Author Topic: What was the most powerful vehicle ever planned?  (Read 12396 times)

Offline CEV Now

  • Member
  • Posts: 52
  • Liked: 0
  • Likes Given: 0
What was the most powerful vehicle ever planned?
« on: 04/04/2006 08:32 PM »
After reading another thread about a test stand capable of handling a test for a 'future vehicle' that had 16m lbs of thrust, what was the most powerful vehicle ever planned?

Offline Tap-Sa

  • Veteran
  • Full Member
  • ***
  • Posts: 316
  • Liked: 0
  • Likes Given: 0
RE: What was the most powerful vehicle ever planned?
« Reply #1 on: 04/04/2006 08:40 PM »
I think that would be Orion.

Offline Jim

  • Night Gator
  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 32441
  • Cape Canaveral Spaceport
  • Liked: 11188
  • Likes Given: 331
RE: What was the most powerful vehicle ever planned?
« Reply #2 on: 04/04/2006 10:07 PM »
Quote
Tap-Sa - 4/4/2006  3:40 PMI think that would be Orion.

Orion is a nuclear pulse rocket, only for deep space, not for trips to LEO

Offline Jim

  • Night Gator
  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 32441
  • Cape Canaveral Spaceport
  • Liked: 11188
  • Likes Given: 331
RE: What was the most powerful vehicle ever planned?
« Reply #3 on: 04/04/2006 10:08 PM »
Look at this thread.  there was no need to start a new one

http://forum.nasaspaceflight.com/forums/thread-view.asp?tid=581&posts=62

Offline hyper_snyper

  • Elite Veteran
  • Full Member
  • ****
  • Posts: 730
  • Liked: 1
  • Likes Given: 18
RE: What was the most powerful vehicle ever planned?
« Reply #4 on: 04/04/2006 10:54 PM »
Quote
Jim - 4/4/2006  6:07 PM
Quote
Tap-Sa - 4/4/2006  3:40 PMI think that would be Orion.

Orion is a nuclear pulse rocket, only for deep space, not for trips to LEO

If you're psychotic enough, it could be used for trips to LEO. ;)

Offline simonbp

RE: What was the most powerful vehicle ever planned?
« Reply #5 on: 04/04/2006 11:15 PM »
It was certainly planned for ground to LEO operations; remember that when it was concieved, there was a nuclear bomb test per week, and pretty much anything could be justified "making sure the Russians don't do it first". Besides, how on earth else could you get something that heavy (it was going to be built by Electric Boat, the nuclear sub people) to orbit?

Simon ;)

Offline CEV Now

  • Member
  • Posts: 52
  • Liked: 0
  • Likes Given: 0
RE: What was the most powerful vehicle ever planned?
« Reply #6 on: 04/05/2006 04:40 AM »
Quote
Jim - 4/4/2006  5:08 PM

Look at this thread.  there was no need to start a new one

http://forum.nasaspaceflight.com/forums/thread-view.asp?tid=581&posts=62

Actually I feel there was as that thread is about the SDLV and this question is not.

Offline Jackson

  • Full Member
  • **
  • Posts: 257
  • Liked: 2
  • Likes Given: 1
RE: What was the most powerful vehicle ever planned?
« Reply #7 on: 04/05/2006 10:17 AM »
Quote
Tap-Sa - 4/4/2006  3:40 PM

I think that would be Orion.

Crikey. That's a beast of a ship, but mainly propulsion and a CEV type crew transport?

Offline publiusr

  • Elite Veteran
  • Full Member
  • ****
  • Posts: 1540
  • Liked: 1
  • Likes Given: 2
RE: What was the most powerful vehicle ever planned?
« Reply #8 on: 04/05/2006 05:57 PM »
There is a book on Orion by Freeman Dyson's son. Saturn V could place 130-140 tons in LEO--or 400 tons to the edge of the atmosphere. There a smaller Orion was to have launched.

The largest Orion concept to take off from the ground could have been 400 meters wide. The larger the craft is--the better the system works.

The largest chemical rockets seriously conceived were AMLLV, Nexus, and Sea Dragon, and one or two more slipping my mind.

Offline sandevd

  • Member
  • Posts: 1
  • Liked: 0
  • Likes Given: 0
RE: What was the most powerful vehicle ever planned?
« Reply #9 on: 04/11/2006 06:41 PM »
The captive firing test stand for the S-1C - Saturn V first stage vehicle -  located in Huntsville, Alabama was designed to test a stage with twice the thrust or approximately 15,000 pounds. Von Braun's post Apollo program was to colonize the moon using a vehicle of this thrust. Don't know if there was a project name assigned, but this would have been the most powerful vehicle ever planned.

Offline Chris Bergin

RE: What was the most powerful vehicle ever planned?
« Reply #10 on: 04/11/2006 08:47 PM »
Welcome to the site. We've got a few Apollo people here, and that's an interesting question, given we've heard a number of interesting comments on the Apollo/STS transition - and what may have come of it staying the course of Von Braun.

Offline publiusr

  • Elite Veteran
  • Full Member
  • ****
  • Posts: 1540
  • Liked: 1
  • Likes Given: 2
RE: What was the most powerful vehicle ever planned?
« Reply #11 on: 04/12/2006 06:29 PM »
The Soviet model allowed the Chief Designers to have their way. That and they kept their Air Force away from space. I think if the ABMA had dominance in space with our Air Force being kept the heck away from Space--we would have seen Von Braun in a position of Glushko or Korolov with Medaris as his Ustinov.

Offline Jim

  • Night Gator
  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 32441
  • Cape Canaveral Spaceport
  • Liked: 11188
  • Likes Given: 331
RE: What was the most powerful vehicle ever planned?
« Reply #12 on: 04/13/2006 01:45 AM »
Quote
publiusr - 12/4/2006  2:29 PMThe Soviet model allowed the Chief Designers to have their way. That and they kept their Air Force away from space. I think if the ABMA had dominance in space with our Air Force being kept the heck away from Space--we would have seen Von Braun in a position of Glushko or Korolov with Medaris as his Ustinov.


Soviets had no idea what was going on.  The Chief Designers were lose cannons.

Von Braun could have never been Korolov.  Von Braun only did LV's, Korolov did manned spacecraft, umanned, and whole lot more.

Our system served us well.  The Army had no business in space.  The NRO did more for space than ABMA



Offline Zoomer30

  • Veteran
  • Full Member
  • ****
  • Posts: 413
  • Liked: 0
  • Likes Given: 0
RE: What was the most powerful vehicle ever planned?
« Reply #13 on: 04/18/2006 05:42 AM »
I think it was called NOVA.  All the old "rocket posters" from the day showed all the Saturn rockets and then after the SatV they had the Nova.  The first stage was gonna have like 9 F1 engines or some insane amount like that.  I think the SatV was the best for the time.  Getting 5 liquid fuled engines to start right was a feat.  Main reason the N1 was doomed from the start.  That thing had around 30 engines in the first stage alone :D

Offline Jim

  • Night Gator
  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 32441
  • Cape Canaveral Spaceport
  • Liked: 11188
  • Likes Given: 331
RE: What was the most powerful vehicle ever planned?
« Reply #14 on: 04/18/2006 11:43 AM »
Quote
Zoomer30 - 18/4/2006  1:42 AMI think it was called NOVA.  All the old "rocket posters" from the day showed all the Saturn rockets and then after the SatV they had the Nova.  The first stage was gonna have like 9 F1 engines or some insane amount like that.  I think the SatV was the best for the time.  Getting 5 liquid fuled engines to start right was a feat.  Main reason the N1 was doomed from the start.  That thing had around 30 engines in the first stage alone :D

Read earlier in the thread.  It is not Nova.

Online Svetoslav

  • Veteran
  • Full Member
  • ****
  • Posts: 1256
  • Bulgaria
  • Liked: 566
  • Likes Given: 72
RE: What was the most powerful vehicle ever planned?
« Reply #15 on: 04/20/2006 08:00 AM »
The most powerful vehicle that completed a successful flight is Energia. It successfully launched Polyus and Buran.

Offline edkyle99

  • Expert
  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 12941
    • Space Launch Report
  • Liked: 4001
  • Likes Given: 761
RE: What was the most powerful vehicle ever planned?
« Reply #16 on: 04/20/2006 02:01 PM »
Quote
Svetoslav - 20/4/2006  3:00 AM

The most powerful vehicle that completed a successful flight is Energia. It successfully launched Polyus and Buran.

Most powerful in terms of liftoff thrust, yes.  But Energia only demonstrated an ability
to lift about 80 tonnes to suborbital trajectories during its two launches.  Saturn V
boosted 118 tonnes to Low Earth Orbit and 47 tonnes toward the Moon.  

 - Ed Kyle

Offline publiusr

  • Elite Veteran
  • Full Member
  • ****
  • Posts: 1540
  • Liked: 1
  • Likes Given: 2
RE: What was the most powerful vehicle ever planned?
« Reply #17 on: 04/28/2006 09:58 PM »
That's still better than the Delta IV. I wish Energiya would be brought back.

Offline publiusr

  • Elite Veteran
  • Full Member
  • ****
  • Posts: 1540
  • Liked: 1
  • Likes Given: 2
RE: What was the most powerful vehicle ever planned?
« Reply #18 on: 04/28/2006 10:04 PM »
Quote
Jim - 12/4/2006  8:45 PM

Quote
publiusr - 12/4/2006  2:29 PMThe Soviet model allowed the Chief Designers to have their way. That and they kept their Air Force away from space. I think if the ABMA had dominance in space with our Air Force being kept the heck away from Space--we would have seen Von Braun in a position of Glushko or Korolov with Medaris as his Ustinov.


Soviets had no idea what was going on.  The Chief Designers were lose cannons.

Von Braun could have never been Korolov.  Von Braun only did LV's, Korolov did manned spacecraft, umanned, and whole lot more.

Our system served us well.  The Army had no business in space.  The NRO did more for space than ABMA



Only because space was robbed from the Army. The NRO did little for space apart from keeping Titan alive. I like that the Chief Designers were loose cannons. If you remember, the artillery men were at the R-7 sites for quite awhile. The Army had every business in space. Missiles are forms of artillery. Fighter jocks run the Air Farce and will sit on space. I think Medaris would have been much better than Bernie Schriever if given the chance.

Medaris got the larger test stands built even though there wasn't a need for them with Redstone. I recommend his book COUNTDOWN FOR DECISION as a good counter to what the Air Force folks want you to believe. It wouldn't surprise me if the fudged the numbers on costs and what not now accepted in today's literature.

Offline Jim

  • Night Gator
  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 32441
  • Cape Canaveral Spaceport
  • Liked: 11188
  • Likes Given: 331
RE: What was the most powerful vehicle ever planned?
« Reply #19 on: 04/28/2006 10:45 PM »
Quote
publiusr - 28/4/2006  6:04 PM
Quote
Jim - 12/4/2006  8:45 PM
Quote
publiusr - 12/4/2006  2:29 PMThe Soviet model allowed the Chief Designers to have their way. That and they kept their Air Force away from space. I think if the ABMA had dominance in space with our Air Force being kept the heck away from Space--we would have seen Von Braun in a position of Glushko or Korolov with Medaris as his Ustinov.


Soviets had no idea what was going on.  The Chief Designers were lose cannons.

Von Braun could have never been Korolov.  Von Braun only did LV's, Korolov did manned spacecraft, umanned, and whole lot more.

Our system served us well.  The Army had no business in space.  The NRO did more for space than ABMA


Only because space was robbed from the Army. The NRO did little for space apart from keeping Titan alive. I like that the Chief Designers were loose cannons. If you remember, the artillery men were at the R-7 sites for quite awhile. The Army had every business in space. Missiles are forms of artillery. Fighter jocks run the Air Farce and will sit on space. I think Medaris would have been much better than Bernie Schriever if given the chance. Medaris got the larger test stands built even though there wasn't a need for them with Redstone. I recommend his book COUNTDOWN FOR DECISION as a good counter to what the Air Force folks want you to believe. It wouldn't surprise me if the fudged the numbers on costs and what not now accepted in today's literature.

You are so full of it.  You dont know what you are talking about.  The NRO has launched more spacecraft than NASA.  They launched the first 3 axis stablized, manuvering spacecraft (with many more firsts).  They had a launch rate greater than any NASA program.  The Lunar Orbiter was a NRO fallout.  Hubble is also.  You just do know what the NRO has done.  The NRO made the shuttle bigger.

Bernie managed the Thor, Atlas, Titan and Minuteman programs at the same time.  He was responsible for SAMOS, Dynasoar and MOL and many more programs

ICBM's may be artillery but not launch vehicles.  Space is not in the Army doctrine.  The Air Force built all the test stands at Edwards, which were just as large

Offline edkyle99

  • Expert
  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 12941
    • Space Launch Report
  • Liked: 4001
  • Likes Given: 761
RE: What was the most powerful vehicle ever planned?
« Reply #20 on: 04/28/2006 11:02 PM »
Jim is right.  The Discoverer/Corona/Keyhole program was USA's first really big space program, dwarfing any civilian US efforts at the time, including NASA's Mercury program.  NASA got to play with the Agena upper stage (Ranger, Mariner, Gemini docking targets, etc.) because the stage had been developed for Corona.

 - Ed Kyle

Offline publiusr

  • Elite Veteran
  • Full Member
  • ****
  • Posts: 1540
  • Liked: 1
  • Likes Given: 2
RE: What was the most powerful vehicle ever planned?
« Reply #21 on: 04/29/2006 08:28 PM »
There are two sides to every tale. Making the shuttle bigger is what led to quite a few problems. The Army gave us the Saturns and Medaris had a good relationship with von Braun. Those same NRO payloads--or even larger versions--would have fit atop Saturn IB which could evolve into greater capability. I'm sick of how the Army gets bashed and the Air Force gets a free ride.

The Soviets focused on liquid fueled engines while our focus on solids kept our liquid fueled engine research stagnant.

I stand by my statement that Medaris was a better leader for space than Bernie. As far as I'm concerned, the Air Force did greatdamage to space. Just ask Worden.

Offline Jim

  • Night Gator
  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 32441
  • Cape Canaveral Spaceport
  • Liked: 11188
  • Likes Given: 331
RE: What was the most powerful vehicle ever planned?
« Reply #22 on: 04/29/2006 09:16 PM »
Quote
publiusr - 29/4/2006  4:28 PMThere are two sides to every tale. Making the shuttle bigger is what led to quite a few problems. The Army gave us the Saturns and Medaris had a good relationship with von Braun. Those same NRO payloads--or even larger versions--would have fit atop Saturn IB which could evolve into greater capability. I'm sick of how the Army gets bashed and the Air Force gets a free ride.The Soviets focused on liquid fueled engines while our focus on solids kept our liquid fueled engine research stagnant.I stand by my statement that Medaris was a better leader for space than Bernie. As far as I'm concerned, the Air Force did greatdamage to space. Just ask Worden.

The 1-B was too expensive and didn't fly out of VAFB.  All the data from the 60's and 70's  showed that the Titan was cheaper

Medaris didn't do anything.  his legacy is gone.  Everything he did became deadends and he nothing to show for it.

bernie gave us concurrent engineering


Offline edkyle99

  • Expert
  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 12941
    • Space Launch Report
  • Liked: 4001
  • Likes Given: 761
RE: What was the most powerful vehicle ever planned?
« Reply #23 on: 04/29/2006 10:47 PM »
Quote
publiusr - 29/4/2006  3:28 PM

The Army gave us the Saturns ..

The Army didn't give us Saturn, except for supporting some initial studies.  It was the Advanced Research Projects Agency (ARPA) that in 1958 funded ABMA's initial Juno V feasibility demonstration project that culminated in the development of the first Saturn booster.  NASA began sharing funding of the effort in 1959, and took it over in 1960.  The Army didn't need, or want, Saturn boosters.

 - Ed Kyle

Offline simonbp

RE: What was the most powerful vehicle ever planned?
« Reply #24 on: 04/30/2006 12:46 PM »
Can we please stop with the childish "Army is better than NRO! Na Uh! NRO is better! Na Uh! Soviets are better!" sillyness? It's obvious that many people here have personal allegiances (job-related or not), and anyone trying to convince them otherwise would be about as successful as a Jehovah's Witness walking into the Vatican...

As far as really large liquid chemical rockets, we need to look at the second round of Nova designs:

http://www.astronautix.com/lvfam/nova.htm

Martin had some of the largest designs:

http://www.astronautix.com/graphics/n/novamm.gif">

Simon ;)

Offline publiusr

  • Elite Veteran
  • Full Member
  • ****
  • Posts: 1540
  • Liked: 1
  • Likes Given: 2
RE: What was the most powerful vehicle ever planned?
« Reply #25 on: 04/30/2006 07:21 PM »
Here is a site with the AMLLV:
http://www.up-ship.com/apr/contents.htm

Offline Hotol

  • Regular
  • Full Member
  • ****
  • Posts: 425
  • Liked: 0
  • Likes Given: 0
RE: What was the most powerful vehicle ever planned?
« Reply #26 on: 05/01/2006 09:54 AM »
Quote
simonbp - 30/4/2006  7:46 AM

Can we please stop with the childish "Army is better than NRO! Na Uh! NRO is better! Na Uh! Soviets are better!" sillyness? It's obvious that many people here have personal allegiances (job-related or not), and anyone trying to convince them otherwise would be about as successful as a Jehovah's Witness walking into the Vatican...

As far as really large liquid chemical rockets, we need to look at the second round of Nova designs:

http://www.astronautix.com/lvfam/nova.htm

Martin had some of the largest designs:

http://www.astronautix.com/graphics/n/novamm.gif">

Simon ;)

Now there's some really fat vehicles :)

Offline Stowbridge

  • Veteran
  • Full Member
  • ****
  • Posts: 427
  • Liked: 0
  • Likes Given: 0
RE: What was the most powerful vehicle ever planned?
« Reply #27 on: 05/01/2006 02:31 PM »
I wonder what sound supression system they'd require as those are rediculously large vehicles.
Veteran space reporter.

Offline publiusr

  • Elite Veteran
  • Full Member
  • ****
  • Posts: 1540
  • Liked: 1
  • Likes Given: 2
RE: What was the most powerful vehicle ever planned?
« Reply #28 on: 05/04/2006 04:52 PM »
They actually are not that large. Compare them to Petronus, or the Troll platform, and the other massive projects we spend billions more dollars on than space.

http://www.mywiseowl.com/articles/Troll_Platform
 (BTW the first of the two links giving also is a good site to look at megastructures)

People have it in for big launch vheicles because of a kne jerk reaction. Each of those LVs in a very rel way is simpler than shuttle. No wings, just big tubes. Husjak proposed a vehicle whose spherical propellant tanks would be produced by the same folks who build similar structures for Liquified Natural gas carrier ships.

At such a great size, you can get away with simpler sturdy construction. The smaller a craft is, the more you have to overtech it to save weight.

The Bob Truax school of LV design is to build rockets larger but simpler (Sea Dragon as opposed to NOVA). A lot of people are biased against this due to the "small is better" propaganda.

Offline Jim

  • Night Gator
  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 32441
  • Cape Canaveral Spaceport
  • Liked: 11188
  • Likes Given: 331
RE: What was the most powerful vehicle ever planned?
« Reply #29 on: 05/04/2006 05:17 PM »
Quote
publiusr - 4/5/2006  12:52 PMThey actually are not that large. Compare them to Petronus, or the Troll platform, and the other massive projects we spend billions more dollars on than space.http://www.mywiseowl.com/articles/Troll_Platform (BTW the first of the two links giving also is a good site to look at megastructures)People have it in for big launch vheicles because of a kne jerk reaction. Each of those LVs in a very rel way is simpler than shuttle. No wings, just big tubes. Husjak proposed a vehicle whose spherical propellant tanks would be produced by the same folks who build similar structures for Liquified Natural gas carrier ships.At such a great size, you can get away with simpler sturdy construction. The smaller a craft is, the more you have to overtech it to save weight.The Bob Truax school of LV design is to build rockets larger but simpler (Sea Dragon as opposed to NOVA). A lot of people are biased against this due to the "small is better" propaganda.

There is no "small is better" propaganda.

Offline publiusr

  • Elite Veteran
  • Full Member
  • ****
  • Posts: 1540
  • Liked: 1
  • Likes Given: 2
RE: What was the most powerful vehicle ever planned?
« Reply #30 on: 05/04/2006 05:26 PM »
You haven't heard the folks who push for Cubesats and the nanoprobes?
 I can't tell you the times I have heard Goldin and others talk about "Battlestar Galactica" this-that-or-the-other, or how Cassini was the last of the big probes, or how Milstar is going to be replaced with little flea whatsits.

Anything but "Hey guys, why don't we just build a bigger rocket?"

Offline Jim

  • Night Gator
  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 32441
  • Cape Canaveral Spaceport
  • Liked: 11188
  • Likes Given: 331
RE: What was the most powerful vehicle ever planned?
« Reply #31 on: 05/04/2006 05:42 PM »
Quote
publiusr - 4/5/2006  1:26 PMYou haven't heard the folks who push for Cubesats and the nanoprobes? I can't tell you the times I have heard Goldin and others talk about "Battlestar Galactica" this-that-or-the-other, or how Cassini was the last of the big probes, or how Milstar is going to be replaced with little flea whatsits.Anything but "Hey guys, why don't we just build a bigger rocket?"

It is money. 
Battlestar Galactica spacecraft cost $2B

It is the "all the eggs in one basket".  It has nothing to with LV performance.  EELV's can do a Cassini or a MILSTAR. 
And when you can fly 5 probes with 2 instruments cheaper that one with 10.

With milsatcoms, one goes bad and you lose 10000 circuits vs only 3000.

Nano and cubesats are for mostly university type science.  or quick response mil reconn

Offline publiusr

  • Elite Veteran
  • Full Member
  • ****
  • Posts: 1540
  • Liked: 1
  • Likes Given: 2
RE: What was the most powerful vehicle ever planned?
« Reply #32 on: 05/04/2006 07:53 PM »
EELVs can do a MILSTAR. That is fine. I am concerned that MILSTAR and other big payloads have enemies. I seem to remember the Commenatary page of a recent AV WEEK that lamented Goldin's hatred for larger payloads.

I am so glad that man is gone.

Offline shuttlefan

  • Member
  • Full Member
  • ****
  • Posts: 1608
  • Liked: 13
  • Likes Given: 4
RE: What was the most powerful vehicle ever planned?
« Reply #33 on: 05/06/2006 10:15 PM »
I heard that the reason the NOVA rocket project didn't take off ( no pun intended!! ) was because the Michoud Assembly Facility was too small to fit the rocket stages in. Can anyone confirm? :)

Offline mlorrey

  • Member
  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 2135
  • International Spaceflight Museum
  • Grantham, NH
  • Liked: 10
  • Likes Given: 1
RE: What was the most powerful vehicle ever planned?
« Reply #34 on: 05/11/2006 10:49 PM »
Quote
Zoomer30 - 18/4/2006  12:42 AM

I think it was called NOVA.  All the old "rocket posters" from the day showed all the Saturn rockets and then after the SatV they had the Nova.  The first stage was gonna have like 9 F1 engines or some insane amount like that.  I think the SatV was the best for the time.  Getting 5 liquid fuled engines to start right was a feat.  Main reason the N1 was doomed from the start.  That thing had around 30 engines in the first stage alone :D

There were larger engines than the F1 in the works on the Nova proposals. Astronautix.com has some good pages on them, some were huge 1 and 2 stage behemoths with dozens of engines.
VP of International Spaceflight Museum - http://ismuseum.org
Founder, Lorrey Aerospace, B&T Holdings, ACE Exchange, and Hypersonic Systems. Currently I am a venture recruiter for Family Office Venture Capital.

Offline mlorrey

  • Member
  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 2135
  • International Spaceflight Museum
  • Grantham, NH
  • Liked: 10
  • Likes Given: 1
RE: What was the most powerful vehicle ever planned?
« Reply #35 on: 05/14/2006 04:59 PM »
Quote
shuttlefan - 6/5/2006  5:02 PM

I heard that the reason the NOVA rocket project didn't take off ( no pun intended!! ) was because the Michoud Assembly Facility was too small to fit the rocket stages in. Can anyone confirm? :)

The NASA designs from 1959 to 1962 seemed to take the dims of Michoud into account: http://www.astronautix.com/lvfam/nova.htm , as did some of the General Dynamics designs, as well as the Douglas nuclear designs.

I believe it was the later 1963 designs of Douglas and Martin Marietta were oversize, but they also tended to seriously outclass the Saturn V's 47 tonne payload to orbit. The S10E-1 and E-2 designs would put over 588 tonnes in LEO, using 24 CD Modules producing 1.65 million lbs thrust each. These launchers would have, like Sea Dragon, been built in shipyards used to build tankers, and would have generally been over 120 meters long, and would have been operational by 1977.

That is the future that was squandered for shuttle.
VP of International Spaceflight Museum - http://ismuseum.org
Founder, Lorrey Aerospace, B&T Holdings, ACE Exchange, and Hypersonic Systems. Currently I am a venture recruiter for Family Office Venture Capital.

Offline Jim

  • Night Gator
  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 32441
  • Cape Canaveral Spaceport
  • Liked: 11188
  • Likes Given: 331
RE: What was the most powerful vehicle ever planned?
« Reply #36 on: 05/14/2006 06:25 PM »
Quote
mlorrey - 14/5/2006  12:46 PM

Quote
shuttlefan - 6/5/2006  5:02 PM

I heard that the reason the NOVA rocket project didn't take off ( no pun intended!! ) was because the Michoud Assembly Facility was too small to fit the rocket stages in. Can anyone confirm? :)

The NASA designs from 1959 to 1962 seemed to take the dims of Michoud into account: http://www.astronautix.com/lvfam/nova.htm , as did some of the General Dynamics designs, as well as the Douglas nuclear designs.

I believe it was the later 1963 designs of Douglas and Martin Marietta were oversize, but they also tended to seriously outclass the Saturn V's 47 tonne payload to orbit. The S10E-1 and E-2 designs would put over 588 tonnes in LEO, using 24 CD Modules producing 1.65 million lbs thrust each. These launchers would have, like Sea Dragon, been built in shipyards used to build tankers, and would have generally been over 120 meters long, and would have been operational by 1977.

That is the future that was squandered for shuttle.

There wasn't any requirements for large payloads.  What would we have flown on these if we had these?   We didn't have the $ to fund large payloads.

Offline mlorrey

  • Member
  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 2135
  • International Spaceflight Museum
  • Grantham, NH
  • Liked: 10
  • Likes Given: 1
RE: What was the most powerful vehicle ever planned?
« Reply #37 on: 05/15/2006 12:55 AM »
Quote
Jim - 14/5/2006  1:12 PM
There wasn't any requirements for large payloads.  What would we have flown on these if we had these?   We didn't have the $ to fund large payloads.

At the time, the large payloads were large space stations (this was before the fuel tank called Skylab was offered as a substitute) and moon bases, fully fuelled Mars ships (which back then was also the real reason we were supposed to be going to the Moon, as an 'easy' first step), and Orion ships.

Operating by NASA procurement rules,  and with a political preference to waste tens of billions on useless wars and welfare programs here on earth, no, there wasn't enough money. On the other hand, most NASA budget waste was overhead: bigger launchers and more launches would not measurably add to that, and dividing it among more launches and more cargo would bring cost per lb of cargo down to small amounts.
VP of International Spaceflight Museum - http://ismuseum.org
Founder, Lorrey Aerospace, B&T Holdings, ACE Exchange, and Hypersonic Systems. Currently I am a venture recruiter for Family Office Venture Capital.

Offline Jim

  • Night Gator
  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 32441
  • Cape Canaveral Spaceport
  • Liked: 11188
  • Likes Given: 331
RE: What was the most powerful vehicle ever planned?
« Reply #38 on: 05/15/2006 01:06 AM »
Quote
mlorrey - 14/5/2006  8:42 PM

On the other hand, most NASA budget waste was overhead.

Quit making unsubstanciated claims on this website.  You are pulling it (the website) down.   Who do you think can do better and back up your claim.

It is US gov't laws that NASA follows

Offline mlorrey

  • Member
  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 2135
  • International Spaceflight Museum
  • Grantham, NH
  • Liked: 10
  • Likes Given: 1
RE: What was the most powerful vehicle ever planned?
« Reply #39 on: 05/16/2006 01:35 AM »
Quote
Jim - 14/5/2006  7:53 PM

Quote
mlorrey - 14/5/2006  8:42 PM

On the other hand, most NASA budget waste was overhead.

Quit making unsubstanciated claims on this website.  You are pulling it (the website) down.   Who do you think can do better and back up your claim.

It is US gov't laws that NASA follows

Now hold on ONE SECOND.

NASA's enabling congressional act in 1958 specifically ordered NASA to ensure the fullest possible commercialization of space, an order that NASA has rarely even recognised, never mind acted upon. It is only recently that they've given anything more than verbal acknowledgement of it. So no, NASA doesn't follow US Gov't laws, only the ones that expand and perpetuate its power.

Secondly, as someone with years of experience with government contracting, as well as time in the military, I know how easy it is for bureaucrats to stay within the letter of the law while engaging in exactly the opposite activity of what the congress wants it to do.

Thirdly, as to who I think can do better? We already know that Rutan's SS1 program did better than the X-15 program while spending somewhere between 1/20th to 1/100th of the budget that NASA put into X-15 (accounting for inflation). Even if you assert that SS1 only reached half the speed of X-15, it still exceeded X-15's peak altitude, so at the least SS1 achieved 75% of the goals of the X-15 program (in addition to the fact that SS1 also paid for its motherships construction and operation, while NASA never did more than rent the B-52G used for the X-15's mothership).

Even accounting for the 80/20 rule (You can achieve 80% of your goals for 20% of the cost of achieving 100% of your goals), this still means Rutan's performance was, at a minimum, 4 times more efficient than the 80/20 rule, and perhaps as much as 20 times more efficient. Rutan has earned the bragging rights with this program. How well he could do with a more extreme flight envelope remains to be seen (same for SpaceX, Armadillo, SpaceDev, and all the other privates), but he has certainly proven at a minimum one significant cost:performance data point that is extremely embarassing for NASA, and supports my argument.
VP of International Spaceflight Museum - http://ismuseum.org
Founder, Lorrey Aerospace, B&T Holdings, ACE Exchange, and Hypersonic Systems. Currently I am a venture recruiter for Family Office Venture Capital.

Offline Jim

  • Night Gator
  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 32441
  • Cape Canaveral Spaceport
  • Liked: 11188
  • Likes Given: 331
RE: What was the most powerful vehicle ever planned?
« Reply #40 on: 05/16/2006 02:21 AM »

Get off the conspiracy stuff and stop painting everything with a broad brush.  NASA does follow US procurement laws.  

"NASA's enabling congressional act in 1958 specifically ordered NASA to ensure the fullest possible commercialization of space"  is  subjective and can't be a black and white test.

"Secondly, as someone with years of experience with government contracting, as well as time in the military, I know how easy it is for bureaucrats to stay within the letter of the law while engaging in exactly the opposite activity of what the congress wants it to do."
Must have been the Army or some other civilian agency.  Looks like you don't have any space experience.

NASA aeronautic research mostly directly affects US plane makers

NASA created the US commercial launch business and now buys commercial launch services (required by law since '86)

NASA helped create the commercial comsats

Rutan repeated something that was done 40 years ago and using the same research plus having the benefits of 40 years of technology advances, (especially CFD, which didn't exist 40 years ago).  

Rutan's achievement was due to happen  anyways.

Give specific examples.


PS.  It was B-52B and NASA owned it.


Offline mlorrey

  • Member
  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 2135
  • International Spaceflight Museum
  • Grantham, NH
  • Liked: 10
  • Likes Given: 1
RE: What was the most powerful vehicle ever planned?
« Reply #41 on: 05/16/2006 05:52 PM »
Quote
Jim - 15/5/2006  9:08 PM


Get off the conspiracy stuff and stop painting everything with a broad brush.  NASA does follow US procurement laws.  

"NASA's enabling congressional act in 1958 specifically ordered NASA to ensure the fullest possible commercialization of space"  is  subjective and can't be a black and white test.

"Secondly, as someone with years of experience with government contracting, as well as time in the military, I know how easy it is for bureaucrats to stay within the letter of the law while engaging in exactly the opposite activity of what the congress wants it to do."
Must have been the Army or some other civilian agency.  Looks like you don't have any space experience.

NASA aeronautic research mostly directly affects US plane makers
NASA created the US commercial launch business and now buys commercial launch services (required by law since '86)
NASA helped create the commercial comsats

Rutan repeated something that was done 40 years ago and using the same research plus having the benefits of 40 years of technology advances, (especially CFD, which didn't exist 40 years ago).  

Rutan's achievement was due to happen  anyways.
Give specific examples.
PS.  It was B-52B and NASA owned it.

"maximum Commercialization of space" does not mean "treat American industry as a subcontractor for NASA-only projects and don't allow any civilians in space". The fact it took until Christa McAuliffe to send a civilian into space, the fact that it took till the X-Prize for a private launcher to reach space independently of any NASA project or other government contract, and the fact that NASA had prohibitions against private space exploration until recently, speaks to the validity of my arguments. The interference of NASA in the development of Beal Aerospace's launcher (well documented) is another example.

Whether NASA owned the B-52 is irrelevant, the fact is its cost of construction was not included in the X-15 project budget, the X-15 project paid "rent" to NASA for its use only, while SS1 included the cost of White Knight.

If Rutan's project was "due to happen", why didn't it happen until the X-Prize came along?  How overdue was it? Was it overdue because of repeated NASA interference in prior projects (Beal, AMROC, Hudson, etc)?

Now, as for your attack on me that I am "bringing the board down", this particular area is about historical spaceflight, and the true and accurate history is that NASA has acted very territorially in the past, it has acted to block private launch efforts in the past, and NASA (like many other bureaucratic agencies) is demonstrably less efficient than private enterprise, and the sooner NASA and NASA fans acknowledge the past sins, and that they were, in fact, wrong to do, the sooner we can make real progress.

Need further proof? Take a look at NASA software that estimates the cost of a given launcher, and use it to predict what it would cost for NASA to replicate the SS1/WK1 project. Don't take my word for it: do the math on NASAs own software.
VP of International Spaceflight Museum - http://ismuseum.org
Founder, Lorrey Aerospace, B&T Holdings, ACE Exchange, and Hypersonic Systems. Currently I am a venture recruiter for Family Office Venture Capital.

Offline Jim

  • Night Gator
  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 32441
  • Cape Canaveral Spaceport
  • Liked: 11188
  • Likes Given: 331
Re: What was the most powerful vehicle ever planned?
« Reply #42 on: 05/16/2006 08:13 PM »
Why should NASA send civilians into space other than for S&G's.  There is no real need other than for political reasons.  Christa and the other SFP should have never flow on the shuttle.

There was no money in private spaceflight until the Xprize.  

"it has acted to block private launch efforts in the past"    Prove it.

NASA did not do any wrt Beal.  Documented?  Andy's rants do not qualify as documentation.   I know someone who worked for Andy and he was just paranoid and because he had an unworkable design and needed a scapegoat.

Spacex is doing find

Offline rnc

  • Member
  • Posts: 38
  • Liked: 3
  • Likes Given: 1
Re: What was the most powerful vehicle ever planned?
« Reply #43 on: 05/16/2006 11:20 PM »
On the topic of the thread ;-)

The RD270. Not planned. Tested. http://www.astronautix.com/engines/rd270.htm (and te 270M). I love the description -  "No design bureau would attempt anything like it today. It was the maximum possible power from the design: gas and gas mixture in the combustion chamber; two gas generators in the combustion chamber; one oxidiser rich and one fuel rich; closed cycle; staged burning; very high pressure in the combustion chamber (266 bar compared to about 80 bar in many today, except the SSME".

The UR-700 http://www.astronautix.com/lvs/ur700.htm. The confidence "Chertok asked Chelomei what would happen if, God forbid, such a booster exploded on the launch pad. Wouldn't the entire launch complex be rendered a dead zone for 18 to 20 years? Chelomei's reply was that it wouldn't explode, since Glushko's engines were reliable and didn't fail. "

PS The green paint. You must have to love green paint to be a engineer in the Russian Republic, or it's predecessors. That's off-topic, but nearly deserves one of it's own.

Offline mlorrey

  • Member
  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 2135
  • International Spaceflight Museum
  • Grantham, NH
  • Liked: 10
  • Likes Given: 1
Re: What was the most powerful vehicle ever planned?
« Reply #44 on: 05/17/2006 06:26 PM »
Quote
Jim - 16/5/2006  3:00 PM

Why should NASA send civilians into space other than for S&G's.  There is no real need other than for political reasons.  Christa and the other SFP should have never flow on the shuttle.

On the contrary: the issue over russian space tourists on ISS illustrates my point exactly: NASA flatly refuses to even entertain the idea of American space tourists being able to buy emty seats on the Shuttle to go to ISS, and if they had their way, the Russians wouldn't be allowed to bring them up on Soyuz, either. That NASA refuses to even consider selling empty shuttle seats to space tourists is a violation of its congressional mandate.

Quote

There was no money in private spaceflight until the Xprize.  


Wrong again. Gary Hudson had worked on various private launch ventures more than a decade before the X-Prize, including Rotary Rocket (which raised $35 million), and the SSX, which the DC-X was based on, was a private proposal based on Hudsons earlier designs. Include AMROC (millions raised and hardware flown), and Truax's SeaDragon (which he raised millions for and engines tested), plus the $100 million Beal spent on his venture, a decade before the XPrize, and you are wrong multiple times.

Quote

"it has acted to block private launch efforts in the past"    Prove it.

NASA did not do any wrt Beal.  Documented?  Andy's rants do not qualify as documentation.   I know someone who worked for Andy and he was just paranoid and because he had an unworkable design and needed a scapegoat.

Spacex is doing find

While it has widely been rumored that NASA communicated with large satellite operators that they would have difficulty finding space on Shuttle if they flew with Beal, such coercive manipulation isn't really needed to be shown. What happened was that NASA encouraged Beal to enter into his venture, claiming they were very interested in seeking private development of launchers. Once he jumped in and dropped a load on it, NASA and the USAF then went to Congress on behalf of Boeing and Lockheed for $10 billion to subsidize the EELV program. The economic implications of that sort of subterfuge is staggering: imagine if Microsoft announced they were looking for a provider of a certain type of software application to fill a niche in the market, and once a company dumped a lot of money they could have put elsewhere, into developing the needed app, and provided a lot of information on their development to Microsoft, Microsoft announced they were going to develop their own application (incedentally using a lot of the information provided by the other company).

If Microsoft did such a thing they'd be sued, charged criminally, and condemned by 99% of those here on this forum who are generally supporters of big government, particularly Big NASA.
VP of International Spaceflight Museum - http://ismuseum.org
Founder, Lorrey Aerospace, B&T Holdings, ACE Exchange, and Hypersonic Systems. Currently I am a venture recruiter for Family Office Venture Capital.

Offline Jim

  • Night Gator
  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 32441
  • Cape Canaveral Spaceport
  • Liked: 11188
  • Likes Given: 331
Re: What was the most powerful vehicle ever planned?
« Reply #45 on: 05/17/2006 07:13 PM »
NASA by law cannot sell launch services, which includes people.  Additonally, there are no empty seats on the shuttle and just because there is room doesn't mean there is lift capability.  Atourist shouldn't go to the ISS because it is a gov't research facility and not a way station.  Let the russians and anyone else fly into space but on their own and not on a gov't vehicle.

I was referring to private spaceflight and not launch vehicles.    But raising money and making money are two different things.  Nothing is prevent comsats from going to other launch vehicles except that they have to work.   Hughes and Loral made reservations on the Delta III and H-2 .  Somebody builts it and they will come.  Biggest showstopper, all of them wanted a handout from NASA, especially Kisler.

"Widely rumored"?  Stop going to the conspiracy theories websites, You are making a fool of yourself.  Beal was started long after the shuttle was banned  (1986) from flying commercial satellites.  He had an unworkable design.  

NASA had nothing to do with the EELV program.  It was an DOD program, NASA did not provide requirements or money.

Offline publiusr

  • Elite Veteran
  • Full Member
  • ****
  • Posts: 1540
  • Liked: 1
  • Likes Given: 2
Re: What was the most powerful vehicle ever planned?
« Reply #46 on: 05/18/2006 07:29 PM »
Jim is right. The biggest problem with the Alt.Spacers is that investors can always say no.

A good investor will eat the free lunch you bought him--look you dead in the eye--and say "No." Leaving you to pay the tab when he walks out.

Who would you rather invest in: Kistler or Exxon?

I think we all know the answer to that.

And that is the problem--and why we need NASA. If it weren't for the military, academics (who will help you eat the LV cake but won't help you bake it) wouldn't have MRO or NH because there would be no Atlas V. Same with V-2. Space is too important to be left up to the private sector. Rutan's craft did not have the same performance as X-15, and to compare the two is beyond me.

His craft may have rose higher, but if you will do a little reasearch there were X-15 proposals that would have reached as high if not higher.

If I want to fly high, I will get in a MiG-25. If I really want to go to space, I'll get in a Soyuz.

I really don't have much faith in the NewSpace movement--I'm sorry.

Offline Launch Fan

  • Veteran
  • Full Member
  • ****
  • Posts: 1193
  • Liked: 1
  • Likes Given: 9
Re: What was the most powerful vehicle ever planned?
« Reply #47 on: 05/18/2006 09:36 PM »
What is the attraction that will keep investors interested for the long run?

Offline publiusr

  • Elite Veteran
  • Full Member
  • ****
  • Posts: 1540
  • Liked: 1
  • Likes Given: 2
Re: What was the most powerful vehicle ever planned?
« Reply #48 on: 05/18/2006 10:09 PM »
Now if I had the answer to that question I would be the Bill Gates of the private LV world. Thaere is only one answer.

Taxes.

The oil money from Gazprom/Yukos is what is funding Kliper.

Our oil companies say they want funds for exploration, right? So howabout a nice 10 billion tax on EXXON and friends and give it to NASA in one go.
Unless you feel sorry for those poor starving CEOs...

Tags: