On Mar 24, 8:24 pm, simberg.interglo...@org.trash (Rand Simberg)
wrote:

On Tue, 25 Mar 2008 00:05:13 GMT, in a place far, far away, Monte
Davis <monte.da...@verizon.net> made the phosphor on my monitor glow
in such a way as to indicate that:


Brian Thorn <bthor...@suddenlink.net> wrote:

Without Kennedy's moon mandate, U.S. space exploration in the '60s and
'70s would have been very different, obviously. But I don't at all
believe that would have been the end of Saturn/Apollo. With no moon
mandate (and that huge influx of cash)..

In other words, no moon race but all the money allotted to the moon
race available for other things?

OK, so in 1966 the flying pigs from Procyon IV arrived to give us the
anitmatter drive, and in 1968 President Timothy Leary decided...

(Hey, this is fun!)

Many space enthusiasts project their enthusiasm on the country. But
the reality is that if space, or going to the moon, were important,
we'd have done a lot more in the last forty years. Absent the Soviet
threat, there would have been no moon program, at least none
resembling NASA's plans.


Soviet threat?!? My dad worked in the Soviet Threats Division in Ft.
Leavenworth, KS (can the prison jokes)

Soviet threat?!? My dad worked in the Soviet Threats Division in Ft.
Leavenworth, KS (can the prison jokes)

License plates with "I Hate Communism" on them....

its first stage sucked from a
viewpoint of size, weight, and complexity versus capability.
Even von Braun's team knew it was a major kludge designed to use
off-the-shelf parts (right down to Redstone and Jupiter tankage
production facilities) to get something of fairly heavy payload
capability airborne ASAP.

Using known (I.e., fairly low risk) components to build a cheap and
quick way of getting something fairly heavy into orbit is a design that
sucks? Not to *this* engineer!

The von Braun team wasn't terribly fond of it, particularly the eight

Apollo moon is winding down. Now lets imagine the shuttle had never
been built. NASA looked at it and decided its flight rate wouldnt be
necessary, so operations would cost too much.

So they looked at making some of apollo reusable, and other cost
cutting ideas.

wonder what they would of come up with?

Using known (I.e., fairly low risk) components to build a cheap and
quick way of getting something fairly heavy into orbit is a design that
sucks? Not to *this* engineer!

The von Braun team wasn't terribly fond of it, particularly the eight
engines, referring to it as "Cluster's last stand".

I thought it was his critics that called Saturn I that, not von Braun
or his team.

Eric Chomko wrote:
On Mar 24, 8:24 pm, simberg.interglo...@org.trash (Rand Simberg)
wrote:

On Tue, 25 Mar 2008 00:05:13 GMT, in a place far, far away, Monte
Davis <monte.da...@verizon.net> made the phosphor on my monitor glow
in such a way as to indicate that:

Brian Thorn <bthor...@suddenlink.net> wrote:

Without Kennedy's moon mandate, U.S. space exploration in the '60s and
'70s would have been very different, obviously. But I don't at all
believe that would have been the end of Saturn/Apollo. With no moon
mandate (and that huge influx of cash)..

In other words, no moon race but all the money allotted to the moon
race available for other things?

OK, so in 1966 the flying pigs from Procyon IV arrived to give us the
anitmatter drive, and in 1968 President Timothy Leary decided...

(Hey, this is fun!)

Many space enthusiasts project their enthusiasm on the country.  But
the reality is that if space, or going to the moon, were important,
we'd have done a lot more in the last forty years.  Absent the Soviet
threat, there would have been no moon program, at least none
resembling NASA's plans.

Soviet threat?!? My dad worked in the Soviet Threats Division in Ft.
Leavenworth, KS (can the prison jokes)

License plates with "I Hate Communism" on them.... :-)

On Wed, 26 Mar 2008 16:49:59 -0600, Pat Flannery <flan...@daktel.com
wrote:

Soviet threat?!? My dad worked in the Soviet Threats Division in Ft.
Leavenworth, KS (can the prison jokes)

...Well, this proves my one theory about how Chumpko came into being:
he was the result of unsafe prison sex.

License plates with "I Hate Communism" on them.... :-)

"My Son Is A Squarehead At Leavenworth HS!"

                                OM
--
   ]=====================================[
   ]   OMBlog -http://www.io.com/~o_m/omworld  [
   ]        Let's face it: Sometimes you *need*         [
   ]          an obnoxious opinion in your day!           [
   ]=====================================[

On Wed, 26 Mar 2008 21:26:58 GMT, Monte Davis

monte.da...@verizon.net> wrote:
No, where did you get that idea from what I wrote?

From your words: "With no moon mandate (and that huge influx of
cash)..."

If you didn't mean the 1961-1968 bulge following on Kennedy's
commitment, what "huge influx of cash" *did* you mean?

I meant "no huge influx of cash".

Brian

Even back during WW II the tactical limitations of suppling LOX to V-2s
at their launch sites became obvious, and that's why the German military
wanted to go over to storable hypergolics in the improved versions.
The Soviets caught on to this quick, and employed it from the "Scud"
forward.
We didn't; we had the opportunity to do it with Corporal-based
technology, but outside the Titan II went straight from LOX-kerosene to
solids in all of our of our strategic and long-range ballistic missiles.

Kevin Willoughby wrote:
Using known (I.e., fairly low risk) components to build a cheap and
quick way of getting something fairly heavy into orbit is a design that
sucks? Not to *this* engineer!

The eight engine arrangement gave them problems as far as ignition went,
and they had to make a lot of changes from stock Jupiter engines to get
a simultaneous ignition sequence on all eight.

They considered it a worthwhile booster to build as a stepping stone to
the F-1 powered Saturns, but not something you wanted to standardize on
for large-scale production.

That propellant tank layout in particular was a heavy way of doing things.
Go over to conventional tankage and the stage would shrink significantly
in size and weight for the same capability.

The H-1's probably weren't the most expensive of engines, but when you
need eight of them per booster it makes for a significant cost factor.

Thereby bypassing the limitations [and problems] of stored
hypergolics...

In article <13ultgvajlo7k88@corp.supernews.com>, flanner@daktel.com
says...

Kevin Willoughby wrote:

Using known (I.e., fairly low risk) components to build a cheap and
quick way of getting something fairly heavy into orbit is a design that
sucks? Not to *this* engineer!


The eight engine arrangement gave them problems as far as ignition went,
and they had to make a lot of changes from stock Jupiter engines to get
a simultaneous ignition sequence on all eight.


Really? I only recently learned that the S-V had a staggered start
sequence. Something like a full second between the start of the first
and last engines. Why would the same team choose two such different
sequences in starting a cluster? References, Pat, please -- I need to
learn more.

I'm digging for it... but it may take some time; I thought it was in one

They considered it a worthwhile booster to build as a stepping stone to
the F-1 powered Saturns, but not something you wanted to standardize on
for large-scale production.


uh, how many big liquid-fueled rockets went into large-scale production?
The A-4 (big by the standards of the 1940s), the R-7 family and, ummm,
well, err....

The eight engine arrangement gave them problems as far as ignition
went, and they had to make a lot of changes from stock Jupiter
engines to get a simultaneous ignition sequence on all eight.

Really? I only recently learned that the S-V had a staggered start
sequence. Something like a full second between the start of the first
and last engines. Why would the same team choose two such different
sequences in starting a cluster? References, Pat, please -- I need to
learn more.

I'm digging for it... but it may take some time; I thought it was in one
of the small Gatland space books, but it's not in there.