HOME | DD
SoFDMC β Very Large Load Space Lifter
Published: 2014-03-23 08:11:52 +0000 UTC; Views: 6312; Favourites: 75; Downloads: 0
Redirect to original
Related content
Comments: 45
π: 0 β©: 0
π: 0 β©: 0
Honestly, on the HLRVLL, Buran seems like a fly on the ultility pole.
π: 2 β©: 1
Yeah it does. Although as demonstrated by the Space Shuttle system and the Buran (which this is based) its possible to hang an orbiter off a fuselage, although debris falling off the side of the rocket is a problem.
π: 0 β©: 1
Yeah. But still, this thing is HUGE.
By the way, is the "Wet Workshop" design (spent rocket stages are rebuilt into space stations right in orbit) used anywhere in this universe?
π: 0 β©: 1
I haven't thought of a 'Universe' but yeah I guess in this realm with humanity giving space exploration the attention it deserves any rocket stages that aren't falling back to the ocean could be used that way. Lyndon LaRouche's Space series talks about other stuff related to using Helium-3 to make journeys to space easier and cheaper.
Further articles on right side column: (larouchepac.com/space )
π: 1 β©: 0
This design for an UHLLV (Ultra Heavy-Lift Launch Vehicle) is interesting, though probably overcomplicated. The main idea behind boosters is to increase the TWR of the rocket upon initial ascent, which is not super important with upper stages. Due to surface area concerns, a "polyblock" upper stage would probably have a lower wet-mass-to-dry-mass ratio than a single upper stage. That could be combated if asparagus staging was used, but that's complicated and there could be problems with structural loading.
Also, given that the vehicle can obviously send waay more payload than the Buran could possibly store in its cargo bay (unless you're transporting, I dunno, a solid hunk of osmium), I don't really see the need for it on the side. And many man-rated vehicles (in fact, all of them except for the Space Shuttle) accelerate beyond 3 g, with the Mercury-Atlas reaching up to 8Β g as it ascended into orbit in 4 minutes 56 seconds.
Unlike yerbusiness , though, I do think an UHLLV is a fundamentally sound concept. There are no theoretical limits to rocket engine size, AFAIK, hence why they range from RCS thrusters generating less than a Newton to multi-megaNewton super engines. The only engine type that is remotely comparable in scalability is the Diesel, and that misses the mark by an order of magnitude.
π: 0 β©: 1
Interesting stuff. Thanks for commenting.
π: 0 β©: 0
Cool, but they'd have to come up with some other type of power.Β Rocket engines large enough to generate that much power would be proned to explode, I would think.
π: 0 β©: 1
Probably. I just felt frustrated with the way manned space exploration has gone so far, which is nowhere so I decided to do something outrageous to feel good.
π: 0 β©: 0
I dub this NASA concept the Compensator Project!
π: 0 β©: 0
Woah!Β Big as that is, I'm not sure it can support it's own WEIGHT, let alone launch!
π: 0 β©: 1
Obviously that would have to be left to the left-brained engineers to do the number crunching to verify if such a thing is possible in reality. Everything starts with an idea deemed too impossible to realize.
This is just a concept idea that ignores the typical 'it can't be done because x stuff is too heavy/ too dangerous ' mentality that has diseased major government institutions involved in space exploration and limits the sense of the possible. Gone are the days when audacity and a 'Who Dares Wins' mentality made the Saturn V a reality. They have therefore failed humanity and private space exploration has gained ground as a result.
However we have lost valuable time that can't be recovered. Based on what little I have gleaned, had the deep space program taken up the momentum of Apollo, we should have been going to Mars latest by the 1990s and by now doing manned exploration of Jupiter's moons. Space science would be very different today had this been the case.
π: 0 β©: 1
Heck, by now, I'm pretty sure someone would have come up with some remarkably better propulsion systems than we have today. Who knows? We might even have some sort of workable interstellar drive by now.
π: 0 β©: 1
Well whatever it is they are keeping it to themselves and leaving us with technology that does not help us in any way, (smartphones with microwave emissions, laptop cameras that spy on you, etc).
π: 0 β©: 1
Lol, crazy much?Β
Just drawing a big ass rocket -which looks awesome though- won't solve anything xD
If you'd want something to go to the places you mentioned in the image, you'd just need more rockets (also bigger, but not this much bigger). Making rockets this much bigger also increases the mass of the rocket itself, all mass you need to carry up (up to some point when it's dropped again). This thing would be needlessly expensive and you could achieve the same thing by sending a bunch of smaller rockets up. Of course, with a budget high enough to make rocket this crazy (whether it'd work or not), you'd be better or still just building a space elevator.
π: 0 β©: 0
Realistically, not sure does the chemical rocket physics can work on that scale, but good design anyway
π: 0 β©: 0
Do you think about N1 rocket? It's quite difficult but possible. It could be very big lifter to move this space ship.Β Can you design a cosmodrome?
π: 0 β©: 1
The N1-L3 rocket (en.wikipedia.org/wiki/N1_rocke⦠was destroyed by design faults and failure to test for destructive vibrations that could not be dampened, by the nature of disassembling and reassembling the rocket. They failed to realize that they would have to build larger facilities from scratch. The N1 had many engines at the base and therefore the hydraulics to support it were many and complicated. The Russians should have made the design simpler, but their design bureau chief died halfway through.
A cosmodrome is basically a spaceport with launch pads and large hangar bays for rocket assembly. Nothing really new there for me to draw unless something innovative comes along.
Anyway given the size of this rocket a sea launch at the Equator would be best.Β en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sea_Launβ¦
The waters around would give a buffer zone in case anything goes wrong and also offer more space for assembly and launch for its huge size. Rocket testing and basic component assembly such as rocket engines will take place on land.
π: 0 β©: 0
Yeah wow, butΒ it could be a problem to set the rocket on the start platform and even enter to space shuttle.Β However graphic is nice. What program did you use to create this?
π: 0 β©: 1
Wow. Now that is a really, raelly big rocket. This thing must be the size of the Empire State Building or something like that. Now give each of these Ultra-Large-Boosters some wings and landing gear to re-use them and this thing might actually work.
Just curious, how much cargo, you thing, could this mega-rocket launch to the moon, as well as how many astronauts? Also, why would they need to carry a shuttle wtih them, they don't need one, since the moon does not have any atmosphere, and thus it becomes useless cargo, since with going back to Earth, they could just take a shuttle that was launched from Earth while they were in orbit. ^^
Just my own thoughts. Really cool concept, buddy.
π: 0 β©: 1
Thanks for asking.
The Buran had an AI advanced for its day that allowed it to abort a landing and fly back for another landing attempt which it demonstrated successfully the one time it flew, and there was no one on board. Its a feat that seems impossible to believe (given that its wings are for high speed flight and there would be difficulties) but its there stated in Wikipedia, and it seems unlikely they faked that as Communist propaganda.
This would also mean this craft had its own internal fuel tank to be able to fly away and circle around, as the Energia rocket (the counterpart to the American shuttle fuel tank in a picture of the Buran Energia system) had its own rockets. In comparison the American space shuttle had to glide to landing the first time.
In this concept it would become the 'brains' for the rocket with or without personnel. The Buran would act like the Apollo command module around the Moon requiring landers stored within the Buran cargo hold to allow astronauts to leave the Moon at the end of the mission. This might change when establishing the Moon base involves a proper runway and support facilities to take off.
I know based on the Atlas rocket -> Titan rocket -> Saturn V a small increase in cargo led to an exponential increase in rocket fuel and size because the increased fuel load to carry the cargo has become a cargo weight in itself. Gravity is a bitch for rocket designers. That's why the winner of the X prize involved a towed or stored under carriage plane but that method is weak in cargo and the USAF X-15 didn't reach orbital flight.
I would prefer a cargo equivalent to at least half the total weight of the ISS to justify that size of a rocket and the higher risks involved, but that's my Santa wish and real tests and some fancy mathematics need to be done to find out if the cargo size justifies the design. Again I wish government money could be spent in a constructive manner but majority of money is spent on researching weapons that are designed to attack and invade and not for self-defense of own territory as should be the case.
π: 0 β©: 1
Also the total height would be about 968 feet or about 295 meters or more than 2.5x the height of a Saturn V. A suitable payload to justify using this rocket would be at least 600,000 kg including the Buran shuttle cargo.
π: 0 β©: 1
Dude, you really put a lot of thought into this concpet. And do my eyes deceive me or did the top part of the rocket suddenly change to a larger payload? *smirks* ^^
What we would really need is an orbital infrastructure to build satelites and space stations in orbit, so we would only need shuttles for humans. If only after the moonlanding the US would have followed that path. *sighs*
π: 0 β©: 1
I edited the piece on 31st March. I may edit it again when needed.
I agree near future space civilisation would be truck stops and depots in space. Most of the rocket is wasted just getting off the ground. It would be efficient to build large sustainable orbiting stations and then the rockets required is to accelerate to desired speed and then go perpetually through airless space until its time to decelerate.
Any further manned exploration beyond Moon's orbit will require new rockets that are more powerful and efficient, a nuclear powered equivalent is a foreseeable solution until a safer power source is available.
Going to Mars currently takes 9 months with the most efficient flight path, and based on experience with humans in space, a journey cannot take more than a month. Hibernation has its own problems.
Things are not going well with the United States, as its economy is based on the Petrodollar printing press. The rest of the world has moved away from the dollar with trade deals like RCEP (China, India, Japan, Southeast Asia, Aussie-NZ) that covers 60% of the world's total GDP and doesn't trade with the Dollar.
We may have seen the last of the United States space program with the Shuttle's retirement.
π: 0 β©: 1
Yeah, the ESA (European Space Agency) is currently in the early concept stages of sending a prototype of a 3D printer to the moon and try out if it would be do-able to use such a device for building a moon base without needing to send the entire equipment to it, only electronics and encironmental systems would need to be installed then probably.
I also really hope that the Skylon programm, which is currently under development in the UK and also partially funded by ESA, will be a success. It would be a Single-Stage-to-orbit-shuttle with a payload of about 15 to 20 tons or something like that and different to the STS (Shuttle Transportation System otherwise known just as Space Shuttle) it could start and land 2 to 3 times a DAY! Just imagine what could be built with even just a small fleet of these shuttles. There would be no need for any large rocket-systems anymore, well maybe for things to large to fit into the cargo bay of the Skylon-system.
If this thing would be a success pretty much every nation with an airport that has a runway longer then 6 kilometers could become a space power.
And I am curious too if the current path of NASA will lead toΒ a new manned space-programm or if conservative voices get louder and just say 'Abandon the whole thing, who needs it anyway' and then NASA gets sucked up by the Pentagon. Not a nice thought to be honest.
π: 0 β©: 1
Although I like big stuff (as you can tell from my other drawings) I am open to efficient methods that can get the job done. If going to space requires about as much as taking off a runway in what is called Single Stage to Orbit (SSTO) like conventional planes then cost of launch will drop sharply and we will see rapid progress in space exploration knowledge
The 3D printer project is a great idea to get past the problems carrying all that weight, but that printer will have to be larger than average to produce large structural beams and columns. Also the resin used when hardened will have to be strong structurally and withstand the harsh outdoor environment on the moon including meteor strikes.
NASA was the smiling public face of the Pentagon and Department of Defense from the beginning anyway.
This inefficient state bureaucracy gave up on Saturn V and justified putting up an equally expensive accident prone shuttle that had little to capture public interest other than long boring space walks at orbits that practically skim the Earth's atmosphere and a bit further only for the ISS.
It was clear they were doing just enough to keep the public satisfied with the progress of space science rather than going all out. The past 40 years since the end of Apollo has been that of a government drunk in its own hubris that the other rival Russia was too deep in its own crap after the 1991 collapse of the Soviet Union to bother pushing the frontiers of space exploration.
Had they stuck to the rapid space progress in the 1960's we would have been sending manned space missions to Jupiter by now like that envisioned in 2001: A Space Odyssey.
I won't be missing NASA, for sure.
π: 0 β©: 1
Yeah, someΒ former NASA workers have allready admited that the Space Shuttle was more of a publicity thing, rather than a real transporter.Β I mean originially it was solely meant for the military to put spy-satellites into orbit and later they said they wouldn't need it anymore, so NASA was suddenly stuck with inefficient shuttles and no payload to deliver.
Probably a semi-state-run enterprise like ESA would work better. I mean ESA today launches about 65 % of all commercial satellites and is still able to develope new systems, as the new VEGA rocket has shown, they are even thinking of refitting the ATV for manned flight. To be honest, I would feel quite a bit proud of they would manage to do so. *smirks* ^^
And for the 3D printer, that is just a study project at the moment as far as I know. They just want to find out if is it even feasable. I guess it would probably use the moon dust from the surface and mix it together with some sort of glue and use it then as some sort of moon-concrete. Another thing I guess that would be possible would be that the 3D printer would use a laser to melt the metalic parts of the moon dust and thus creating a metal-structure. *shrugs* There are many ways to use a 3D printer.
π: 0 β©: 1
ESA has been collaborating with the Russian space agency so the latter can also launch its Soyuz rockets at French Guiana where the ATV and Ariane 5 are launched which is a lot closer to the Equator than the Baikonur Cosmodrome and therefore has more imparted momentum from the Earth's spinning.
π: 0 β©: 0
Wonder how many Gs this thing puts out...
It's a real shame rocketry didn't evolve into this kind of monster; otherwise, we would've been a multi-planet species. (sigh)
But seriously, this is good. Only the USSR would have the guts to build this.
π: 0 β©: 1
I sense your deep disappointment with the way space progress has gone so far which I am in agreement with. We can build multi billion dollar B-2 bombers that can travel half a world away to raze other countries to the ground without refueling but when it comes to space science the joke that is government magically becomes broke and destitute all of a sudden.
I am guessing when you meant 'G's you meant the total thrust of the first stage rockets, which would far exceed even the drawing board-only design of Saturn V-4 ( sofdmc.deviantart.com/art/Satu⦠).
G-forces would depend on acceleration. The key thing is the difference between engine thrust and the total weight of the rocket, then that force difference would translate to rate of speed increase or acceleration. Too slow and the rocket will not reach orbital speed and will fall back to Earth. Too fast and the G-forces will kill any human occupants or cause structural failure.
As this is an untested design, with the interstage in an oval cross section owing to the use of and arrangement of 2nd stage boosters, many more tests will have to be done to see if such a design is workable and practical, including the systems and firing sequence of 2nd stage boosters as well as the core booster. But with space exploration at a less than basic stage, all methods should be explored including the use of new methods of propulsion. The ion drive while championed on Discovery and History channel as a means of more efficient space travel is still a poor substitute for getting off the Earth's surface.
π: 0 β©: 0
Hey, you could consider the Bull/Von Braun/Oberth Super gun with Rail Gun technology.
BTW, Cool work
π: 0 β©: 1
Welcome back, haven't heard from you in a long while.
π: 0 β©: 1
I agree rail gun tech would be the thing, but to push it to space from Earth would be much harder than from the moon, and the powder propellant as used in the Bull gun has a limit to how much power it can put out and how big the load it can hurl. But with space exploration at a nascent stage any method should be explored with practical experiments.
π: 0 β©: 1
IMO, Rail guns should be used to launch satelites into orbit or unmanned vehicles. Rockets are better for manned interplanetary trips (perhaps using railguns in the first stages?).
Originally Bull deviced the babylon gun for that purpose, but Saddam wanted it also to send Teheren and Tel Avid to smitherins 
In the propellant area,Β I'm againts powder. The energy should come from a nuclear reactor or some form of fussion to power the rails (one of the problems with Railguns is they consume too much electrical power).
The US navy is going full throtle with its railgun program this year, but there are still some problems.
There's also a group of US scientists who are tryng to use hydrogen as a propellent, using Bull concept but in the middle of the ocean, to collect and use the hydrogen gas straight from the water of the big sea 
And last, it is rumoured that China is tryng to built its own super gun, but is that, just rumors.
π: 0 β©: 1
Railguns or magnetic track accelerators would be good for shooting material to a space tug that captures it and tows the mined material elsewhere.
Rockets still will be needed as the direction of burn will enable the rocket to steer and do course corrections. Also better control of speed and acceleration. Reaching the destination will require controlled deceleration as well if interplanetary travel involving millions of miles are involved and higher speeds than orbital speeds are needed.
π: 0 β©: 1
canuleyo.deviantart.com/art/Thβ¦
π: 0 β©: 1
Maybe they knew the Moon was not natural?
π: 0 β©: 0
Liking your design, a new use of the Energiya/Proton family of vehicles. Wonder how far a launch visitor would have to be from pad to retain hearing?
Economies of scale favor this type of rocketry.
π: 0 β©: 1
In terms of cost of launching expensive cargo they might be worth it. Otherwise chemical fuel rockets are inefficient in terms of power output to weight ratio, i.e. most of the rocket size is because of its giant fuel tanks with pressurized liquid hydrogen and oxygen.
Saturn V was big because the 1st stage was there for the sole purpose to lift the deadweight fuel of the second stage off the ground, which in turn was to carry the deadweight fuel of the third stage to break free of Earth's gravity-well. Fuel is also a 'cargo' by itself. Hence, an exponential graph where for every unit increase in cargo weight w, the total fuel requirements expands by much more than (w)^3 , perhaps (w)^5 .
Chemical propulsion is very backward. Looking forward to the day that nuclear fusion or anti-matter propulsion will be commercially viable to improve the power-weight ratio. When that day comes rockets will be able to accelerate without rapidly running out of fuel to much higher flight speeds and reach Mars in weeks with enough cargo to build a fully functioning Mars based space station in one trip.
π: 0 β©: 0