Re: Moonlab - could the SIVB be used to put a Skylab on the Moon?

On May 6, 3:13 am, Damon Hill <damon1S...@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
Willie.Moo...@xxxxxxxxx wrote in news:1178426573.495519.147470
@u30g2000hsc.googlegroups.com:

Skylab was an SIVB outfitted with upgrades inside the propellant
tanks. The propellant tanks themselves were used during the launch
and then vented in a manner similar to vonBraun's ideas regarding
Project Horizon.

Skylab was launched "dry"; no propellants, no J-2. A "wet"
S-IVB on a Saturn 1-B was proposed, but soaking station
equipment in LH2 was a Problem.

--Damon

Absolutely, the Skylab was launched dry on 14 May 1973 by a Saturn
INT-21 (a two-stage version of the Saturn V launch vehicle) into a 235
nautical mile orbit. The launch is sometimes referred to as Skylab 1,
or SL-1.

On 8 August 1969, McDonnell Douglas received a contract for the
conversion of two existing S-IVB stages to the Orbital Workshop
configuration. One of the S-IV test stages was shipped to McDonnell
for the construction of a mockup in January 1970

Skylab was actually the refitted S-IVB second stage of a Saturn IB
booster (from the AS-212 vehicle), a leftover from the Apollo program
originally intended for one of the canceled Apollo Earth orbital
missions. A product of the Apollo Applications Program (a program
tasked with finding long-term uses for Apollo program hardware),
Skylab was originally planned as a minimally-altered S-IVB to be
launched on a Saturn IB. The small size of the IB would have required
Skylab to double as a rocket stage during launch, only being
retrofitted as a space station once on-orbit. With the cancellation of
Apollo missions 18-20 a Saturn V was made available and thus the "wet
workshop" concept, as it was called, was put aside and Skylab was
launched dry and fully outfitted. Skylab's grid flooring system was a
highly visible legacy of the wet workshop concept.

Any documentation on the problem and how it might have been resolved
had someone wanted to do it? No doubt there are problems to
resolve. There are problems when you want to do anything. But you
say it like it was a show-stopper. If there were any unresolved
problems they were due entirely to a change of approach. So, don't
come off like it was a show-stopper! Or that this isn't a really
efficient approach in getting large habitable volumes on orbit that
cannot be used for unnamed technical reasons.

I mean the intertank bulkhead between the LOX and LH on the S-II was a
problem too, but was easily solved and the S-Ii flew without mishap
after the go ahead was given to solve it. Same here.

Clearly reuse of tankage for habitation volume was proposed by
vonBraun in his Horizon study done for the Defense Department after
the war. Its a relatively inexpensive way to get more bang for the
R&D buck. Its a wonder NASA and the aerospace community haven't used
it more. vonBraun also proposed using an empty S-II with a S-IVB

Fact is far less money spent on this approach and outfitting an SIVB
with RL1- engine clusters puts a base on the moon post 1970 at far
less cost than ISS today.

Engineers could have also cut the costs on the Saturn V had that been
given the go ahead, and it would have cost far less and given far
greater returns than the Shuttle.

And an ALL hydrogen S-II with a single NERVA engine - that separated
into 2 components, one habitable - lofted atop an uprated Saturn -
especially in stages that are configured for re-entry and recovery -
building on the reusable Saturn program, skylab and moonlab programs -
would have provided a an interplanetary core vehicle that would allow
expeditions to all the inner planets and with a nuclear electrici
upgrade - across the solar system.

A more capable manned presence in space could have been had for about
the same money NASA has spent in the past 40 years on flying the
shuttle to near Earth.

This isn't to say that the Shutle era technology is useless. I've
proposed, and I am working on an shuttle-ET based common core
booster. This ET based airframe vehicle is propelled by an annular
aerospike engine at its base fed by three RS-68 pump sets and controls
burning LH/LOX - and the entire things is fully recoverable - with
landing gear and VTOVL profile. The intertank space adapter is
stretched and a payload frame is inserted there. A 30 ton payload
module rides in this frame. Up to 27 tons may be orbited by the SSTO
vehicle. The initial version is planned to be unmanned, later
versions will sport a piloted section - the module is equipped with
its own ACS, TPS and parachute recover and ejection rocket for
recovery in an emergency during launch or on orbit or during re-entry.

This vehicle will double as a skylab type space station module. Here
the 30 ton payload module is left empty and up to 30 tons of internal
upgrades are made to the interior of the tanks. A payload module is
attached to an intertank adapter orbited by another ET based booster.
Up to four payload modules may be attached at the intertank level.
The modules may be picked up by arriving boosters and swapped for new
ones, or double as an escape pod in an emergency.

The 12 ton RS-68 based aerospike engine may be undocked from this
setup and returned to Earth. If necessary a spare aerospike engine
may be carried in the intertank region to orbit, and reattached to the
station if it needed to be returned to Earth for any reason.

Two ET-derived elements are attached as outboard tanks to a central ET
element to increase payload to orbit to 70 tons. The outer ETs are
equipped with cross-feeding that allow the central element to fire
during launch fed by the two outer tanks. Thus the two outer tanks
become a first stage booster

A cluster of seven ET derive elements may also be launched if four
additional elements are added to the three just described. With
appropriate cross-feeding this creates a 3-stage launcher capable of
putting up 500 tons into LEO - this gives a NEARLY fully loaded ET on
orbit.

Thus, the skylab concept can be extended here to provide a rather
large base on the moon, or Mars.

A pair of these vehicles can tied together with tethers similar to
Gemini 11 - and spun to produce artificial gravity during transit to
mars. this also provides a lifeboat function for the crew - with two
habitable vehicles.

A far smaller nuclear reactor is envisioned for these vehicles. A
small 5 MW reactor similar to some of the smaller submarine reactors
is envisioned for this setup. It provides adequate power for a moon
base or mars base or long duration voyage or a space station. It also
provides adequate power for processing Mars atmosphere.

Actually with this setup, its easier to fly to mars and back than the
moon and back, because at Mars you've got aerobraking and a known
water and CO2 source.

Unlike the NERVA driven S-II based system describe above, this ET/sub
reactor based system pair would make use of the oxygen as well as the
hydrogen in the water. And this would call for the reflooding of a
portion of the habitable volumes with propellant, which would pose
some new problems that would have to be resolved.
.
The ET is so large, and the exploration crews small, so, one might
consider two sorts of ships. A one way ship that converted to a
marslab. And a two way ship that had no more than the intertank space
- which could still be quite comfortable for returning crews.
Outbound crews of course would likely make use of any marslabs they
took with them during transit.



.

Relevant Pages

  • Re: Moonlab - could the SIVB be used to put a Skylab on the Moon?
    ... S-IVB on a Saturn 1-B was proposed, but soaking station ... her with cargo carried atop the Saturn 1B that launched her? ... Is that cheaper than one Saturn V launch? ... booster (from the AS-212 vehicle), a leftover from the Apollo program ...
    (sci.space.policy)
  • Re: Back to the Moon
    ... Finally today was the official roll out of the plan. ... First flight of the Crew Launch Vehicle should be in 2012. ... The option of resurrecting the Saturn V is not really a viable option. ...
    (misc.writing)
  • Re: Back to the Moon
    ... >>>First flight of the Crew Launch Vehicle should be in 2012. ... >pathway towards missions beyond short-term lunar sorties. ... >lunar missions is a monster heavy-lift vehicle on par with the Saturn V. ...
    (misc.writing)
  • Re: Back to the Moon
    ... >>First flight of the Crew Launch Vehicle should be in 2012. ... construction of a lunar base or for the pursuit of a Mars mission. ... lunar missions is a monster heavy-lift vehicle on par with the Saturn V. ...
    (misc.writing)
  • Re: Global wireless hotspot
    ... Saturn V rocket. ... another term as our President, and Humphrey lost out to Nixon in the ... astronauts would live in,and one Saturn V would launch propellant.top ... the Moon rocket that carried Apollo astronauts ...
    (sci.space.policy)
Loading