Russia to approve new Moon rocket

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

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

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

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

"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

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

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.

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.

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.

Orval Fairbairn wrote in
news
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.