Russia to approve new Moon rocket

"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/co...res/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.

"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/co...res/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.

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.