Constellation vs Apollo Rockets

[TeeGee]

Allo everyone!

Quick question regarding moon rockets/launches.

Do you think that launching 2 separate rockets (one with payload and the other crew) would be more CHEAP than launching everything in 1 rocket (like the Saturn V did)?

I've looked at the orion and constellation projects and was wondering if that truly was the most effective way to launch to the moon or if NASA had the right idea with Apollo all those years ago.

Bascially, Constellation rockets vs Apollo rocket: which was better, cheaper and more safe?

And yes, I know constellation is canceled... but I am asking what if.

Edited July 24, 2014 by TeeGee

[Karriz]

Constellation's Altair lander would have been about three times heavier than the Apollo lunar module, so it couldn't have been launched in same rocket with the Orion.

Ares V (bigger than Saturn V) would've launched the Altair + Earth Departure Stage. Orion would have launched on a much smaller rocket, Ares I.

It's safer for the crew to launch things separately, but also costs much more and complicates the mission.

[xenomorph555]

I don't agree, saturn v was very safe, cheap and reliable. Them solid motors...

[TeeGee]

Constellation's Altair lander would have been about three times heavier than the Apollo lunar module, so it couldn't have been launched in same rocket with the Orion.

Ares V (bigger than Saturn V) would've launched the Altair + Earth Departure Stage. Orion would have launched on a much smaller rocket, Ares I.

It's safer for the crew to launch things separately, but also costs much more and complicates the mission.

Awesome. Do you have a source for the cost comparing apollo vs constellation? I've been looking on the internet but can't find it.

[xcorps]

THis is in 1994 dollars.

TOTAL COST PER APOLLO MISSION (in millions):

-----------------------------

Apollo 7 $575

Apollo 8 $1,230

Apollo 9 $1,303

Apollo 10 $1,341

Apollo 11 $1,360

Apollo 12 $1,389

Apollo 13 $1,389

Apollo 14 $1,421

Apollo 15 $1,581

Apollo 16 $1,519

Apollo 17 $1,536

---------------------------------

The review that Obama used to put the axe to Constellation had it running at 230 billion in 2005 dollars in 2025.

According to NASA in 2009, the total cost including RnD of Apollo in 2010 dollars was 170 billion. According to Space Review it was 109 billion based only on procurement and launch for landings only.

Edited July 24, 2014 by xcorps

[Red Iron Crown]

I don't agree, saturn v was very safe, cheap and reliable. Them solid motors...

Saturn V was an all-liquid-engine design. I'm not sure it can be characterized as "cheap", but safe and reliable are accurate.

[Motokid600]

Correct me if I'm wrong, but I believe one major reason for sending both crew and the lander up at the same time was fuel bleedoff. All that time in orbit waiting for the crew would have caused its own set of problems.

[xcorps]

1 Launch for a mission has a possibility of about 10,000 things going wrong by the time you get back.

2 Launches probably quadruples that. Especially if you are counting on launch 2 for return equipment/fuel.

I could see a first launch consisting of fuel only, or some non mission critical parts like rock collectors with the second launch having everything mission critical including return vehicle.

[cpast]

Correct me if I'm wrong, but I believe one major reason for sending both crew and the lander up at the same time was fuel bleedoff. All that time in orbit waiting for the crew would have caused its own set of problems.

That wasn't all of it -- the main Earth orbital rendezvous they were considering had one payload craft and one tanker craft. Earth orbit rendezvous was in fact considered feasible; the main issue was cost and complexity, plus bureaucratic issues (unmanned NASA missions, such as the tanker launch would have been, are run by different people than manned ones, and that isn't ideal for when you have a tight deadline), plus the need for multiple launches. Space launches back then, and even now, have non-trivial failure rates; if crafts 1 and 2 are to rendezvous and craft 2 fails to orbit, craft 1 may have to be basically written off (if craft 1 is the tanker, that does get into fuel lifetime problems to some degree, but also gets into [some] orbital lifetime and possible control issues; if craft 1 is manned, you *will* have to abort then [life support], and you've wasted a lot of astronaut time and NASA money, and forced an additional risky manned launch).

Reference on Apollo mode selection:

http://history.nasa.gov/Apollomon/apollo6.pdf

Edited July 24, 2014 by cpast

[xcorps]

Saturn V was an all-liquid-engine design. I'm not sure it can be characterized as "cheap", but safe and reliable are accurate.

From The Space Review:

Rocketdyne delivered 98 production engines to NASA, of which 65 were launched. A total of 56 equivalent development engines were tested. The company conducted 2,771 production and R&D firing tests of single engines, 1,110 total full duration tests, and accumulated 239,124 secondsâ€â€over 66 hoursâ€â€of engine firing experience. The five-engine cluster used on the Saturn 5 was fired at the Mississippi and Alabama test facilities 34 times, with 18 full duration tests for a total of 15,534 seconds of engine experience. Rocketdyne estimated in 1992 that the eight-year F-1 engine development program had cost $1.77 billion in FY91 dollars.

[xenomorph555]

Saturn V was an all-liquid-engine design. I'm not sure it can be characterized as "cheap", but safe and reliable are accurate.

I know SV was all liquid, I was referring to ares v/ sls with solids.

As for cheap, it was cheaper to launch a Saturn then the shuttle in todays money. Also cheap for how big/powerful it was.

[Kryten]

That's say much more about the shuttle than about saturn.

[xcorps]

I know SV was all liquid, I was referring to ares v/ sls with solids.

As for cheap, it was cheaper to launch a Saturn then the shuttle in todays money. Also cheap for how big/powerful it was.

How do you figure that?

In 2010 dollars, the per piloted flight of Apollo was 9.9 billion. The shuttle per flight is 1.4 billion.

The goal of Apollo was Moon landings. We spent 109 billion for 6 landings, which is a per landing cost of 18 billion.

[xenomorph555]

The cost of a saturn v alone, minus apollo+lander is 1.2 billion dollars in todays money.

[Red Iron Crown]

The cost of a saturn v alone, minus apollo+lander is 1.2 billion dollars in todays money.

That's marginal cost for a single launcher, it doesn't include the R&D costs.

[78stonewobble]

Are failure rates on SRB's really that high, when it comes down to it?

You could argue that ie. the challenger accident, was not exactly a failure of the SRB's, but rather human mismanagement.

SRB's can fail catastrophically and spectacularly, if not treated with the proper respect, but you could make that argument with liquid fuelled rockets as well.

[Sky_walker]

SRBs are fine. They're actually safer than liquid boosters, cause there's fewer mechanical parts and by this: It's far less likely to have a mechanical failure. They also can be stored and moved around for prolonged amount of time without increasing a failure risk as long as you stick to the safety protocols and don't compromise casing (eg. Challenger disaster).

[magnemoe]

SRBs are fine. They're actually safer than liquid boosters, cause there's fewer mechanical parts and by this: It's far less likely to have a mechanical failure. They also can be stored and moved around for prolonged amount of time without increasing a failure risk as long as you stick to the safety protocols and don't compromise casing (eg. Challenger disaster).

Main issue is that you can not shut them off, you can however kill trust, you use blow out panels on the side to vent to two sides at once, this is how you stop trust on ICBM.

if you have an escape tower or similar escape system you can use this to stop the SRB from coming after you if they separate from core.

[Sky_walker]

That's irrelevant to the failure rate or anything we discussed. I think that every KSP player should know very well that soild boosters cannot be turned off in the way liquid can. hehe

Edited July 25, 2014 by Sky_walker

[magnemoe]

That's irrelevant to the failure rate or anything we discussed. I think that every KSP player should know very well that soild boosters cannot be turned off in the way liquid can. hehe

you can however rip them up to kill trust, not sure if this can be done without blowing up the core stage however.

Benefit of an pod over a shuttle is that you can get away with 10 g trust for 5 seconds making an SRB fail non lethal.

[Sky_walker]

AFAIK: It's nothing that's used on a launch systems. Even space shuttle boosters had to burn out before abort procedures could take place.

Might be wrong though - I was never much into reading about abort procedures.

[TeeGee]

AFAIK: It's nothing that's used on a launch systems. Even space shuttle boosters had to burn out before abort procedures could take place.

Might be wrong though - I was never much into reading about abort procedures.

This was SUCH a dangerous spacecraft...

[magnemoe]

This was SUCH a dangerous spacecraft...

Looks safer as in worst case scenario is a rough landing.

Yes, in KSP we have escape systems for spaceplanes, abort kill engines separates passenger compartment from plane and solid fuel rockets move it away.

It has been some talk about a system who lift the section up so parachutes can work in case of a failed landing, however as landing speeds are low an retro rocket system to stop the plane fast is probably better.

That sort of security theater is nice then you ask a kerbal hang on to a ladder of a 2 ton craft falling towards Tylo with 3 Km/h he feels safe