Nova launch vehicle (post-Saturn)

[T. A. Gardner]

I would say that an argument could be made that lifting less volatile propellants would be an answer to that. That is, just because H2 is a very good weight to energy propellant, doesn't mean using one that's less volatile couldn't be used instead. Storable ones would eliminate the need to do things in one lift.
Adding in a reusable lift vehicle would make this even more doable. So, instead of building a rocket system to lift a few persons to say, Mars, you build the equivalent of the ISS on a larger scale to take more people and materials to Mars doing so over a longer period of assembly.

 

[Byeman]

Disney would have made a fine President. Perhaps Musk could modify VAB if allowed a free hand.No

Disney had issues that would have prevented him from being president

Musk wouldn't touch the VAB.

 

[Byeman]

, You can't really plan on giant spacecraft that need to be tanked up with many individual launches of small LH2 tanks; boiloff in Earth orbit would be horrendous. Once the ship is on the way to Mars, it would be straightforward to orient the ship to keep sunlight heating to a minimum, but while orbiting Earth, orienting towards the sun becomes virtually impossible... and Earth itself is constantly irradiating you with IR. So you need to minimize the time you spend with LH2 in Earth orbit, and that means a minimum number of maximum payload launches.

And THAT'S why the EELV-assembly/depot crock was turned down in favor of SLS...a rocket Boeing does not want to build. The more boil-off, the more Delta IVs they can sell. All these rockets use hydrogen, where Musk uses both HLLVs AND depots with methane-which has less specific impulse..but better handling. I think the M-1 was to burn cooler than Raptor....so if there is any truth to New Armstrong-Bezos could give M-1 and NOVA new life.

Wrong. Totally clueless.
a. Boeing makes more money on SLS than Delta IV. Boeing was against depots.|
b. Musk uses HLLVs because he has an actual used for it. Nobody else has such a need.
c. Bezos is not doing M-1 or Nova.

 

[Byeman]

The real question is, Why would we need this? If two Saturn launches would produce the same result, why build bigger? T

When Nova/Post Saturn were A Thing, landing Apollo on the moon was simply the first step. It was entirely expected that Apollo would be followed not only by larger missions to the moon - bases and such - but also manned missions to Mars and Venus flybys. These required *giant* vehicles with *vast* amounts of liquid hydrogen. That's why most of the payloads you see on Nova/Post-Saturn vehicles tend to be tanks of liquid hydrogen, up to one million pounds. You can't really plan on giant spacecraft that need to be tanked up with many individual launches of small LH2 tanks; boiloff in Earth orbit would be horrendous. Once the ship is on the way to Mars, it would be straightforward to orient the ship to keep sunlight heating to a minimum, but while orbiting Earth, orienting towards the sun becomes virtually impossible... and Earth itself is constantly irradiating you with IR. So you need to minimize the time you spend with LH2 in Earth orbit, and that means a minimum number of maximum payload launches.

Not really. It is very easy to shade something in LEO.

 

[Orionblamblam]

Not really. It is very easy to shade something in LEO.

Incorrect. The Earth fills approximately half your sky in LEO; the Earth is a massive IR radiation source that you need to shade from. And the Sun revolves through the *other* half of the sky. You essentially need to shield your tanks not from a single point source, as would be the case for a spacecraft in solar orbit, but from the *entire* sky.

 

[Byeman]

Not really. It is very easy to shade something in LEO.

Incorrect. The Earth fills approximately half your sky in LEO; the Earth is a massive IR radiation source that you need to shade from. And the Sun revolves through the *other* half of the sky. You essentially need to shield your tanks not from a single point source, as would be the case for a spacecraft in solar orbit, but from the *entire* sky.

Still easy to shade.

 

[Orionblamblam]

Still easy to shade.

Umm... no. Sure, you could put the spacecraft in a bubble of reflective mylar... but that wouldn't solve the problem of keeping the craft from overheating, because internally generated heat would be reflected within. What you need to have is a shield between you and the heat source... and an open view of the dark sky at 3 kelvin so that you can radiate heat away. Look at the Webb telescope: a single (multi-layer) shield between the sensors and the sun, and the rest of it hanging out in the breeze radiating away to darkness, staying cold.

 

[publiusr]

They seemed to think ACES would help them..but I also seem to remember about SLS launching a depot early on a decade or two back at NSF.

Av Week had it that you needed 16 D-IVs to go to the moon as I recall. I put the quote in the NSF forum before I was censored.

Boeing wanted boil off by the looks of things. The more boil off…the more launches. That model was threatened by SD HLLV that became SLS.

“Let’s drag our feet, slow walk it and kill it from within.” It should not have to cost that much. But I digress.

Also, hydrogen likes to attack metal…make it brittle. You want to make your rocket as big as you can and handle liquids as little as possible. Exchange liquids for inertia and dare that to leak out.

That’s the push behind NOVA and HLLVs in general.

 

[Dilandu]

The real question is, Why would we need this? If two Saturn launches would produce the same result, why build bigger? That is, we launch two rockets each with 50% of the mission load and then combine those in orbit, and we get the same result, then what is the advantage of building one much larger rocket to boost everything up at once?

Because if first launch is successful, and the second isn't, the initial payload would be forced to stay on orbit until reserve rocket with reserve second payload would be prepared. It set a rather... great demands on the ability of initial payload to function reliably. Essentially you are forced to put an ability to stay functional after months on orbit into spacecraft, that supposed to work only a few days.

 

[Byeman]

Still easy to shade.

Umm... no. Sure, you could put the spacecraft in a bubble of reflective mylar... but that wouldn't solve the problem of keeping the craft from overheating, because internally generated heat would be reflected within. What you need to have is a shield between you and the heat source... and an open view of the dark sky at 3 kelvin so that you can radiate heat away. Look at the Webb telescope: a single (multi-layer) shield between the sensors and the sun, and the rest of it hanging out in the breeze radiating away to darkness, staying cold.

Umm, yes. Sunshields and radiators could do it. Not a hard problem. What little boil off remains is used for RCS and orbital maintenance.

 

[Byeman]

They seemed to think ACES would help them..but I also seem to remember about SLS launching a depot early on a decade or two back at NSF.

Av Week had it that you needed 16 D-IVs to go to the moon as I recall. I put the quote in the NSF forum before I was censored.

Boeing wanted boil off by the looks of things. The more boil off…the more launches. That model was threatened by SD HLLV that became SLS.

“Let’s drag our feet, slow walk it and kill it from within.” It should not have to cost that much. But I digress.

Stop with the BS and misinformation. Your biased view of the world make you see things that don't exist. "Boeing wanting boil off buy looks of things..." Same types of things are said by crazies that come up with chemtrails, 5G radiation, and all sorts of other conspiracies.

Also, hydrogen likes to attack metal…make it brittle. You want to make your rocket as big as you can and handle liquids as little as possible. Exchange liquids for inertia and dare that to leak out.

That’s the push behind NOVA and HLLVs in general

Nonsense. Just shows you will post untruths to try to serve your point.

How the heck do you thing liquid hydrogen is stored on earth? The ones on the space center have been doing it for decades?

Nowhere is it documented that " make your rocket as big as you can and handle liquids as little as possible." Just uneducated/uninformed opinion.

Musk's Starship, which is a HLLV, bigger thqn the Saturn V will depend on depots for the bulk of its flights past LEO.
That doesn't fit into your core beliefs.

 

[Orionblamblam]

Still easy to shade.

Umm... no. Sure, you could put the spacecraft in a bubble of reflective mylar... but that wouldn't solve the problem of keeping the craft from overheating, because internally generated heat would be reflected within. What you need to have is a shield between you and the heat source... and an open view of the dark sky at 3 kelvin so that you can radiate heat away. Look at the Webb telescope: a single (multi-layer) shield between the sensors and the sun, and the rest of it hanging out in the breeze radiating away to darkness, staying cold.

Umm, yes. Sunshields and radiators could do it. Not a hard problem. What little boil off remains is used for RCS and orbital maintenance.

In low Earth orbit? No, it's not so easy. Maybe GEO, but right next to Earth? Maintaining LH2 temperatures with an IR emitter that fills half the sky at all times and the sun zipping about you most of the rest of the time is a non-trivial task. The ISS has quite large mobile radiators and its goal is *nowhere* near as difficult as a tank farms would be.

 

[Byeman]

In low Earth orbit? No, it's not so easy. Maybe GEO, but right next to Earth? Maintaining LH2 temperatures with an IR emitter that fills half the sky at all times and the sun zipping about you most of the rest of the time is a non-trivial task. The ISS has quite large mobile radiators and its goal is *nowhere* near as difficult as a tank farms would be.

Yeah, it is easy, it is helium cooled telescopes have lasted in LEO for 10-15 months without active cooling. Cryogenic coolers are common place. HST had one.

A simple sunshield would just be a tube with the open ends towards the celestial poles. The open ends don't see the sun or earth and radiators could face out one end.

 

[Orionblamblam]

Yeah, it is easy, it is helium cooled telescopes have lasted in LEO for 10-15 months without active cooling. Cryogenic coolers are common place. HST had one.

So different in terms of scale to a million pounds of LH2 as to be an irrelevant comparison.

A simple sunshield would just be a tube with the open ends towards the celestial poles. The open ends don't see the sun or earth and radiators could face out one end.

An interesting idea. You have math for that?

 

[Dilandu]

Yeah, it is easy, it is helium cooled telescopes have lasted in LEO for 10-15 months without active cooling. Cryogenic coolers are common place. HST had one.

It's not exactly easy. In case of telescopes you need only to cool down a relatively small sensor block. And as far as I know, the cooling is non-regenerative; they vent boiled helium into space. So they have a limited supply of helium onboard, that they just spend very slowly.

Such method is not useful for large orbital tank storage. To cool hundreds of tons of liquid hydrogen for prolonged time, an enormous tank of liquid helium would be required.

 

[Byeman]

Yeah, it is easy, it is helium cooled telescopes have lasted in LEO for 10-15 months without active cooling. Cryogenic coolers are common place. HST had one.

So different in terms of scale to a million pounds of LH2 as to be an irrelevant comparison.

Who said million gallons?

 

[publiusr]

This is the NOVA thread, so many gallons are assumed.

 

[Byeman]

This is the NOVA thread, so many gallons are assumed.

Bad assumption. A million gallons is even outside of Nova's capability. The volume would be twice the size of the S-IC stage.

 

[Jcking]

This is the NOVA thread, so many gallons are assumed.

Bad assumption. A million gallons is even outside of Nova's capability. The volume would be twice the size of the S-IC stage.

An representative payload fairing for a post Saturn Nova: Martin T10RR-4B (18 M-1s in plug nozzle first stage, 16 M-1s in plug nozzle second stage, both stages recoverable) features a 70x166 foot fairing with a 15 degree cone that starts about half way up and terminating in a rounded cap.

 

[Orionblamblam]

This is the NOVA thread, so many gallons are assumed.

Bad assumption. A million gallons is even outside of Nova's capability. The volume would be twice the size of the S-IC stage.

Liquid hydrogen is about .6 pounds per gallon. Payloads of a million pounds of LH2 were contemplated for some Nova designs, so you're looking at almost 2 million gallons. NEXUS could get up to 2 million pounds of payload, so you'd be looking at circa 3.3 million gallons. Super-NEXUS could send a million pounds of LH2 to the moon.

 

[Archibald]

HGMBFR: Hyper-Giga-Mega-Big-F*cking-Rocket

 

[publiusr]

I think you could get away with even larger designs than Super Nexus.

 

[Orionblamblam]

I think you could get away with even larger designs than Super Nexus.

But there'd be no point in doing so, not until a decade or more into a full space industrialization effort.

 

[Michel Van]

I found nice Reference Mission that use Nova Class booster

Study of Conjunction Class Manned Mars Trips, Douglas Aircraft Company,
SM-48661, Summary; SM-48662, Technical Details, Parts I & II, June 1965.

Their plan was to launch in 1980s six manned mars mission.
Mars Orbit Module and Mars Excursion Module launch together on a Nova Booster (with 80 foot diameter)
follow by Earth Departure Step on second Nova booster
Both rendezvous in orbit and Dock.
EDS launch the MoM/MeM to Mars were they aerodynamic-braking manoeuvre into Mars orbit.

Do Mars orbit around the Sun, somme mission will be either conjunction (1000 day) or Opposition with 600 day mission days.
To this the mass of EDS and MoM/MeM will change at each mission, since they stay chemical, they use Hydrogen / fluorine !!!

 

[Coiler]

The Dr. Strangelove fan in me wants to know how many giant MIRVs you could stick inside an ICBMified Nova. Yes, the rocket is impractical for such a use, yes, it's putting too many eggs in one basket, but still. Just an oversimplified napkin calc gives you 10-11 Tsar Bombas...

 

[publiusr]

To me, industrialization starts with monster rockets like this lobbing turn-key filament factories and such. Demonstrate products manufactured in a big way.

 

[Orionblamblam]

To me, industrialization starts with monster rockets like this lobbing turn-key filament factories and such. Demonstrate products manufactured in a big way.

Not a good plan. What is the market for space manufactured "filaments?" And how can it possibly make sense to begin studies with a factory a thousand times more massive than a basic demonstrator?

 

[publiusr]

That’s what ISS should have been doing all this time..NOVA coming next…

 

[Byeman]

That’s what ISS should have been doing all this time..NOVA coming next…

ISS is doing basic science

 

[Michel Van]

Already in 1960s they study reuse the Novas Booster

General Dynamics (Convair) look into it
Next Convair Nexus were other configuration study

like General Dynamics Nova Category B/F/J
Were first stage make ballistic landing with parachute and recover from Atlantic

General Dynamics Category H is analog to Atlas/helios concept
Here the propulsion section with 4 engines ballistic landing with parachute

General Dynamics Category E use four 325 inch ø solid motors as first stage.
the four are recover like Shuttle SRB

Source:
They Might be... GIANTS
A history of Project NOVA 1959-1964
by Keith J. Scala and Glen E. Swanson.

 

[Deleted member 4286]

When Nova/Post Saturn were A Thing, landing Apollo on the moon was simply the first step. It was entirely expected that Apollo would be followed not only by larger missions to the moon - bases and such - but also manned missions to Mars and Venus flybys. These required *giant* vehicles with *vast* amounts of liquid hydrogen. That's why most of the payloads you see on Nova/Post-Saturn vehicles tend to be tanks of liquid hydrogen, up to one million pounds. You can't really plan on giant spacecraft that need to be tanked up with many individual launches of small LH2 tanks; boiloff in Earth orbit would be horrendous. Once the ship is on the way to Mars, it would be straightforward to orient the ship to keep sunlight heating to a minimum, but while orbiting Earth, orienting towards the sun becomes virtually impossible... and Earth itself is constantly irradiating you with IR. So you need to minimize the time you spend with LH2 in Earth orbit, and that means a minimum number of maximum payload launches.

The 1963 views on post Apollo missions

 

[Deleted member 4286]

The 1963 views on post Apollo missionsView attachment 720879View attachment 720880

And consequences on launchers needs:

 

[publiusr]

Sea Dragon not considered feasible? Truax must have flipped with that one (quote just above)

 

[Byeman]

Sea Dragon not considered feasible? Truax must have flipped with that one (quote just above)

It wasn't

 

[Michel Van]

View: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=0lzICxprMfI

 

[Rhinocrates]

It wasn't

Do you know why not, specifically?

A few issues come to mind:

Sea Dragon is 175m long, before launch, let's say it's base is 100m below sea level. Pressure there is 10 bar, versus 1 bar at surface. Can it be both light and withstand pressure at that depth, can it survive the rapid change from 10 to 1 bar in seconds without structural deformation?

Water conducts heat very well, so how to keep the cryogenic fuel liquid and conversely, since plenty of ice forms on the surface of a rocket standing in air, how do you stop the Sea Dragon turning into an iceberg? Also, water that penetrates any hole will freeze and expand. Frost can crack boulders after all.

Everything I haven't thought of - literally. Launching rockets is immensely complicated. The methods of launching from under water are very different from launching from land (sub-launched ICBMs are not a close analogue, being much smaller and solid-fuelled). There's very little overlap of methods or precedents, meaning many new methods would have to be learned and the associated hardware developed and tested. This would take a lot of time and money.

These aren't necessarily show-stoppers, but I can see them making Sea Dragon more trouble than it's worth to develop.

 

[Byeman]

Do you know why not, specifically?

A few issues come to mind:

Sea Dragon is 175m long, before launch, let's say it's base is 100m below sea level. Pressure there is 10 bar, versus 1 bar at surface. Can it be both light and withstand pressure at that depth, can it survive the rapid change from 10 to 1 bar in seconds without structural deformation?

Water conducts heat very well, so how to keep the cryogenic fuel liquid and conversely, since plenty of ice forms on the surface of a rocket standing in air, how do you stop the Sea Dragon turning into an iceberg? Also, water that penetrates any hole will freeze and expand. Frost can crack boulders after all.

Everything I haven't thought of - literally. Launching rockets is immensely complicated. The methods of launching from under water are very different from launching from land (sub-launched ICBMs are not a close analogue, being much smaller and solid-fuelled). There's very little overlap of methods or precedents, meaning many new methods would have to be learned and the associated hardware developed and tested. This would take a lot of time and money.

These aren't necessarily show-stoppers, but I can see them making Sea Dragon more trouble than it's worth to develop.

pressure fed. The amount of pressurant required.
Keeping water out of the wrong places in the base of the first stage. ]
The stage isn't going to be light because the tanks have to have higher pressure than the engines.

 

[publiusr]

View: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=0lzICxprMfI

Wade cut away a bit of the “collar” here:

Nova MM R10R-2

Nova MM R10R-2

www.astronautix.com

Named after the RENE concept I take it?

https://ntrs.nasa.gov/api/citations/19990062726/downloads/19990062726.pdf

 

[Rhinocrates]

pressure fed. The amount of pressurant required.
Keeping water out of the wrong places in the base of the first stage. ]
The stage isn't going to be light because the tanks have to have higher pressure than the engines.

Thanks, though I'm (hypothetically) worried about water getting into spaces other than the pressurised tanks, freezing, and then rupturing or tearing something important. One thing I learned training as an architect (and living in older houses) was that water gets in wherever it can, and it can travel a long way through a structure. A hundred metres is about the test depth of many WWII submarines. Is it worth trying to make a spacecraft that should be as light as possible watertight at ten bar versus finding another way to launch the same payload from land - including multiple launches?

 

[Deleted member 4286]

View: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=0lzICxprMfI

June 1963