Nova launch vehicle (post-Saturn)

[Triton]

Artist's depiction of a comparison of US launch vehicles including the Nova.

Source: http://cgi.ebay.com/ORIGL-NASA-PHOTO-U-S-SPACE-VEHICLES-COMPARISON-/260653187154?pt=LH_DefaultDomain_0

 

[Triton]

From Proceedings of the American Astronomical Society Symposium on the Exploration of Mars June 6-7, 1963:

"Nova Launch Vehicle Design Studies" by Andrew Kalitinsky

http://www.gravityassist.com/IAF1/Ref.%201-47.pdf

 

[sferrin]

I'm more than a little surprised that there doesn't appear to be a thread about Nova already.

 

[Michel Van]

I'm more than a little surprised that there doesn't appear to be a thread about Nova already.

were you say it, dam there was no NOVA thread here
but we got one now ;D


NOVA start 1959 as "we fly to moon direct" big rocket
later as LOR and Saturn V was selected in 1961, NOVA was change into Heavy lift rocket with 1 million lb or 453 metric tons payload.
for advance manned mission to Moon or Mars, the studys were conduct until 1964
then NASA Administration stop all NOVA study in favor of advance Saturn V version.

 

[F-14D]

http://www.astronautix.com/lvs/nova.htm

 

[sferrin]

I have no idea what possessed M. Wade to change the layout but ye Gods, what a pain in the backside to find anything now. And if you don't already know where to look forget about browsing to it. I liked the layout he had about 10 years ago.

 

[bobbymike]

I have no idea what possessed M. Wade to change the layout but ye Gods, what a pain in the backside to find anything now. And if you don't already know where to look forget about browsing to it. I liked the layout he had about 10 years ago.

Yes absolutely I could find stuff kind of intuitively before, not so good now.

 

[blackstar]

I have no idea what possessed M. Wade to change the layout but ye Gods, what a pain in the backside to find anything now. And if you don't already know where to look forget about browsing to it. I liked the layout he had about 10 years ago.

He changed the layout a long time ago. I have no idea why he did it, but it dramatically lowered the readability of the site.

 

[OM]

I have no idea what possessed M. Wade to change the layout but ye Gods, what a pain in the backside to find anything now. And if you don't already know where to look forget about browsing to it. I liked the layout he had about 10 years ago.

He changed the layout a long time ago. I have no idea why he did it, but it dramatically lowered the readability of the site.

..."A long time ago" = "When the site got trollhammered", which wasn't *that* long ago. That being said, I and quite a few others have fired off e-mails to Mark asking about the layout change, and if he'd consider changing it back. I even offered to redesign the front page so that it was more navigatable, but *nobody's* managed to receive a reply from him so far. Mark's never been this "under the radar" in the past, so I'm sort of worried about him. Considering we're all now at the age where we're starting to drop like flies like poor Pat Flannery, I'm hoping Mark's health hasn't taken a turn for the worst.

 

[hesham]

Hi,


here is the Nova (Post-Saturn) Class I,II,III & IV.

 

[hesham]

Hi,


here is a Hughes Nova large launch vehicle recovery;


http://arc.aiaa.org/doi/abs/10.2514/3.28177?journalCode=jsr

 

[Triton]

Some Martin Nova-family launch vehicle designs on Scott's The Unwanted Blog.

Source:
http://up-ship.com/blog/?p=2640

 

[fredymac]

Hazegrayart finally got around to Nova. This version with 8 F1 engines (12 million pound thrust).

 

[7Daniel13]

Found this blueprint on an old site from a model guy. Source: http://martins-models.co.uk/Sales/144/C-8/saturnc8.htm

 

[Jcking]

Post Saturn Launch Vehicle Study, Summary Review (Martin) https://web.archive.org/web/2010051...casi.ntrs.nasa.gov/19750065864_1975065864.pdf

 

[antigravite]

Hi.

As it seems, the RAND corp even issued a "POST NOVA study" report that was auctionned some time ago.
No other image was available to the best of my knowledge.

A.

 

[publiusr]

Would I ever love to see that

 

[Orionblamblam]

All you need is a time machine...

 

[RAP]

Aviation Week, 1963.

 

[uk 75]

The ideas for launchers from the 50s to the 60s were monumental in ambition.
Sadly it all ended after the Saturn family did their job.

 

[Archibald]

View: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=rGx61TgDvCk

 

[Orionblamblam]

The ideas for launchers from the 50s to the 60s were monumental in ambition.
Sadly it all ended after the Saturn family did their job.

*Before.* The Nova/Post-Satuen concepts were dead in the water well before the Saturn V launched. The *Saturn V* was dead before the Saturn V launched.

 

[asiscan]

The ideas for launchers from the 50s to the 60s were monumental in ambition.
Sadly it all ended after the Saturn family did their job.

*Before.* The Nova/Post-Satuen concepts were dead in the water well before the Saturn V launched. The *Saturn V* was dead before the Saturn V launched.

Same could be said for the Aerojet General "Sea Dragon" big dumb booster. Bob Truax pushed for that up to the 80's..

 

[Orionblamblam]

Sea Dragon *was* a Post Saturn concept.

 

[publiusr]

Super Heavy is the closest thing to the post Saturn-non C-8 designs we are likely to see. The reason I pushed for SD HLLVs on the web for so many years was that this DIRECT plus thing would be all you could ever hope to expect. I really hope I'm wrong.

 

[Byeman]

Super Heavy is the closest thing to the post Saturn-non C-8 designs we are likely to see. The reason I pushed for SD HLLVs on the web for so many years was that this DIRECT plus thing would be all you could ever hope to expect. I really hope I'm wrong.

Pushed for no valid reason. There is no reason for SD HLLV's except for Huntsville employment. There is no reason for any HLLV except for Musk's Mars desires.

 

[uk 75]

Nova might have enabled a moon landing wihout the rendezvous method necessary with Saturn.
A single vehicle launched by Nova and carrying out the moon mission before returning to Earth would have been interesting.

 

[publiusr]

I really don't think 'NOVA' when I gaze upon C-8 art...it has to have that forest of nozzles...

 

[T. A. Gardner]

The real question is, Why would we need this? If two Saturn launches would produce the same result, why build bigger? That is, we launch two rockets each with 50% of the mission load and then combine those in orbit, and we get the same result, then what is the advantage of building one much larger rocket to boost everything up at once?

This is particularly true today when we have much better remote / automated systems to get stuff in orbit and even perform complex docking maneuvers, etc. In the 60's and 70's computing power was a tiny fraction of what we can manage today.

 

[Orionblamblam]

The real question is, Why would we need this? If two Saturn launches would produce the same result, why build bigger? T

When Nova/Post Saturn were A Thing, landing Apollo on the moon was simply the first step. It was entirely expected that Apollo would be followed not only by larger missions to the moon - bases and such - but also manned missions to Mars and Venus flybys. These required *giant* vehicles with *vast* amounts of liquid hydrogen. That's why most of the payloads you see on Nova/Post-Saturn vehicles tend to be tanks of liquid hydrogen, up to one million pounds. You can't really plan on giant spacecraft that need to be tanked up with many individual launches of small LH2 tanks; boiloff in Earth orbit would be horrendous. Once the ship is on the way to Mars, it would be straightforward to orient the ship to keep sunlight heating to a minimum, but while orbiting Earth, orienting towards the sun becomes virtually impossible... and Earth itself is constantly irradiating you with IR. So you need to minimize the time you spend with LH2 in Earth orbit, and that means a minimum number of maximum payload launches.

 

[publiusr]

, You can't really plan on giant spacecraft that need to be tanked up with many individual launches of small LH2 tanks; boiloff in Earth orbit would be horrendous. Once the ship is on the way to Mars, it would be straightforward to orient the ship to keep sunlight heating to a minimum, but while orbiting Earth, orienting towards the sun becomes virtually impossible... and Earth itself is constantly irradiating you with IR. So you need to minimize the time you spend with LH2 in Earth orbit, and that means a minimum number of maximum payload launches.

And THAT'S why the EELV-assembly/depot crock was turned down in favor of SLS...a rocket Boeing does not want to build. The more boil-off, the more Delta IVs they can sell. All these rockets use hydrogen, where Musk uses both HLLVs AND depots with methane-which has less specific impulse..but better handling. I think the M-1 was to burn cooler than Raptor....so if there is any truth to New Armstrong-Bezos could give M-1 and NOVA new life.

 

[FighterJock]

The real question is, Why would we need this? If two Saturn launches would produce the same result, why build bigger? T

When Nova/Post Saturn were A Thing, landing Apollo on the moon was simply the first step. It was entirely expected that Apollo would be followed not only by larger missions to the moon - bases and such - but also manned missions to Mars and Venus flybys. These required *giant* vehicles with *vast* amounts of liquid hydrogen. That's why most of the payloads you see on Nova/Post-Saturn vehicles tend to be tanks of liquid hydrogen, up to one million pounds. You can't really plan on giant spacecraft that need to be tanked up with many individual launches of small LH2 tanks; boiloff in Earth orbit would be horrendous. Once the ship is on the way to Mars, it would be straightforward to orient the ship to keep sunlight heating to a minimum, but while orbiting Earth, orienting towards the sun becomes virtually impossible... and Earth itself is constantly irradiating you with IR. So you need to minimize the time you spend with LH2 in Earth orbit, and that means a minimum number of maximum payload launches.

The Mars mission was originally penned for 1985, but as we all know it did not happen. Instead we got the Space Shuttle program and then the rest as they say was history. I would have liked to have seen how capable the Nova rocket would have been certainly against the current Space Launch System.

 

[Orionblamblam]

. I would have liked to have seen how capable the Nova rocket would have been certainly against the current Space Launch System.

Depends on which Nova. Some had payload capabilities in excess of a million pounds, while being mostly reusable. This would have - if they worked - made them *vastly* more capable and cost effective than SLS.

 

[Orionblamblam]

And THAT'S why the EELV-assembly/depot crock was turned down in favor of SLS...

Nobody is planning on building spacecraft requiring millions of pounds of LH2.

 

[Archibald]

The real question is, Why would we need this? If two Saturn launches would produce the same result, why build bigger? T

When Nova/Post Saturn were A Thing, landing Apollo on the moon was simply the first step. It was entirely expected that Apollo would be followed not only by larger missions to the moon - bases and such - but also manned missions to Mars and Venus flybys. These required *giant* vehicles with *vast* amounts of liquid hydrogen. That's why most of the payloads you see on Nova/Post-Saturn vehicles tend to be tanks of liquid hydrogen, up to one million pounds. You can't really plan on giant spacecraft that need to be tanked up with many individual launches of small LH2 tanks; boiloff in Earth orbit would be horrendous. Once the ship is on the way to Mars, it would be straightforward to orient the ship to keep sunlight heating to a minimum, but while orbiting Earth, orienting towards the sun becomes virtually impossible... and Earth itself is constantly irradiating you with IR. So you need to minimize the time you spend with LH2 in Earth orbit, and that means a minimum number of maximum payload launches.

The Mars mission was originally penned for 1985, but as we all know it did not happen. Instead we got the Space Shuttle program and then the rest as they say was history. I would have liked to have seen how capable the Nova rocket would have been certainly against the current Space Launch System.

On paper at least, Nova would lift more than Saturn C5, which lift more than SLS
(180 mt vs 120 mt vs 105 mt)

Saturn C8, now that would have been something... but the plant roof at Michoud maxed out at 33 ft diameter stages - 5*F1s. Eight F-1s would have busted that limit. Or the VAB own limits.

 

[FighterJock]

. I would have liked to have seen how capable the Nova rocket would have been certainly against the current Space Launch System.

Depends on which Nova. Some had payload capabilities in excess of a million pounds, while being mostly reusable. This would have - if they worked - made them *vastly* more capable and cost effective than SLS.

The real question is, Why would we need this? If two Saturn launches would produce the same result, why build bigger? T

When Nova/Post Saturn were A Thing, landing Apollo on the moon was simply the first step. It was entirely expected that Apollo would be followed not only by larger missions to the moon - bases and such - but also manned missions to Mars and Venus flybys. These required *giant* vehicles with *vast* amounts of liquid hydrogen. That's why most of the payloads you see on Nova/Post-Saturn vehicles tend to be tanks of liquid hydrogen, up to one million pounds. You can't really plan on giant spacecraft that need to be tanked up with many individual launches of small LH2 tanks; boiloff in Earth orbit would be horrendous. Once the ship is on the way to Mars, it would be straightforward to orient the ship to keep sunlight heating to a minimum, but while orbiting Earth, orienting towards the sun becomes virtually impossible... and Earth itself is constantly irradiating you with IR. So you need to minimize the time you spend with LH2 in Earth orbit, and that means a minimum number of maximum payload launches.

The Mars mission was originally penned for 1985, but as we all know it did not happen. Instead we got the Space Shuttle program and then the rest as they say was history. I would have liked to have seen how capable the Nova rocket would have been certainly against the current Space Launch System.

On paper at least, Nova would lift more than Saturn C5, which lift more than SLS
(180 mt vs 120 mt vs 105 mt)

Saturn C8, now that would have been something... but the plant roof at Michoud maxed out at 33 ft diameter stages - 5*F1s. Eight F-1s would have busted that limit. Or the VAB own limits.

Thanks for the info. It would have been one hell of a rocket had it been built. Pity it wasn't.

 

[uk 75]

Courtesy of the wonderful 1963 comedy film.Mouse on the Moon here is what a single stage moon lander using Nova might have looked like.

 

[publiusr]

Disney would have made a fine President. Perhaps Musk could modify VAB if allowed a free hand.

 

[royabulgaf]

Disney would have made a fine President. Perhaps Musk could modify VAB if allowed a free hand.

Disney made a number of fine presidents. I saw them at Disney World.

 

[Michel Van]

The real question is, Why would we need this? If two Saturn launches would produce the same result, why build bigger?

The early Nova design were to land Apollo spacecraft direct on moon, the Saturn C-8 was last of them (so far i know)

The later Nova design were cargo rocket that bring 1 mio. pound in low earth orbit ( around 453 metric tons)
They wanted solve two problems with this approach
Launch so much liquid Hydrogen at one up, until craft was ready it enough left to feed the Nerva Engine (boil off losses)
Reduce the Launches for Mars ship to minimum
Douglas made one Mars mission study, that only use two Nova launches, the Mars ship and it departure stage.

But at 1964 it became clear there no budget for further Nova studies and no chance they would build them.
From that point Boeing and others look into option to increase the performance of Saturn V into a heavy lift rocket.
in 1968 that effort died as Johnson stop the Saturn-V production

Then they focus on option to use the Space Shuttle as heavy lift rocket.
but in 1973 it became that cheap version with Solids
In 1980s they look into Shuttle-C and ALS and 1990s into Shuttle-Z and NLS
Then 2004 came Aries V what mutated into Senator Launch System what got build

But in mean time a certain Elon Musk start to build reusable rocket in size of Saturn-V
and he thinking to build 4 times bigger version by increasing diameter for 9 meter to 18 meter (or 30ft to 60 ft)
If build it will be a Nova Class rocket, mostly to launch propellant in low orbit or heavy equipment needed for Mars