seg solids. But a while back I found a paper discussing intermediate Titans with 2-seg and 3-seg SRMs. I'll try to find this paper on my HD.

Solution B) Enlarge the core -  to 4 LR-87 and 4.87 m diameter (standard Titan was 3.05 m diameter)
then add to the larger core, not the huge SRMs but Delta 7000 nine small solids GEM-40.

I was never really convinced by the Shuttle - Titan hybrids, notably 4X 7-seg solids = 24 O-rings, thus many more possible STS-51L or Titan 34D-9. Bad.

A Big Gemini / MOL hybrid launched by a Titan III-M could be an interesting joint NASA - military manned spacecraft.

It would be pretty easy for Martin Marietta to tweak a Titan II to replace both Atlas and Delta. The end result ? having slained the shuttle, Saturn IB, Atlas and Delta  the Titan family would achieve total domination of U.S launch systems, something the Space Shuttle tried to achieve but failed.  ;D

Then the Titan could try to pull a Falcon 9 - mass production to drop cost, followed by (partial) reusability to drop cost further.

I would say - start from the enlarged core, four engine Titan III-L without SRMs but scrap the storable propellants and return to the Titan I kerolox LR-87. Four kerolox LR-87 topped by one kerolox LR-91, and then goes full Falcon 9, if that's ever doable in the 80's. By the way, Big Gemini makes an honest-to-god Dragon 2...
« Last Edit: 03/27/2018 11:56 am by Archibald »
Han shot first and Gwynne Shotwell !

Offline Lobo

  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 6915
  • Spokane, WA
  • Liked: 672
  • Likes Given: 437
Re: Alternate Joint NASA/USAF "STS" System.
« Reply #87 on: 03/27/2018 11:12 pm »

I would say first scrap the shuttle and get Big Gemini as NASA space station logistic vehicle.

The funny thing, Big Gemini is superficially similar to the MOL, maybe NASA and the Air Force could get a kind of hybrid of the two spacecrafts, launched by a Titan III-M.

Would Big Gemini have had any chance of winning out over some sort of reusable space plane during this era?  I'm no expert on it, but wasn't it still basically an expendable capsule?  I know there was a pretty palpable push for reusability and going "futuristic" at the time.  That's why I mention an HL-20/42 style mini shuttle at the time.  Or something like a larger Dyna-Soar perhaps.


It would be pretty easy for Martin Marietta to tweak a Titan II to replace both Atlas and Delta. The end result ? having slained the shuttle, Saturn IB, Atlas and Delta  the Titan family would achieve total domination of U.S launch systems, something the Space Shuttle tried to achieve but failed.  ;D

Then the Titan could try to pull a Falcon 9 - mass production to drop cost, followed by (partial) reusability to drop cost further.

I would say - start from the enlarged core, four engine Titan III-L without SRMs but scrap the storable propellants and return to the Titan I kerolox LR-87. Four kerolox LR-87 topped by one kerolox LR-91, and then goes full Falcon 9, if that's ever doable in the 80's. By the way, Big Gemini makes an honest-to-god Dragon 2...

I'm definitely a fan of pivoting away from the toxic and corrosive hypergolics to kerolox, especially for NASA.   And it's interesting those LR engines could be built to run on either.  I wasn't aware of that until recently. 
So the question then would be, would there be enough "Titan" left in such a variant, that it would still be a "Titan"?  It'd share little with the Titan ICBM fleet of parts, which was an advantage of the Titan LV's as I understand.
And could existing Titan II/III LR's be converted to kerolox?  Or would they need to be built differently?  If different, then again they wouldn't have commonality with the Titan ICBM fleet.

Seems like this would be pretty similar to my "1970's Falcon 9" concept using the H-1 family of engines.  It'd just use the LR family.  The LR's are about the same as the H-1's, per nozzle, but they are dual nozzle engines, correct?  So as you said, 4 of them (8 nozzles) with then options for small SRB augmentation?  Like what the EELV's turned out to be? 

Regardless of who made the a larger core, MM, or another contractor, really the engines would be about the only difference, otherwise we're thinking roughly the same thing.  Would the LR's be more advantageous than the H's?

I like the idea, just wondering once we're there, have we lost the advantages of staying with the Titan?  (Although those advantages were going away anyway as the Titan ICBM's were being replaced by the solid Minuteman's in the late 70's and 80's.  So that was really only a short term advantage in Titan based LV).

Offline Jim

  • Night Gator
  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 37440
  • Cape Canaveral Spaceport
  • Liked: 21451
  • Likes Given: 428
Re: Alternate Joint NASA/USAF "STS" System.
« Reply #88 on: 03/28/2018 01:46 am »

I would say first scrap the shuttle and get Big Gemini as NASA space station logistic vehicle.
 

Never was a viable vehicle nor a realistic project

Offline Archibald

  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 2611
  • Liked: 500
  • Likes Given: 1096
Re: Alternate Joint NASA/USAF "STS" System.
« Reply #89 on: 03/28/2018 07:41 am »
 ::)

Quote
Would Big Gemini have had any chance of winning out over some sort of reusable space plane during this era?  I'm no expert on it, but wasn't it still basically an expendable capsule?  I know there was a pretty palpable push for reusability and going "futuristic" at the time.  That's why I mention an HL-20/42 style mini shuttle at the time.  Or something like a larger Dyna-Soar perhaps.

One of the three options pushed hard by OMB to scare NASA in cutting the shuttle cost (october 1971) was a 100 000 pound "Fat Dynasoar".
The other two were Big Gemini and Apollo. The OMB ruthless strategy got shuttle development costs dropping from $11 billion for the fully reusable shuttle to a mere $5.15 billion for the final, familiar shuttle (from the Mathematica Institute, Klaus Heiss and Oskar Morgenstern). We all know how that ended.  ::)

 (note: Big Gemini was a serious project, up to a full-size mockup, but only between 1967 and 1969, after what it was only OMB prefered option to scare the hell out of NASA into cutting Shuttle development costs)

Big Gemini crew module was to land on an airstrip, using X-15 -like skids and a parafoil or parasail. On paper it could be refurbished and reused, but that's very, very uncertain and probably not worth it. Maybe just scavenging the spent modules for cheap spares, as NAR planned to do for future Apollo CMs.

In the case that the OMB and PSAC managed to kill the shuttle late 1971, maybe there would have been a "crew vehicle bidding war" that is MDD Big Gemini, NAR Apollo, probably the Corona capsule (that was General Electric) and of course the lifting bodies - Martin X-24 and Northrop that had two of them, the M2F-2 and the HL-10. Maybe others with winged shapes - Boeing with a big DynaSoar and Grumman or Lockheed or others with some kind of X-37 look alike - a subscale shuttle orbiter shape.
All of them probably launched by a Titan III-M. Whoever win is anybody guess of course. 
« Last Edit: 03/28/2018 10:57 am by Archibald »
Han shot first and Gwynne Shotwell !

Offline Jim

  • Night Gator
  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 37440
  • Cape Canaveral Spaceport
  • Liked: 21451
  • Likes Given: 428
Re: Alternate Joint NASA/USAF "STS" System.
« Reply #90 on: 03/28/2018 01:27 pm »

1.   (note: Big Gemini was a serious project, up to a full-size mockup, but only between 1967 and 1969, after what it was only OMB prefered option to scare the hell out of NASA into cutting Shuttle development costs)

2.  Big Gemini crew module was to land on an airstrip, using X-15 -like skids and a parafoil or parasail. On paper it could be refurbished and reused, but that's very, very uncertain and probably not worth it. Maybe just scavenging the spent modules for cheap spares, as NAR planned to do for future Apollo CMs.


1.  That was a PR stunt by McDonnell.  Not NASA funded.

2.  Do you see any way for the passengers to get out?  Also, the design makes no sense.  There is no need to have two man cockpit such as that. 


 Big Gemini was more of a marketing ploy by McDonnell than anything else.

Offline Archibald

  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 2611
  • Liked: 500
  • Likes Given: 1096
Re: Alternate Joint NASA/USAF "STS" System.
« Reply #91 on: 03/28/2018 02:40 pm »
Could have worked if enough money threw at it. Nothing unworkable in the design. I mean it is no freakkin' Chrysler SERV SSTO.
« Last Edit: 03/28/2018 02:47 pm by Archibald »
Han shot first and Gwynne Shotwell !

Offline Archibald

  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 2611
  • Liked: 500
  • Likes Given: 1096
Re: Alternate Joint NASA/USAF "STS" System.
« Reply #92 on: 04/13/2018 07:02 pm »
Thank you very much (both) for the document. I saw mention of Rensselaer P.I - so it come from the George Low archives there ?
« Last Edit: 04/13/2018 07:03 pm by Archibald »
Han shot first and Gwynne Shotwell !

Offline Proponent

  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 7277
  • Liked: 2782
  • Likes Given: 1462
Re: Alternate Joint NASA/USAF "STS" System.
« Reply #93 on: 04/13/2018 07:59 pm »
Anyway, the attached is courtesy of Dr. Logsdon.

Wow, what a casual delivery!  Thank you very much, and thanks to Dr. Logsdon too!
« Last Edit: 04/13/2018 07:59 pm by Proponent »

Offline RanulfC

  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 4595
  • Heus tu Omnis! Vigilate Hoc!
  • Liked: 900
  • Likes Given: 32
Re: Alternate Joint NASA/USAF "STS" System.
« Reply #94 on: 04/18/2018 12:37 am »
Lobo asked for an "Alternate Joint NASA/USAF "STS" system and I totally forgot about the 'fact' they actually DID have one... But timing is everything after all :)

USAF "SLS" (Space Launching System) of 1960:
http://www.astronautix.com/s/sls.html

NASA "Almost-SLS" of 1966/68-ish:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Saturn_II

If only the 'kids' could play nice with each other :)

Randy
From The Amazing Catstronaut on the Black Arrow LV:
British physics, old chap. It's undignified to belch flames and effluvia all over the pad, what. A true gentlemen's orbital conveyance lifts itself into the air unostentatiously, with the minimum of spectacle and a modicum of grace. Not like our American cousins' launch vehicles, eh?

Offline Lobo

  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 6915
  • Spokane, WA
  • Liked: 672
  • Likes Given: 437
Re: Alternate Joint NASA/USAF "STS" System.
« Reply #95 on: 04/26/2018 06:10 pm »
Lobo asked for an "Alternate Joint NASA/USAF "STS" system and I totally forgot about the 'fact' they actually DID have one... But timing is everything after all :)

USAF "SLS" (Space Launching System) of 1960:
http://www.astronautix.com/s/sls.html

Interesting.  I love this site, I always learn something new.

Obviously this was the USAF preferred concept with a whole bunch of big solid boosters. Heh.

In the 50's, solids looked pretty good as big liquid engines were in their early stages.  And later it was figured out that when those solids got really big, they weren't all that cheap and easy.

NASA "Almost-SLS" of 1966/68-ish:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Saturn_II

If only the 'kids' could play nice with each other :)

Randy

Yea, I was aware of Saturn II.  An interesting design.  I never quite liked that it needed Solids to get off the ground with the existing J2 engines (although it could with sea level variants or the HG-3).  Also, hydrolox is difficult and just not a good booster propellant.  There's a case to be made for it in STS (Or Ariane 5) where it's basically a ground lit 2nd stage/sustainer stage all the way to orbit.  But Saturn II would have the hydrolox S-IVB as the 2nd stage anyway.  The S-II is itself a 2nd stage rather than a sustainer stage.  It probably could have been modified into a sustainer stage with the help of a lot of solid booster assistance, then it'd basically have been a smaller, fatter 1970's SLS.  heh.   

With 20/20 hindsight, I still think having a kerolox booster that could get the stack off the ground efficiently would have been preferable.  With maybe small Minuteman solids (shared with other LV, small, easy to handle) that can augment it for heavier payloads.  But I think SpaceX has shown, just simple kerolox, of a size to cover your whole payload range without solids is a good concept and perfectly economical (even without any reusability).    Don't over think it, keep it simple and reliable, which gas generator kerolox was in the 60's and 70's.  That's why I kind of like the "1970's Falcon 9" concept, with H-1C engines on a mono core booster, with then a single vacuum H-1 for a kerolox 2nd stage.  Add the Centaur 3rd stage for BLEO payloads, and it'd have been a perfectly fine shared launcher for USAF as well, with engine family shared with Delta and Atlas for smaller payload needs.
NASA would mostly only need the basic 2-stage version for launching astronauts up to LEO to build and maintain a modular space station that STS was originally envisioned to construct.


Offline RanulfC

  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 4595
  • Heus tu Omnis! Vigilate Hoc!
  • Liked: 900
  • Likes Given: 32
Re: Alternate Joint NASA/USAF "STS" System.
« Reply #96 on: 04/28/2018 09:00 pm »
Lobo wrote:
Quote
Interesting. I love this site, I always learn something new.

Ain't it the truth :)

Quote
Obviously this was the USAF preferred concept with a whole bunch of big solid boosters. Heh.

Well there was that "Titan-variant" called Arcturus back around 1959 (https://forum.nasaspaceflight.com/index.php?topic=40012.msg1548837#msg1548837) which was TOTALLY nothing like that obviously flawed and overly complex "clustered" Jupiter and Redstone tankage "Saturn" monstrosity of the Army! Why look we only have TWO honking big engines, (that we actually haven't tested at this point but are SURE will be 'easy' and 'cheap' to get operational) instead of 8 wimpy ones!

Er, hmmm.. Sorry I'm working up notes on a AH-fiction timeline where the Air Force gets the Lunar go-ahead and winds up using a variation of "Project Pilgrim" as an actual plan and the amount of 'over-hype' and 'over-blown-promise' that tends to get thrown around when the Air Force 'wins' tends to be difficult to shake off at times :)
(And if your curious no, they still don't get Arcturus but end up using SLS with the "A" and "B" models. "C" ends up being a step to far on short notice)

Quote
In the 50's, solids looked pretty good as big liquid engines were in their early stages. And later it was figured out that when those solids got really big, they weren't all that cheap and easy.

Kind of depends on what assumptions you're using since Aerojet could actually 'show' the math working for a big solid built IN Florida, (rather than say Utah or Colorado :) ) at least cost-wise. Operationally however...

The 'big' SRBs for "B" and "C" weren't really that much bigger than the Shuttle SRBs, (Astronautix is a bit off since they show the same dimensions for both the "B" and "C" SRBs) at 167ft long by 15ft in diameter for the "B" and "C" (despite the rather obvious 'shorter' stage length for the "B" which should be around 85ft long) compared to the Shuttle SRBs at 150ft long and 12ft in diameter. It of course wouldn't be 'inexpensive' by any stretch but that wasn't as clear at the time given the regular 'issues' with big liquid boosters. People laughed and scoffed at the Saturn-1 but it really did 'prove' big liquid boosters were not only possible but practical.

Quote
Yea, I was aware of Saturn II. An interesting design.

I knew that YOU knew, that "I" knew, that you knew, but then again what's new? ;)

Seriously, it was and it showed that NASA was willing to consider, (not for long but...) using such components. The main thing was the "Saturn-II" obviously being based on existing Saturn hardware whereas SLS...

Quote
I never quite liked that it needed Solids to get off the ground with the existing J2 engines (although it could with sea level variants or the HG-3). Also, hydrolox is difficult and just not a good booster propellant.

True but being the 'uber-propellant' (in theory) kept in in the running on math alone :) Nobody 'liked' the need for solids or dense liquid boosters because they always brought the overall performance numbers down, but, (as we've seen with the Delta-IV) anything else is a bit wasteful. Despite being flaky as heck over design, propulsion, performance, and mission the one thing the AF got right from the start was hydrolox was best for anything OTHER than boosters.

Quote
There's a case to be made for it in STS (Or Ariane 5) where it's basically a ground lit 2nd stage/sustainer stage all the way to orbit. But Saturn II would have the hydrolox S-IVB as the 2nd stage anyway. The S-II is itself a 2nd stage rather than a sustainer stage.

Eh, check that. The SLS air-light the J2s once the SRBs burned out. Oddly enough it seems to be where Martin got the idea for the Titan-III and later because running the numbers showed much better performance, (with less vehicle stressing) by air-starting the liquid stages after the SRBs lifted the vehicle to altitude. There was by design no 'sustainer' stage.

Quote
It probably could have been modified into a sustainer stage with the help of a lot of solid booster assistance, then it'd basically have been a smaller, fatter 1970's SLS. heh.

You mean "SLS" not "SLS" right? :)

Quote
With 20/20 hindsight, I still think having a kerolox booster that could get the stack off the ground efficiently would have been preferable.

Again the answer you get depends on what answer you were looking for in the first place :) In the Air Force mind of the time the segmented solids had a pretty sweet draw in that by varying the number of segments AND boosters you could launch a wide variety of payloads on the same 'upper' stages. Especially if you varied the propellant load as well.

As per 'standard' planning of the time they were looking at several launches a month up to a couple a week in some cases of various mission payloads. Quite obviously everyone noted you ran into problems with 'big' boosters in that they required very specialized, and extensive, (not to mention expensive) infrastructure. As the flight rate went up some infrastructure would end up pretty much the same, (propellant production, handling and storage come to mind) for small/medium and big boosters but you didn't have to have It all right away. Having said that another 'obvious' conclusion was you eventually wanted to go with reusable, (the AF had "Astrorocket" studies going on around the same time-frame I think) but at the same time you had significantly different payload missions that were often not as 'suited' to a single launch system or design.

A lesson we learned again from the Shuttle. Monlithic systems tend to lead to fixed designs which don't scale well or at all whereas 'modular' can be scaled in any direction at an economic cost. There's no question a dense propellant liquid booster would have been more efficient but balanced against that was the choice in moving all production and assembly of the SRBs 'on-site' to reduce costs. It was looked at for the Shuttle and found to be vastly cheaper, (and actually made 'reuse' practical for the SRBs) but politics not operations dictated it not happen.

Quote
With maybe small Minuteman solids (shared with other LV, small, easy to handle) that can augment it for heavier payloads. But I think SpaceX has shown, just simple kerolox, of a size to cover your whole payload range without solids is a good concept and perfectly economical (even without any reusability).

Actually SpaceX has 'shown' you can do pretty good with a marginal LV if you get production costs down in the bargain. And actually I have to point out that SpaceX didn't in fact 'prove' this at all since the good-old R7 was doing it long before Elon Musk got the space bug. :)
The problem is a full kerolox LV is NOT efficient and the only way it stays relevant is if you can make it vastly cheaper. Which arguably SpaceX does but, in truth anyone with a more efficient upper stage and similar costs would eat their lunch. There's a reason they are moving to methalox after all :)

In the case of 1960s-SLS and Saturn-II they simply worked in reverse by starting with an efficient upper stage and how to get it off the ground and into the air. They in fact DID study liquid boosters and while they found efficiency and economic gains in the long run it was the 'short run' that mattered more since they were aiming at as early operational date as possible.

Quote
Don't over think it, keep it simple and reliable, which gas generator kerolox was in the 60's and 70's.

Not quite though. The Air Force was the main developer of both the F1 and the J2 for a reason and they did have an 'advantage' over NASA at the time having actually run a powerful LH2 engine extensively and found no major issues to the deployment of the same. (LR-87) So to them it WAS fairly simple and rather straight forward the only question being who and how does the airframe. (My bet is on Martin with some type of modified Titan airframe) They would use kerolox if they had to, (Arcturus after all) but somewhere around there you wanted to move to LH2 for the upper stages anyway so why not from the start? (And that's where Centaur development came in but took vastly longer than anyone planned) And there was arguably nothing simpler than solid propellant rockets which were becoming quite reasonable. (Since no one had done significant work on large segmented solids yet it was a reasonable assumption)


Quote
That's why I kind of like the "1970's Falcon 9" concept, with H-1C engines on a mono core booster, with then a single vacuum H-1 for a kerolox 2nd stage. Add the Centaur 3rd stage for BLEO payloads, and it'd have been a perfectly fine shared launcher for USAF as well, with engine family shared with Delta and Atlas for smaller payload needs.

You're mixing your metaphors there buster :) The only reason the US had 'any' decent LVs at the time, (talking early 60s) was because they invested in LH2 upper stages and engines. Using a kerolox 'upper stage' would be a huge step backwards no matter how 'cheap' it was. (And in fact it is today because ANYTHING other than kerolox in the Falcon-9 second stage would vastly improve its performance. It would increase the cost of course but really SpaceX has room to spare, they just don't have the will and frankly are not interested. The changes needed for using cryo-propane for example would be minimal but the performance boost would be well worth it. But that's money they won't spend)

And I have to point out Centaur wasn't designed or built to ever be 'cheap' on purpose. And a launcher that big, like the current Falcon-9 is not going to be able to service the vast amount of different payloads developed and designed between the 60s and the 80s. It will be vastly too large for some, (most actually early on) and need additional upper stages or boost assists for others. And then there's the difference between what NASA and the Air Force 'wanted' at any one time. If the USAF doesn't have a 'manned' mission to support they won't want anything over about the Titan, (10 to say 12 feet) whereas NASA who are running a manned mission

NASA would mostly only need the basic 2-stage version for launching astronauts up to LEO to build and maintain a modular space station that STS was originally envisioned to construct.

Randy
From The Amazing Catstronaut on the Black Arrow LV:
British physics, old chap. It's undignified to belch flames and effluvia all over the pad, what. A true gentlemen's orbital conveyance lifts itself into the air unostentatiously, with the minimum of spectacle and a modicum of grace. Not like our American cousins' launch vehicles, eh?

Offline Lobo

  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 6915
  • Spokane, WA
  • Liked: 672
  • Likes Given: 437
Re: Alternate Joint NASA/USAF "STS" System.
« Reply #97 on: 05/05/2018 12:06 am »
Hello Randy,
Interesting and informative comments as always.

Well there was that "Titan-variant" called Arcturus back around 1959

Another new LV I wasn't aware of before.  Again, I learn something new every time here.  :-)

Kind of depends on what assumptions you're using since Aerojet could actually 'show' the math working for a big solid built IN Florida, (rather than say Utah or Colorado :) ) at least cost-wise. Operationally however...

I'm sure that would have helped, but the Hercules solids for Titan IV ended up being pretty  expensive too.  I'm not sure where they were fueled.  Utah as well?  Or closer to the pads?  Just seemed once you got passed the Titan IIIC sized solids, they seemed to go the other way with their cost and simplicity.   As well as being really big and heavy and more difficult to move around.  Whereas liquid boosters can remain empty until you you have the stack assembled and on the pad ready for launch.  It was also a concern to have them in the VAB because they were fully fueled while handling.  A liquid booster can't accidentally go "boom" in processing.  A liquid booster can also be shut down on the pad if there's a problem.  Not so for a multi solid booster stage if one booster fails to light at ignition.  But OrbATK and ArianeSpace is going with them for NGL and Ariane 6, so dunno.
So cost is one aspect, but there's other concerns.
On the other hand, for ICBM's, solids have big benefits vs. liquid, especially cryo liquid like the Titan I ICBM.  It's funny when you watch an old movie about the Cold War where the US is on the brink of WW3 with the Soviet Union, and some General give the order to "Fuel up the missiles" for DEFCON 1 or whatever.  I didn't understand it back when I was a kid, but now I get what they meant.  You don't need standby crews 24/7 to fuel up solid ICBM's in case of the breakout of war.  And solids allow for Ballistic Missile Subs, etc. 
But for an LV, especially one to carry people, there's no need to have it on the standby ready.  Rather, it's more ideal if you -can- wait until the very last to fuel it up.  And you'll have a whole ground crew to do it regardless of fuel type for LV's.   

Quote
Yea, I was aware of Saturn II. An interesting design.

I knew that YOU knew, that "I" knew, that you knew, but then again what's new? ;)

Oh there's plenty I don't know.  Arcturus for example.  And the 1950's SLS.  You just picked one I did know there with Saturn II.  ;)

Seriously, it was and it showed that NASA was willing to consider, (not for long but...) using such components. The main thing was the "Saturn-II" obviously being based on existing Saturn hardware whereas SLS...

Do you mean "STS" here?

Yea, that's why I think these hypothetical discussions are very interesting.  Obviously there were those considering using legacy derivatives of Saturn, rather than burning all of that money and engineering to the ground to start over with STS.  So it's plausible that if just a few key people had been a little more pragmatic, that history could have taken a different, and likely more fruitful course.

True but being the 'uber-propellant' (in theory) kept it in the running on math alone :) Nobody 'liked' the need for solids or dense liquid boosters because they always brought the overall performance numbers down, but, (as we've seen with the Delta-IV) anything else is a bit wasteful. Despite being flaky as heck over design, propulsion, performance, and mission the one thing the AF got right from the start was hydrolox was best for anything OTHER than boosters.

Good point.
NASA did too...early on.  With Saturn 1/1B and Saturn V.   (Although, I suppose Saturn 1 started out as AF) Then fell in love with hydrolox as the "uber-propellant" as you said. 

Quote
There's a case to be made for it in STS (Or Ariane 5) where it's basically a ground lit 2nd stage/sustainer stage all the way to orbit. But Saturn II would have the hydrolox S-IVB as the 2nd stage anyway. The S-II is itself a 2nd stage rather than a sustainer stage.

Eh, check that. The SLS air-light the J2s once the SRBs burned out. Oddly enough it seems to be where Martin got the idea for the Titan-III and later because running the numbers showed much better performance, (with less vehicle stressing) by air-starting the liquid stages after the SRBs lifted the vehicle to altitude. There was by design no 'sustainer' stage.

Agreed, but that's not what I meant.  I meant if using hydrolox from the pad and then the same core all the way to orbit, then there's a reasonable argument to do that as an augmented sustainer stage off the pad.  As Ariane V does, and STS did.  Versus using it specifically as a booster propellant, as in Delta IV, and other hydrolox concepts NASA considered post-Apollo.
Aside from use as a sustainer with side boosters of some sort, it's best to use it only for upper stages (as USAF's old SLS would have, as you pointed out.)

Quote
It probably could have been modified into a sustainer stage with the help of a lot of solid booster assistance, then it'd basically have been a smaller, fatter 1970's SLS. heh.

You mean "SLS" not "SLS" right? :)

?
I meant current SLS.  Putting a couple of big solids on an S-II modified into a sustainer stage...(all the way to orbit)...would have basically made it a smaller, fatter 1970's version of our current SLS.
Otherwise Saturn II uses a hydrolox stage as the booster....augmented with SRB's, with another hydrolox upper stage on it.  More like a big fat Delta IV.  ;)
And I think we both agree, that's less than optimal.

Quote
With 20/20 hindsight, I still think having a kerolox booster that could get the stack off the ground efficiently would have been preferable.

Again the answer you get depends on what answer you were looking for in the first place :) In the Air Force mind of the time the segmented solids had a pretty sweet draw in that by varying the number of segments AND boosters you could launch a wide variety of payloads on the same 'upper' stages. Especially if you varied the propellant load as well.

Note:  "With 20/20 hindsight".  :)

Obviously at that time they were thinking other things.   But to your points about segmented solid boosters, as I understood, if you change the number of segments in a segmented booster, you have to change the whole pour too.  You can't just stack up more segments for more boost like modules.  So a 2-segment solid will really be a different pour and manufacture than a 3-segment solid or a 4-segment solid, even if they use the same casings. So it's really a different booster.  So I don't know if they are very modular that way?  Like they are by adding more small SRB's to the base of an LV, like Atlas V or Delta IV.  (That's how I understand segmented solids anyway)

As per 'standard' planning of the time they were looking at several launches a month up to a couple a week in some cases of various mission payloads. Quite obviously everyone noted you ran into problems with 'big' boosters in that they required very specialized, and extensive, (not to mention expensive) infrastructure. As the flight rate went up some infrastructure would end up pretty much the same, (propellant production, handling and storage come to mind) for small/medium and big boosters but you didn't have to have It all right away. Having said that another 'obvious' conclusion was you eventually wanted to go with reusable, (the AF had "Astrorocket" studies going on around the same time-frame I think) but at the same time you had significantly different payload missions that were often not as 'suited' to a single launch system or design.

Perhaps.  Really we're talking a common LV of roughly the size of the Saturn 1, or Titan III/IV, or current Falcon 9.   So it's not a really huge booster.  Probably wider than Falcon 9, but not as wide as Saturn 1/1B.  Maybe around 5m wide.  A short Delta IV, for visualization.  With kerolox in both the booster and 2nd stage, at 5m wide, it wouldn't be real tall.  Taller with a hydrolox 3rd stage, but that could be encapsulated into the PLF as Centaur was for Titan and Atlas V-5xx.  I don't think handling and processing that would be an issue.  NASA would have converted it's MLP's for it, and changed the VAB platforms accordingly.  And handled them like the Saturns.  USAF would have modified their Titan IIIC pads and facilities for them.  A 5m-ish 2-stage kerolox probably wouldn't have been much different dimensionally than the Titan IV stack, which the Titan III pads were modified to handle.  The LV could even be wider than 5m to make it shorter if USAF had wanted it that.  Height would have made little different to NASA launching it from KSC, so whatever height USAF preferred I'm sure would have been fine with them.

And a launcher that big, like the current Falcon-9 is not going to be able to service the vast amount of different payloads developed and designed between the 60s and the 80s. It will be vastly too large for some, (most actually early on) and need additional upper stages or boost assists for others. And then there's the difference between what NASA and the Air Force 'wanted' at any one time. If the USAF doesn't have a 'manned' mission to support they won't want anything over about the Titan, (10 to say 12 feet) whereas NASA who are running a manned mission

Hmmm...I think a 1970's version of current Falcon 9...with an option for an encapsulated Centaur 3rd stage, should have been able to handle any payload between the 60's and 80's.  Without Centaur, current Falcon 9 can put more in LEO than Titan IV, and Titan IV could handle anything until DSP-23 in 2007 launched by Delta IV Heavy.  Put a Centaur on top of that, and we're really going places.  :)
And the optional Centaur would have been used for those payloads as you say need additional upper stages.  The base 2-stage version would basically have been your basic Titan stack less Centaur.  And then put the Centaur on top when needed.  NASA wouldn't need that very often as they'd be mainly going to LEO and this would do that pretty effectively.

(A 1970's version of current Falcon 9 would probably have been a little bigger and more powerful because it'd be a little less efficient in engines and mass fraction back then, to get to a similar performance point)

Now...it would have been over sized for for smaller payloads, yes.  Just as Titan IIIC and Titan IV and STS were.  That's what Atlas II and Delta II were used for.  This joint 1970's version of Falcon 9 wouldn't have been used for every payload ever, but for NASA's HSF needs, and USAF's larger payload needs.   Just as STS was envisioned to do.  Again, to go back to the title of this thread, and "Alternate Joint NASA/USAF "STS" System". 
A "Space Transport System". 

A lesson we learned again from the Shuttle. Monlithic systems tend to lead to fixed designs which don't scale well or at all whereas 'modular' can be scaled in any direction at an economic cost.

Well, I guess I look at EELV and Falcon 9 and take away a different lesson.  The two EELV's are both scalable as you mention.  Yet they were never very affordable.  There's lots of reasons for that, and the optional solids probably little to do with it.  But, Falcon 9 without any scalability, but just going with the economics commonality and production scale, show that that could yield and affordable LV.  And actually it keeps things more simple (setting aside reusability), because as Jim likes to say, "rockets aren't Legos".   If you take away reusability and FH, then Falcon 9 is very simple.  Two versions of just 1 engine, two cores made on the same production line at the same plant, all common propellants, everything the same.  Just punching out the same widgets over and over again.
Atlas V I think did a lot better with their scalability, but I know from what I've ready of what Jim has said over the years, Delta IV suffered from a lot of issues with it.  Delta 4 had two upper stages.  The 4m was lighter and better optimized for a single core, no SRB launch.  The 5m was heavier and actually had lower performance if not using SRB's.  And they made it into a heavy version.  So Jim said there were 5 different cores, and 2 upper stages! 
A light as possible slick core for launching with 4m upper stage and no SRB's. 
Another core that was heavier with bracing belt around it for attaching SRB's too, that would launch with the 5m upper stage. 
And then a heavy left, right, and center core. 
Each being different.  From what Jim said that wouldn't have been the case if there was an Atlas heavy because the hydrolox cores needed to have venting or something all on one side, so the two outbord boosters needed to be mirrors of each other.  (something like that).  Atlas had a more true common core booster, and if there'd been an Atlas heavy, they would have need only 2 cores (like Falcon).  The lighter Centaur booster could be launched alone on the SRB-less version, or encapsulated for heavier configurations.
So, looks like scalability may have worked better for Atlas, if it had been the only EELV selected and really allowed to compete fully commercially by USAF.  Scalability didn't work really well for Delta IV...of course, that's the one they used to make the EELV-Heavy out of.  heheh
But even if Atlas had been the only EELV, I think Falcon would have still competed very well with it, at it's expendable price points.  As you said, Centaur wasn't meant to be a cheap upper stage, and especially if Atlas had needed to use a more expensive domestic engine instead of the cheap Russian ones.  So I take away the lesson of mass production and commonality, vs. various different components for different configurations, to realize the cost savings.  :)

And actually I have to point out that SpaceX didn't in fact 'prove' this at all since the good-old R7 was doing it long before Elon Musk got the space bug. :)

All the more evidence.  :)

The problem is a full kerolox LV is NOT efficient and the only way it stays relevant is if you can make it vastly cheaper. Which arguably SpaceX does but, in truth anyone with a more efficient upper stage and similar costs would eat their lunch.

But that has been one of the main problems with NASA (and government as a whole in many areas), to squeeze that little more "efficiency" or "capability" out, they will throw a huge amount more money at it, and create various 1-off bleeding edge components, and drive the costs up through the roof and end up with something they can't afford.  That could be said of Saturn/Apollo (although they made it a national priority to fund it anyway), STS, CxP, SLS, etc.  The Zumwalt class Destroyer is another example, and why the USN then stepped away and went with more of the less expensive Burke class that the Zumwalt was going to replace.  At what price does that last Nth degree of efficiency come at?

There's a reason they are moving to methalox after all :)

For easier reusability of the engines?  ;)


Quote
That's why I kind of like the "1970's Falcon 9" concept, with H-1C engines on a mono core booster, with then a single vacuum H-1 for a kerolox 2nd stage. Add the Centaur 3rd stage for BLEO payloads, and it'd have been a perfectly fine shared launcher for USAF as well, with engine family shared with Delta and Atlas for smaller payload needs.

You're mixing your metaphors there buster :) The only reason the US had 'any' decent LVs at the time, (talking early 60s) was because they invested in LH2 upper stages and engines.

Buster?  Heheheh

Yes, but that's mainly for BLEO trajectories.  Once you have to go out of LEO, then kerolox starts to really hinder you, true.  Hence why the Saturn V so out performed the N-1 to the Moon, although it had 3-4Mlbs of thrust less on lift off. 
But just to LEO, kerolox isn't a big detriment (not as efficient as hydrolox 2nd stage, but still not bad).
The Atlas (1) and Titans were not hydrolox to LEO.  And I think most would consider the Titans "decent" and "cost effective", at least through the Titan IIIC's. 

Again, when I say a "1970's Falcon 9".  I mean a 2-stage kerolox to LEO, with an option Centaur 3rd stage if going beyond that.  The 2nd stage could do BLEO mission for smaller payloads that still fit within it's reduced capacity for that, just as Falcon 9 does today.  But primarily it'd be a 2-stage LEO launch, just as Titan was without the optional Centaur 3rd stage.

Tags:
 

Advertisement NovaTech
Advertisement Northrop Grumman
Advertisement
Advertisement Margaritaville Beach Resort South Padre Island
Advertisement Brady Kenniston
Advertisement NextSpaceflight
Advertisement Nathan Barker Photography
0