Someone (cugel?) mentioned that the reason no-one is developing a superrocket like the Saturn V is because it is an expensive undertaking for limited use. It got me thinking about all the arguments I've heard about the risks associated with the A380 market. Some people have been saying that the VLA market is niche and as such does not justify the expense that Airbus went to with the 380. The same might be said for a Saturn VNG.

I'm not so sure about this though comparison though. For starters, the 380 doesn't offer the same freedom for air travel that a Saturn VNG would offer for space travel. It would allow large payloads, manned payloads to go beyond LEO and to other places. The 380 allows operators to carry more passengers and cargo, but it just more of the same.

The other important factor to be considered is the freighter value. The A380F can carry a lot of freight, but it's essentially loads of packages and pallets. It doesn't have nose loading like the 744F which allows it to carry oversized payloads. The A380F can't carry much that the 772LRF can't. It's just that it can carry more of it.

A Saturn VNG on the other hand would be able to carry oversized payloads, like a Skylab into LEO, which couldn't be done on, say, a Delta. It's not just that a Saturn VNG could carry a couple of satellites that a Delta could, it could carry bigger payloads and carry it further.

I think it is the case that a superrocket opens up more realms than a superjumbo that is meant to help with slot restriction problems.

__________________
Freedom For Fission A breath of fresh Iodine-131

You're comparing applets and originals. It's all about the money, but you knew that

PS: those niches are being developed, slowly but surely. I remember reading over twenty years ago, maybe in a National Geographic, that people who never dreamed about going into space were going to be going--I figured, since I had dreamed about it, I was a shoo-in.

I think a better comparison is with large rockets and large metal ships.

Our STS is rather like the Great Eastern. That ship would have been better if it had lost the masts and side paddlewheels--as later ships did.

STS will loose the orbiter. SDV HLLV's biggest enemy is the EELV-only hucksters that bought Air Farce brass--that will do their best to make Griff's life miserable--as Steidle (Mr. 200 billion JSF hack) is doing.

Him and that idiot Jumper.

No matter with what you compare rockets with, it always boils down to the 'single-shot' character of rockets that spoils all the fun.
Suppose our grandfathers had to colonize America using ocean liners that only lasted 1 single trip? Even worse, you have to build a 150 meter long oceanliner and the only thing that actually makes it to shore when you arrive is a small rowing boat with 2 or 3 new colonists. (I think the Indians would have loved the concept...)

I really think that building big chemical boosters is a dead end street. What would be more interesting is developing brand new technology that gets you into low earth orbit for free (almost). Maybe the space elevator? Something like that.

If you can get to LEO for say $2 per kilo all your other stories about conquering space start making a lot more sense.

Regards.

__________________
Our Moonshot: join the One Campaign.
please visit: www.one.org

And what are you going to build that Space Elevator with, hmm?

This anti-rocket crap is exactly what got us in this fix to start with.

First we have the X-33/VentureStar crudster--then the make-work SLI and the OSP that LockMart has desguised as CEV--and all the while the Russians--who kept their example Saturn IB (UR-500 Proton) have been laughing all the way to the bank. We have undermined our spacelift capability to a crisis point--and we don't need more piling on now.

We need to get away from the 'alternative spacelift' pixie just like we need to get away from alternative medicine. The Rutan types are just like the food suppliment quacks--who complain about regulations they think they are too good to follow like everyone else.

Well, these people seriously think its feasible:
http://www.liftport.com/

Of all the 'non-chemical propulsion' solutions (anti-gravity and the sort) the elevator is the only one that doesn't depend on magical physics. It does require some magical engineering, I agree. I don't see it happen, but at least they have a vision and understand what it takes to make it come true.

On the other hand, in your words, we had the Saturn-V and it lost its public support within 10 years. Why are you so greedy in repeating that exercise? What would make it different this time?

__________________
Our Moonshot: join the One Campaign.
please visit: www.one.org

We'd still need a HLLV to get the components of a space elevator into orbit anyway. That, and some NTR's.

I suggest we build a rocket capable of lifting the entire space station (the remaining parts anyway) into LEO. By eliminating 20 or so shuttle missions, it might actually pay for itself. Then, you build a second rocket, and place a tiny payload on the rocket and light the match and viola, you have an instant mission to Pluto. Add some solar sails and you pass Jupiter's orbit in a year.

Getting into orbit is all about fighting gravity, so the quicker the acceleration to escape velocity, the more payload per joule.

If you watch the old Saturn IV liftoff footage, the rocket crawled off the pad - the first stage spent what? half its fuel in the first 1400m?

The shuttle makes a lot better time off the pad because the solid boosters are able to kick soo much thrust out of those ~2m nozzle throats. The solids were actually tailored to scale back thrust - first to keep the mach number down when the atmospheric drag is high, and a second time, to avoid pushing the crew to uncomfortable g forces.

__________________
jwj

It's ok not to know. We should try harder to find out.

A good reason to use a catapult - either a railgun or linear induction motor - as a first stage! Leave the first stage "fuel" on the ground! Use a dedicated field of solar panels to charge up the capacitor banks or batteries and, except for overhead costs, the first stage fuel is free.

__________________
Any day you wake up on "the right side of the dirt" is a good day.

T. Anderson

This railgun stuff is still going to leave you with small payloads. Heavy Lift gives you big shrouds and the like. The jules verne anti-rocket thinking is hobbling us. A shuttle derived HLLV is very like our 100 + flight STS--but without the orbiter.

Imagine if we had launched 100 of the HLLV's 100 ton payloads up there!

That there is your space infrastructure. Saturn V should never have given way to our STS.

Now Energiya--that was another matter. Energiya Vulkan was to take 175-200 tonnes to LEO.