The Nova rocket, AKA the other lunar rocket

[Spaceception]

Hot diggity!! I haven't made a forum post here in so long it's almost scary!

The Nova rocket is personally my favorite rocket concept of all time, it was the original concept for a Moon rocket, which would've done a direct assent Lunar transfer, it also would've have a thrust of almost 12,000,000 lbs!!! For comparison, the Block II SLS would have a measly 9,200,000 lbs thrust   Unfortunately, pressure to beat the soviets to the Moon by 1970, and the size of it, made it hard to pass, and by 1964 it was completely cancelled in favor of the smaller Saturn V.

However, it's bigger brother would've made Mars exploration a real possibility in the late 1970s, and early 1980s, and it's thrust would've been almost 14,000,000 lbs. I mean, the POWER of it!

MOAR resources

http://news.discovery.com/space/history-of-space/nasas-biggest-rocket-120624.htm

Here's a pdf: https://www.flightglobal.com/FlightPDFArchive/1959/1959%20-%202676.PDF

A pic:

And a video

 

Edited March 10, 2016 by Spaceception

[Bill Phil]

I think it just wasn't possible to build. Yeah there were technical hurdles, but I think Michoud couldn't build the Nova stages.

If they had built it, it would be pretty cool. But I do prefer the Orion...

[PB666]

1 hour ago, Spaceception said:

Hot diggity!! I haven't made a forum post here in so long it's almost scary!

The Nova rocket is personally my favorite rocket concept of all time, it was the original concept for a Moon rocket, which would've done a direct assent Lunar transfer, it also would've have a thrust of almost 12,000,000 lbs!!! For comparison, the Block II SLS would have a measly 9,200,000 lbs thrust   Unfortunately, pressure to beat the soviets to the Moon by 1970, and the size of it, made it hard to pass, and by 1964 it was completely cancelled in favor of the smaller Saturn V.

However, it's bigger brother would've made Mars exploration a real possibility in the late 1970s, and early 1980s, and it's thrust would've been almost 14,000,000 lbs. I mean, the POWER of it!

MOAR resources

http://news.discovery.com/space/history-of-space/nasas-biggest-rocket-120624.htm

Here's a pdf: https://www.flightglobal.com/FlightPDFArchive/1959/1959%20-%202676.PDF

A pic:

And a video

 

If wishers were horses beggars would ride. 1959 . . . people here are still regurgitating how bad SLS was, I mean seriously if you think the shuttle was inefficient you are going back to 1959 for a prototype?

You have a bunch of companies including some that propose manned mission to mars, if this was even remotely possible you would have something like it in some sort of proposal. \

Orion for the record is also just a whacked out proposal, it will never get off the ground, at least terran soil.

Mars is hard, a single launch is not going to provide all the requirements, and 39 day transfer times are child's talk.

 

 

[NuclearNut]

Why build a bigger more expensive rocket with the same lunar bound payload when you could build a smaller rocket with the same lunar bound payload and for less money?

[Bill Phil]

1 hour ago, PB666 said:

If wishers were horses beggars would ride. 1959 . . . people here are still regurgitating how bad SLS was, I mean seriously if you think the shuttle was inefficient you are going back to 1959 for a prototype?

You have a bunch of companies including some that propose manned mission to mars, if this was even remotely possible you would have something like it in some sort of proposal. \

Orion for the record is also just a whacked out proposal, it will never get off the ground, at least terran soil.

Mars is hard, a single launch is not going to provide all the requirements, and 39 day transfer times are child's talk.

 

 

Project Orion is less dangerous than cars driving on the road.

Nova, however, is more insane by a factor of 10.

Mars wouldn't be hard if we used Orion. Neither would Venus, Mercury, Jupiter, or Saturn. It's capable of unlocking the solar system. For a price less than the auto industry, in monetary cost and cost of life.

But that's neither here nor there. 

 

[HebaruSan]

2 minutes ago, Bill Phil said:

Project Orion is less dangerous than cars driving on the road.

Are you comparing the nominal, proper functioning of Orion to the total cost of cars, including their worst case disasters? Seems like we'd need to know how often Orion has an accident and how bad the damage is to make this comparison.

[NuclearNut]

1 hour ago, HebaruSan said:

Are you comparing the nominal, proper functioning of Orion to the total cost of cars, including their worst case disasters? Seems like we'd need to know how often Orion has an accident and how bad the damage is to make this comparison.

It depends.

Is LNT accurate or is it not, the Health Physics Society states otherwise, and so does France, but the NRC uses the LNT model.  Likewise the question arises on what you mean by "worst case".  There will always be a supremely horrible "worst case" situation that is likewise supremely improbable, making it statistically moot.  To be quite frank I would not know where to begin assessing the probabilistic risk of a launch as no such device has actually been launched, and thus many of the usual problems that may seems small and insignificant on the outset have not ever actually been displayed in their fullest.

[Jovus]

I prefer the Saturn V, because the Saturn V exists, and I like rockets that exist more than rockets that don't.

[Nibb31]

It was a concept, but it would have needed yet another megafactory and a huge logistics effort (bigger barges, bigger launch pads, bigger crawlers...). It totally wasn't worth the effort, and probably would have put the Moon landing effort "before the end of the decade" out of reach.

[Hannu2]

I do not understand what you actually ask. Do you think some kind of scenario in which I am NASAs leader in 50's and make a decision between Saturn and Nova? It is practically impossible to answer because I do not know all things which was known then. Probably Saturn was technically and economically much more feasible and significantly faster to develop. It was a space race then and if Soviets would have been first on Moon because my decision, probably my career in NASA had been over.

If you ask should Nasa develop modernized versions of old rockets now, I would say absolute no to both. They relied on old material and manufacturing technology and careless economy. It would be much cheaper to develop and use as powerful rockets with current technologies, if somebody really wanted or needed them.

[PB666]

5 hours ago, Bill Phil said:

Project Orion is less dangerous than cars driving on the road.

Nova, however, is more insane by a factor of 10.

Mars wouldn't be hard if we used Orion. Neither would Venus, Mercury, Jupiter, or Saturn. It's capable of unlocking the solar system. For a price less than the auto industry, in monetary cost and cost of life.

But that's neither here nor there. 

 

Well that's white washing a fantasy. Still a fantasy and still fantastically dangerous.

[fredinno]

6 hours ago, NuclearNut said:

Why build a bigger more expensive rocket with the same lunar bound payload when you could build a smaller rocket with the same lunar bound payload and for less money?

Indeed, the only reason this was considered was because rendezvous was experimental at the time.

But this does not always apply, like Falcon Heavy vs SLS (the former is limited by the small payload fairing, and lower-than-advertised payload due to a low 2nd stage TWR)

2 hours ago, Nibb31 said:

It was a concept, but it would have needed yet another megafactory and a huge logistics effort (bigger barges, bigger launch pads, bigger crawlers...). It totally wasn't worth the effort, and probably would have put the Moon landing effort "before the end of the decade" out of reach.

That's why the most serious proposal was to put 3 Saturn V payloads into orbit, dock them, then do lunar landings from the 3-saturn V payload. But then, the Apollo Program would likely have ended at 13, so

IMO LOR was better.

2 hours ago, Hannu2 said:

I do not understand what you actually ask. Do you think some kind of scenario in which I am NASAs leader in 50's and make a decision between Saturn and Nova? It is practically impossible to answer because I do not know all things which was known then. Probably Saturn was technically and economically much more feasible and significantly faster to develop. It was a space race then and if Soviets would have been first on Moon because my decision, probably my career in NASA had been over.

If you ask should Nasa develop modernized versions of old rockets now, I would say absolute no to both. They relied on old material and manufacturing technology and careless economy. It would be much cheaper to develop and use as powerful rockets with current technologies, if somebody really wanted or needed them.

Which is something a lot of people can't seems to understand for SLS. What they chose was pretty much the best option (aside from multiple versions) from what they had- you can't revive a 50-year old rocket economically, and side-lift opens loading problems.

[Spaceception]

4 hours ago, Nibb31 said:

It was a concept, but it would have needed yet another megafactory and a huge logistics effort (bigger barges, bigger launch pads, bigger crawlers...). It totally wasn't worth the effort, and probably would have put the Moon landing effort "before the end of the decade" out of reach.

I know, that's why I put this in:

Quote

Unfortunately, pressure to beat the soviets to the Moon by 1970, and the size of it, made it hard to pass, and by 1964 it was completely cancelled in favor of the smaller Saturn V.

 

[Bill Phil]

2 hours ago, PB666 said:

Well that's white washing a fantasy. Still a fantasy and still fantastically dangerous.

No, it's no fantasy. If it was developed instead of the Apollo program, we could have easily sent men to Mars. The Saturn V had a similar mass and much less capability. Chemical rockets have limits. Orion is truly the only way to get past a few thousand seconds of Isp. The only thing that could do it that isn't Orion is medusa, which is even more insane (throwing the bomb in front) and can only be built in space.

Yes there were engineering hurdles that would've needed to be overcome. But the Saturn V had plenty, as well. F-1 instability, for example. That took years to solve. But that's only the major hurdle I can think of off the top of my head... 

It's not fantastically dangerous. Nuclear bombs tend not to have a chain reaction between bombs. It just can't work like that. A bomb going off in the stack would be very problematic, but it wouldn't completely destroy the ship, if proper shielding were in place. Graphite would probably be a good material for the shield. Not only that but these are small yield bombs, a thousand launches wouldn't put a dent in the total fallout from nuclear testing.

Then you have the danger of misfire. That's probably more dangerous, and in truth I can't tell you how it would be counteracted. But that's the reason that it needed development. Probably less than the Saturn V, in fact.

So, if Orion is a fantasy, so was the Saturn V. Until they built it.

8 hours ago, HebaruSan said:

Are you comparing the nominal, proper functioning of Orion to the total cost of cars, including their worst case disasters? Seems like we'd need to know how often Orion has an accident and how bad the damage is to make this comparison.

The damage for an Orion disaster would, at most, kill all the crew. But, it's pretty easy to prevent. The next worst case is stranding the crew in outer space. But we should have the capably to get them back, especially if we use multiple ships per mission.

[tater]

Lunar Orbit Rendezvous was (and is) a much more elegant solution to the problem than direct ascent and Nova. All the same mass constraints would have applied, it would just multiply everything by carrying that huge stack for the ride. NOVA didn't exist in a vacuum, it was drawn up the way it was with a different (worse) mission profile in mind.

Edited March 10, 2016 by tater

[alpha tech]

I have a question why did NASA chose lunar orbital rendezvous over direct ascent.

 

[StrandedonEarth]

Because staging (leaving unnecessary parts behind) is the only way to defeat the tyranny of the rocket equation. Bringing everything down to the lunar surface and back up again requires a LOT more fuel, and lifting that fuel takes more fuel, then you need even more fuel to lift THAT fuel, and so on. They save a lot of mass by leaving the stuff they need to get home (Fuel for the Moon -->Earth burn, heat shield, parachutes, etc) in lunar orbit instead of bringing it down and back up again.

[Jovus]

23 minutes ago, StrandedonEarth said:

Because staging (leaving unnecessary parts behind) is the only way to defeat the tyranny of the rocket equation. Bringing everything down to the lunar surface and back up again requires a LOT more fuel, and lifting that fuel takes more fuel, then you need even more fuel to lift THAT fuel, and so on. They save a lot of mass by leaving the stuff they need to get home (Fuel for the Moon -->Earth burn, heat shield, parachutes, etc) in lunar orbit instead of bringing it down and back up again.

This is true. But another, related part of this truth that's often overlooked is the sheer physical size of the landing vehicle.

 

Can you imagine the difference between trying to land something fourteen feet tall vs. landing something sixty five feet tall? Especially when you're judging landing speeds and distances by scratches on your viewing glass?

Edited March 10, 2016 by Jovus

[tater]

2 hours ago, alpha tech said:

I have a question why did NASA chose lunar orbital rendezvous over direct ascent.

 

Because it is far more efficient. The never failing tyranny of the rocket equation. You have to bring all the propellant for the ascent and return all the way to the lunar surface, which means you need more propellant to land, which means you need more propellant to get to lunar orbit, etc.

The actual lunar module was ~6m tall, vs 4.25 in that illustration above, though Jove's point still stands, it's vastly smaller.

Edited March 10, 2016 by tater

[sevenperforce]

Dual orbit rendezvous would have been even better, but they didn't have the experience, capacity, or launch capability to pull off the EOR side of things. 

Lunar orbit rendezvous would have been even better if they could have gotten away with an unmanned command module but they needed someone in orbit to do the docking. 

[wumpus]

12 hours ago, Bill Phil said:

Project Orion is less dangerous than cars driving on the road.

Nova, however, is more insane by a factor of 10.

Mars wouldn't be hard if we used Orion. Neither would Venus, Mercury, Jupiter, or Saturn. It's capable of unlocking the solar system. For a price less than the auto industry, in monetary cost and cost of life.

But that's neither here nor there. 

 

Nope.  Two problems with Orion:

You can ignore the revised safety issues which were mainly "I become as Death, the destroyer of worlds" and spew death and destruction all over Earth.

You can build the Orion on Antarctica (don't count on the arctic ice to support you over the summer) and avoid all the issues involved with that (and have roughly the same safety assumed with the original Orion calculations that ignored the [undiscovered] magnetosphere).  You can't seriously claim that building an Orion on Antarctica is safer than driving a car (at least for the construction crew).  On the whole, I'd admit that building an Orion on Antarctica is still safer for the ground crew than building a 1959 designed prototype, but it isn't safer than driving a car.

[Jovus]

Project Orion is significantly less dangerous than driving a car.

Automobile accidents injure or kill many thousands of people each year. Project Orion has never killed anyone. It might have given someone a papercut at one point, though.

Paper machines are easy to safe. Real machines are much less predictable.

[_Augustus_]

Nova would have been harder to mothball, but it was hard to justify in the first place.

The Saturn V could have had a higher payload capacity than Nova by stretching the stages, using a NERVA in place of the S-IVB, replacing the F-1 with F-1A, J-2 with J-2S or HG-3, and by adding SRMs.

[Bill Phil]

3 hours ago, wumpus said:

Nope.  Two problems with Orion:

You can ignore the revised safety issues which were mainly "I become as Death, the destroyer of worlds" and spew death and destruction all over Earth.

You can build the Orion on Antarctica (don't count on the arctic ice to support you over the summer) and avoid all the issues involved with that (and have roughly the same safety assumed with the original Orion calculations that ignored the [undiscovered] magnetosphere).  You can't seriously claim that building an Orion on Antarctica is safer than driving a car (at least for the construction crew).  On the whole, I'd admit that building an Orion on Antarctica is still safer for the ground crew than building a 1959 designed prototype, but it isn't safer than driving a car.

Umm...

Do you know that we still don't have enough nukes to wipe ourselves out? Hundreds of millions would die, but by no means billions.

Let's look at the Tsar Bomba: 50 megatons. We're all still fine. Orion: 800 0.15 kiloton bombs.Not even a single megaton.

Orion is more dangerous to the crew than anyone else, but that can be solved. Not necessarily easily, but certainly doable. 

[Bill Phil]

7 hours ago, tater said:

Lunar Orbit Rendezvous was (and is) a much more elegant solution to the problem than direct ascent and Nova. All the same mass constraints would have applied, it would just multiply everything by carrying that huge stack for the ride. NOVA didn't exist in a vacuum, it was drawn up the way it was with a different (worse) mission profile in mind.

I'd say EOR is more efficient, especially in the long term.