NASA goes ahead with super-heavy Nova rockets: Impact on Space Commercialization?

[M79]

So in the early 1960s NASA was seriously considering a series of *very* heavy lifting bodies with the ability to put up hundreds of thousands of kilograms/hundreds of Megagrams in one shot, in some cases these are even SSTO, or single stage to orbit. Nova 8L actually came close to being built, the main reason it was not was the need for building new factories to support the program (its engines were simply too big!) while the Saturn V could be manufactured from existing infrastructure. Suppose the super-heavies were built - how does this change space during the Space Race and afterwards? Do we see more commercialization of space sooner if it becomes literally possible to put almost 600kg of mass into Low Earth Orbit (LEO) or tens of thousands of kilograms in mass to the moon or elsewhere in one shot?

Saturn I: http://www.astronautix.com/s/saturni.html
Saturn V: http://www.astronautix.com/s/saturnv-c.html (Mass to LEO: 81.6 Mg; Mass to TLI: 20.4 Mg)
Saturn 8: http://www.astronautix.com/s/saturnc-8.html (Mass to LEO: 210 Mg; Mass to TLI: 74 Mg)

Nova program general overview: http://www.astronautix.com/n/nova.html
Nova 7S: http://www.astronautix.com/n/nova7s.html (Mass to LEO: 197 Mg, Mass to TLI: 75 Mg)
Nova 8L: http://www.astronautix.com/n/nova8l.html (Mass to LEO: 181 Mg, Mass to TLI: 68 Mg)
Nova GD-E w/ reusable boosters: http://www.astronautix.com/n/novagd-e.html (Mass to LEO: 458 Mg)

Nova N-(M1): http://www.astronautix.com/s/saturnv.html (Mass to LEO: 180 Mg, Mass to TLI: 90 Mg?)​

Nova MMR10E-2: http://www.astronautix.com/n/novammr10e-2.html (Mass to LEO: 596 Mg)
Nova S10-E1: http://www.astronautix.com/graphics/n/novamm.gif (Mass to LEO: 589 Mg, no boosters)

*Note: 1 Mg = 1 Megagram = 1000 kg; ISS approximate mass fully assembled: 450 Mg
*TLI = Translunar Injection (What goes to the moon)
*Mass that can reach Escape Velocity is roughly 65-70% that of mass capable of TLI

Additional information tables in Excel format: www.astronautix.com/data/lvs.xls

 

[HB of CJ]

Excellent web sites and thank you. I was just a kid during the hay day of the space race. All it would have taken is money and NASA's will to do so.

 

[Michel Van]

The NOVA rocket class was original design for Direct Apollo landings, mean the Crew goes in capsule all the way to Lunar Surface and Back, what need a very very big rocket
as Lunar orbit Rendezvous was Taken the Lunar rocket became much smaller Saturn V size and is still biggest Rocket ever build !
There were allot of Technical concerns & doubt about to build such Gigantic Rocket (i mean the Saturn V not Nova)
The NOVA rocket study went in another way for Heavy Payload in Low Orbit, how Heavy ? one million pound or 450 metric tons of Payload!

but in 1964 things went not so well, NASA focus completely on Apollo lunar program
First mariners probe to Mars show craters like the Moon not Barsoom
Next to that the USA declared War to north Vietnam
Apollo Program died long before Armstrong landed on Moon, in 1968 as LBJ stop the Saturn V production.
the Remaining rockets were used to remaining Apollo and Skylab Flights, since Soviet never landed on Moon.

This would have be also fate of Lunar NOVA, if build and it's more likely that Apollo program would cancel had this Apollo 13 version the same accident, a deadly one, since crew had no lunar module...

Off course, there allot scenarios were the NOVA would Made it
like Hot Space Race between USA and USSR to get to Mars soon as possible
Or Part of USAF program for Militarization of Space with Large Weapon Platform in Orbit

but in end only those Big Question are Important : "How to justifies this in Capitol Hill in order to get Money to build it ?", "What do we Launch with It?", "Do we get Money for building the Payload?"

 

[M79]

Hence the question: Suppose NASA actually built a series of one or two NOVA designs (say a heavy LEO lifter and another designed for TLI or transplanetary missions), how does the Space Race or later commercialization of space change?

 

[fasquardon]

Hence the question: Suppose NASA actually built a series of one or two NOVA designs (say a heavy LEO lifter and another designed for TLI or transplanetary missions), how does the Space Race or later commercialization of space change?

IMO the Saturn V was already too big - there were just too few large payloads there to justify it, Congress had no interest in giving NASA money for big interplanetary missions after NASA had gone over budget, killed one crew (Apollo 1) and almost killed a second crew (Apollo 13) just going to the moon. As for commercial uses of such a large rockets... What company could afford to launch anything on a big rocket and what could a profit-making corporation need that's so big? Sure, you could launch giant geostationary communications platforms, but even a monster one of those would be small for a Saturn V, never mind a NOVA. Also, a single large geostationary comms platform is a lot of money being risked in one basket. If such a thing were to be built, more likely it is a government program.

And given that NOVA would have cost more to develop than the Saturn V, odds are that even if the alt-Apollo 13 avoids any deaths, there won't be any more Lunar missions after Apollo 14 (one last visit to show that the US isn't quitting because the last mission went wrong). If Apollo 13 did end in a dead crew, I wonder if the Lunar program would end then and there? If it did, it might also lead the Soviets to feel it was worth taking their own shot when their hardware is ready - some point between 1975 and 1978.

Where this gets interesting is NASA might end up with a much larger Skylab station, and maybe some more left-over rockets to support a space station program. NASA may have a couple giant NOVA-launched space stations serving into the early 90s. The larger space stations are likely to also mean the shuttle is smaller and remains a passenger-focused vehicle as the original concepts were.

Such a combination could make the OTL space station program of the ISS look rather humble in comparison.

fasquardon

 

[neopeius]

Hence the question: Suppose NASA actually built a series of one or two NOVA designs (say a heavy LEO lifter and another designed for TLI or transplanetary missions), how does the Space Race or later commercialization of space change?

A world in which NASA builds NOVA is a very different one. You'd need to work out why NOVA gets developed at all. By 1962, there were much more efficient ways to get to the moon (though they had a hard battle to win favor) and by 1963, NASA is actively fighting for budget, even in the height of the Space Race.

Maybe if the Soviet Union is further along, but then you need to unpack that what-if.

But let's say for some reason Congress is packed with space-lovers, anti-Proxmires (if you will) and they push through a NOVA based Apollo. Well, that has even less sustainability than the Saturn program. What do you do with that much throw weight?

Long story short, NOVA didn't happen for a reason. If NOVA happens, I think it's a stone around the space program's neck.

 

[Garrison]

Would the opposite approach be better? Focusing on medium class rockets and assembling the lunar vehicle and future interplanetary craft in Earth orbit. That might encourage an earlier interest in reusability.

 

[MattII]

Would the opposite approach be better? Focusing on medium class rockets and assembling the lunar vehicle and future interplanetary craft in Earth orbit. That might encourage an earlier interest in reusability.

And then comes the Starfish Prime tests.

 

[neopeius]

Would the opposite approach be better? Focusing on medium class rockets and assembling the lunar vehicle and future interplanetary craft in Earth orbit. That might encourage an earlier interest in reusability.

Absolutely. Smaller spacecraft in general are worthy. Look at how long Soyuz and its derivatives have been around, and we had the chance to do a Soyuz-like project in '61, but we rejected it for Apollo.

I'm also a big fan of the Titan 3C. Imagine a strong Titan-based upgraded Gemini program.

 

[M79]

Get Korolev to ground-test an N1 rocket in 1964 and figure out what kinks have to be worked out before he dies. Soviets may just miss (or beat?) the US to the moon - and Mars awaits. Again, Nova 8L came close to going forward in OTL, it was a question of building new infrastructure vs using what already existed.

 

[fasquardon]

Would the opposite approach be better? Focusing on medium class rockets and assembling the lunar vehicle and future interplanetary craft in Earth orbit. That might encourage an earlier interest in reusability.

I think so.

The Saturn I was an excellent rocket and there was much that could be done to make parts of the rocket reuseable as well as cheaper and uprating the rocket (from simple things like improved engines on the first and second stages, to more involved ones like strapping Titan SRMs to the first stage, which would have involved reinforcing the first stage, to more deluxe options like replacing the Saturn IVB stage with a NERVA-derived nuclear stage, which could have produced a rocket with performance in the same league as the Saturn V). While the Saturn I and its descendants would be too big for the commercial market in the 60s and 70s, by the 90s and maaaybe the 80s a continually improved Saturn I would be well placed to serve the commercial sector.

The Saturn IV stage could also be re-developed into an OTV. (If the Saturn V is never developed, probably there is no Saturn IVB stage, since that stage was oversized for the Saturn I.) NASA having a good sized OTV would enable some very interesting missions, especially if they can also solve the reuseability problem, transferring liquid hydrogen in microgravity and the storage depot problem and get a hydrogen-LOX fuel depot up and running servicing the departure stages for high Earth orbits, Lunar missions and interplanetary missions. (This may be too much of an ask for 20th Century tech - NASA may end up instead with an orbital depot with hypergolic propellants servicing something like a re-useable Agena stage.)

And of course, with no Saturn V it's much less likely that the Saturn I family is junked. Though there is still a chance that the Titan pushes the Saturn out of production and becomes the sole US LV family.

A Saturn I focused around the H-1 engine (probably the most economical liquid fuelled rocket engine the US produced, also a close relative to the engines used on the Atlas and Delta rockets, which should keep it cheap even as its improved), the RL-10 engine (the most widely used hydrogen-LOX engine the US produced) and minuteman or UA-1205 solid rocket boosters saves a whole heck of alot of R&D money at the cost of slightly higher launch costs for a handful of Lunar missions... Overall that means NASA has more money available for other things (maybe we see NASA start its space station program consecutively with the Lunar program, or maybe the space probe budget isn't gutted for the duration of the 60s). Or maybe it just doesn't have to ask for so much money from Congress - which could well mean NASA gets more money in the post-Lunar era, as Congress won't feel the need to control NASA so tightly.

On the downside, NASA would need time to work on building its moonship in orbit if it is depending on smaller rockets. That may push the Lunar landing back to 1970 or further (though they can still easily beat the Soviets to every Lunar goal, unless the Soviets committed early to a Lunar program based on the Soyuz rocket, though even in that case, IMO the Soviets might be able to score first Lunar orbit, but the US still has an overwhelming advantage to scoring the first landing due to how much larger the US rocket is next to the Soyuz and how much more reliable they were next to the Proton).

At the worst, if the US went with a smaller rocket, they might land as late as 1973, but at the advantage of building up far, far more useful infrastructure that can be used after they're done with the moon.

Also, with no Saturn V, NERVA is much more likely to produce an actual flying stage, since part of why Congress wanted to suppress NERVA is because nuclear stages were a key part of NASA's Mars plans and Congress did not want an even more expensive Mars program just after they'd finished with an expensive Lunar program and the US economy was struggling. But without a Saturn V, a Mars mission is rather unlikely to appear in NASA's 20th Century plans.

Get Korolev to ground-test an N1 rocket in 1964 and figure out what kinks have to be worked out before he dies. Soviets may just miss (or beat?) the US to the moon - and Mars awaits. Again, Nova 8L came close to going forward in OTL, it was a question of building new infrastructure vs using what already existed.

I doubt that the Soviets winning the moon race would be enough to get the US to go for a Mars program. A Mars shot is vastly more expensive and risky. I could maybe see a Lunar base, but more likely the US focuses on Earth orbit - so a space station, maybe an earlier interest in space based "defensive" weapons.

fasquardon

 

[Garrison]

Absolutely. Smaller spacecraft in general are worthy. Look at how long Soyuz and its derivatives have been around, and we had the chance to do a Soyuz-like project in '61, but we rejected it for Apollo.

I'm also a big fan of the Titan 3C. Imagine a strong Titan-based upgraded Gemini program.

​

I think so.

The Saturn I was an excellent rocket and there was much that could be done to make parts of the rocket reuseable as well as cheaper and uprating the rocket (from simple things like improved engines on the first and second stages, to more involved ones like strapping Titan SRMs to the first stage, which would have involved reinforcing the first stage, to more deluxe options like replacing the Saturn IVB stage with a NERVA-derived nuclear stage, which could have produced a rocket with performance in the same league as the Saturn V). While the Saturn I and its descendants would be too big for the commercial market in the 60s and 70s, by the 90s and maaaybe the 80s a continually improved Saturn I would be well placed to serve the commercial sector.

That supports my general impression based on what I've read. I also recall reading that the EOR approach was rejected largely because they weren't sure they could perfect it inside Kennedy's timeframe.

 

[fasquardon]

That supports my general impression based on what I've read. I also recall reading that the EOR approach was rejected largely because they weren't sure they could perfect it inside Kennedy's timeframe.

Yeah. They could be sure they could build the Saturn V if they had enough money. But at the time the decisions were being made, the US hadn't even started to look at what they'd need to do for EOR and there's a host of challenges they'd need to overcome. EOR turned out to be easier than people feared, but it was a sound decision given what was known at the time - especially when they didn't know how long the Soviets would give them.

It is a real shame that the moon ended up being a race though.

fasquardon

 

[Michel Van]

Hence the question: Suppose NASA actually built a series of one or two NOVA designs (say a heavy LEO lifter and another designed for TLI or transplanetary missions), how does the Space Race or later commercialization of space change?

Theoretical Yes, take so called Saturn C-8, This was vage proposal of Saturn Class NOVA vehicle with eight F-1 engines in First stage
it launch 74 metric tons to the Moon or into low earth orbit 210 metric tons of payload.

but like fasquardon already say, they Too big for anything else, so Saturn V and Energia "died" of this problem
There were no Program left after Moon landing and Skylab, that Justified reopening of Saturn V production.
The Soviet hab bad problem with N1, never build that Toxic bandwagon called UR-700 and went for Energia what ended with Collapse of USSR

Here Offers SpaceX falcon 9 Family best option: 22 metric tons up to 50 metric tons for price tag of $60 to $120 Million
Yes, there are New Rockets build, like SpaceX BFR and Blue Origin New Glenn, also China super Launcher Long March 9
But they are in size and mass smaller as Mighty Saturn V

 

[fasquardon]

Yes, there are New Rockets build, like SpaceX BFR and Blue Origin New Glenn, also China super Launcher Long March 9
But they are in size and mass smaller as Mighty Saturn V

We are so, so much better at doing things in space now than we were in the 60s and 70s and we have technologies that, if applied to use in space, would make us even better at operations in the radiation-filled vacuum up there. Asteroid mining and SPS construction are things we have a solid shot at doing in the next decade, if we want. Even so, I am not sure the BFR and New Glenn will find enough customers to make them worthwhile investments.

fasquardon

 

[Michel Van]

Interesting is that Convair Space Systems Division under Kraft a Ehricke, envision Space commercialization already in 1960.
but let him explain himself the vision

The back bone of this architecture Is re-usable NOVA Rocket NEXUS
A Single Stage To Orbit rocket that bring 450 metric tons of Payload
But again NEXUS is to gigantic for normal operation out side it's Design.

Again it need allot Political will to push such "Space commercialization" true Capitol Hill
Even with Hot Space Race between USA and USSR the chance are minimal.


bonus
Kraft a Ehricke about Moon colonization and industrialization in 1984

 

[marathag]

Asteroid mining and SPS construction are things we have a solid shot at doing in the next decade, if we want

No, not even Novas in operation would make asteroid mining profitable

 

[fasquardon]

No, not even Novas in operation would make asteroid mining profitable

When did I say it would?

My point was quite the opposite. That even today, really big rockets are quite the risk.

fasquardon

 

[e of pi]

I think as @fasquardon and others have pointed out, Nova is likely just too large--and unless it's reusable, far too expensive--for any reasonable applications beyond the main Space Race funding peak, and would rapidly be cut. The question is its legacy. Some of the options are more interesting than others.

One is the Nova modular designs (like the Nova A and Nova B), which used stages built (somewhat Common-Core, somewhat Saturn-I-style) from clusters of standardized rocket modules. The same engines, thrust structures, and tanks would be built "like sausages" and then bolted together in varying configurations to meet the required program capacity. The linked show a 4-module that's roughly equivalent to Saturn V, and a 6-module that would meet some of the top-end Nova requirements. Of course, as Eyes has pointed out, even a single such module (fitted for appropriate attitude control as a single-tank vehicle) would be useful, a potential low-cost replacement for the Saturn IB which would unify the entire program into a single rocket production line, with some kind of "Nova I" helping to keep the potential to revive the large 3, 4, 6, or more module units alive long after the Nova proper was retired.

Another interesting legacy might be a NOVA 8L equivalent of the Saturn II proposals--take the Nova's 700-ish ton 2xM-1 hydrogen upper stage (the M-1 was a hydrolox engine with the thrust of the F-1) and stretched-SIVB third stage and build a sea level version, possibly with 4xM-1 on the core, and options for Titan solids. Throw should be in the 50-100 ton range, and it should be able to lift Apollo and a lot of useful stations to some very interesting orbits. It does have the problem that it doesn't scale down much below 50 tons, unless you fit it for a SpaceX-style boostback or Right Side Up-style flyback recovery, but some such options were considered for Saturn-derivative hardware IOTL.

 

[Michel Van]

Another Alternative would be Modular approach of Universal Rocket

Is build from Proton rocket parts, it could cover the Payload rage from 20 (Proton) over 150 (UR-700) to maximum of 240 metric tons (UR-900)
but that system got own assets and drawbacks, like the use of Toxic fuel, complex plumbing on fuel lines of Modules and it's Pyro tech