this one won't work 1. it violates CAIB placing the spacecraft on the side. 2. it uses faulty hardware if ice gets one it will damage the spacecraft. 3. and it does not look good this concept failed CCDEV 1 and NASA did not adopt it.
This is stupid. At least with the Shuttles you got the main engines back for re-servicing. Here, they stay attached to the fuel tank and burn up with it.
This looks like just as much of a tax-draining boondoggle as the Shuttle program itself was.
USSR has planned in 1988 launch same project: "Energia" + "Polus", but it was frozen. Now Russia it will be realize with (projecting) "Angara" or "Rus-M" rockets.
@TritonDenis I wish Energia would be revivied somehow. It looked like quite the formidable vehicle with some incredible lift capacities into LEO, as well as the ability to send things trans-lunar.
Seeing as NASA is utterly dependent on Russia now for manned launches on Soyuz, I'd say there's nothing wrong with asking them to get an Energia program running again.
I am very happy to see the vidoe depicting NASA's Shuttle-derived Sidemount Heavy Launch Vehicle concept was shown at the 17 June 2009 meeting of the Review From you, hopefully the others also are happy for You
Lets see, Shuttle was 1.5 Billion per launch and could lift 53,600 lbs to LEO. While Falcon Heavy costs 100 million fixed per launch and lifts (more than double) 120,000 lbs to LEO. You do the math.
What a fantastic idea, re-using reusable technology. I assume this saves alot of money? Sadly, the motors attached to the external tank also burn up? Still seems more efficient than the old rocket towers that are completely used up! Great animation and sound effects.
@bestamerica Buran was actually better than Shuttle in a few key areas- biggest of all, the side-mounted boosters were liquid-fueled, so if everything went cockeyed they could shut them down safely. With Shuttle, you had to ride out the emergency until the SRBs shut down.
@bestamerica Buran did fly once, unmanned. It didn't fly anymore because they ran out of money to fund it due to the collapse of the Soviet Union. Plus, Buran does have a nice notch on its belt- the first time anything that complex flew under automatic guidance. We know Buran worked, and we know it had some better safety features than Shuttle did. Beyond that, it was basically the same thing with a different flag.
Okay, practically every design i see these days is two rockets to the moon. Lets just rebuild a Saturn V with better computers. Saves a rocket, and billions of dollars.
What would be MUCH BETTER is to "get rid" of the following parts: Both SRB's, the big orange fuel tank, the 3 main RS-24 engines, and the enclosure. The only thing I would keep is the US Flag sticker on the side.
Next, I would have a private company create an affordable reliable rocket with 9 Merlin liquid engines and mass produce it.
Since Shuttle FAILED us with cost and safety. None of its contractors should be allowed to make the next system. Especially the Thiokol Corporation and Lockheed Martin.
more cost effective (we have the SRB's already) known technology (engines and main tank) MASSIVE reduction in risk (no exposed heat shield to damage at launch) and doesnt depend 100% on dirty uncontrolable solid fuel rockets like Ares. Only addition i would like to see is a way of returning the SSME's back to earth for reuse
@richarddale76 The only problem with these heavy lift vehicles (and smaller ones) is that they are built by a government, so they will cost 17 - 20 Billion on paper, which will blow out to over 30 Billion, even though the technology is existing, and before it has it's first flight a business like SpaceX will have something better that costs far less. For this reason expect every heavy lift vehicle to be cancelled from now on. Nasa will find itself moved out of the launch business for good.
By using gigantic rockets which are pressure-fed, you cut down on the cost of the turbo-pumps and also simplify rocket design. The only loss is the avionics bus, if we dont plan to recover it.
It is only when you attempt to recover the whole vehicle as in the case of the Space Shuttle or the second and third stages, cost escalates and things get maintenance intensive because of the need to use ceramic tiles and other such stuff. These are also points of failure as already experienced. Just recover and re-use the avionics bus and the first stage.
Why doen't anybody go for partial recoverable launch vehicles. The first-stages can easily be recovered, as it is being done in the case of the shuttle. A liquid-fueled first stage, such as the one in Energia or Saturn V can be easily recovered and re-used. Abandon attempts to recover second and third stages. Find away to recover the avioinics bus, for example by placing it inside a heat-shield and recovering it on re-entry. This should work cheaply.
The costliest parts of an LV are the avionics and the turbo-pumps. Any recoverable LV, which makes access to space cheaper should be able to recover either or both of these. A single shot LV whose avionics bus is kept inside a heat-shield which can survive re-entry is a good option.
If you see, this recoverable launch vehicle bullshit never works and ends up costing more than the one-use disposable launch vehicle stuff. Best is to use these single-shot rockets, and had we followed that path, we all would be walking on Mars by now. But the Space Station is a good concept. We should use that as a fuelling tug, a depot. The cheapest access can be had using LVs powered by fuel-weight pressure alone without using turbo pumps. So go for it.
Well, there is actually some good news. As stated before by UndeadPizzaGuy, Nasa does actually plane to use this concept as the next generation of SLSs for deep space exploration. It would also include GOING BACK TO THE MOON. : ) The rocket can actually be space capable by 2014 as stated by Carlosi5slb3. Although, that has not actually been accepted or denied by NASA. XD
Interesting idea and good animation. The only problem I see is if this cost as much as Shuttle you can get about 16 Falcon9 heavy's for the same price and each Falcon9 heavy can lift almost double Shuttle.
They've been talking this trash for 30 years now, and the only people to consistently have employment at NASA have been artists (and now CG animators). Look to Elon Musk of SpaceX and Robert Bigelow (of Bigelow Aerospace) to go back to the moon and go to Mars. They'll make it cheap enough for National Geographic and universities to go. Let NASA send the unmanned scouts first.
I totally agree! I thought the whole point of getting rid of the current setup was to save weight/ materials and to get them off the side of a potential bomb? (External Fuel Tank)
Or just not use those engines, and instead only use the shuttle booster stack with a single use engine - like the Russians do with Energia when they aren't launching Buran
@noonedude101 Some of the models I've seen demonstrated a recoverable engine module, but I don't remember where I saw the material so no link or reference for that. It is something they're considering though.
Then again, nobody can truly be blamed as the evidence is burned in the atmosphere.
But paperwork and office investigation has long ago proved it was a wiring mistake and was responsible to the guys that drawed and manufactured the CSM.
The fault that caused the oxygen tank to blow was a wiring mistake. These days theyre much more precise on wiring and system settings. Its unlikely that nasa and their related manufacturers will make the same mistake again.
The department that manufactured the CSM coudnt sleep for weeks after the apollo 13 accident because of their flawed inaccuracy on their job.
Apollo 13 was lucky that appropriate tools were available for the specific problem that occured concerning the carbon dioxide filter.
Apollo 13 was lucky that due to the accident the CSM kept docked to the LEM in the first place due to the sever torque. The shrapnel of the oxygen tank in the CSM could have easily damaged the heat shield, or even the clear vaccuum of both the cabins.
Sure theres a chance on having a lifebout with 2 cabins.
The only unfortunate thing about Lunar linkup... if you have an 'Apollo 13' style emergency... you don't have a lifeboat? Why we can't fly back a launcher...too expensive? Why we can't have orbital refueling or a station that can repair and launch ships from LEO? I think we should have had the workshops up before we have laboratories and exploration. It's always going to be a challenge until we get routine like trains, ships and airplanes.
Okay you get in space ! Now you have to find away to collect all those massive scraps you left .... old spaceship ,satellite ,old engine parts ...we already pollute Earth lets keep space clean !
I love the idea but think they need to make a stack configuartion instead of side mount that would make it possible for a 4 or 5 main engine stage with tank extinsion. That would make the upper stage larger I do like using old parts for rapid development. Nice video though
@pr0t0color Totally, I wonder if anyone even seriously considers this option anymore. A sidemount adds so much drag, makes it unstable on the pad, and puts the crew in a poor position. I personally would've stuck with the Ares family, but that's not really an option now so I'd probably put my money on the DIRECT series.
Great idea if it was done 10 years ago. I think it would be too expensive now compared to private built systems coming up soon like SpaceX Heavy Falcon 9.
@asdfghjkl48402 : Does NASA want the boondoggles, or the political and economic interest groups that control NASA's purse strings? I suspect the later; it keeps the money going into *their* pockets and no where else.
The US manned space program is finished. Deal with it. The demographics of the US have changed and will continue to change. It's culture, therefore it's politics, and therefore it's priorities are changing. Manned space is a casualty of that change. As we slowly denegrate to third world status (rolling blackouts, wholesale printing of money, decline of energy output, etc.) - we need to stop fantasizing and acknowledge what's happening. The future of space belongs to China - that is the reality.
@wavertree558 : I strongly disagree. I think there's still hope that with sufficent leadership, boldness & vision the US manned spaceflight program can recover. Not convinced by Obama's plan, I think it is damaging to the future - but hopefully not terminal. I don't think folks should resign themselves to your view and find it then becomes a self-fulfilling prophecy. As one poet (Dylan Thomas?) said : "rage , rage rage against the dying of the light!" - & perhaps we can light a new spark yet.
@Astrostevo I think you're being overly optimistic and hope you're correct but unfortunatley - you're probably wrong. It's not merely the cancellation of Constellation - it's the decommisioning of all the ancillary support infrastructure necessary to have a manned space program. Launch pads, control centers, training facilities, tracking stations- 50 years of accumulated of accumulated infrastructuure is now being powered down. It will be fiscally impossible to start up again 10 years from now.
@Astrostevo I hope somebody makes it happen. The only thing that is preventing NASA from doing what it should is that trhe AMerican people dont give two shits about space, they get exited and fund the shit out of things and then everyone backs out. Look at what happened to the Apoillo program. Now the Shuttle fleet and soon NASA will be no more. Its sad, but blame your neighbors not the president. All americans do is complain, but THEY ASKED the president to stop spending......
CHECK OUT "2012 UFOs Connections and Revelations". ON YOUTUBE This is a compilation of evidence revealed by former and present American presidents, astronauts, military personnel, politicians along with credible aired UFO footage. This compilation also contains planned revelations regarding knowledge of life beyond Earth along with it's current and ever ongoing presence which is being hidden from the public. This knowledge has been hidden from the public for over 50 years. + MUCH MORE.
Check out "2012 UFOs Connections and Revelations" on youtube. This is a compilation of evidence revealed by former and present American presidents, astronauts, military personnel, politicians along with credible aired UFO footage. This compilation also contains planned revelations regarding knowledge of life beyond Earth along with it's current and ever ongoing presence which is being hidden from the public. This knowledge has been hidden from the public for over 50 years, + tons more :).
Using Shuttle parts, you will always get Shuttle prices. Every time we use Shuttle to go to space, that is 325 astronauts that did not get to space in comparison to using falcon9. 1.7 Billion for Shuttle (7 people) or 50 Million for Falcon9 (7 people). The funny thing is Falcon9 is much safer.
Nasa has been a front for what is really going on with space exploration. Thanks to the web these people have been slowly exposed for what they really stand for, LIES. Its just a matter of time before wikileaks exposes these frauds for what they have done, for so many years. Leing, and disinformation. Thanks Nasa for all the airbrushing and basically holding back important information to the general public to what is really going on out there. Thanks to Garry Mckinnon, for keeping the truth!
Let's get this straight - the people who came up with this proposal want to basically throw away 3 hugely expensive SSMEs (Space Shuttle Main Engine) per mission? Are they crazy?
These engines are specifically designed for re-usability on board the Shuttle, not as an use-and-throw-away article. It would be like buying a new BMW each day to get to work (and scraping the "old" one).
This proposal would not make access to space cheaper, it would just be another shuttle-derived dead end.
@Winner8501 The plan would be to have PWR develop the RS-25e, an expendable version of the SSME which is considerably cheaper than the current engines so splashing them isn't so much of a hit.
I love how they showed the Orion at the end. They should have given up on the shuttle as a bad idea years ago. NASA has never come anywhere near to maximum payload capacity with the shuttle and the launch costs were ridiculous. When they finally get a cheaper system that can carry as many crew they can't afford it (ironically NASA has already paid for itself many times over the years, but the auto company the govt bought was nothing but a money pit).
it's called "off the shelf" technology" and I'm for it if it keeps our manned space program alive. Take what is already there and make it do something more or something else. NASA could you do something, please?
@Darthbelal The main problem is there aint much money left to do any space flights. For America its easy just to retire it and promise a replacement later on. Then when the time comes they will simply explain that there is still not enough cash for it which means even more delays.
All the money was spent on war so space must now take a back seat.
Forget the STS data base NASA!!! It is GARBAGE!!! It is time to move on to broader horizons!!! Build the Phoenix Super Lift System!!! It even has a crew escape capsule!!!
Side mounted anything is a joke! The twang is what helped the aft field joints fail on Challenger STS 51L. NASA just wants to use the same JUNK from the past! Maybe they can KILL another 14??? Wonder if they still think the orbiter is so reliable it needs no escape system???
@ScribeOfShadows exactly..space exploration should be on the top of everyones list, if not for the amazing discoveries we've seen about us, the planet and the universe, then for the simple fact that its kool ass shit!!! The evolution of technology now allows us launch people into orbit. something i think everyone should appreciate!!
erm, a little mistake in the video, the rocket boosters (white things at the sides) cannot reach anywhere close orbit, they give their boost and then detach while well into the atmosphere.
@cjsks Sweet TY, I'm trying to brainstorm ways of capturing and cleaning orbital junk. So far I've come up with magnets placed just to the side of where the junk will be flying, speeding up to it and collecting it, recycling it, or just letting it burn in the atmos.
@Noogymonster One of the most favoured methods is to use a laser. you vapourize a tiny amount of the junk and the vapour propels it like a rocket (general principle) at a tiny speed until it has removed enough orbital speed to start plowing down in the low orbit's atmosphere, where it will decelerate until reentry for free.
Needs a decent laser, although you don't need to place it in space.
Just this past Thursday, Congress approved cancellation of Constellation (Ares I and Ares V) and development of the new Shuttle Derived launch vehicle in its place. It's very similar to the sidemount vehicle shown in this video, but will likely be and inline version. Lookup the Jupiter class rockets, J-130 and J-246.
0:44 will all the discarded material become space junk, or will it fall back to earth? Junk that size is the newest problem Nasa is facing, and those seem to be pretty big peices of junk D:
Ok don't get me wrong modern rockets are amazing and are the greatest ride on earth. I would like to see Nasa pause for a couple of years and invest all it's resources in a new form of propulsion. In 60 years except for design nothing has changed or advanced were still getting to orbit the same way we always did. This is because there is a lack of competition no cold war no competing company and or agency's. So there's no need to advance. In another 10yrs Nasa won't exist anymore it will private
@jayjolin1977 space shuttle mission 2007 ive played and i dont think its NASA made , and its too boring after a while :/ Orbiter 2010 is probably the closest
Is there any way they could carry the ET into orbit as additional cargo? That could REALLY be used to build up a space station, as well as the "wet workshop" being the original idea for Skylab.
I still prefer the "in line" design.. Safer ! No accidents with the Saturn V !! But if gets humans back to the Moon and on to Mars then so be it !! Hurry up NASA !! Get it done !! Stop wasting time and tax dollars !! Set a (rocket) design and goal and GO !!! Moon by 2020 and Mars by 2033 !! JUST DO IT !!
You are totally waisting the 3 engines because they would burn up with the tank. The only reason the shuttle was side mounted was to reuse as much as possibe. In this case the engines should go under the tank and the payload on top. This is a really bad idea but great video. Thanks for the video.
@ti994apc I think the plan is to redesign the SSME for an expendable version. PWR has stated that building an expendable version would cut down significantly on the price. Further reductions can be realized given that you would be ordering a new set of engines for each launch instead of after several flights as is the case with the orbiters. I agree with you that an inline launcher would be better but still, at least this is an affordable design and is based on solid engineering, unlike Ares.
@rjholling I have just seen the speeches by Dr. Robert Zubrin. His design is a "in line" rocket. His "Mars direct " Ares design would lift 120 tons to LEO and 41 tons beyond ! And Constellation ARES V was designed to lift 180 tons to LEO and 71 tons beyond that ! Check on favourites on my channel. He does´nt care which design it is of the two ! But he strongly remarked without HLV that can lift more than the Space Shuttle ! We are stuck in LEO forever ! Going no where !!!!
This is a much more efficient way to carry a payload to space, considering that with the shuttle most of the weight being lifted in orbit is just going to come back again. With this you get a payload close to the size of the shuttle itself. Far better than the shuttle. And in the short term this would work so that we don't have to rely on Russia.
@ironclownfish No: like Shuttle, it is disposed of into the Indian ocean on a Sub-orbital path.Also like Shuttle, the engines must go most of the way to orbit, because the E.T. - with its fuel - and engine combination is essentially a 'Corestage'. The upper stage completes the escape burn.
Essentially. But there's huge advantages. The orbiter's mass limits how useful it is. The thing can't go beyond low Earth orbit. Replacing the orbiter with a capsule + stage allows us to break free of low earth orbit. Also, cargo to ISS is greatly boosted. Instead of the majority of up-mass being the orbiter, now you can have it be more cargo for ISS.
It's not a sexy rocket but it's a quick way to shortern the gap.
While the idea of the Shuttle-derived Sidemount HLV is undoubtedly cheaper than Constellation it seems relatively uninspired. It kind of feels like taking shortcuts instead of trying to make a new vehicle for the new century. It also seems like a waste of lifting power.
While the Ares I is more expensive it doesn't really waste lifting power. All the technical issues with it are gone other than it maybe needing a little more power in the upper stage. Problems now are chiefly financial.
From what I read they plan on making a cost reduced SSME the RS25e which would be half the cost of the standard SSME and thus be ok to use in an expendable fashion.
Even with the more expensive engine two of these HLVs would cost a lot less then an Ares I and V.
The greater payload on the CLV makes it possible to reuse the Orion which cost more then the three RS25e engines.
I understand all the comments about the loss of the SSME's with this plan, but, my being the age I am, don't "remember" the Apollo missions didn't we have several engines that we "threw away" with every apollo launch? And with the many Apollo missions, and all the rocket engines that are at the bottom of the ocean, it's not unthinkable to splash a rocket engine. What i don't know is what is the cost difference between 3 SSME's and all of the engines in an Apollo launch?
A major difference here being the Apollo capsules had heat shields (because they needed them), and SRB's are jettisoned early enough not to experience extreme atmospheric re-entry heating. The tank, however, is jettisoned at orbital velocity and it, and the payload fairing, will be destroyed on re-entry because they lack a heat shield.
They don't HAVE to re enter over the ocean. Can't we calculate it to re enter near Edwards AFB or White Sands? After all, wasn't the Orion going to re enter in the desert? That has to protect humans.
Well, I was thinking about a typical shuttle launch profile but you're right, we could have them land elsewhere.
They're going to come down along with the tank in roughly the same location though (unless we somehow work around this). The tank (and anything else under a controled destructive re-entry) usually comes in over the ocean to avoid re-entry over populated areas.
Lack of control mechanism. Besides, from Skylab, Mir, Columbia, and other similar-sized objects, we know that the tank would leave debris over a larger area than just the Arizona desert.
Also, if I'm not mistaken, since the tanks re-enter over the Pacific, despite being jettisoned over the Atlantic, it shows that they lack the orbital energy to make it back to the United States. Perhaps releasing the tank with more energy could overcome this but this would require reducing the payload mass.
The only New objective that would get the public to support of HSF would be a trip to Mars. Constellation is Apollo v2. So in 2025 or 2030 we get back to the moon. Yipie! exaclty where we were in 1969. But we're still no closer to Mars.
Mars is a 18 month trip. It isn't a 3 day trip. The design of the hardware is completely different for a Mars trip.
Scientists from Nazi Germany got much of their technology from Robert H. Goddard, the father of modern rocketry. Upon examining a captured German V2 rocket, he was dismayed to see much of it was designed using his own reseaarch.
@santotot During all of Apollo, only three astronauts died. Gem and Merc, none. So far, during the shuttle program, about 14 have died.
My fear about commerical space "exploration" is that the new companies won't worry so much about killing loads of space tourists as they will about making money. NASA astronauts died because the agency was in such a hurry they sacrificed safety. How many will die on the MacDonald's HappyRocket? I guess you have to crack eggs to make an omelet, right?
While I see your point, I would think commercial spaceflight would invest a lot into safety. You might imagine that the death of human customers on a commercial flight would deter future human customers.
I don't know, guys. This looks nice in animation, but the "strap-on" approach isn't safe. That was proven by Challenger. Anytime you use strap-ons, you run the risk of crap falling off the ET and hitting your strap-on. The Aries and Saturn approach seems best. You don't have things falling off to hit a strap-on, and there's always an escape rocket to pull the nose out. Strap-ons kill astronauts. Keep It Simple, Stupid.
What about Energia II rocet its a soviet design but its reusable.
try 'Energia II Uragan' on wiki.
Nieumarlamalpa 1 day ago
this one won't work 1. it violates CAIB placing the spacecraft on the side. 2. it uses faulty hardware if ice gets one it will damage the spacecraft. 3. and it does not look good this concept failed CCDEV 1 and NASA did not adopt it.
geomodelrailroader 2 days ago
This has been flagged as spam show
This is stupid. At least with the Shuttles you got the main engines back for re-servicing. Here, they stay attached to the fuel tank and burn up with it.
This looks like just as much of a tax-draining boondoggle as the Shuttle program itself was.
MiHiVidz 1 week ago
Comment removed
MiHiVidz 1 week ago
Comment removed
MiHiVidz 1 week ago
USSR has planned in 1988 launch same project: "Energia" + "Polus", but it was frozen. Now Russia it will be realize with (projecting) "Angara" or "Rus-M" rockets.
TritonDenis 1 week ago
@TritonDenis I wish Energia would be revivied somehow. It looked like quite the formidable vehicle with some incredible lift capacities into LEO, as well as the ability to send things trans-lunar.
Seeing as NASA is utterly dependent on Russia now for manned launches on Soyuz, I'd say there's nothing wrong with asking them to get an Energia program running again.
Ferrariman601 1 day ago
I am very happy to see the vidoe depicting NASA's Shuttle-derived Sidemount Heavy Launch Vehicle concept was shown at the 17 June 2009 meeting of the Review From you, hopefully the others also are happy for You
Ondelendo 3 weeks ago
I Love The Video depicting NASA's Shuttle-derived Sidemount Heavy Launch Vehicle concept was shown It Can Increase My Knowledge
bebeheuy 3 weeks ago
Nice Video NASA Shuttle-derived Sidemount Heavy Launch Vehicle Concept That You Share , So Very Nice Thanks You
willamricard 3 weeks ago
I Really Like The Video video depicting NASA's Shuttle-derived Sidemount Heavy Launch Vehicle concept was shown From Your
imegatrone 3 weeks ago
Your Video This video depicting NASA's Shuttle-derived Sidemount Heavy Launch Vehicle concept Is Very Useful Sharing
bundawartini 3 weeks ago
Lets see, Shuttle was 1.5 Billion per launch and could lift 53,600 lbs to LEO. While Falcon Heavy costs 100 million fixed per launch and lifts (more than double) 120,000 lbs to LEO. You do the math.
ti994apc 4 weeks ago
The only problem with this, is the loss of those expensive engines.
faostube 1 month ago 2
What a fantastic idea, re-using reusable technology. I assume this saves alot of money? Sadly, the motors attached to the external tank also burn up? Still seems more efficient than the old rocket towers that are completely used up! Great animation and sound effects.
ijzerkoekie 1 month ago
thank you for having fun
huixera 2 months ago
'
i like america space shuttle is the best air space plane than ussr russia cheap buran shuttle,,,
dont let ussr russia copy steal from america
bestamerica 2 months ago
@bestamerica Buran was actually better than Shuttle in a few key areas- biggest of all, the side-mounted boosters were liquid-fueled, so if everything went cockeyed they could shut them down safely. With Shuttle, you had to ride out the emergency until the SRBs shut down.
frogger626 2 months ago
frogger626,
'
okay thank,,,
dont use a word - YOU - on me,,,
american space shuttle is still better great wonderful than ussr russia cheap buran,,,
american space shuttle fly to outer space many times,,,
ussr russia is once or NONE
bestamerica 2 months ago
@bestamerica Buran did fly once, unmanned. It didn't fly anymore because they ran out of money to fund it due to the collapse of the Soviet Union. Plus, Buran does have a nice notch on its belt- the first time anything that complex flew under automatic guidance. We know Buran worked, and we know it had some better safety features than Shuttle did. Beyond that, it was basically the same thing with a different flag.
frogger626 2 months ago
frogger626,
'
buran fly once and used RC system,,,
no american and people rides on buran, NEVER,,,
too bad for ussr russia collapse,,,
that is ussr russia own problem,,,
not america,,,
why ussr russian ride in american space shuttle for
bestamerica 2 months ago
@bestamerica Will you stop being such a nationalist moron already?
Helge129 2 months ago
Okay, practically every design i see these days is two rockets to the moon. Lets just rebuild a Saturn V with better computers. Saves a rocket, and billions of dollars.
steam651 2 months ago
What would be MUCH BETTER is to "get rid" of the following parts: Both SRB's, the big orange fuel tank, the 3 main RS-24 engines, and the enclosure. The only thing I would keep is the US Flag sticker on the side.
Next, I would have a private company create an affordable reliable rocket with 9 Merlin liquid engines and mass produce it.
ti994apc 3 months ago
hey, can someone tell me what's the orange under the rocket for?
deoxynchro 3 months ago
@deoxynchro funny
xeroxusify 3 months ago
Since Shuttle FAILED us with cost and safety. None of its contractors should be allowed to make the next system. Especially the Thiokol Corporation and Lockheed Martin.
ti994apc 4 months ago
more cost effective (we have the SRB's already) known technology (engines and main tank) MASSIVE reduction in risk (no exposed heat shield to damage at launch) and doesnt depend 100% on dirty uncontrolable solid fuel rockets like Ares. Only addition i would like to see is a way of returning the SSME's back to earth for reuse
richarddale76 4 months ago
@richarddale76 The only problem with these heavy lift vehicles (and smaller ones) is that they are built by a government, so they will cost 17 - 20 Billion on paper, which will blow out to over 30 Billion, even though the technology is existing, and before it has it's first flight a business like SpaceX will have something better that costs far less. For this reason expect every heavy lift vehicle to be cancelled from now on. Nasa will find itself moved out of the launch business for good.
Realfoxhawk 4 months ago
Hang on, the cargo boosters go down with the main fuel tank. Is this a reusable section because those engines are not cheap?
silversynth 5 months ago
Why can't the idiots in congress agree to use this as SLS block I?
Membrane556 5 months ago
By using gigantic rockets which are pressure-fed, you cut down on the cost of the turbo-pumps and also simplify rocket design. The only loss is the avionics bus, if we dont plan to recover it.
harishkumar09 6 months ago
It is only when you attempt to recover the whole vehicle as in the case of the Space Shuttle or the second and third stages, cost escalates and things get maintenance intensive because of the need to use ceramic tiles and other such stuff. These are also points of failure as already experienced. Just recover and re-use the avionics bus and the first stage.
harishkumar09 6 months ago
Why doen't anybody go for partial recoverable launch vehicles. The first-stages can easily be recovered, as it is being done in the case of the shuttle. A liquid-fueled first stage, such as the one in Energia or Saturn V can be easily recovered and re-used. Abandon attempts to recover second and third stages. Find away to recover the avioinics bus, for example by placing it inside a heat-shield and recovering it on re-entry. This should work cheaply.
harishkumar09 6 months ago
The costliest parts of an LV are the avionics and the turbo-pumps. Any recoverable LV, which makes access to space cheaper should be able to recover either or both of these. A single shot LV whose avionics bus is kept inside a heat-shield which can survive re-entry is a good option.
harishkumar09 6 months ago
If you see, this recoverable launch vehicle bullshit never works and ends up costing more than the one-use disposable launch vehicle stuff. Best is to use these single-shot rockets, and had we followed that path, we all would be walking on Mars by now. But the Space Station is a good concept. We should use that as a fuelling tug, a depot. The cheapest access can be had using LVs powered by fuel-weight pressure alone without using turbo pumps. So go for it.
harishkumar09 6 months ago
This has been flagged as spam show
Well, there is actually some good news. As stated before by UndeadPizzaGuy, Nasa does actually plane to use this concept as the next generation of SLSs for deep space exploration. It would also include GOING BACK TO THE MOON. : ) The rocket can actually be space capable by 2014 as stated by Carlosi5slb3. Although, that has not actually been accepted or denied by NASA. XD
AERODYNAMICMICROSOFT 6 months ago
Comment removed
AERODYNAMICMICROSOFT 6 months ago
Interesting idea and good animation. The only problem I see is if this cost as much as Shuttle you can get about 16 Falcon9 heavy's for the same price and each Falcon9 heavy can lift almost double Shuttle.
ti994apc 7 months ago
1: Dont use the SME's, use something cheap like J-2's. if you are worried about cost.
2: They should have done this years ago, was a very logical step for cheap mass launch capability using existing support and infrastructure
3: Why did not the original constelation go down this path for ARES 5. It would have been up and running in like 3 years?
4: Why didnt ARES 1 use a J-2 instead of a J2x and why not an existing 4 segment SRB, all with a smaller orion? First priority was service the ISS.
DumbYankies 7 months ago
They've been talking this trash for 30 years now, and the only people to consistently have employment at NASA have been artists (and now CG animators). Look to Elon Musk of SpaceX and Robert Bigelow (of Bigelow Aerospace) to go back to the moon and go to Mars. They'll make it cheap enough for National Geographic and universities to go. Let NASA send the unmanned scouts first.
Cruiserfrank 7 months ago
Now try and land it ^^
MrGibbsOfficial 7 months ago
thats so fuckin ugly. all you did was take the wings off the space shuttle. now it looks like shit.
TheEgg185 7 months ago
@TheEgg185
I totally agree! I thought the whole point of getting rid of the current setup was to save weight/ materials and to get them off the side of a potential bomb? (External Fuel Tank)
junkyard355regal 7 months ago
"UFO Disclosure A Global Deception Conspiracy " ON
YOUTUBE is a revelation of with held knowledge from the public of life
beyond Earth. The video compilation contains statements from astronauts,
American presidents, military personnel, politicians plus credible news
footage regarding awareness of life beyond Earth along with it's
current and ongoing presence which is being hidden from the masses + more.
Futurecop2012E 7 months ago
That use animation program
ramiroeda 7 months ago
Or just not use those engines, and instead only use the shuttle booster stack with a single use engine - like the Russians do with Energia when they aren't launching Buran
noonedude101 8 months ago
Would the shuttle engine module used be falling from low enough orbit to be recovered?
noonedude101 8 months ago
@noonedude101 Some of the models I've seen demonstrated a recoverable engine module, but I don't remember where I saw the material so no link or reference for that. It is something they're considering though.
anotherlook 8 months ago
@anotherlook
Well, it's something like a 30 million dollar engine - so I'd say recovery would be worth it.
noonedude101 8 months ago
@noonedude101 Yea why not just make it the shuttle C? recover the engines. Its the most cost effective method
tlages 8 months ago
Then again, nobody can truly be blamed as the evidence is burned in the atmosphere.
But paperwork and office investigation has long ago proved it was a wiring mistake and was responsible to the guys that drawed and manufactured the CSM.
Armigo91 8 months ago
and more likely have damaged both ships.
The fault that caused the oxygen tank to blow was a wiring mistake. These days theyre much more precise on wiring and system settings. Its unlikely that nasa and their related manufacturers will make the same mistake again.
The department that manufactured the CSM coudnt sleep for weeks after the apollo 13 accident because of their flawed inaccuracy on their job.
Armigo91 8 months ago
Apollo 13 was lucky that appropriate tools were available for the specific problem that occured concerning the carbon dioxide filter.
Apollo 13 was lucky that due to the accident the CSM kept docked to the LEM in the first place due to the sever torque. The shrapnel of the oxygen tank in the CSM could have easily damaged the heat shield, or even the clear vaccuum of both the cabins.
Sure theres a chance on having a lifebout with 2 cabins.
A explosion such as apollo 13 could have easily
Armigo91 8 months ago
@Armigo91 Lucky to have plastic bags and duck tape? Who doesn't have that?
monokhem 7 months ago
This has been flagged as spam show
"UFO Disclosure A Global Deception Conspiracy" On
YOUTUBE is a compilation of evidence revealed by former military personnel,
astronauts, politicians, American presidents. This contains credible aired news
UFO footage. The compilation reveals knowledge of life beyond Earth + the
current ongoing presence and initiated contact which has being hidden from the
public for over 50 years + more.
Futurecop2012H 8 months ago
The only unfortunate thing about Lunar linkup... if you have an 'Apollo 13' style emergency... you don't have a lifeboat? Why we can't fly back a launcher...too expensive? Why we can't have orbital refueling or a station that can repair and launch ships from LEO? I think we should have had the workshops up before we have laboratories and exploration. It's always going to be a challenge until we get routine like trains, ships and airplanes.
granddad2002 8 months ago 2
Okay you get in space ! Now you have to find away to collect all those massive scraps you left .... old spaceship ,satellite ,old engine parts ...we already pollute Earth lets keep space clean !
haguylerman 8 months ago
Its a shame that they cant reuse the SSME's that could get expensive.
tlages 9 months ago
I love the idea but think they need to make a stack configuartion instead of side mount that would make it possible for a 4 or 5 main engine stage with tank extinsion. That would make the upper stage larger I do like using old parts for rapid development. Nice video though
spacegeek5 9 months ago
Somehow , its just not the same >
bluestrapsify 9 months ago
I would like to see the first few launches used to keep the main tank and engines in orbit. What a future asset!!!!
voglerlake 9 months ago
So this launch vehicle would be in space soon?...Oooo shuttle I would terribly missed u :(
pushitgently001p 9 months ago 2
how do you get these videos
jjanowitz2 9 months ago
Sidemount is dead. Inline is the way to go.
pr0t0color 9 months ago
@pr0t0color Totally, I wonder if anyone even seriously considers this option anymore. A sidemount adds so much drag, makes it unstable on the pad, and puts the crew in a poor position. I personally would've stuck with the Ares family, but that's not really an option now so I'd probably put my money on the DIRECT series.
Tyrannobeast 8 months ago
Great idea if it was done 10 years ago. I think it would be too expensive now compared to private built systems coming up soon like SpaceX Heavy Falcon 9.
jtp0321 9 months ago
This has been flagged as spam show
CHECK OUT "UFO Disclosure, Revelations & the 2012 Connection" ON
YOUTUBE This is a compilation of evidence revealed by former and present
astronauts, politicians, American presidents, military personnel, +
aired news UFO footage. The compilation is
revelations about knowledge of life beyond Earth along with the
current ongoing presence which has being hidden from the public for over 50
years + tons more.
Futurecop2012H 9 months ago
First launch expected in 2016 - an elegantly simple solution to our heavy-lift needs.
UndeadPizzaGuy 9 months ago 12
@asdfghjkl48402 : Does NASA want the boondoggles, or the political and economic interest groups that control NASA's purse strings? I suspect the later; it keeps the money going into *their* pockets and no where else.
rjpugh 9 months ago
How is this different from the old Shuttle-C idea? If at all?
rjpugh 10 months ago
Why aren't we doing this instead of Obama cancelling all plans for a lunar return??? :-(
Astrostevo 10 months ago 2
The US manned space program is finished. Deal with it. The demographics of the US have changed and will continue to change. It's culture, therefore it's politics, and therefore it's priorities are changing. Manned space is a casualty of that change. As we slowly denegrate to third world status (rolling blackouts, wholesale printing of money, decline of energy output, etc.) - we need to stop fantasizing and acknowledge what's happening. The future of space belongs to China - that is the reality.
wavertree558 10 months ago
@wavertree558 : I strongly disagree. I think there's still hope that with sufficent leadership, boldness & vision the US manned spaceflight program can recover. Not convinced by Obama's plan, I think it is damaging to the future - but hopefully not terminal. I don't think folks should resign themselves to your view and find it then becomes a self-fulfilling prophecy. As one poet (Dylan Thomas?) said : "rage , rage rage against the dying of the light!" - & perhaps we can light a new spark yet.
Astrostevo 10 months ago 2
@Astrostevo I think you're being overly optimistic and hope you're correct but unfortunatley - you're probably wrong. It's not merely the cancellation of Constellation - it's the decommisioning of all the ancillary support infrastructure necessary to have a manned space program. Launch pads, control centers, training facilities, tracking stations- 50 years of accumulated of accumulated infrastructuure is now being powered down. It will be fiscally impossible to start up again 10 years from now.
wavertree558 10 months ago
@Astrostevo I hope somebody makes it happen. The only thing that is preventing NASA from doing what it should is that trhe AMerican people dont give two shits about space, they get exited and fund the shit out of things and then everyone backs out. Look at what happened to the Apoillo program. Now the Shuttle fleet and soon NASA will be no more. Its sad, but blame your neighbors not the president. All americans do is complain, but THEY ASKED the president to stop spending......
mikemcdonald100 10 months ago
CHECK OUT "2012 UFOs Connections and Revelations". ON YOUTUBE This is a compilation of evidence revealed by former and present American presidents, astronauts, military personnel, politicians along with credible aired UFO footage. This compilation also contains planned revelations regarding knowledge of life beyond Earth along with it's current and ever ongoing presence which is being hidden from the public. This knowledge has been hidden from the public for over 50 years. + MUCH MORE.
Freedomloveandtruth 10 months ago
when the USA gets rid of the IDIOT running it atm, i hope NASA will be back on track
nickapole 10 months ago
This has been flagged as spam show
Check out "2012 UFOs Connections and Revelations" on youtube. This is a compilation of evidence revealed by former and present American presidents, astronauts, military personnel, politicians along with credible aired UFO footage. This compilation also contains planned revelations regarding knowledge of life beyond Earth along with it's current and ever ongoing presence which is being hidden from the public. This knowledge has been hidden from the public for over 50 years, + tons more :).
denisselivanov 10 months ago
goto your adress bar and type win before after you and before tube
rexzous 11 months ago
Orion? Yeah.... Ares would be better for that one.
Jontheking100 11 months ago
Using Shuttle parts, you will always get Shuttle prices. Every time we use Shuttle to go to space, that is 325 astronauts that did not get to space in comparison to using falcon9. 1.7 Billion for Shuttle (7 people) or 50 Million for Falcon9 (7 people). The funny thing is Falcon9 is much safer.
ti994apc 11 months ago
Want a stunning piece of innovation! Remove orbitor, attach unmanned payload! That'll be fifty seven billion dollars.
lexichronicle2 1 year ago
This has been flagged as spam show
Nasa has been a front for what is really going on with space exploration. Thanks to the web these people have been slowly exposed for what they really stand for, LIES. Its just a matter of time before wikileaks exposes these frauds for what they have done, for so many years. Leing, and disinformation. Thanks Nasa for all the airbrushing and basically holding back important information to the general public to what is really going on out there. Thanks to Garry Mckinnon, for keeping the truth!
frontview1 1 year ago
Let's get this straight - the people who came up with this proposal want to basically throw away 3 hugely expensive SSMEs (Space Shuttle Main Engine) per mission? Are they crazy?
These engines are specifically designed for re-usability on board the Shuttle, not as an use-and-throw-away article. It would be like buying a new BMW each day to get to work (and scraping the "old" one).
This proposal would not make access to space cheaper, it would just be another shuttle-derived dead end.
Winner8501 1 year ago
@Winner8501 The plan would be to have PWR develop the RS-25e, an expendable version of the SSME which is considerably cheaper than the current engines so splashing them isn't so much of a hit.
rjholling 1 year ago
As my dad likes to say,
"If it's not broken don't fix it".
SpaceAnimator 1 year ago
I love how they showed the Orion at the end. They should have given up on the shuttle as a bad idea years ago. NASA has never come anywhere near to maximum payload capacity with the shuttle and the launch costs were ridiculous. When they finally get a cheaper system that can carry as many crew they can't afford it (ironically NASA has already paid for itself many times over the years, but the auto company the govt bought was nothing but a money pit).
SnuffitLabs 1 year ago
it's called "off the shelf" technology" and I'm for it if it keeps our manned space program alive. Take what is already there and make it do something more or something else. NASA could you do something, please?
Darthbelal 1 year ago
@Darthbelal The main problem is there aint much money left to do any space flights. For America its easy just to retire it and promise a replacement later on. Then when the time comes they will simply explain that there is still not enough cash for it which means even more delays.
All the money was spent on war so space must now take a back seat.
Tzimnewman3 1 year ago
Forget the STS data base NASA!!! It is GARBAGE!!! It is time to move on to broader horizons!!! Build the Phoenix Super Lift System!!! It even has a crew escape capsule!!!
Puff29646 1 year ago
Side mounted anything is a joke! The twang is what helped the aft field joints fail on Challenger STS 51L. NASA just wants to use the same JUNK from the past! Maybe they can KILL another 14??? Wonder if they still think the orbiter is so reliable it needs no escape system???
Puff29646 1 year ago
Well, it sure as hell isn't pretty but it's using what we have.
Polybun 1 year ago
FIRE ZE MISSILES!
LashoutUK 1 year ago
The side-mount thing caused the Columbia disaster of 2003. Not a very good idea.
RecklessTornado 1 year ago
This is the best NASA can come up with? Meh. Time to let private industry have a crack.
velveetaslingshot 1 year ago
@velveetaslingshot See Jupiter DIRECT. 130 tons to Low Earth Orbit. A much more versatile design.
usnsquirrel 1 year ago
@velveetaslingshot excellent idea, more private industry to encourage growth and space exploration is whats needed.
ScribeOfShadows 1 year ago
@ScribeOfShadows exactly..space exploration should be on the top of everyones list, if not for the amazing discoveries we've seen about us, the planet and the universe, then for the simple fact that its kool ass shit!!! The evolution of technology now allows us launch people into orbit. something i think everyone should appreciate!!
MrKoolQ 1 year ago
erm, a little mistake in the video, the rocket boosters (white things at the sides) cannot reach anywhere close orbit, they give their boost and then detach while well into the atmosphere.
bobafetthotmail 1 year ago
@bobafetthotmail Not really a mistake.
Looking at videos of the onboard cameras during SRB sep of the shuttle, the appearence isn't much different than what they show in this video.
GreatExterminator 1 year ago
@GreatExterminator huh, my mistake then. :p
bobafetthotmail 1 year ago
@cjsks Sweet TY, I'm trying to brainstorm ways of capturing and cleaning orbital junk. So far I've come up with magnets placed just to the side of where the junk will be flying, speeding up to it and collecting it, recycling it, or just letting it burn in the atmos.
Noogymonster 1 year ago
@Noogymonster One of the most favoured methods is to use a laser. you vapourize a tiny amount of the junk and the vapour propels it like a rocket (general principle) at a tiny speed until it has removed enough orbital speed to start plowing down in the low orbit's atmosphere, where it will decelerate until reentry for free.
Needs a decent laser, although you don't need to place it in space.
bobafetthotmail 1 year ago
Just this past Thursday, Congress approved cancellation of Constellation (Ares I and Ares V) and development of the new Shuttle Derived launch vehicle in its place. It's very similar to the sidemount vehicle shown in this video, but will likely be and inline version. Lookup the Jupiter class rockets, J-130 and J-246.
cjsks 1 year ago 4
0:44 will all the discarded material become space junk, or will it fall back to earth? Junk that size is the newest problem Nasa is facing, and those seem to be pretty big peices of junk D:
Noogymonster 1 year ago
@Noogymonster, the boosters are recovered the expended orange fuel tank burns up on re-entry.
cjsks 1 year ago
Too bad America is giving up anyway.
Ferrariman601 1 year ago
@Ferrariman601
giving what up?
pacificguitarist 1 year ago
wtf? No warp nacells?
Swidhelm 1 year ago
NASA Shuttle-derived Sidemount Heavy Launch Vehicle Concept
www41WorldUSAcom 1 year ago
youtube.com/watch?v=R-_T0fT7zHs
199leg 1 year ago
I think this is a shuttle from God ....
xiaokuhu 1 year ago
Why the rocket boosters and tank :p
akierrs2 1 year ago
Ok don't get me wrong modern rockets are amazing and are the greatest ride on earth. I would like to see Nasa pause for a couple of years and invest all it's resources in a new form of propulsion. In 60 years except for design nothing has changed or advanced were still getting to orbit the same way we always did. This is because there is a lack of competition no cold war no competing company and or agency's. So there's no need to advance. In another 10yrs Nasa won't exist anymore it will private
jb42682 1 year ago
Sorry, but I'm not a big fan of this concept. It has the same flaw as the space shuttle by using the fuel tank and rocket boosters.
MilkyWayArchives 1 year ago
Still too expensive
see mr secret man
You Tube won't allow his name to post.
So much for open discussion of space flight.
staydput 1 year ago
if NASA made a space simulation game it would be awesome :D
kirza94 1 year ago
@kirza94 they do its called space shuttle mission. i don't know if nasa put it out though but it is very detailed
jayjolin1977 1 year ago
@jayjolin1977 space shuttle mission 2007 ive played and i dont think its NASA made , and its too boring after a while :/ Orbiter 2010 is probably the closest
kirza94 1 year ago
@kirza94 ill have to try that one
jayjolin1977 1 year ago
@jayjolin1977 its free and has lots of add ons . Just search Orbiter 2010 download on google
kirza94 1 year ago
@kirza94 i have played some nasa game on steam its free game go look it up
losbergs2 1 year ago
@losbergs2 i will ,,,thanks Losbergs :D
kirza94 1 year ago
Is there any way they could carry the ET into orbit as additional cargo? That could REALLY be used to build up a space station, as well as the "wet workshop" being the original idea for Skylab.
Hypergalactica 1 year ago
I still prefer the "in line" design.. Safer ! No accidents with the Saturn V !! But if gets humans back to the Moon and on to Mars then so be it !! Hurry up NASA !! Get it done !! Stop wasting time and tax dollars !! Set a (rocket) design and goal and GO !!! Moon by 2020 and Mars by 2033 !! JUST DO IT !!
davisgreen2020 1 year ago
You are totally waisting the 3 engines because they would burn up with the tank. The only reason the shuttle was side mounted was to reuse as much as possibe. In this case the engines should go under the tank and the payload on top. This is a really bad idea but great video. Thanks for the video.
ti994apc 1 year ago
@ti994apc I think the plan is to redesign the SSME for an expendable version. PWR has stated that building an expendable version would cut down significantly on the price. Further reductions can be realized given that you would be ordering a new set of engines for each launch instead of after several flights as is the case with the orbiters. I agree with you that an inline launcher would be better but still, at least this is an affordable design and is based on solid engineering, unlike Ares.
rjholling 1 year ago
@rjholling I have just seen the speeches by Dr. Robert Zubrin. His design is a "in line" rocket. His "Mars direct " Ares design would lift 120 tons to LEO and 41 tons beyond ! And Constellation ARES V was designed to lift 180 tons to LEO and 71 tons beyond that ! Check on favourites on my channel. He does´nt care which design it is of the two ! But he strongly remarked without HLV that can lift more than the Space Shuttle ! We are stuck in LEO forever ! Going no where !!!!
davisgreen2020 1 year ago
This is a much more efficient way to carry a payload to space, considering that with the shuttle most of the weight being lifted in orbit is just going to come back again. With this you get a payload close to the size of the shuttle itself. Far better than the shuttle. And in the short term this would work so that we don't have to rely on Russia.
yourgreatleader 1 year ago
Comment removed
yourgreatleader 1 year ago
they should develop this further as i bet it will work out much cheaper then ares
jackel1490 1 year ago
I heard NASA designed a shuttle with oars!!! lmfao!!!
Puff29646 1 year ago
Side mounted JUNK!!! Forget shuttle concept dumb asses! Anything shuttle is JUNK!!!
Puff29646 1 year ago
carrying that big orange fuel tank all the way into orbit? :O
ironclownfish 1 year ago
@ironclownfish No: like Shuttle, it is disposed of into the Indian ocean on a Sub-orbital path.Also like Shuttle, the engines must go most of the way to orbit, because the E.T. - with its fuel - and engine combination is essentially a 'Corestage'. The upper stage completes the escape burn.
MattBlak1 1 year ago
That should be real!!! Good idea!!!
Riesen89 1 year ago
so..... we replace the space shuttle with a tube?
DAL3294 1 year ago
@DAL3294
Essentially. But there's huge advantages. The orbiter's mass limits how useful it is. The thing can't go beyond low Earth orbit. Replacing the orbiter with a capsule + stage allows us to break free of low earth orbit. Also, cargo to ISS is greatly boosted. Instead of the majority of up-mass being the orbiter, now you can have it be more cargo for ISS.
It's not a sexy rocket but it's a quick way to shortern the gap.
Boy75402 1 year ago
@Boy75402
I thought it could reach MEO (by altitude) in theory but couldn't start an orbit.
How high do you think it could get launching straight up?
noonedude101 1 year ago
Wow.. never thought I'd see a youtube comment section of a video look like a NASAspaceflight board.
EndeavourLaunch 1 year ago
@EndeavourLaunch
Haha! It is quite a refreshing change.
Boy75402 1 year ago
What are we waiting for? Let's build it!
skyscraperjim 1 year ago
While the idea of the Shuttle-derived Sidemount HLV is undoubtedly cheaper than Constellation it seems relatively uninspired. It kind of feels like taking shortcuts instead of trying to make a new vehicle for the new century. It also seems like a waste of lifting power.
While the Ares I is more expensive it doesn't really waste lifting power. All the technical issues with it are gone other than it maybe needing a little more power in the upper stage. Problems now are chiefly financial.
A86 1 year ago
Hmmm, looks a bit like the old Soviet Energia...
Ferrariman601 1 year ago
From what I read they plan on making a cost reduced SSME the RS25e which would be half the cost of the standard SSME and thus be ok to use in an expendable fashion.
Even with the more expensive engine two of these HLVs would cost a lot less then an Ares I and V.
The greater payload on the CLV makes it possible to reuse the Orion which cost more then the three RS25e engines.
Membrane556 1 year ago
I understand all the comments about the loss of the SSME's with this plan, but, my being the age I am, don't "remember" the Apollo missions didn't we have several engines that we "threw away" with every apollo launch? And with the many Apollo missions, and all the rocket engines that are at the bottom of the ocean, it's not unthinkable to splash a rocket engine. What i don't know is what is the cost difference between 3 SSME's and all of the engines in an Apollo launch?
glen4cindy 1 year ago
Comment removed
glen4cindy 1 year ago
It'd be different if you could position the payload bay for reentry via parachute at 40,000ft like with the SRB's and the Apollo capsules.
noonedude101 1 year ago
@noonedude101
A major difference here being the Apollo capsules had heat shields (because they needed them), and SRB's are jettisoned early enough not to experience extreme atmospheric re-entry heating. The tank, however, is jettisoned at orbital velocity and it, and the payload fairing, will be destroyed on re-entry because they lack a heat shield.
Boy75402 1 year ago
@Boy75402
I know. Add head resistant tiles to the bottom and balance the parachute loading like they do when they drop tanks out of the back of planes.
noonedude101 1 year ago
@noonedude101
That would of course reduce the payload capacity of the rocket.
The tank is kinda like a coke can. It can be easily re-produced. I'd imagine the same is true of the rest of the craft.
Boy75402 1 year ago
@Boy75402
Good point. Well, those are shuttle main engines. It'd be nice to retrieve and reuse them.
noonedude101 1 year ago
@noonedude101
Indeed. $40 Million a peice if I recall.
Boy75402 1 year ago
@Boy75402
They need to heat shield the front and in place of RCS nozzles put recovery parachutes.
noonedude101 1 year ago
@noonedude101
There are potentail problems with SSME recovery. They would re-enter over the ocean along with the tank. How susceptible to water damage are SSMEs?
Also, how expensive are a recovery force? (ships, personell, etc). I'm guessing not too much since they already recover the SRBs.
Boy75402 1 year ago
@Boy75402
potential*
Boy75402 1 year ago
@Boy75402
They don't HAVE to re enter over the ocean. Can't we calculate it to re enter near Edwards AFB or White Sands? After all, wasn't the Orion going to re enter in the desert? That has to protect humans.
noonedude101 1 year ago
@noonedude101
Well, I was thinking about a typical shuttle launch profile but you're right, we could have them land elsewhere.
They're going to come down along with the tank in roughly the same location though (unless we somehow work around this). The tank (and anything else under a controled destructive re-entry) usually comes in over the ocean to avoid re-entry over populated areas.
Boy75402 1 year ago
@Boy75402
Who said you can't release the tank and have it do a half (quarter or whatever) orbit till it reaches the Arizona desert?
noonedude101 1 year ago
@noonedude101
Lack of control mechanism. Besides, from Skylab, Mir, Columbia, and other similar-sized objects, we know that the tank would leave debris over a larger area than just the Arizona desert.
Boy75402 1 year ago
@noonedude101
Also, if I'm not mistaken, since the tanks re-enter over the Pacific, despite being jettisoned over the Atlantic, it shows that they lack the orbital energy to make it back to the United States. Perhaps releasing the tank with more energy could overcome this but this would require reducing the payload mass.
Boy75402 1 year ago
surely the front drag cause huge amount of losses?
acerkiwi 1 year ago
good idea for NASA
csapilot1 1 year ago
how do u get this game
cakshowrocks 1 year ago
the direct 3.0 launch plan is soo much better than this
watch?v=diD20nLA8YM
jpourkav 1 year ago
The only New objective that would get the public to support of HSF would be a trip to Mars. Constellation is Apollo v2. So in 2025 or 2030 we get back to the moon. Yipie! exaclty where we were in 1969. But we're still no closer to Mars.
Mars is a 18 month trip. It isn't a 3 day trip. The design of the hardware is completely different for a Mars trip.
jim6584 1 year ago
This has been flagged as spam show
Scientists from Nazi Germany got much of their technology from Robert H. Goddard, the father of modern rocketry. Upon examining a captured German V2 rocket, he was dismayed to see much of it was designed using his own reseaarch.
credo82660 1 year ago 2
@credo82660
Why the hell are people marking this as spam..?
heound 1 year ago
@heound I sure didn't realize I had marked it as spam. If I did, my bad.
credo82660 1 year ago
Comment removed
credo82660 1 year ago
@santotot During all of Apollo, only three astronauts died. Gem and Merc, none. So far, during the shuttle program, about 14 have died.
My fear about commerical space "exploration" is that the new companies won't worry so much about killing loads of space tourists as they will about making money. NASA astronauts died because the agency was in such a hurry they sacrificed safety. How many will die on the MacDonald's HappyRocket? I guess you have to crack eggs to make an omelet, right?
AdamEtheredge 1 year ago
@AdamEtheredge
While I see your point, I would think commercial spaceflight would invest a lot into safety. You might imagine that the death of human customers on a commercial flight would deter future human customers.
Boy75402 1 year ago
slimdeivid...yeah ..'cause the Nazis were the only humans to ever ponder the science of rocketry...
mikedo6 1 year ago
I don't know, guys. This looks nice in animation, but the "strap-on" approach isn't safe. That was proven by Challenger. Anytime you use strap-ons, you run the risk of crap falling off the ET and hitting your strap-on. The Aries and Saturn approach seems best. You don't have things falling off to hit a strap-on, and there's always an escape rocket to pull the nose out. Strap-ons kill astronauts. Keep It Simple, Stupid.
AdamEtheredge 1 year ago