More Powerful Rocket

SATURN V

http://www.growingupotaku.com/2011/09/new-american-rocket-will-be-biggest.html

http://uncovercalifornia.com/content/2411-nasa-approves-28-billion-contract-build-world-s-most-powerful-rocket

45 years latter we have a rocket design that yields a 13% increase over the old Saturn V.

Impressive.

What is more important is the payload efficiency, the system SI, as it were.That means all aspects are stronger and lighter so the mass of the second stage thrown up is greater, and the same with the third stage.Dud to this inverse cascade you could find that with 13% more thrust it can lift a second stage that is 5 times as heavy, and similarly with the third stage, another 5 fold increase with a net 25 times as much to orbit.We know they now have solid boosters with a higher SI (A liquid fueled H2 and O2 would be a lot better, but SSBs are simpler)
Until this concept is fleshed out, the 13% increase of the first stage means little.
I note that SpaceX and others have smaller rockets that lift larger weights to orbit than in the 60's and 70's

This is all true and essentially what we have is a variant of the Saturn V 45 years later with updated material technology.

The real problem is that NASA is funding a shoe looking for a foot.

The heavy lift vehicle does not appear to measure up economically compared to existing boosters. Most everything could be lifted using conventional boosters like the Delta IV or the Atlas. You may need more trips, but the development costs are already paid for, so the overall launch costs would probably be cheaper.

Once again politics are dictating the direction NASA is supposed to take and like the Constellation, this will probably be scrapped at some point to make way for a new incentive by another politician in the next 3 to 5 years, which is why after 45 years we can't put a man in orbit, let alone back to the Moon.

A pattern is emerging here.

NASA is hobbled by the MIL-SPEC quality baggage. That is for want of a nail, a shoe was lost, for want of a shoe, the horse was lost, for want of a horse, a man was lost, for want of a man a battle was lost, for want of a battle, a war was lost....So small parts were inspected and x-rayed, tested and burned in and x-rayed again to arrive at the parts to use in assembly.Needless to say $$. This led to the $75,000 toilet seat and other scandals we have all seen.
Snap to the modern age, with auto-tested parts and autoassembled boards that are auto tested and burned in for far lower costs and NASA gets into a conundrum of how to keep all those warm bodies warming their desks = budget bloat, for lesser output. This is mostly union driven and politically grandfathered in by lobbied politicians.SpaceX and AmazonX (whatever Bezos calls his squibmakers?) have far less of this legacy baggage.The net result is NASA costs endure even if the new Xes do the lifting.This is what has crippled Frawnce with their untouchable unions, labor laws and work hours - in time they will follow Rome.

Yeah, it's a bit disappointing.

OTOH, the Physics of size, mass, weight, thrust, drag, etc., imposes practical limits on the ability to simply scale-up a chemical rocket design.

Either a breakthrough in rocketry (like a method to 'eliminate' drag) or a new technology to replace the 1st stage booster will be needed before we see anything significantly bigger than the Apollo rocket.

launch from the top of a mountain. its closer to space

Some people have seriously considered that. The Altaplano in South America is 2 miles closer to space than KSC and the air is a lot thinner so less drag.

Not for NASA. I doubt the US would want such a facility so far out of country.

Having said that, there are US foreign assets farther away, so I wonder what the stumbling block might be. Logistics? SA cooperation or lack thereof? Maybe the US would want to own that piece of territory and access to it as a sovereign soil.

I think I remember running the numbers for that and the savings are so trivial as to be of little use.

When you add in the factor of logistics setting up a launch site in such remote locations you quickly loose any advantages.

One of the reasons for NASA's location was the access by waterways and rail that already existed.

Wasn't also the "spin" of the earth also a "help" when launching?

Still in the USA for the many reasons you mentioned.

Big Atlantic to allow failing launches to be less dangerous to the local population than say possibly Edwards Air force Base, who I believe also launch military satellites and the like....I would guess they also launch eastwards, over mainland USA? Guessing only you understand......

Yes, eastward launches are the lower energy path.

I don't think the US launches from Edwards, maybe you meant Vandenberg? Here is a list of the non-commercial launch sites:

Cape Canaveral Air Force Station, Florida

Vandenberg Air Force Base, California

Wallops Island Flight Facility, Virginia

Reagan Test Site, Kwajalein Atoll

Kodiak Island, Alaska

The big stuff goes out of Cape Canaveral.

You are right!! Thanks.

Thanks for posting.