Russia to approve new Moon rocket

[Bluuuue Rajah]

Russia to approve new Moon rocket
By Anatoly Zak
Science reporter

http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/science/nature/7946689.stm

Russia is developing a new generation of space vehicles

Russian space officials are to select the winning proposal for a new
rocket intended to carry cosmonauts on missions to the Moon.

This will mark the first time since 1964 that the Russian space
programme has made the Moon its main objective.

It will be only the second time since the collapse of the Soviet Union
that Moscow has endorsed the development of a new space vehicle.

The rocket is expected to fly its first test mission in about 2015.

According to the objectives given by the Russian space agency
(Roscosmos) to industry, a future rocket should be able to hoist a
payload three times heavier than Russia's veteran Soyuz spacecraft,
including twice the number of crew, and use environmentally friendly
propellants.

The development of the new rocket should be accompanied by work on
Russia's next-generation manned spacecraft, which will use it to get
into orbit.

Russian space officials say the yet-to-be-named rocket should carry its
first manned spacecraft in 2018. The project was timed to roughly
coincide with the US space agency's (Nasa) plans to return astronauts to
the Moon by 2020 under its Constellation programme.

Late start

However, in what seems like a case of history repeating itself, Russia
is starting late in its bid to beat the US - and potentially China - to
the Moon.

In 1961, President John F Kennedy met the Soviet challenge in space by
launching the original US lunar effort.

Yet the Soviet government waited until 1964 before committing itself to
the costly expenditure of a manned landing.

The Kremlin ultimately aborted the monumental effort after the Apollo 11
lunar module touched down on the Moon first.

In a 21st Century version of this Moon race, the US, Europe, China,
India and Japan had all declared their intention to explore Earth's
natural satellite, while Russia struggled to emerge from its post-Soviet
economic crisis.

As Nasa starts unveiling the first prototypes of US rockets and
spacecraft for lunar expeditions, Roscosmos is only starting its lunar
programme.

To make matters worse, along with the new fleet of rockets and
spacecraft which need to be built, the Russian government committed in
2007 to moving its main space launch site from the Baikonur Cosmodrome
in Kazakhstan to Vostochny in Russia's Far East.

The new rocket is intended to carry a manned capsule to the Moon

In 2008, Roscosmos finally started quietly soliciting proposals from the
industry to develop a brand-new rocket which could support lunar
expeditions. All major Russian space firms reportedly vied for the
government contract to build the vehicle.

While Roscosmos had never publicised details of the bidding process, a
number of Russian space officials hinted that they were close to
choosing a winner at the beginning of 2009.

On 14 March, Alexander Chulkov, head of the rocket and launch facilities
directorate at Roscosmos, told BBC News that the agency would pick a
winner by March 25.

"We have a bidding procedure, under which we made a request for
proposals and now will be reviewing those proposals to determine a prime
developer, based on the most interesting project from the cost-
effectiveness point of view," Mr Chulkov said.

He explained that the agency's main requirement for the future manned
rocket was to be able to carry no less than 20 tonnes to low-Earth
orbit, with the maximum capacity of about 23 tonnes.

For comparison, the Soyuz capsule, which Soviet and Russian cosmonauts
have been riding to orbit since 1967, weighs around seven tonnes. Nasa's
Ares-I rocket for the next-generation Orion spacecraft will be able to
lift a total of 25 tonnes.

Everybody wins?

Contenders must also employ non-toxic propellants such as kerosene or
liquid hydrogen on all stages of the vehicle.

According to Mr Chulkov, industry will generally be free to design the
general architecture of the future rocket.

"Roscosmos has its own opinion about the configuration (of the rocket),
which we would like to see, however, we understand there is some
distance between what we want and what might be available," Chulkov
said.
The new Russian rocket could take one of several configurations

The decision on the prime developer would clear the way to the
preliminary design phase of the rocket, which was expected to last for
about one year.

"Thus, in 2009 we will start the development of this rocket," Mr Chulkov
said.

Although the Russian space agency is expected to name a single prime
developer, it has been rumoured in unofficial fora that the contract
would distribute various responsibilities for the project among several
major rocket firms.

These include TsSKB Progress in Samara, the developer of the Soyuz
rocket, and KB Mashinostroenia in Miass, a chief developer of submarine-
launched ballistic missiles.

Thus, a bulk of the workforce building Russian rockets today will remain
employed.

How heavy is heavy?

A new rocket for the manned spacecraft is only one component in the
array of hardware which will be required to land humans on the Moon in
the 21st century.

With the multi-launch scenario for a lunar expedition adopted by both
Nasa and Roscosmos, a separate heavy lifting vehicle would be needed to
carry the lunar landing module and the rocket stage to propel it from
the Earth orbit toward the Moon.

However, it seems that Nasa and Russia have drastically different
understanding of what "heavy-lift" means.

While the US space agency embarked on the development of its titanic
Ares-V rocket with a payload capacity target of 145 tonnes, Russian
space officials have indicated a much lower appetite for payload
tonnage.

"In the field of heavy-lifting rockets we have… the yet-to-be-flown
Angara (rocket), while the requirements for the next-generation rocket
are within the same category," Mr Chulkov said.

The Angara rocket, which has been under development since the mid-1990s,
is expected to make its maiden flight in 2011.

It would be capable of carrying as many as 35 tonnes into low-Earth
orbit. But some of its derivatives could lift between 40 and 50 tonnes.

According to documents from the Khrunichev enterprise, developer of the
Angara rocket, up to four launches of the Angara-7 vehicle would be
required to accomplish a single lunar expedition. By comparison, Nasa
can rely on one Ares-I rocket and one Ares-V for each Moon landing.

[Yousuf Khan]

Bluuuue Rajah wrote:
> This will mark the first time since 1964 that the Russian space
> programme has made the Moon its main objective.

I wonder if they'll actually make it to the Moon this time around?


Yousuf Khan

[Bluuuue Rajah]

Yousuf Khan > wrote in :

> Bluuuue Rajah wrote:
>> This will mark the first time since 1964 that the Russian space
>> programme has made the Moon its main objective.
>
> I wonder if they'll actually make it to the Moon this time around?

I heard they had a pretty big explosion, last time.

[[email protected]]

On Mar 16, 7:19*pm, Bluuuue Rajah <Bluuuuue@Rajah.> wrote:
> Russia to approve new Moon rocket *
>
> "In the field of heavy-lifting rockets we have… the yet-to-be-flown
> Angara (rocket), while the requirements for the next-generation rocket
> are within the same category," Mr Chulkov said.
>
> The Angara rocket, which has been under development since the mid-1990s,
> is expected to make its maiden flight in 2011.
>
> It would be capable of carrying as many as 35 tonnes into low-Earth
> orbit. But some of its derivatives could lift between 40 and 50 tonnes.
>
> According to documents from the Khrunichev enterprise, developer of the
> Angara rocket, up to four launches of the Angara-7 vehicle would be
> required to accomplish a single lunar expedition. By comparison, Nasa
> can rely on one Ares-I rocket and one Ares-V for each Moon landing.

Any possibility that they could revive the Energia? As I recall, that
was comparable in lift to the Ares V.

Peter Wezeman
anti-social Darwinist

[Bluuuue Rajah]

wrote in
:

> On Mar 16, 7:19*pm, Bluuuue Rajah <Bluuuuue@Rajah.> wrote:
>> Russia to approve new Moon rocket *
>>
>> "In the field of heavy-lifting rockets we have… the yet-to-be-flown
>> Angara (rocket), while the requirements for the next-generation
>> rocket are within the same category," Mr Chulkov said.
>>
>> The Angara rocket, which has been under development since the
>> mid-1990s, is expected to make its maiden flight in 2011.
>>
>> It would be capable of carrying as many as 35 tonnes into low-Earth
>> orbit. But some of its derivatives could lift between 40 and 50
>> tonnes.
>>
>> According to documents from the Khrunichev enterprise, developer of
>> the Angara rocket, up to four launches of the Angara-7 vehicle would
>> be required to accomplish a single lunar expedition. By comparison,
>> Nasa can rely on one Ares-I rocket and one Ares-V for each Moon
>> landing.
>
> Any possibility that they could revive the Energia? As I recall, that
> was comparable in lift to the Ares V.

They didn't get very much use out of that did they? Apparently it was
built to carry a shuttle lookalike that had no engines. I'm not aware
that thing ever flew.

[Matt Wiser[_2_]]

A VERY big one: the second N-1 failure was equal to a tac nuke in the 2 to 5
KT range.
"Bluuuue Rajah" <Bluuuuue@Rajah.> wrote in message
. 17.102...
> Yousuf Khan > wrote in :
>
> > Bluuuue Rajah wrote:
> >> This will mark the first time since 1964 that the Russian space
> >> programme has made the Moon its main objective.
> >
> > I wonder if they'll actually make it to the Moon this time around?
>
> I heard they had a pretty big explosion, last time.

[Matt Wiser[_2_]]

Energia put Mir up (over several launches).
"Bluuuue Rajah" <Bluuuuue@Rajah.> wrote in message
3.102...
> wrote in
> :
>
> > On Mar 16, 7:19 pm, Bluuuue Rajah <Bluuuuue@Rajah.> wrote:
> >> Russia to approve new Moon rocket
> >>
> >> "In the field of heavy-lifting rockets we have. the yet-to-be-flown
> >> Angara (rocket), while the requirements for the next-generation
> >> rocket are within the same category," Mr Chulkov said.
> >>
> >> The Angara rocket, which has been under development since the
> >> mid-1990s, is expected to make its maiden flight in 2011.
> >>
> >> It would be capable of carrying as many as 35 tonnes into low-Earth
> >> orbit. But some of its derivatives could lift between 40 and 50
> >> tonnes.
> >>
> >> According to documents from the Khrunichev enterprise, developer of
> >> the Angara rocket, up to four launches of the Angara-7 vehicle would
> >> be required to accomplish a single lunar expedition. By comparison,
> >> Nasa can rely on one Ares-I rocket and one Ares-V for each Moon
> >> landing.
> >
> > Any possibility that they could revive the Energia? As I recall, that
> > was comparable in lift to the Ares V.
>
> They didn't get very much use out of that did they? Apparently it was
> built to carry a shuttle lookalike that had no engines. I'm not aware
> that thing ever flew.

[Bluuuue Rajah]

"Matt Wiser" > wrote in
:

> A VERY big one: the second N-1 failure was equal to a tac nuke in the
> 2 to 5 KT range.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=m79UO4HOQmc

[aglooka]

On Tue, 17 Mar 2009 21:22:05 -0800, "Matt Wiser"
> wrote:

>Energia put Mir up (over several launches).


Afaik, The Energia was only used for 2 launches: one put the Buran
into orbit and one carried the secret Polyus "combat" satellite.

The Mir was luanched using Proton.

Aglooka

[BradGuth]

On Mar 16, 4:19*pm, Bluuuue Rajah <Bluuuuue@Rajah.> wrote:
> Russia to approve new Moon rocket *
> By Anatoly Zak
> Science reporter *
>
> http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/science/nature/7946689.stm
>
> Russia is developing a new generation of space vehicles
>
> Russian space officials are to select the winning proposal for a new
> rocket intended to carry cosmonauts on missions to the Moon.
>
> This will mark the first time since 1964 that the Russian space
> programme has made the Moon its main objective.
>
> It will be only the second time since the collapse of the Soviet Union
> that Moscow has endorsed the development of a new space vehicle.
>
> The rocket is expected to fly its first test mission in about 2015.
>
> According to the objectives given by the Russian space agency
> (Roscosmos) to industry, a future rocket should be able to hoist a
> payload three times heavier than Russia's veteran Soyuz spacecraft,
> including twice the number of crew, and use environmentally friendly
> propellants.
>
> The development of the new rocket should be accompanied by work on
> Russia's next-generation manned spacecraft, which will use it to get
> into orbit.
>
> Russian space officials say the yet-to-be-named rocket should carry its
> first manned spacecraft in 2018. The project was timed to roughly
> coincide with the US space agency's (Nasa) plans to return astronauts to
> the Moon by 2020 under its Constellation programme.
>
> Late start
>
> However, in what seems like a case of history repeating itself, Russia
> is starting late in its bid to beat the US - and potentially China - to
> the Moon.
>
> In 1961, President John F Kennedy met the Soviet challenge in space by
> launching the original US lunar effort.
>
> Yet the Soviet government waited until 1964 before committing itself to
> the costly expenditure of a manned landing.
>
> The Kremlin ultimately aborted the monumental effort after the Apollo 11
> lunar module touched down on the Moon first.
>
> In a 21st Century version of this Moon race, the US, Europe, China,
> India and Japan had all declared their intention to explore Earth's
> natural satellite, while Russia struggled to emerge from its post-Soviet
> economic crisis.
>
> As Nasa starts unveiling the first prototypes of US rockets and
> spacecraft for lunar expeditions, Roscosmos is only starting its lunar
> programme.
>
> To make matters worse, along with the new fleet of rockets and
> spacecraft which need to be built, the Russian government committed in
> 2007 to moving its main space launch site from the Baikonur Cosmodrome
> in Kazakhstan to Vostochny in Russia's Far East.
>
> The new rocket is intended to carry a manned capsule to the Moon
>
> In 2008, Roscosmos finally started quietly soliciting proposals from the
> industry to develop a brand-new rocket which could support lunar
> expeditions. All major Russian space firms reportedly vied for the
> government contract to build the vehicle.
>
> While Roscosmos had never publicised details of the bidding process, a
> number of Russian space officials hinted that they were close to
> choosing a winner at the beginning of 2009.
>
> On 14 March, Alexander Chulkov, head of the rocket and launch facilities
> directorate at Roscosmos, told BBC News that the agency would pick a
> winner by March 25.
>
> "We have a bidding procedure, under which we made a request for
> proposals and now will be reviewing those proposals to determine a prime
> developer, based on the most interesting project from the cost-
> effectiveness point of view," Mr Chulkov said.
>
> He explained that the agency's main requirement for the future manned
> rocket was to be able to carry no less than 20 tonnes to low-Earth
> orbit, with the maximum capacity of about 23 tonnes.
>
> For comparison, the Soyuz capsule, which Soviet and Russian cosmonauts
> have been riding to orbit since 1967, weighs around seven tonnes. Nasa's
> Ares-I rocket for the next-generation Orion spacecraft will be able to
> lift a total of 25 tonnes.
>
> Everybody wins?
>
> Contenders must also employ non-toxic propellants such as kerosene or
> liquid hydrogen on all stages of the vehicle.
>
> According to Mr Chulkov, industry will generally be free to design the
> general architecture of the future rocket.
>
> "Roscosmos has its own opinion about the configuration (of the rocket),
> which we would like to see, however, we understand there is some
> distance between what we want and what might be available," Chulkov
> said. *
> The new Russian rocket could take one of several configurations
>
> The decision on the prime developer would clear the way to the
> preliminary design phase of the rocket, which was expected to last for
> about one year.
>
> "Thus, in 2009 we will start the development of this rocket," Mr Chulkov
> said.
>
> Although the Russian space agency is expected to name a single prime
> developer, it has been rumoured in unofficial fora that the contract
> would distribute various responsibilities for the project among several
> major rocket firms.
>
> These include TsSKB Progress in Samara, the developer of the Soyuz
> rocket, and KB Mashinostroenia in Miass, a chief developer of submarine-
> launched ballistic missiles.
>
> Thus, a bulk of the workforce building Russian rockets today will remain
> employed.
>
> How heavy is heavy?
>
> A new rocket for the manned spacecraft is only one component in the
> array of hardware which will be required to land humans on the Moon in
> the 21st century.
>
> With the multi-launch scenario for a lunar expedition adopted by both
> Nasa and Roscosmos, a separate heavy lifting vehicle would be needed to
> carry the lunar landing module and the rocket stage to propel it from
> the Earth orbit toward the Moon.
>
> However, it seems that Nasa and Russia have drastically different
> understanding of what "heavy-lift" means.
>
> While the US space agency embarked on the development of its titanic
> Ares-V rocket with a payload capacity target of 145 tonnes, Russian
> space officials have indicated a much lower appetite for payload
> tonnage.
>
> "In the field of heavy-lifting rockets we have… the yet-to-be-flown
> Angara (rocket), while the requirements for the next-generation rocket
> are within the same category," Mr Chulkov said.
>
> The Angara rocket, which has been under development since the mid-1990s,
> is expected to make its maiden flight in 2011.
>
> It would be capable of carrying as many as 35 tonnes into low-Earth
> orbit. But some of its derivatives could lift between 40 and 50 tonnes.
>
> According to documents from the Khrunichev enterprise, developer of the
> Angara rocket, up to four launches of the Angara-7 vehicle would be
> required to accomplish a single lunar expedition. By comparison, Nasa
> can rely on one Ares-I rocket and one Ares-V for each Moon landing.

Why not use the 100% reliable and 30% inert massive Saturn 5
configuration?

Why reinvent the wheel?

~ BG

[BradGuth]

On Mar 17, 12:49*pm, Yousuf Khan > wrote:
> Bluuuue Rajah wrote:
> > This will mark the first time since 1964 that the Russian space
> > programme has made the Moon its main objective.
>
> I wonder if they'll actually make it to the Moon this time around?
>
> * * * * Yousuf Khan

Are you suggesting those Russians are incapable, or just stupid?

~ BG

[Just go look it up!]

On Thu, 19 Mar 2009 22:19:56 -0700 (PDT), BradGuth
> wrote:


>Why not use the 100% reliable and 30% inert massive Saturn 5
>configuration?
>
>Why reinvent the wheel?

Even if the plans were available (I think NASA says they are, other
documentaries say they aren't), I doubt that some 30 years later that
any of the tooling, materials, electronics, et al are still in
existance to build another Saturn V even if they did want to.

From what I understand, that's why they're designing and building a
completely new one (Ares) for Moon, Mars, and Beyond:

http://www.nasa.gov/mission_pages/constellation/ares/index.html

Could be wrong though.

Saturn V must have been incredible to see launch though. I've only
seen the display at Kennedy Space Center... massive......

[Bluuuue Rajah]

aglooka > wrote in news:c986s4d2rggvg1ob7t2ulcvttss1br670r@
4ax.com:

> On Tue, 17 Mar 2009 21:22:05 -0800, "Matt Wiser"
> > wrote:
>
>>Energia put Mir up (over several launches).
>
> Afaik, The Energia was only used for 2 launches: one put the Buran
> into orbit and one carried the secret Polyus "combat" satellite.
>
> The Mir was luanched using Proton.

I didn't think the Buran ever flew. I thought it was just a showpiece so
they could boast that they were keeping up with the west, much like the
latest moonshot plans.

[Bluuuue Rajah]

BradGuth > wrote in
:

> On Mar 16, 4:19*pm, Bluuuue Rajah <Bluuuuue@Rajah.> wrote:
>> Russia to approve new Moon rocket *
>> By Anatoly Zak
>> Science reporter *
>>
>> http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/science/nature/7946689.stm
>>
>> Russia is developing a new generation of space vehicles
>>
>> Russian space officials are to select the winning proposal for a new
>> rocket intended to carry cosmonauts on missions to the Moon.
>>
>> This will mark the first time since 1964 that the Russian space
>> programme has made the Moon its main objective.
>>
>> It will be only the second time since the collapse of the Soviet
>> Union that Moscow has endorsed the development of a new space
>> vehicle.
>>
>> The rocket is expected to fly its first test mission in about 2015.
>>
>> According to the objectives given by the Russian space agency
>> (Roscosmos) to industry, a future rocket should be able to hoist a
>> payload three times heavier than Russia's veteran Soyuz spacecraft,
>> including twice the number of crew, and use environmentally friendly
>> propellants.
>>
>> The development of the new rocket should be accompanied by work on
>> Russia's next-generation manned spacecraft, which will use it to get
>> into orbit.
>>
>> Russian space officials say the yet-to-be-named rocket should carry
>> its first manned spacecraft in 2018. The project was timed to roughly
>> coincide with the US space agency's (Nasa) plans to return astronauts
>> to the Moon by 2020 under its Constellation programme.
>>
>> Late start
>>
>> However, in what seems like a case of history repeating itself,
>> Russia is starting late in its bid to beat the US - and potentially
>> China - to the Moon.
>>
>> In 1961, President John F Kennedy met the Soviet challenge in space
>> by launching the original US lunar effort.
>>
>> Yet the Soviet government waited until 1964 before committing itself
>> to the costly expenditure of a manned landing.
>>
>> The Kremlin ultimately aborted the monumental effort after the Apollo
>> 11 lunar module touched down on the Moon first.
>>
>> In a 21st Century version of this Moon race, the US, Europe, China,
>> India and Japan had all declared their intention to explore Earth's
>> natural satellite, while Russia struggled to emerge from its
>> post-Soviet economic crisis.
>>
>> As Nasa starts unveiling the first prototypes of US rockets and
>> spacecraft for lunar expeditions, Roscosmos is only starting its
>> lunar programme.
>>
>> To make matters worse, along with the new fleet of rockets and
>> spacecraft which need to be built, the Russian government committed
>> in 2007 to moving its main space launch site from the Baikonur
>> Cosmodrome in Kazakhstan to Vostochny in Russia's Far East.
>>
>> The new rocket is intended to carry a manned capsule to the Moon
>>
>> In 2008, Roscosmos finally started quietly soliciting proposals from
>> the industry to develop a brand-new rocket which could support lunar
>> expeditions. All major Russian space firms reportedly vied for the
>> government contract to build the vehicle.
>>
>> While Roscosmos had never publicised details of the bidding process,
>> a number of Russian space officials hinted that they were close to
>> choosing a winner at the beginning of 2009.
>>
>> On 14 March, Alexander Chulkov, head of the rocket and launch
>> facilities directorate at Roscosmos, told BBC News that the agency
>> would pick a winner by March 25.
>>
>> "We have a bidding procedure, under which we made a request for
>> proposals and now will be reviewing those proposals to determine a
>> prime developer, based on the most interesting project from the cost-
>> effectiveness point of view," Mr Chulkov said.
>>
>> He explained that the agency's main requirement for the future manned
>> rocket was to be able to carry no less than 20 tonnes to low-Earth
>> orbit, with the maximum capacity of about 23 tonnes.
>>
>> For comparison, the Soyuz capsule, which Soviet and Russian
>> cosmonauts have been riding to orbit since 1967, weighs around seven
>> tonnes. Nasa's Ares-I rocket for the next-generation Orion spacecraft
>> will be able to lift a total of 25 tonnes.
>>
>> Everybody wins?
>>
>> Contenders must also employ non-toxic propellants such as kerosene or
>> liquid hydrogen on all stages of the vehicle.
>>
>> According to Mr Chulkov, industry will generally be free to design
>> the general architecture of the future rocket.
>>
>> "Roscosmos has its own opinion about the configuration (of the
>> rocket), which we would like to see, however, we understand there is
>> some distance between what we want and what might be available,"
>> Chulkov said. *
>> The new Russian rocket could take one of several configurations
>>
>> The decision on the prime developer would clear the way to the
>> preliminary design phase of the rocket, which was expected to last
>> for about one year.
>>
>> "Thus, in 2009 we will start the development of this rocket," Mr
>> Chulkov said.
>>
>> Although the Russian space agency is expected to name a single prime
>> developer, it has been rumoured in unofficial fora that the contract
>> would distribute various responsibilities for the project among
>> several major rocket firms.
>>
>> These include TsSKB Progress in Samara, the developer of the Soyuz
>> rocket, and KB Mashinostroenia in Miass, a chief developer of
>> submarine- launched ballistic missiles.
>>
>> Thus, a bulk of the workforce building Russian rockets today will
>> remain employed.
>>
>> How heavy is heavy?
>>
>> A new rocket for the manned spacecraft is only one component in the
>> array of hardware which will be required to land humans on the Moon
>> in the 21st century.
>>
>> With the multi-launch scenario for a lunar expedition adopted by both
>> Nasa and Roscosmos, a separate heavy lifting vehicle would be needed
>> to carry the lunar landing module and the rocket stage to propel it
>> from the Earth orbit toward the Moon.
>>
>> However, it seems that Nasa and Russia have drastically different
>> understanding of what "heavy-lift" means.
>>
>> While the US space agency embarked on the development of its titanic
>> Ares-V rocket with a payload capacity target of 145 tonnes, Russian
>> space officials have indicated a much lower appetite for payload
>> tonnage.
>>
>> "In the field of heavy-lifting rockets we have… the yet-to-be-flown
>> Angara (rocket), while the requirements for the next-generation
>> rocket are within the same category," Mr Chulkov said.
>>
>> The Angara rocket, which has been under development since the
>> mid-1990s, is expected to make its maiden flight in 2011.
>>
>> It would be capable of carrying as many as 35 tonnes into low-Earth
>> orbit. But some of its derivatives could lift between 40 and 50
>> tonnes.
>>
>> According to documents from the Khrunichev enterprise, developer of
>> the Angara rocket, up to four launches of the Angara-7 vehicle would
>> be required to accomplish a single lunar expedition. By comparison,
>> Nasa can rely on one Ares-I rocket and one Ares-V for each Moon
>> landing.
>
> Why not use the 100% reliable and 30% inert massive Saturn 5
> configuration?
>
> Why reinvent the wheel?

To save both time and money. IIRC, the Ares I is just a shuttle SRM
stacked on top of an Atlas, both of which are off the shelf components.
To reconstruct the Saturn V would actually require effort, but they had
the Ares I designed about two months after Bush announced the new plan.

[Ken S. Tucker]

On Mar 20, 7:44 am, Bluuuue Rajah <Bluuuuue@Rajah.> wrote:
> aglooka > wrote in news:c986s4d2rggvg1ob7t2ulcvttss1br670r@
> 4ax.com:
>
> > On Tue, 17 Mar 2009 21:22:05 -0800, "Matt Wiser"
> > > wrote:
>
> >>Energia put Mir up (over several launches).
>
> > Afaik, The Energia was only used for 2 launches: one put the Buran
> > into orbit and one carried the secret Polyus "combat" satellite.
>
> > The Mir was luanched using Proton.
>
> I didn't think the Buran ever flew. I thought it was just a showpiece so
> they could boast that they were keeping up with the west, much like the
> latest moonshot plans.

I think Frank mentioned about observing satellites,
if this is true,
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Shuttle_Buran
would have been noticed or not, no ambiguity.
Ken

[vaughn]

"Bluuuue Rajah" <Bluuuuue@Rajah.> wrote in message
. 17.102...
>
> I didn't think the Buran ever flew. I thought it was just a showpiece so
> they could boast that they were keeping up with the west, much like the
> latest moonshot plans.

One unmanned flight, apparently successful:

From .http://www.russianspaceweb.com/buran.html
"1988 Nov. 15: 06:00:02 Moscow Time: The Energia super booster carrying an
unmanned Buran reusable shuttle blasted off from Baikonur. 206 minutes or
two orbits later, the Buran automatically landed at the Yubileiniy airfield
at Site 251 in Baikonur."

Vaughn

[[email protected]]

In rec.aviation.piloting Bluuuue Rajah <Bluuuuue@rajah.> wrote:
> BradGuth > wrote in
> :
>

<big snip>

>> Why not use the 100% reliable and 30% inert massive Saturn 5
>> configuration?
>>
>> Why reinvent the wheel?
>
> To save both time and money. IIRC, the Ares I is just a shuttle SRM
> stacked on top of an Atlas, both of which are off the shelf components.
> To reconstruct the Saturn V would actually require effort, but they had
> the Ares I designed about two months after Bush announced the new plan.

Actually the reseason they would not use the Saturn 5 is that the
Russians don't use American rockets in their space program.


--
Jim Pennino

Remove .spam.sux to reply.

[Steve Hix]

In article 2>,
Bluuuue Rajah <Bluuuuue@Rajah.> wrote:

> aglooka > wrote in news:c986s4d2rggvg1ob7t2ulcvttss1br670r@
> 4ax.com:
>
> > On Tue, 17 Mar 2009 21:22:05 -0800, "Matt Wiser"
> > > wrote:
> >
> >>Energia put Mir up (over several launches).
> >
> > Afaik, The Energia was only used for 2 launches: one put the Buran
> > into orbit and one carried the secret Polyus "combat" satellite.
> >
> > The Mir was luanched using Proton.
>
> I didn't think the Buran ever flew. I thought it was just a showpiece so
> they could boast that they were keeping up with the west, much like the
> latest moonshot plans.

There was at least one unmanned flight, 15 Nov. 1988. Then the project
funding was cut back, and officially ended in 1993.

[Bluuuue Rajah]

"vaughn" > wrote in
:

>
> "Bluuuue Rajah" <Bluuuuue@Rajah.> wrote in message
> . 17.102...
>>
>> I didn't think the Buran ever flew. I thought it was just a
>> showpiece so they could boast that they were keeping up with the
>> west, much like the latest moonshot plans.
>
> One unmanned flight, apparently successful:
>
> From .http://www.russianspaceweb.com/buran.html
> "1988 Nov. 15: 06:00:02 Moscow Time: The Energia super booster
> carrying an unmanned Buran reusable shuttle blasted off from Baikonur.
> 206 minutes or two orbits later, the Buran automatically landed at the
> Yubileiniy airfield at Site 251 in Baikonur."

Another stunning triumph for the motherland.

[Bluuuue Rajah]

Steve Hix > wrote in
:

> In article 2>,
> Bluuuue Rajah <Bluuuuue@Rajah.> wrote:
>
>> aglooka > wrote in
>> news:c986s4d2rggvg1ob7t2ulcvttss1br670r@ 4ax.com:
>>
>> > On Tue, 17 Mar 2009 21:22:05 -0800, "Matt Wiser"
>> > > wrote:
>> >
>> >>Energia put Mir up (over several launches).
>> >
>> > Afaik, The Energia was only used for 2 launches: one put the Buran
>> > into orbit and one carried the secret Polyus "combat" satellite.
>> >
>> > The Mir was luanched using Proton.
>>
>> I didn't think the Buran ever flew. I thought it was just a
>> showpiece so they could boast that they were keeping up with the
>> west, much like the latest moonshot plans.
>
> There was at least one unmanned flight, 15 Nov. 1988. Then the project
> funding was cut back, and officially ended in 1993.

It's parked mext to MFTF-B.

[Dan[_12_]]

BradGuth wrote:
> On Mar 16, 4:19 pm, Bluuuue Rajah <Bluuuuue@Rajah.> wrote:
>> Russia to approve new Moon rocket
>> By Anatoly Zak
>> Science reporter
>>
>> http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/science/nature/7946689.stm
>>
>> Russia is developing a new generation of space vehicles
>>
>> Russian space officials are to select the winning proposal for a new
>> rocket intended to carry cosmonauts on missions to the Moon.
>>
>> This will mark the first time since 1964 that the Russian space
>> programme has made the Moon its main objective.
>>
>> It will be only the second time since the collapse of the Soviet Union
>> that Moscow has endorsed the development of a new space vehicle.
>>
>> The rocket is expected to fly its first test mission in about 2015.
>>
>> According to the objectives given by the Russian space agency
>> (Roscosmos) to industry, a future rocket should be able to hoist a
>> payload three times heavier than Russia's veteran Soyuz spacecraft,
>> including twice the number of crew, and use environmentally friendly
>> propellants.
>>
>> The development of the new rocket should be accompanied by work on
>> Russia's next-generation manned spacecraft, which will use it to get
>> into orbit.
>>
>> Russian space officials say the yet-to-be-named rocket should carry its
>> first manned spacecraft in 2018. The project was timed to roughly
>> coincide with the US space agency's (Nasa) plans to return astronauts to
>> the Moon by 2020 under its Constellation programme.
>>
>> Late start
>>
>> However, in what seems like a case of history repeating itself, Russia
>> is starting late in its bid to beat the US - and potentially China - to
>> the Moon.
>>
>> In 1961, President John F Kennedy met the Soviet challenge in space by
>> launching the original US lunar effort.
>>
>> Yet the Soviet government waited until 1964 before committing itself to
>> the costly expenditure of a manned landing.
>>
>> The Kremlin ultimately aborted the monumental effort after the Apollo 11
>> lunar module touched down on the Moon first.
>>
>> In a 21st Century version of this Moon race, the US, Europe, China,
>> India and Japan had all declared their intention to explore Earth's
>> natural satellite, while Russia struggled to emerge from its post-Soviet
>> economic crisis.
>>
>> As Nasa starts unveiling the first prototypes of US rockets and
>> spacecraft for lunar expeditions, Roscosmos is only starting its lunar
>> programme.
>>
>> To make matters worse, along with the new fleet of rockets and
>> spacecraft which need to be built, the Russian government committed in
>> 2007 to moving its main space launch site from the Baikonur Cosmodrome
>> in Kazakhstan to Vostochny in Russia's Far East.
>>
>> The new rocket is intended to carry a manned capsule to the Moon
>>
>> In 2008, Roscosmos finally started quietly soliciting proposals from the
>> industry to develop a brand-new rocket which could support lunar
>> expeditions. All major Russian space firms reportedly vied for the
>> government contract to build the vehicle.
>>
>> While Roscosmos had never publicised details of the bidding process, a
>> number of Russian space officials hinted that they were close to
>> choosing a winner at the beginning of 2009.
>>
>> On 14 March, Alexander Chulkov, head of the rocket and launch facilities
>> directorate at Roscosmos, told BBC News that the agency would pick a
>> winner by March 25.
>>
>> "We have a bidding procedure, under which we made a request for
>> proposals and now will be reviewing those proposals to determine a prime
>> developer, based on the most interesting project from the cost-
>> effectiveness point of view," Mr Chulkov said.
>>
>> He explained that the agency's main requirement for the future manned
>> rocket was to be able to carry no less than 20 tonnes to low-Earth
>> orbit, with the maximum capacity of about 23 tonnes.
>>
>> For comparison, the Soyuz capsule, which Soviet and Russian cosmonauts
>> have been riding to orbit since 1967, weighs around seven tonnes. Nasa's
>> Ares-I rocket for the next-generation Orion spacecraft will be able to
>> lift a total of 25 tonnes.
>>
>> Everybody wins?
>>
>> Contenders must also employ non-toxic propellants such as kerosene or
>> liquid hydrogen on all stages of the vehicle.
>>
>> According to Mr Chulkov, industry will generally be free to design the
>> general architecture of the future rocket.
>>
>> "Roscosmos has its own opinion about the configuration (of the rocket),
>> which we would like to see, however, we understand there is some
>> distance between what we want and what might be available," Chulkov
>> said.
>> The new Russian rocket could take one of several configurations
>>
>> The decision on the prime developer would clear the way to the
>> preliminary design phase of the rocket, which was expected to last for
>> about one year.
>>
>> "Thus, in 2009 we will start the development of this rocket," Mr Chulkov
>> said.
>>
>> Although the Russian space agency is expected to name a single prime
>> developer, it has been rumoured in unofficial fora that the contract
>> would distribute various responsibilities for the project among several
>> major rocket firms.
>>
>> These include TsSKB Progress in Samara, the developer of the Soyuz
>> rocket, and KB Mashinostroenia in Miass, a chief developer of submarine-
>> launched ballistic missiles.
>>
>> Thus, a bulk of the workforce building Russian rockets today will remain
>> employed.
>>
>> How heavy is heavy?
>>
>> A new rocket for the manned spacecraft is only one component in the
>> array of hardware which will be required to land humans on the Moon in
>> the 21st century.
>>
>> With the multi-launch scenario for a lunar expedition adopted by both
>> Nasa and Roscosmos, a separate heavy lifting vehicle would be needed to
>> carry the lunar landing module and the rocket stage to propel it from
>> the Earth orbit toward the Moon.
>>
>> However, it seems that Nasa and Russia have drastically different
>> understanding of what "heavy-lift" means.
>>
>> While the US space agency embarked on the development of its titanic
>> Ares-V rocket with a payload capacity target of 145 tonnes, Russian
>> space officials have indicated a much lower appetite for payload
>> tonnage.
>>
>> "In the field of heavy-lifting rockets we have… the yet-to-be-flown
>> Angara (rocket), while the requirements for the next-generation rocket
>> are within the same category," Mr Chulkov said.
>>
>> The Angara rocket, which has been under development since the mid-1990s,
>> is expected to make its maiden flight in 2011.
>>
>> It would be capable of carrying as many as 35 tonnes into low-Earth
>> orbit. But some of its derivatives could lift between 40 and 50 tonnes.
>>
>> According to documents from the Khrunichev enterprise, developer of the
>> Angara rocket, up to four launches of the Angara-7 vehicle would be
>> required to accomplish a single lunar expedition. By comparison, Nasa
>> can rely on one Ares-I rocket and one Ares-V for each Moon landing.
>
> Why not use the 100% reliable and 30% inert massive Saturn 5
> configuration?
>
> Why reinvent the wheel?
>
> ~ BG

You mean the same Saturn V that no one has plans for?

Dan, U.S. Air Force, retired

[Mike Ash]

In article >,
Just go look it up! > wrote:

> On Thu, 19 Mar 2009 22:19:56 -0700 (PDT), BradGuth
> > wrote:
>
>
> >Why not use the 100% reliable and 30% inert massive Saturn 5
> >configuration?
> >
> >Why reinvent the wheel?
>
> Even if the plans were available (I think NASA says they are, other
> documentaries say they aren't), I doubt that some 30 years later that
> any of the tooling, materials, electronics, et al are still in
> existance to build another Saturn V even if they did want to.
>
> From what I understand, that's why they're designing and building a
> completely new one (Ares) for Moon, Mars, and Beyond:
>
> http://www.nasa.gov/mission_pages/constellation/ares/index.html
>
> Could be wrong though.
>
> Saturn V must have been incredible to see launch though. I've only
> seen the display at Kennedy Space Center... massive......

The plans still exist, on microfilm.

Many of the suppliers no longer exist, though. Of those that do, very
few if any are still manufacturing the parts that you'd find on the SV
plans. Also, much of the institutional knowledge that was assumed
context for the plans has disappeared in the intervening time.

It could be rebuilt, given time and money. It's faster and cheaper to
build a new one, and as a bonus, the result of that effort will use
modern materials and electronics instead of being aluminum everything
and using computers that need to be installed with a crane.

--
Mike Ash
Radio Free Earth
Broadcasting from our climate-controlled studios deep inside the Moon

[Androcles[_2_]]

"Mike Ash" > wrote in message
...
> In article >,
> Just go look it up! > wrote:
>
>> On Thu, 19 Mar 2009 22:19:56 -0700 (PDT), BradGuth
>> > wrote:
>>
>>
>> >Why not use the 100% reliable and 30% inert massive Saturn 5
>> >configuration?
>> >
>> >Why reinvent the wheel?
>>
>> Even if the plans were available (I think NASA says they are, other
>> documentaries say they aren't), I doubt that some 30 years later that
>> any of the tooling, materials, electronics, et al are still in
>> existance to build another Saturn V even if they did want to.
>>
>> From what I understand, that's why they're designing and building a
>> completely new one (Ares) for Moon, Mars, and Beyond:
>>
>> http://www.nasa.gov/mission_pages/constellation/ares/index.html
>>
>> Could be wrong though.
>>
>> Saturn V must have been incredible to see launch though. I've only
>> seen the display at Kennedy Space Center... massive......
>
> The plans still exist, on microfilm.
>
> Many of the suppliers no longer exist, though. Of those that do, very
> few if any are still manufacturing the parts that you'd find on the SV
> plans. Also, much of the institutional knowledge that was assumed
> context for the plans has disappeared in the intervening time.
>
> It could be rebuilt, given time and money. It's faster and cheaper to
> build a new one, and as a bonus, the result of that effort will use
> modern materials and electronics instead of being aluminum everything
> and using computers that need to be installed with a crane.

The Wright "Flyer" didn't have computers.
http://www.rc-airplane-world.com/image-files/wright-flyer-at-washington.jpg

[Golden California Girls]

Mike Ash wrote:
> In article >,
> Just go look it up! > wrote:
>
>> On Thu, 19 Mar 2009 22:19:56 -0700 (PDT), BradGuth
>> > wrote:
>>
>>
>>> Why not use the 100% reliable and 30% inert massive Saturn 5
>>> configuration?
>>>
>>> Why reinvent the wheel?
>> Even if the plans were available (I think NASA says they are, other
>> documentaries say they aren't), I doubt that some 30 years later that
>> any of the tooling, materials, electronics, et al are still in
>> existance to build another Saturn V even if they did want to.
>>[snip]
>
> The plans still exist, on microfilm.

Which plans? For the rocket itself or for the thousands of test jigs needed to
build it?

> Many of the suppliers no longer exist, though. Of those that do, very
> few if any are still manufacturing the parts that you'd find on the SV
> plans. Also, much of the institutional knowledge that was assumed
> context for the plans has disappeared in the intervening time.
>
> It could be rebuilt, given time and money. It's faster and cheaper to
> build a new one, and as a bonus, the result of that effort will use
> modern materials and electronics instead of being aluminum everything
> and using computers that need to be installed with a crane.
>

[Keith Willshaw[_4_]]

"Androcles" > wrote in message
...
>

>>
>> It could be rebuilt, given time and money. It's faster and cheaper to
>> build a new one, and as a bonus, the result of that effort will use
>> modern materials and electronics instead of being aluminum everything
>> and using computers that need to be installed with a crane.
>
> The Wright "Flyer" didn't have computers.
>
> http://www.rc-airplane-world.com/image-files/wright-flyer-at-washington.jpg
>

It was also a very inferior flying machine compared to those built today.

Keith

[Androcles[_2_]]

"Keith Willshaw" > wrote in message
...
>
> "Androcles" > wrote in message
> ...
>>
>


Spamming lied and said I wrote:
>>> It could be rebuilt, given time and money. It's faster and cheaper to
>>> build a new one, and as a bonus, the result of that effort will use
>>> modern materials and electronics instead of being aluminum everything
>>> and using computers that need to be installed with a crane.
>>

I wrote this:
>> The Wright "Flyer" didn't have computers.
>>
>> http://www.rc-airplane-world.com/image-files/wright-flyer-at-washington.jpg
>>
>
Mike Ash did not write:
> It was also a very inferior flying machine compared to those built today.


No good reason to rebuild it, then, even if the plans are on microfiche.

What would be good is if ignorant, lying, spamming *******s like

left the correct attributions alone instead of snipping them and making
it appear to other readers as if they were as stupid as the moron
.

[Keith Willshaw[_4_]]

"Androcles" > wrote in message
...
>
> "Keith Willshaw" > wrote in message
> ...
>>
>> "Androcles" > wrote in message
>> ...
>>>
>>
>
>
> Spamming lied and said I wrote:
>>>> It could be rebuilt, given time and money. It's faster and cheaper to
>>>> build a new one, and as a bonus, the result of that effort will use
>>>> modern materials and electronics instead of being aluminum everything
>>>> and using computers that need to be installed with a crane.
>>>
>
> I wrote this:
>>> The Wright "Flyer" didn't have computers.

I know you may wish to learn to understand what indented quotes mean
and come to understand the word 'spamming'



>>>
>>> http://www.rc-airplane-world.com/image-files/wright-flyer-at-washington.jpg
>>>
>>
> Mike Ash did not write:
>> It was also a very inferior flying machine compared to those built today.
>

No Keith Willshaw wrote that



>
> No good reason to rebuild it, then, even if the plans are on microfiche.
>
> What would be good is if ignorant, lying, spamming *******s like
>
> left the correct attributions alone instead of snipping them and making
> it appear to other readers as if they were as stupid as the moron
> .
>

When people resort to Ad Hominem attacks it reflects badly on themselves
especially when they use words they dont understand

<Quote>
Spam
Unsolicited e-mail, often of a commercial nature, sent indiscriminately to
multiple mailing lists, individuals, or newsgroups; junk e-mail.
</Quote>

Keith

[Mike Ash]

In article >,
"Keith Willshaw" > wrote:

> "Androcles" > wrote in message
> ...
> >
> > "Keith Willshaw" > wrote in message
> > ...
> >>
> >> "Androcles" > wrote in message
> >> ...
> >>>
> >>
> >
> >
> > Spamming lied and said I wrote:
> >>>> It could be rebuilt, given time and money. It's faster and cheaper to
> >>>> build a new one, and as a bonus, the result of that effort will use
> >>>> modern materials and electronics instead of being aluminum everything
> >>>> and using computers that need to be installed with a crane.
> >>>
> >
> > I wrote this:
> >>> The Wright "Flyer" didn't have computers.
>
> I know you may wish to learn to understand what indented quotes mean
> and come to understand the word 'spamming'

Just FYI, if you didn't already know, Androcles is a notorious troll in
certain groups (I'm guessing he's posting "from" sci.astro) and has a
particularly bizarre obsession with quoting and suchalike. Best to just
leave him be if you ask me.

--
Mike Ash
Radio Free Earth
Broadcasting from our climate-controlled studios deep inside the Moon

[Androcles[_2_]]

"Keith Willshaw" > wrote in message
...
>
> "Androcles" > wrote in message
> ...
>>
>> "Keith Willshaw" > wrote in message
>> ...
>>>
>>> "Androcles" > wrote in message
>>> ...
>>>>
>>>
>>
>>
>> Spamming lied and said I wrote:
>>>>> It could be rebuilt, given time and money. It's faster and cheaper to
>>>>> build a new one, and as a bonus, the result of that effort will use
>>>>> modern materials and electronics instead of being aluminum everything
>>>>> and using computers that need to be installed with a crane.
>>>>
>>
>> I wrote this:
>>>> The Wright "Flyer" didn't have computers.
>
> I know you may wish to learn to understand what indented quotes mean
> and come to understand the word 'spamming'
>
>
>
>>>>
>>>> http://www.rc-airplane-world.com/image-files/wright-flyer-at-washington.jpg
>>>>
>>>
>> Mike Ash did not write:
>>> It was also a very inferior flying machine compared to those built
>>> today.
>>
>
> No Keith Willshaw wrote that

What do mean, "No"?

I said Mick Ash did NOT write that, you stupid *******.

So :
Yes, Mike Ash did not write:
It was also a very inferior flying machine compared to those built today.


You can't read, can you?
Why don't you just **** off, you are clearly an imbecile.

*plonk*

Do not reply to this generic message, it was automatically generated;
you have been kill-filed, either for being boringly stupid, repetitive,
unfunny, ineducable, repeatedly posting politics, religion or off-topic
subjects to a sci. newsgroup, attempting free advertising or because
you are a troll; any reply will go unread.

Boringly stupid is the most common cause of kill-filing, but because
this message is generic the other reasons have been included. You are
left to decide which is most applicable to you.

There is no appeal, I have despotic power over whom I will electronically
admit into my home and you do not qualify as a reasonable person I would
wish to converse with or even poke fun at.

This should not trouble you, many of those plonked find it a blessing
that they are not required to think and can persist in their bigotry
or crackpot theories without challenge.

You have the right to free speech, I have the right not to listen. The
kill-file will be cleared annually with spring cleaning or whenever I
purchase a new computer or hard drive.

I hope you find this explanation is satisfactory but even if you don't,
damnly my frank, I don't give a dear. Have a nice day.

[Androcles[_2_]]

"Mike Ash" > wrote in message
...
> In article >,
> "Keith Willshaw" > wrote:
>
>> "Androcles" > wrote in message
>> ...
>> >
>> > "Keith Willshaw" > wrote in message
>> > ...
>> >>
>> >> "Androcles" > wrote in message
>> >> ...
>> >>>
>> >>
>> >
>> >
>> > Spamming lied and said I wrote:
>> >>>> It could be rebuilt, given time and money. It's faster and cheaper
>> >>>> to
>> >>>> build a new one, and as a bonus, the result of that effort will use
>> >>>> modern materials and electronics instead of being aluminum
>> >>>> everything
>> >>>> and using computers that need to be installed with a crane.
>> >>>
>> >
>> > I wrote this:
>> >>> The Wright "Flyer" didn't have computers.
>>
>> I know you may wish to learn to understand what indented quotes mean
>> and come to understand the word 'spamming'
>
> Just FYI, if you didn't already know, Androcles is a notorious troll in
> certain groups (I'm guessing he's posting "from" sci.astro) and has a
> particularly bizarre obsession with quoting and suchalike. Best to just
> leave him be if you ask me.

Good idea, you can **** off too.
*plonk*

Do not reply to this generic message, it was automatically generated;
you have been kill-filed, either for being boringly stupid, repetitive,
unfunny, ineducable, repeatedly posting politics, religion or off-topic
subjects to a sci. newsgroup, attempting free advertising or because
you are a troll; any reply will go unread.

Boringly stupid is the most common cause of kill-filing, but because
this message is generic the other reasons have been included. You are
left to decide which is most applicable to you.

There is no appeal, I have despotic power over whom I will electronically
admit into my home and you do not qualify as a reasonable person I would
wish to converse with or even poke fun at.

This should not trouble you, many of those plonked find it a blessing
that they are not required to think and can persist in their bigotry
or crackpot theories without challenge.

You have the right to free speech, I have the right not to listen. The
kill-file will be cleared annually with spring cleaning or whenever I
purchase a new computer or hard drive.

I hope you find this explanation is satisfactory but even if you don't,
damnly my frank, I don't give a dear. Have a nice day.

[Jeffrey Hamilton]

"Androcles" > wrote in message
...
>
> "Keith Willshaw" > wrote in message
> ...
>>
>> "Androcles" > wrote in message
>> ...
>>>
>>> "Keith Willshaw" > wrote in message
>>> ...
>>>>
>>>> "Androcles" > wrote in message
>>>> ...
>>>>>
>>>>
>>>
>>>
>>> Spamming lied and said I wrote:
>>>>>> It could be rebuilt, given time and money. It's faster and cheaper to
>>>>>> build a new one, and as a bonus, the result of that effort will use
>>>>>> modern materials and electronics instead of being aluminum everything
>>>>>> and using computers that need to be installed with a crane.
>>>>>
>>>
>>> I wrote this:
>>>>> The Wright "Flyer" didn't have computers.
>>
>> I know you may wish to learn to understand what indented quotes mean
>> and come to understand the word 'spamming'
>>
>>
>>
>>>>>
>>>>> http://www.rc-airplane-world.com/image-files/wright-flyer-at-washington.jpg
>>>>>
>>>>
>>> Mike Ash did not write:
>>>> It was also a very inferior flying machine compared to those built
>>>> today.
>>>
>>
>> No Keith Willshaw wrote that
>
> What do mean, "No"?
>
> I said Mick Ash did NOT write that, you stupid *******.
>
> So :
> Yes, Mike Ash did not write:
> It was also a very inferior flying machine compared to those built today.
>
>
> You can't read, can you?
> Why don't you just **** off, you are clearly an imbecile.
>
> *plonk*
>
> Do not reply to this generic message, it was automatically generated;
> you have been kill-filed, either for being boringly stupid, repetitive,
> unfunny, ineducable, repeatedly posting politics, religion or off-topic
> subjects to a sci. newsgroup, attempting free advertising or because
> you are a troll; any reply will go unread.
>
> Boringly stupid is the most common cause of kill-filing, but because
> this message is generic the other reasons have been included. You are
> left to decide which is most applicable to you.
>
> There is no appeal, I have despotic power over whom I will electronically
> admit into my home and you do not qualify as a reasonable person I would
> wish to converse with or even poke fun at.
>
> This should not trouble you, many of those plonked find it a blessing
> that they are not required to think and can persist in their bigotry
> or crackpot theories without challenge.
>
> You have the right to free speech, I have the right not to listen. The
> kill-file will be cleared annually with spring cleaning or whenever I
> purchase a new computer or hard drive.
>
> I hope you find this explanation is satisfactory but even if you don't,
> damnly my frank, I don't give a dear. Have a nice day.

Ditto for me, only about _YOU_ . <g>

cheers.....Jeff

[Keith Willshaw[_4_]]

"Mike Ash" > wrote in message
...

>>
>> I know you may wish to learn to understand what indented quotes mean
>> and come to understand the word 'spamming'
>
> Just FYI, if you didn't already know, Androcles is a notorious troll in
> certain groups (I'm guessing he's posting "from" sci.astro) and has a
> particularly bizarre obsession with quoting and suchalike. Best to just
> leave him be if you ask me.
>

He is a very strange individual to be sure.

Keith

[Androcles[_2_]]

"Jeffrey Hamilton" > wrote in message
...
>
> "Androcles" > wrote in message
> ...
>>
>> "Keith Willshaw" > wrote in message
>> ...
>>>
>>> "Androcles" > wrote in message
>>> ...
>>>>
>>>> "Keith Willshaw" > wrote in message
>>>> ...
>>>>>
>>>>> "Androcles" > wrote in message
>>>>> ...
>>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>> Spamming lied and said I wrote:
>>>>>>> It could be rebuilt, given time and money. It's faster and cheaper
>>>>>>> to
>>>>>>> build a new one, and as a bonus, the result of that effort will use
>>>>>>> modern materials and electronics instead of being aluminum
>>>>>>> everything
>>>>>>> and using computers that need to be installed with a crane.
>>>>>>
>>>>
>>>> I wrote this:
>>>>>> The Wright "Flyer" didn't have computers.
>>>
>>> I know you may wish to learn to understand what indented quotes mean
>>> and come to understand the word 'spamming'
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>> http://www.rc-airplane-world.com/image-files/wright-flyer-at-washington.jpg
>>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>> Mike Ash did not write:
>>>>> It was also a very inferior flying machine compared to those built
>>>>> today.
>>>>
>>>
>>> No Keith Willshaw wrote that
>>
>> What do mean, "No"?
>>
>> I said Mick Ash did NOT write that, you stupid *******.
>>
>> So :
>> Yes, Mike Ash did not write:
>> It was also a very inferior flying machine compared to those built today.
>>
>>
>> You can't read, can you?
>> Why don't you just **** off, you are clearly an imbecile.
>>
>> *plonk*
>>
>> Do not reply to this generic message, it was automatically generated;
>> you have been kill-filed, either for being boringly stupid, repetitive,
>> unfunny, ineducable, repeatedly posting politics, religion or off-topic
>> subjects to a sci. newsgroup, attempting free advertising or because
>> you are a troll; any reply will go unread.
>>
>> Boringly stupid is the most common cause of kill-filing, but because
>> this message is generic the other reasons have been included. You are
>> left to decide which is most applicable to you.
>>
>> There is no appeal, I have despotic power over whom I will electronically
>> admit into my home and you do not qualify as a reasonable person I would
>> wish to converse with or even poke fun at.
>>
>> This should not trouble you, many of those plonked find it a blessing
>> that they are not required to think and can persist in their bigotry
>> or crackpot theories without challenge.
>>
>> You have the right to free speech, I have the right not to listen. The
>> kill-file will be cleared annually with spring cleaning or whenever I
>> purchase a new computer or hard drive.
>>
>> I hope you find this explanation is satisfactory but even if you don't,
>> damnly my frank, I don't give a dear. Have a nice day.
>
> Ditto for me, only about _YOU_ . <g>
>
> cheers.....Jeff

Sure, no problem at all.
*plonk*

Do not reply to this generic message, it was automatically generated;
you have been kill-filed, either for being boringly stupid, repetitive,
unfunny, ineducable, repeatedly posting politics, religion or off-topic
subjects to a sci. newsgroup, attempting free advertising or because
you are a troll; any reply will go unread.

Boringly stupid is the most common cause of kill-filing, but because
this message is generic the other reasons have been included. You are
left to decide which is most applicable to you.

There is no appeal, I have despotic power over whom I will electronically
admit into my home and you do not qualify as a reasonable person I would
wish to converse with or even poke fun at.

This should not trouble you, many of those plonked find it a blessing
that they are not required to think and can persist in their bigotry
or crackpot theories without challenge.

You have the right to free speech, I have the right not to listen. The
kill-file will be cleared annually with spring cleaning or whenever I
purchase a new computer or hard drive.

I hope you find this explanation is satisfactory but even if you don't,
damnly my frank, I don't give a dear. Have a nice day.

[Ken S. Tucker]

On Mar 21, 8:01 am, "Keith Willshaw"
> wrote:
> "Mike Ash" > wrote in message
>
> ...
>
>
>
> >> I know you may wish to learn to understand what indented quotes mean
> >> and come to understand the word 'spamming'
>
> > Just FYI, if you didn't already know, Androcles is a notorious troll in
> > certain groups (I'm guessing he's posting "from" sci.astro) and has a
> > particularly bizarre obsession with quoting and suchalike. Best to just
> > leave him be if you ask me.
>
> He is a very strange individual to be sure.
> Keith

No doubt Criminally Insane.
Ken

[george]

On Mar 22, 6:15*am, "Ken S. Tucker" > wrote:
> On Mar 21, 8:01 am, "Keith Willshaw"

> > He is a very strange individual to be sure.
> > Keith
>
> No doubt Criminally Insane.

I prefer the term terminally stupid (being that he/she/it is in front
of a computer terminal)

[Bluuuue Rajah]

Mike Ash > wrote in
news:mike-C5831A.22355920032009@reserved-multicast-range-NOT-
delegated.ex
ample.com:

> In article >,
> Just go look it up! > wrote:
>
>> On Thu, 19 Mar 2009 22:19:56 -0700 (PDT), BradGuth
>> > wrote:
>>
>>
>> >Why not use the 100% reliable and 30% inert massive Saturn 5
>> >configuration?
>> >
>> >Why reinvent the wheel?
>>
>> Even if the plans were available (I think NASA says they are, other
>> documentaries say they aren't), I doubt that some 30 years later that
>> any of the tooling, materials, electronics, et al are still in
>> existance to build another Saturn V even if they did want to.
>>
>> From what I understand, that's why they're designing and building a
>> completely new one (Ares) for Moon, Mars, and Beyond:
>>
>> http://www.nasa.gov/mission_pages/constellation/ares/index.html
>>
>> Could be wrong though.
>>
>> Saturn V must have been incredible to see launch though. I've only
>> seen the display at Kennedy Space Center... massive......
>
> The plans still exist, on microfilm.
>
> Many of the suppliers no longer exist, though. Of those that do, very
> few if any are still manufacturing the parts that you'd find on the SV
> plans. Also, much of the institutional knowledge that was assumed
> context for the plans has disappeared in the intervening time.
>
> It could be rebuilt, given time and money. It's faster and cheaper to
> build a new one, and as a bonus, the result of that effort will use
> modern materials and electronics instead of being aluminum everything
> and using computers that need to be installed with a crane.

Also centrally important is the different sizes of the payloads. The
Saturn carried both crew, lander and return vehicle. The Ares I will
carry crew only, and the Ares V will carry the much larger lander and I
believe the return vehicle. The Ares I is thus smaller, the Ares V
larger, and if we reused the Saturn, we'd have the worst of both
possible worlds.

I do believe that they tipped their hats in tribute to the grand old
heavy lifter from the sixties, by giving the Ares heavy lifter the
number V.

Also, I think we should have a rescue plan, in case those guys get stuck
up there. Otherwise, the day will quite likely come when we relive the
depressing experiences of the Columbia and the Apollo 13.

[Keith Willshaw[_4_]]

"Bluuuue Rajah" <Bluuuuue@Rajah.> wrote in message
. 17.102...
> Mike Ash > wrote in
> news:mike-C5831A.22355920032009@reserved-multicast-range-NOT-
> delegated.ex
> ample.com:
>
>> In article >,
>> Just go look it up! > wrote:
>>
>>> On Thu, 19 Mar 2009 22:19:56 -0700 (PDT), BradGuth
>>> > wrote:
>>>
>>>
>>> >Why not use the 100% reliable and 30% inert massive Saturn 5
>>> >configuration?
>>> >
>>> >Why reinvent the wheel?
>>>
>>> Even if the plans were available (I think NASA says they are, other
>>> documentaries say they aren't), I doubt that some 30 years later that
>>> any of the tooling, materials, electronics, et al are still in
>>> existance to build another Saturn V even if they did want to.
>>>
>>> From what I understand, that's why they're designing and building a
>>> completely new one (Ares) for Moon, Mars, and Beyond:
>>>
>>> http://www.nasa.gov/mission_pages/constellation/ares/index.html
>>>
>>> Could be wrong though.
>>>
>>> Saturn V must have been incredible to see launch though. I've only
>>> seen the display at Kennedy Space Center... massive......
>>
>> The plans still exist, on microfilm.
>>
>> Many of the suppliers no longer exist, though. Of those that do, very
>> few if any are still manufacturing the parts that you'd find on the SV
>> plans. Also, much of the institutional knowledge that was assumed
>> context for the plans has disappeared in the intervening time.
>>
>> It could be rebuilt, given time and money. It's faster and cheaper to
>> build a new one, and as a bonus, the result of that effort will use
>> modern materials and electronics instead of being aluminum everything
>> and using computers that need to be installed with a crane.
>
> Also centrally important is the different sizes of the payloads. The
> Saturn carried both crew, lander and return vehicle. The Ares I will
> carry crew only, and the Ares V will carry the much larger lander and I
> believe the return vehicle. The Ares I is thus smaller, the Ares V
> larger, and if we reused the Saturn, we'd have the worst of both
> possible worlds.
>
> I do believe that they tipped their hats in tribute to the grand old
> heavy lifter from the sixties, by giving the Ares heavy lifter the
> number V.
>
> Also, I think we should have a rescue plan, in case those guys get stuck
> up there. Otherwise, the day will quite likely come when we relive the
> depressing experiences of the Columbia and the Apollo 13.
>

Erm the Apollo 13 crew got back alive.

Keith

[Dan[_12_]]

Keith Willshaw wrote:
> "Bluuuue Rajah" <Bluuuuue@Rajah.> wrote in message
> . 17.102...
>> Mike Ash > wrote in
>> news:mike-C5831A.22355920032009@reserved-multicast-range-NOT-
>> delegated.ex
>> ample.com:
>>
>>> In article >,
>>> Just go look it up! > wrote:
>>>
>>>> On Thu, 19 Mar 2009 22:19:56 -0700 (PDT), BradGuth
>>>> > wrote:
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>> Why not use the 100% reliable and 30% inert massive Saturn 5
>>>>> configuration?
>>>>>
>>>>> Why reinvent the wheel?
>>>> Even if the plans were available (I think NASA says they are, other
>>>> documentaries say they aren't), I doubt that some 30 years later that
>>>> any of the tooling, materials, electronics, et al are still in
>>>> existance to build another Saturn V even if they did want to.
>>>>
>>>> From what I understand, that's why they're designing and building a
>>>> completely new one (Ares) for Moon, Mars, and Beyond:
>>>>
>>>> http://www.nasa.gov/mission_pages/constellation/ares/index.html
>>>>
>>>> Could be wrong though.
>>>>
>>>> Saturn V must have been incredible to see launch though. I've only
>>>> seen the display at Kennedy Space Center... massive......
>>> The plans still exist, on microfilm.
>>>
>>> Many of the suppliers no longer exist, though. Of those that do, very
>>> few if any are still manufacturing the parts that you'd find on the SV
>>> plans. Also, much of the institutional knowledge that was assumed
>>> context for the plans has disappeared in the intervening time.
>>>
>>> It could be rebuilt, given time and money. It's faster and cheaper to
>>> build a new one, and as a bonus, the result of that effort will use
>>> modern materials and electronics instead of being aluminum everything
>>> and using computers that need to be installed with a crane.
>> Also centrally important is the different sizes of the payloads. The
>> Saturn carried both crew, lander and return vehicle. The Ares I will
>> carry crew only, and the Ares V will carry the much larger lander and I
>> believe the return vehicle. The Ares I is thus smaller, the Ares V
>> larger, and if we reused the Saturn, we'd have the worst of both
>> possible worlds.
>>
>> I do believe that they tipped their hats in tribute to the grand old
>> heavy lifter from the sixties, by giving the Ares heavy lifter the
>> number V.
>>
>> Also, I think we should have a rescue plan, in case those guys get stuck
>> up there. Otherwise, the day will quite likely come when we relive the
>> depressing experiences of the Columbia and the Apollo 13.
>>
>
> Erm the Apollo 13 crew got back alive.
>
> Keith
>
>

That's because they never left. The moon landings never occurred.
Just ask Brad "the world is flat" Guth or Ben "the joos did it" Cramer.

Dan, U.S. Air Force, retired

[Yousuf Khan]

BradGuth wrote:
> On Mar 17, 12:49 pm, Yousuf Khan > wrote:
>> Bluuuue Rajah wrote:
>>> This will mark the first time since 1964 that the Russian space
>>> programme has made the Moon its main objective.
>> I wonder if they'll actually make it to the Moon this time around?
>>
>> Yousuf Khan
>
> Are you suggesting those Russians are incapable, or just stupid?

Just incapable, since they never made it up there in the 1960's. This
would be pioneering work for them, as they've never had any *nauts touch
down on another heavenly body yet. They've just gone up and down from
near-Earth orbit, or they've launched unmanned explorers and satellites.

Yousuf Khan

[Orval Fairbairn[_2_]]

In article >, Yousuf Khan >
wrote:

> BradGuth wrote:
> > On Mar 17, 12:49 pm, Yousuf Khan > wrote:
> >> Bluuuue Rajah wrote:
> >>> This will mark the first time since 1964 that the Russian space
> >>> programme has made the Moon its main objective.
> >> I wonder if they'll actually make it to the Moon this time around?
> >>
> >> Yousuf Khan
> >
> > Are you suggesting those Russians are incapable, or just stupid?
>
> Just incapable, since they never made it up there in the 1960's. This
> would be pioneering work for them, as they've never had any *nauts touch
> down on another heavenly body yet. They've just gone up and down from
> near-Earth orbit, or they've launched unmanned explorers and satellites.
>
> Yousuf Khan

It took a lot of effort to design, build and test the SaturnV/Apollo
system.

The Russians apparently attempted to get by on the cheap in their
unsuccessful very heavy lift rocket in the 1960s. From published
reports, it appears that they suffered from base heating and, possibly,
engine detonation.

They never developed an engine inthe F-1 class (1.5 million lbf thrust)

--
Remove _'s from email address to talk to me.

[Yousuf Khan]

Bluuuue Rajah wrote:
> BradGuth > wrote in
> :
>> Why reinvent the wheel?
>
> To save both time and money. IIRC, the Ares I is just a shuttle SRM
> stacked on top of an Atlas, both of which are off the shelf components.
> To reconstruct the Saturn V would actually require effort, but they had
> the Ares I designed about two months after Bush announced the new plan.

So it looks like solid rockets are now fully trusted at NASA. During the
Moon missions, NASA management (i.e. Wernher von Braun) distrusted solid
rockets for good reason, and so solid rockets were off-limits. That's
why Saturn V was so big, it was liquid rocket that needed to leave Earth
orbit. You need a lot of liquid to do that.

As it turned out solid rockets were the reason for the first of the two
Space Shuttle disasters, Challenger. So NASA's initial objections to
solid rockets was verified. I suppose those redesigned O-rings have now
made these solid rockets "rock solid" for NASA.

Yousuf Khan

[Yousuf Khan]

wrote:
> Actually the reseason they would not use the Saturn 5 is that the
> Russians don't use American rockets in their space program.


So what does that mean? The Russians won't be using the Ares rockets either.

Yousuf Khan

[Yousuf Khan]

BradGuth wrote:
> Why not use the 100% reliable and 30% inert massive Saturn 5
> configuration?
>
> Why reinvent the wheel?


Also it seems like they are doing partly as you are asking them to do.
The rocket engine in the upper stage is a the J2-X which is a derivative
of the J2 engine that was in Saturn.

Yousuf Khan

[Ken S. Tucker]

On Mar 21, 7:21 pm, Orval Fairbairn >
wrote:
> In article >, Yousuf Khan >
> wrote:

> > BradGuth wrote:
> > > On Mar 17, 12:49 pm, Yousuf Khan > wrote:
> > >> Bluuuue Rajah wrote:
> > >>> This will mark the first time since 1964 that the Russian space
> > >>> programme has made the Moon its main objective.
> > >> I wonder if they'll actually make it to the Moon this time around?
>
> > >> Yousuf Khan
>
> > > Are you suggesting those Russians are incapable, or just stupid?
>
> > Just incapable, since they never made it up there in the 1960's. This
> > would be pioneering work for them, as they've never had any *nauts touch
> > down on another heavenly body yet. They've just gone up and down from
> > near-Earth orbit, or they've launched unmanned explorers and satellites.
>
> > Yousuf Khan
>
> It took a lot of effort to design, build and test the SaturnV/Apollo
> system.
>
> The Russians apparently attempted to get by on the cheap in their
> unsuccessful very heavy lift rocket in the 1960s.

Not sure cheap is the word. The philosophy looks good
at the outset, but the plumbing is a nighmare.

> From published
> reports, it appears that they suffered from base heating and, possibly,
> engine detonation.

I doubt the Russians ever figured it out, otherwise they
would have fixed it. Maybe resonant vibration in the
plumbing.
Ken

[Keith Willshaw[_4_]]

"Yousuf Khan" > wrote in message
...
> Bluuuue Rajah wrote:
>> BradGuth > wrote in
>> :
>>> Why reinvent the wheel?
>>
>> To save both time and money. IIRC, the Ares I is just a shuttle SRM
>> stacked on top of an Atlas, both of which are off the shelf components.
>> To reconstruct the Saturn V would actually require effort, but they had
>> the Ares I designed about two months after Bush announced the new plan.
>
> So it looks like solid rockets are now fully trusted at NASA. During the
> Moon missions, NASA management (i.e. Wernher von Braun) distrusted solid
> rockets for good reason, and so solid rockets were off-limits. That's why
> Saturn V was so big, it was liquid rocket that needed to leave Earth
> orbit. You need a lot of liquid to do that.
>
> As it turned out solid rockets were the reason for the first of the two
> Space Shuttle disasters, Challenger. So NASA's initial objections to solid
> rockets was verified. I suppose those redesigned O-rings have now made
> these solid rockets "rock solid" for NASA.
>

Only for one of the shuttle disasters.

Keith

[Ken S. Tucker]

On Mar 22, 3:02 am, "Keith Willshaw"
> wrote:
> "Yousuf Khan" > wrote in message
>
> ...
>
>
>
> > Bluuuue Rajah wrote:
> >> BradGuth > wrote in
> :
> >>> Why reinvent the wheel?
>
> >> To save both time and money. IIRC, the Ares I is just a shuttle SRM
> >> stacked on top of an Atlas, both of which are off the shelf components.
> >> To reconstruct the Saturn V would actually require effort, but they had
> >> the Ares I designed about two months after Bush announced the new plan.
>
> > So it looks like solid rockets are now fully trusted at NASA. During the
> > Moon missions, NASA management (i.e. Wernher von Braun) distrusted solid
> > rockets for good reason, and so solid rockets were off-limits. That's why
> > Saturn V was so big, it was liquid rocket that needed to leave Earth
> > orbit. You need a lot of liquid to do that.
>
> > As it turned out solid rockets were the reason for the first of the two
> > Space Shuttle disasters, Challenger. So NASA's initial objections to solid
> > rockets was verified. I suppose those redesigned O-rings have now made
> > these solid rockets "rock solid" for NASA.
>
> Only for one of the shuttle disasters.
> Keith

A good improvement to the ARES I would be to replace the
single J2-X 2nd stageengine with 4 veiners to eliminate the
need for SRB gimballing. Currently the J2-X is parasitic weight
during the 1st stage burn.
Ken

[Bluuuue Rajah]

Yousuf Khan > wrote in :

> Bluuuue Rajah wrote:
>> BradGuth > wrote in
>> news:db77563a-c9e0-42bc-a098-9c6d4d2aba06
@v5g2000prm.googlegroups.com:
>>> Why reinvent the wheel?
>>
>> To save both time and money. IIRC, the Ares I is just a shuttle SRM
>> stacked on top of an Atlas, both of which are off the shelf
>> components. To reconstruct the Saturn V would actually require
>> effort, but they had the Ares I designed about two months after Bush
>> announced the new plan.
>
> So it looks like solid rockets are now fully trusted at NASA. During
> the Moon missions, NASA management (i.e. Wernher von Braun) distrusted
> solid rockets for good reason, and so solid rockets were off-limits.
> That's why Saturn V was so big, it was liquid rocket that needed to
> leave Earth orbit. You need a lot of liquid to do that.
>
> As it turned out solid rockets were the reason for the first of the
> two Space Shuttle disasters, Challenger. So NASA's initial objections
> to solid rockets was verified. I suppose those redesigned O-rings have
> now made these solid rockets "rock solid" for NASA.

AFAIK, this is the first time NASA has ever used an SRM for an upper
stage booster.

[[email protected]]

In rec.aviation.piloting Yousuf Khan > wrote:
> wrote:
>> Actually the reseason they would not use the Saturn 5 is that the
>> Russians don't use American rockets in their space program.
>
>
> So what does that mean? The Russians won't be using the Ares rockets either.

It means some people can't follow a thread and go off into arm waving
la-la land rather easily.



--
Jim Pennino

Remove .spam.sux to reply.

[frank]

On Mar 22, 2:44*am, Yousuf Khan > wrote:
> Bluuuue Rajah wrote:
> > BradGuth > wrote in
> :
> >> Why reinvent the wheel?
>
> > To save both time and money. *IIRC, the Ares I is just a shuttle SRM
> > stacked on top of an Atlas, both of which are off the shelf components. *
> > To reconstruct the Saturn V would actually require effort, but they had
> > the Ares I designed about two months after Bush announced the new plan.
>
> So it looks like solid rockets are now fully trusted at NASA. During the
> Moon missions, NASA management (i.e. Wernher von Braun) distrusted solid
> rockets for good reason, and so solid rockets were off-limits. That's
> why Saturn V was so big, it was liquid rocket that needed to leave Earth
> orbit. You need a lot of liquid to do that.
>
> As it turned out solid rockets were the reason for the first of the two
> Space Shuttle disasters, Challenger. So NASA's initial objections to
> solid rockets was verified. I suppose those redesigned O-rings have now
> made these solid rockets "rock solid" for NASA.
>
> * *Yousuf Khan

Redesign wasn't much. Some of the rocket engineers thought it was
still an accident waiting to happen, but the contractor made a ton of
bucks, everybody got promoted and people were happy. Oh yeah, the
whistleblower got fired.
Biggest solution was changing launch parameters and not letting it
launch in freezing weather. There was O ring charring on earlier
flights, we'd see reports, but not being rocket types, figured that's
what happens in solids. Got something burning in a tube, stuff chars.
Of course if you get burnthrough, nasty things happen.

Big reason for liquid fuel, you can throttle it up and down. Can't do
that on solids. They tried that on SRAM II, motor blew up. Cheney
eventually canned it. There were tons of other issues. I had the
feeling Boeing wasn't really thrilled about testing it, had a bitch of
a time getting parameters for it. Instrumentation guys were
reassigned, stuff I got was almost a year out of date. And remember,
engineers tinker with parameters almost up to time of flight. Don't
have a up to date list of what is where and how its to be changed to
digital from analog, you've pretty much got crap for data.

[Bluuuue Rajah]

Orval Fairbairn > wrote in
:

> In article >, Yousuf Khan
> > wrote:
>
>> BradGuth wrote:
>> > On Mar 17, 12:49 pm, Yousuf Khan > wrote:
>> >> Bluuuue Rajah wrote:
>> >>> This will mark the first time since 1964 that the Russian space
>> >>> programme has made the Moon its main objective.
>> >> I wonder if they'll actually make it to the Moon this time around?
>> >>
>> >> Yousuf Khan
>> >
>> > Are you suggesting those Russians are incapable, or just stupid?
>>
>> Just incapable, since they never made it up there in the 1960's. This
>> would be pioneering work for them, as they've never had any *nauts
>> touch down on another heavenly body yet. They've just gone up and
>> down from near-Earth orbit, or they've launched unmanned explorers
>> and satellites.
>
> It took a lot of effort to design, build and test the SaturnV/Apollo
> system.
>
> The Russians apparently attempted to get by on the cheap

On these grounds, one might even argue that Kennedy was the first to
beat the Russians fiscally, before Reagan got the idea.

[Bluuuue Rajah]

"Keith Willshaw" > wrote in
:

>
> "Bluuuue Rajah" <Bluuuuue@Rajah.> wrote in message
> . 17.102...
>> Mike Ash > wrote in
>> news:mike-C5831A.22355920032009@reserved-multicast-range-NOT-
>> delegated.ex
>> ample.com:
>>
>>> In article >,
>>> Just go look it up! > wrote:
>>>
>>>> On Thu, 19 Mar 2009 22:19:56 -0700 (PDT), BradGuth
>>>> > wrote:
>>>>
>>>>
>>>> >Why not use the 100% reliable and 30% inert massive Saturn 5
>>>> >configuration?
>>>> >
>>>> >Why reinvent the wheel?
>>>>
>>>> Even if the plans were available (I think NASA says they are, other
>>>> documentaries say they aren't), I doubt that some 30 years later
>>>> that any of the tooling, materials, electronics, et al are still in
>>>> existance to build another Saturn V even if they did want to.
>>>>
>>>> From what I understand, that's why they're designing and building a
>>>> completely new one (Ares) for Moon, Mars, and Beyond:
>>>>
>>>> http://www.nasa.gov/mission_pages/constellation/ares/index.html
>>>>
>>>> Could be wrong though.
>>>>
>>>> Saturn V must have been incredible to see launch though. I've only
>>>> seen the display at Kennedy Space Center... massive......
>>>
>>> The plans still exist, on microfilm.
>>>
>>> Many of the suppliers no longer exist, though. Of those that do,
>>> very few if any are still manufacturing the parts that you'd find on
>>> the SV plans. Also, much of the institutional knowledge that was
>>> assumed context for the plans has disappeared in the intervening
>>> time.
>>>
>>> It could be rebuilt, given time and money. It's faster and cheaper
>>> to build a new one, and as a bonus, the result of that effort will
>>> use modern materials and electronics instead of being aluminum
>>> everything and using computers that need to be installed with a
>>> crane.
>>
>> Also centrally important is the different sizes of the payloads. The
>> Saturn carried both crew, lander and return vehicle. The Ares I will
>> carry crew only, and the Ares V will carry the much larger lander and
>> I believe the return vehicle. The Ares I is thus smaller, the Ares V
>> larger, and if we reused the Saturn, we'd have the worst of both
>> possible worlds.
>>
>> I do believe that they tipped their hats in tribute to the grand old
>> heavy lifter from the sixties, by giving the Ares heavy lifter the
>> number V.
>>
>> Also, I think we should have a rescue plan, in case those guys get
>> stuck up there. Otherwise, the day will quite likely come when we
>> relive the depressing experiences of the Columbia and the Apollo 13.
>
> Erm the Apollo 13 crew got back alive...

....by the skin of their teeth.

[Androcles[_2_]]

"Bluuuue Rajah" <Bluuuuue@Rajah.> wrote in message
. 33.102...
> "Keith Willshaw" > wrote in
> :
>
>>
>> "Bluuuue Rajah" <Bluuuuue@Rajah.> wrote in message
>> . 17.102...
>>> Mike Ash > wrote in
>>> news:mike-C5831A.22355920032009@reserved-multicast-range-NOT-
>>> delegated.ex
>>> ample.com:
>>>
>>>> In article >,
>>>> Just go look it up! > wrote:
>>>>
>>>>> On Thu, 19 Mar 2009 22:19:56 -0700 (PDT), BradGuth
>>>>> > wrote:
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>> >Why not use the 100% reliable and 30% inert massive Saturn 5
>>>>> >configuration?
>>>>> >
>>>>> >Why reinvent the wheel?
>>>>>
>>>>> Even if the plans were available (I think NASA says they are, other
>>>>> documentaries say they aren't), I doubt that some 30 years later
>>>>> that any of the tooling, materials, electronics, et al are still in
>>>>> existance to build another Saturn V even if they did want to.
>>>>>
>>>>> From what I understand, that's why they're designing and building a
>>>>> completely new one (Ares) for Moon, Mars, and Beyond:
>>>>>
>>>>> http://www.nasa.gov/mission_pages/constellation/ares/index.html
>>>>>
>>>>> Could be wrong though.
>>>>>
>>>>> Saturn V must have been incredible to see launch though. I've only
>>>>> seen the display at Kennedy Space Center... massive......
>>>>
>>>> The plans still exist, on microfilm.
>>>>
>>>> Many of the suppliers no longer exist, though. Of those that do,
>>>> very few if any are still manufacturing the parts that you'd find on
>>>> the SV plans. Also, much of the institutional knowledge that was
>>>> assumed context for the plans has disappeared in the intervening
>>>> time.
>>>>
>>>> It could be rebuilt, given time and money. It's faster and cheaper
>>>> to build a new one, and as a bonus, the result of that effort will
>>>> use modern materials and electronics instead of being aluminum
>>>> everything and using computers that need to be installed with a
>>>> crane.
>>>
>>> Also centrally important is the different sizes of the payloads. The
>>> Saturn carried both crew, lander and return vehicle. The Ares I will
>>> carry crew only, and the Ares V will carry the much larger lander and
>>> I believe the return vehicle. The Ares I is thus smaller, the Ares V
>>> larger, and if we reused the Saturn, we'd have the worst of both
>>> possible worlds.
>>>
>>> I do believe that they tipped their hats in tribute to the grand old
>>> heavy lifter from the sixties, by giving the Ares heavy lifter the
>>> number V.
>>>
>>> Also, I think we should have a rescue plan, in case those guys get
>>> stuck up there. Otherwise, the day will quite likely come when we
>>> relive the depressing experiences of the Columbia and the Apollo 13.
>>
>> Erm the Apollo 13 crew got back alive...
>
> ...by the skin of their teeth.

And only after a burn on the far side of the Moon which they went
to but didn't land on because dumb kids today think it was a hoax.
At least the Russians are not claiming it was a hoax.

[Bluuuue Rajah]

frank > wrote in news:2bedc834-82a4-4f60-b0a5-
:

> Big reason for liquid fuel, you can throttle it up and down. Can't do
> that on solids. They tried that on SRAM II, motor blew up.

How do you "try" to throttle an SRM, with no pipes to put valves on? Giant
throttle plate above the nozzle, inside the burn? That *does* sound like
an certain explosion.