Here's an interesting Bellcomm study from 1969 on the possibility of producing a low-cost S-IVB stage for use on an "Intermediate Launch Vehicle" to be used for launching Air Force and NASA payloads in the 1970's.

The Air Force, in usual form, was proposing their own vehicle, using new 156 inch solid rocket boosters and an all-new 15 foot diameter Titan-based core vehicle, using a storable propellant first stage, and an all-new 15 foot diameter LH2 powered second stage using a J-2 engine... only 15% smaller than the S-IVB itself, but a completely new from scratch stage... (about as stupid as it gets-- dump something you already have that works great and is completely manrated, for something that's an all new development project from square one.) Alternatively, the Air Force proposed developing a new solid rocket motor cluster first stage comprised of FOUR of the new 156 inch SRM's strapped together to make a first stage, with the new LH2 upper stage atop it.

NASA plans included the 260 inch large monolithic SRM being developed by Aerojet General (which was test fired upside down in a silo constructed in southern Florida in a subscale test) and also several iterations of the "Interim Launch Vehicle" (ILV) proposals using Saturn derivative vehicles like INT-20, which would have paired a Saturn V S-IC stage first stage with fewer F-1 engines (depending on the version) and an S-IVB second stage, among others.

The study centers on the fact that the S-IVB second stage, which was designed and built with dry mass being the critical design criteria, along with restart capability, for the lunar mission, was coming in at about TWICE the cost of any of the other proposed first stages under consideration, INCLUDING S-IC. McDonnell Douglas, the contractor in charge of S-IVB development and construction, had made a series of proposals to enable a lower-cost S-IVB, including more automated and simplified production, and not test-firing the individual stages before flight. Using various approaches to cutting costs, it was felt that using the existing Saturn-derived technologies to build simplified and cheaper versions of the S-IVB could result in an ILV rocket with a cost of about $200 per pound to 100 nautical mile low Earth orbit (LEO). This was roughly commensurate with the best overly-optimistic (as cited in the report) cost projections from the Air Force for their new proposed launcher, using already existing and manrated stages and equipment.

It's a fascinating look into what "might have been". Unfortunately, the powers that be chose to dump virtually all the existing Saturn development work and infrastructure and start from scratch with the Space Shuttle, and ended up in bed with the Air Force to win approval and badly needed funding for the shuttle program, and hopelessly compromised the design to meet Air Force "requirements" that never materialized anyway, resulting in a fundamentally flawed vehicle incapable of meeting the original goals planned for it.

Enjoy! OL JR

Attached Files

Low Cost SIVB Study Summary.txt (11.6 KB, 17 views)

__________________
The X-87B Cruise Basselope-- THE Ultimate Weapon in the arsenal of Homeland Security and only $52 million per round!

First, Table 1, USAF vehicle data...

Second, Table 2- Saturn derivative launch vehicles...

Third, estimated low-cost guidance system for S-IVB based vehicles-- a study done by MSFC and MDA to replace the separate Instrument Unit (IU) ring containing the guidance system for the Saturn V and Saturn IB atop the S-IVB stage, with a simpler "plug-n-play" type system installed on the stage itself as a "kit" or "module" rather than as a separate vehicle element, therefore saving considerable money. MDA was confident that a system could be developed or adapted to the purpose that would reduce the cost to approximately $1 million per flight...

Appendix 1, Standard Launch Vehicle Cost study...

Tables 1 and 2, displaying various unit costs for vehicles based on varying assumptions of various flight rates or buy rates (in the case of constructing a set number of stages or components and storing them for later use, as was done with Saturn V and Saturn IB, versus "build them as you fly them"...)

More to come... OL JR

Attached Thumbnails

         

__________________
The X-87B Cruise Basselope-- THE Ultimate Weapon in the arsenal of Homeland Security and only $52 million per round!

Low Cost SLV ground rules (guiding the study)...

Continuation of the previous ground rules...

Appendix B- Discussions with MDA and others on low cost S-IVB...

Next page of Appendix B...

Finally, last page of Appendix B...

Later! OL JR

Attached Thumbnails

         

__________________
The X-87B Cruise Basselope-- THE Ultimate Weapon in the arsenal of Homeland Security and only $52 million per round!

Would one 156 inch solid booster and the 15 foot LH2 stage have been enough to put a CSM into LEO? Sort of like an old incarnation of "the Stick?"


Bill

__________________
It is well past time to Drill, Baby, Drill!

If your June, July, August and September was like this, you might just hate summer too...

Please unload your question before you ask it unless you have a concealed harry permit.

: countdown begin cr dup . 1- ?dup 0= until cr ." Launch!" cr ;

Give a man a rocket and he will fly for a day; teach him to build and he will spend the rest of his days sanding...

I seriously doubt it...

Even "the stick" wasn't capable of putting an Orion in LEO, and that was after multiple weight scrubs...

The Orion was going to have to do a SIX MINUTE OMS burn to put itself into orbit after the burnout of the stick's second stage.

IMHO, these solid first stage liquid second stage vehicles are just kludges... you need either 1) a cluster of extremely heavy SRMs for a first stage, or 2) an extremely massive and difficult to build, move, and launch large monolithic SRM like the Aerojet 260 incher to make such a vehicle work.

There's been numerous proposals for shuttle successors and HLV's to operate adjunct to shuttle even long before shuttle was cancelled. None were viable simple due to the weight-- the shuttle infrastructure at KSC (which is recycled Saturn infrastructure) is simply maxed out TWO large SRB's, period. The five segments pretty much max everything out. When Ares V was talking about going to dual 5.5 segment boosters, or even 6 segment boosters, in a vain effort to gain performance to make up for Ares I inadequacies, it was pretty much found to be a non-starter. SO, unless you're going to change your whole paradigm and go back to a "stack 'em on the pad" method (as the Saturn V proposals using four large SRB's were going to do) then more than 2 large SRM's on the MLP at one time is going to overload the VAB floor, crawler, MLP, crawlerways, and pad.

The single big monolithic SRM (the Aerojet 260 inch) was found problematical, on numerous technical issues. A segmented motor that size would be even more problematical. That's why the thing had the plug pulled on it.

IMHO, if you want a simple, straightforward LV, just clone the Titan II-- make it bigger-- say around a common first stage and second stage tank diameter, large enough to support large cargo and crew vehicle launches. Power the first stage on kerosene and LOX, as its a dense propellant combination with good ISP, much better than solids. Use either a single large kerolox engine or pair of large kerolox engines sufficient to the job in hand and with room to grow if needed. Power the upper stage with hydrogen and use a single engine sufficient for the job with some room to grow. If done right, such a vehicle could even be designed so as to be able to take another pair of first stages flanking the core first stage, as strap-on liquid rocket boosters, like the Delta IV heavy. That would give you either three or six (depending on your engine choice) large, efficient first stage engines for lofting large, massive payloads. It also makes it possible to build a larger version of the second stage, powered by multiple engines, using a tank stretch of the existing tankage, beefed up for the additional loads, to act as a large second stage in a three-stage configuration, if needed.

For crew launch, you have two liquid stages with two or three engines... about as simple as it gets from a safety point of view. You don't have the problems of either having to escape from a burning solid that cannot be shut down, or blowing it up behind you to keep it from chasing you down in an abort. (which was a BIG problem in Ares I which the Air Force said couldn't be satisfactorily solved, and since they're in charge of range safety at KSC/ETR, this was going to be a BIG problem for operations). One staging event and one upper stage ignition. At some point in flight you have one-engine out most likely near the end of the first stage burn, anyway. If abort is necessary, the vehicle shuts down by command and the capsule jettisons off...

More specifically, could a 156 inch solid and say this notional AF 15 foot LH2 stage loft an Apollo CSM to orbit?? Remember that the only way the Saturn IB could loft an Apollo CSM was by short fueling it, leaving half the propellant for the SPS engine in the service module on the ground. Saturn IB couldn't lift a lunar capable Apollo, period. The stick was a 146 inch SRB/SRM, stretched to 5 segments (and later to 5.5 segments in an attempt to increase the stage's propulsive capability-- but the problem was not one of thrust but of duration, and the only way to really increase the burn duration of a core-burning solid rocket motor is to increase the diameter of the solid motor, not the length. This would require all-new casings, thus an all-new motor design, contrary to the "plans" to reuse the shuttle booster casing hardware. Thus it was a non-starter. the 156 inch solid is only 10 inches bigger, so yeah, it would likely burn a LITTLE longer (matter of seconds) but would that make much difference in the performance over Ares I?? Doubtful.

The upper stage of "the stick" was to use an 5.5 meter upper stage design (18 feet and some change, about 216 inches IIRC from memory). Originally the Orion was to be 5.5 meters in diameter as well, which is why this stage was chosen to be that diameter. Basically before the ink was dry on the plans for the VSE, it was found that a monstrous 5.5 meter capsule was simply going to be TOO HEAVY for the stick to ever lift, (which incidentally is why it was chosen in the first place... it was "too big" to launch on the existing EELV's as the "spiral development" plan in place for the VSE under O'keefe wanted to do... Mike Griffin replaced O'keefe and with him replaced the "spiral development" of EELV for crew launch with the "shuttle derived" Ares I and V). The original plan was to use the J-2S engine, which had basically been finished prior to the end of Apollo but was never used. Upon closer analysis, however, it was found that basically J-2S didn't have sufficient thrust due to the early staging of Ares I, due to the relatively short burn duration of the SRM first stage, and the weight of the Orion, which required a massive second stage to house sufficient propellant to boost the vehicle as close as possible to orbit. The stage had grown due to the inadequacies of the first stage, and the Orion was still basically "too big", or at least "too heavy", and this was AFTER basically everything was stripped out of it that possibly could be, including land-landing capability, reusability, and any provision for things like toilets or other accoutrements that would make the capsule habitable for more than a day or two at a time. SO, J-2S was re-engineered, basically from the ground up, into J-2X, increasing the thrust at the expense of specific impulse, meaning it was a fuel hog, limiting its usefulness as an in-space propulsion engine, where ISP is absolutely king and thrust is relatively unimportant. This basically turned it into a 'second stage only" engine, and a heavy one at that. Anyway, what this means is, this same problem would have faced a similar "stick" vehicle using the 156 inch SRM and a notional 15 foot diameter J-2 powered upper stage-- at least when it comes to lofting heavy payloads like a CSM.

Now, an Apollo CSM isn't an Orion-- it was 156 inches in diameter (13.5 feet IIRC) versus the 18.3 foot diameter of the Orion, and the SM for Orion never was much more than notional from what I've seen. (Remember the current SM for Orion has been "farmed out" to the Europeans, adapting their ATV designs of its propulsion system for the task, at least for the first two... after that, who knows... how they figure on doing anything BEO with that SM I dunno... it's all so d@mn vague...) So the issues might have been more 'surmountable' than the issues with Ares I would indicate...

The real question was, "would it be worth it?" Why go to all the trouble to design a TOTALLY NEW LV to do what the ALREADY EXISTING Saturn IB could do, or a near-term ILV could do with tons of capability to spare for less cost?? The answer is clearly "no".

Later! OL JR

__________________
The X-87B Cruise Basselope-- THE Ultimate Weapon in the arsenal of Homeland Security and only $52 million per round!

Some more pics relating to the original topic...

Enjoy! OL JR

Attached Thumbnails

         

__________________
The X-87B Cruise Basselope-- THE Ultimate Weapon in the arsenal of Homeland Security and only $52 million per round!

And some more... OL JR

Attached Thumbnails

         

__________________
The X-87B Cruise Basselope-- THE Ultimate Weapon in the arsenal of Homeland Security and only $52 million per round!