Conference 7.286::space

>    Obviously, no
>    existing US booster can launch a payload of this size

Maybe we could contract with the Russians to launch it since they seem to
have better payload capability than we do? :-)

    I must be missing something here, why don't we just begin to
    re-manufacture our Saturn class boosters ?  There might be some
    really good reasons, such as:
    
    	1) It's not as impressive as a new booster.
        2) It's not as profitable as a new booster.
    	3) It's too embarrasing to use 1960's technology ?
    	4) Have we lost the recipe ?
    
    Just sign me frustrated.
                       

    The article mentioned that reactivating Saturn V production was
    examined but was too costly.
    
    The proposed clusters use existing production hardware in various
    combinations that can be built with existing tooling. Apart from the
    use of shuttle SRBs on one, the hardware is about the same vintage as
    the Saturn, btw. 
    
    The question that came into my mind is that if these can be built
    in the near future, why wasn't something similar proposed for the
    heavy Shuttle/Centaur G-Prime payloads?
    
    gary

    this note seems to me to generate the question. "can you build
    a booster in the same class as the saturn v with strapon boosters?"
   when i say same class i mean the aproximate same payload into orbit.
    pete

    Not so much strapon as bolt together (strapon usually applies to
    using relatively smaller boosters to augment thrust at lift off
    and during the early vertical phase of flight, e.g. Delta), but,
    yes it is possible to build large boosters this way.
    
    The original S-I stage (the first stage of the Saturn I) was built
    in a similar manner.
    
    gary

    Aside from the title, this seemed to be the most appropriate place to
    post this . . .

    The September 1989 issue of Ad Astra (the National Space Society
    monthly) has a short item about the Shuttle-Z, a Shuttle-based unmanned
    booster with a wide-body cargo carrier and three or four SSMEs, plus
    the conventional SRB/fuel tank stack.  Buried in the article is a
    reference to a truly (wicked) massive booster which would be used to
    place a *complete* 1.5 million lb. manned Mars craft into LEO.  This
    vehicle, called "Super Magnum", would be powered by twelve advanced
    solid rocket motors and sixteen (count 'em) SSMEs.  The resultant stack
    would be 425 feet tall!  Launch thrust would be 42 million pounds.

    I think the only other boosters proposed in the last 15 years which
    come close to this puppy with respect to launch capacity and liftoff
    thrust were the very large cargo carriers studied by Grumman and Boeing
    in the 1970s to support construction of solar power satellites.  Note
    that those vehicles were water-launched, as it was assumed that
    construction of a launch complex that could withstand the blast effects
    from such a booster would be almost as much of an engineering feat as
    the booster itself.

    While quite an engineering statement, it's also a great way of putting
    all your eggs in one basket.  What if something went wrong?  Oops.
    
John

    Re: .last
    
    Agreed.  And, even if things go as planned, wouldn't you like to have
    a monopoly on plate glass in Central Florida, right around T-0?  :-)

    Note that Shuttle-Z is really only a proposal. There haven't been any
    real studies to see if it is feasible (yet?). The idea looks a bit
    offbase to me.
    
    In its current proposed form it is a Shuttle-C minus the payload
    section, i.e. 2 ASRMs, ET and 3 SSMEs on the 'orbiter' boattail. In
    place of the cargo section would be the new very wide section housing a
    transfer stage powered by 3 or 4 SSMEs using it's own propellant tanks.
    
    Spaceflight had a lengthy article by one of the NASA people who
    proposed Shuttle-Z. If you're interested, I can make a copy for you.
    
    gary

    Re: last
    
    Gary, I'd be most interested in a copy of the article.
    
    George Allegrezza
    VRO5-2/C9
    
    Much appreciated.
    
    George