Well, Nasa thinks that it needs a new rocket to complete the task of the moon to mars vision. JIMO before they should start, maybe they should do an inventory of all engines, tanks, computers and launch vehicle currently assembled or in piece parts to go with dollar values for each. Before we say throw it out and start fresh. I'm sure this is a lot of money when compared to the cost for completing any stage of the moon or to mars missions and there respective requirements.

From the article it looks like they are principally looking at either Shuttle-C or Saturn V redux. Not exactly "new" programmes. Also noted possible improvements on the 90's Shuttle-C design by relying on newer Delta-V / Atlas engines.

Seems like they're doing exactly what you're suggesting ...

Of the two, Shuttle-C should be easier, as the design and technology is fairly recent and the infrastructure is in place. (I read somewhere that NASA had lost the original Saturn V blueprints ... Considering the audit reports on the ISS and the CIAB reports, this does not appear to be unlikely.)

Have there been any experimentations done with lox/kerosene scramjet technology. This would be a good way to increase lift capabilities of the K1 by Kistler Aerospace's if NASA decides to go with the commercial heavy lift route option by this company after they get ther sample data.

> I read somewhere that NASA had lost the original Saturn V blueprints...

If that is true, the blueprints must be lost in an archive at NASA. I visited the Marshall Space Flight Center's archives, and there are towering movable cabinets full of all manner of Saturn V documentation. Some of it even written by Wernher von Braun himself.

My understanding is that they have copies of the blueprints, but not the originals - or something to that effect.

Well,
Shuttle-C would probably be the technologically simplest and quickest way to build a heavy lift booster, especially it is designed as being fully disposable. Most of the hardware exists and the ground facilities for the Shuttle can be used as well.

However, to me there does seem to be one very big downside to Shuttle-C. To fly Shuttle-C you need LC-39 and the VAB to be kept active pretty much as is, which I've read is horribly expensive given the limited launch activity there these days. Does anyone know in detail how much launch complexes cost to keep operational and how many launches per year are made from them?

As far as I know, Shuttle-C would eliminate most of the ground work that slows down the normal STS rotation times. I would expect NASA to be able to do a lot more launches with Shuttle-C than with the STS. Increased launches would quickly bring down the per kg cost of launches (especially if they can put 200,000kgs up everytime ...)

Actually what i Read was that NASA collected all the origional Blueprints from contractors on the Saturn-5 and shredded them. I can not remeber if it was accidental or purposfull. And that some copies remain in the archives of the contractors. Not NASA.

Recordkeeping does not seem to be one of NASA's strong points - it seems that a lot of the design drawings, manuals etc. for the ISS and Shuttle were not updated to the versions of the components that are / were actually launched.

I found an article related to the loss of the Saturn V blueprints here: http://www.faqs.org/faqs/space/controversy/

See the "What Happened to the Saturn V Plans" section.

Apparently, NASA has microfilm copies of the good stuff at Marshall Space Flight Center.

There are couple of other interesting (unrelated)tit-bits on that page as well. Very informative.

Here's a semi-sane Shuttle C related idea I'd like to put to the readers for comments.

I'm assuming that the shuttle orbiter is pretty much dead as far as flying again. NASA might fly it once or twice to show the flag but IMO it's a lame duck.

Would it be practical or even possible to load two complete Soyuz TMA's side by side into a Shuttle C's cargo fairing? If so, would there be room left in the space and mass allowances for cargo to be brought to the ISS as well? Could the entire external tank be brought to the ISS?

In my mind even being able to launch two TMA's on a Shuttle C would have some advantages:
- ISS can be more fully crewed and the crew can stay for a while.
- Most of the hardware is available off the shelf and is already manrated.
- Less changes are needed to create the Shuttle C (standard SRBs can be used).
- The Shuttle C can still be used for pure cargo.
- More than 3 people can be launched at once.
- Mission customization is done to the Soyuz, not the shuttle.

This creation, while a cludge, could serve as an interim solution until a replacement (Kliper?, CEV?) is ready for use.

One additional use for this could be to launch a complete small space station (or possibly a large ISS addition) at once. A launch could contain the shell (a modified ET), things to turn the shell into a basic station (in the cargo pod behind the Soyuz's), people to actually do the work (the six hapless astronauts) and a place for them to stay until the job is done (the Soyuz's). If nothing else, the ISS crews could use it as a place to really stretch out and to store their supplies and trash.

Major drawbacks are probably:
- The width of a loaded pod (with two Soyuz's it is soon 6 meters or more).
- No pad or launch escape system.
- More pad rebuilding is needed beyond what Shuttle C would need.
- Hardware not made here (Soyuz is russian).
- Not Invented Here.

Stupid question: why pay a couple hundred million for this "cludge" to send ppl up using Shuttle-C, when two Soyuz will cost you around $40 million? NASA might as well buy the designs - ESA & China have already.

Shuttle-C, if developed, should not be man-rated - but used exclusively for cargo. That's what it is designed for.

I read with interest your comments on a heavy lift vehicle......Russia has the Energia...it can be up and running in 36 months..the capability is there,the power and the potential is there...What is stopping us in collaborating with them for a powerful launch vehicle...Lets devise a Crew Exploration vehicle..mate it to the Energia and we are off to the Moon and Mars......Its time to share,kids...............This senario would be the answer...why doesn't NASA see it ???....Jake

One part NIH (Not Invented Here) Syndrome, one part Iran anti-proliferation Act, one part institutional inertia.

That's why.

I assume that NIH also means not an idea of NASA as well.

Precisely. Many ppl think that's why the DC-X was killed.

That was why DC-X was killed.

I think the phrase " YOU'RE FIRED ",coined by Donald Trump should be words O"keefe should hear !!!We need a better more hands on individual to handle the task of Nasa's reorganization....Jake

Dennis Wingo of SkyCorp Inc. has a robotic servicing system called CX Orbital Life Extension Vehicle (OLEV) who's express purpose is to rendezvous and dock with a GEO communications satellite and extend their life by taking over attitude control and station keeping for up to ten years.

On SpaceRef.com (April 29)...
http://www.spaceref.com/news/viewnews.html?id=950
...he talks about his companies proposal of a Robotic mission to save Hubble however he also shows how the same system could be used to upgrade the ISS.

(Snip)
Later [the recue Tug] or its sibling could be used to ferry an L1 outpost space station to that orbit as a waypoint and safe haven on the way to the Moon or Mars. An L1 station where spacecraft, manned or unmanned, can be refueled, would lead to a doubling of the payload delivered to the Moon and even greater gains for Mars.
(EndSnip)

Wingo goes on to make some cutting comments about the "Mars Direct" approach as against the "Orbit - Luna" approach that he favours - VERY interesting reading.

Im just a layman, but have always had an interest in the NASA manned spacecraft program. Encyclopedia Astronautica is a great site for info. As for the current state of affairs, the biggest beef i have with nasa is their use it and through it away mentality. What a boondoogle the STS has turned into ! What I would have done differently is to have atleast kept Apollo/Saturn 1B and LC34 around for the rainy days that we are in now with ISS access. Hitching a ride on updated soviet era equipment makes me wonder who really won the space race ! what is so bad about Apollo anyway it worked ! There is certainly no upkeep costs associated with expandibles. Just think what thirty years worth of technology could be incorporated into a apollo command module. GPS guiedance, ram air chutes, probably pinpoint landings. or if not Apollo, how about Big Gemini, a Big G varient with its 6 to 10 man capability would be a great CEV candidate. Even if we kept the old clunker that we have now, has anyone considered an a1, or a2 modle. maybe a 1/3rd singe engine or 2/3rd 2 engine varient off on some othe retired LC down the Cape. There is alot that The NASA could do right other than spin there wheels. How about an Evolved STS program. At any rate, lets move forward with Apollo 2.