/sci/ - Science & Math

>>15354902
Probably what was actually planned instead of some dumb pop-sci bs.

Continuation of the Saturn program and the development of a more sensible shuttle that didn't have to fill in for heavy lift.

>>12417243

>>12417261
that's a good point. Chemical engines' strong point is thrust, not isp. Sacrificing the former for a mild gain in the latter is kind of defeating the point. Better to use different tech altogether for deep space instead of using a gimped chemical engine.

>>12417176
apparently one of the flights (4th?) could have actually worked if they just staged early.

>>12417382
>pyrotechnic valves
oh, so that's why the engines couldn't be test fired. What a ridiculous design choice

>>12398309
The whole reason the shuttle was introduced was because Saturn was considered too expensive to rely on moving forward. Just because the shuttle also failed to redress that problem doesn't mean it wasn't real. Saturn V for all it's impressive accomplishments is still a very dated rocket. But yes with updates it would at least be more viable than SLS.
Use eight F-1B engines instead of five F-1s with a conical SI similar to the N1, enlarge the SII instead of tapering it, you could use the J2-X now for the 2S or you could be smart and replace the SII with a LOX/CH4 stage running four vacuum Raptor engines, which weigh a ton less than the J2X and put out a meganewton more thrust, the SII's overall size could be reduced slightly without trading off it's delta-V or it could remain the same size and probably have increased delta-V due to increased propellant density. In fact with the small size of the Raptor engine you could probably introduce a further nozzle expansion and push it's ISP close to 400s.
Eliminate the S-IVB (You can just enlarge the SII) and simply pop on an expanded fairing, will probably get 150+ tons to LEO, the engines from both stages can be saved with SMART (because NASA would never be ambitious enough to outright build a reusable rocket, but they might be convinced to save the thrust structures at least).

This does two things, firstly using the F-1B and Raptor which are both designed for rapid manufacture and reduced cost in both money and man hours will substantially impact the overall cost of the vehicle, engines are (by weight) the most expensive component of a rocket. By saving and reusing the engines you further recoup your losses by not having to manufacture as many new engines. Imagine pic related but an even greater resemblance to N1, and two stages rather than four.

>>12200958
>Tfwn huge tiddy Nova Onee-San
JUST scrub my life.

nova when bros

>>8406589

Picture of the Nova rocket next to Saturn V rocket. Some aircraft companies were designing Nova rockets with as many as 24 F-1 boosters (not in this picture).
Don't recall the company but I think it was Convair that designed that particular one. Some of the rocket designs had roots that go back to the Orion Nuclear Pulse Propulsion project from the 1950's. Talk about crazy, but those designs were seriously considered till JFK killed the project.