Return to Apollo?

Jerry Irvine wrote: > In article , > David Schultz wrote: >

Read the book. SSTO is not impossible in theory as designs for SSTO have been proposed several times. One of the earliest being a variation of the S-IV-B stage of the Saturn V. 8,000 pounds in orbit.

formatting link
Proposed in 1969!

And then of course there is the 800 lb. gorilla of SSTO's: Project Orion.

Reply to
David Schultz
Loading thread data ...

Man will NEVER fly a heavier than air craft.

Trains will NEVER exceed 25 mph.

Planes will NEVER exceed the sound barrier.

Rockets will NEVER work in space.

Man will NEVER walk on the moon.

It's funny how often today's "truth" becomes tomorrow's stupid comment.

Mario Perdue NAR #22012 Sr. L2 for email drop the planet

formatting link
"X-ray-Delta-One, this is Mission Control, two-one-five-six, transmission concluded."

Reply to
Mario Perdue

Private organizations will never develop their own space programs

Amatuer Rocketeers will never fly in space

Civilians will never step foot on the moon

let us try to make these above statements become phrases of fiction

Reply to
tater schuld

The drawings aren't really lost. That's not the problem, nor is the big problem the computer system - the computing requirements are quite minimal, and having a lot of computer doesn't really help at all. Besides, I doubt a G5 processor would have much chance of taking a hit like the Apollo 12 lightning strikes and just keep running. They were heavy, but those old crude IC's and discrete parts computers could really take a licking and keep on ticking.

The big problem is when you look on the drawing, it says stuff like "Allied-Signal Hydraulic pump, part #xxxxxx". But the contractor has been out of the pump business for 30 years or so. So now, you have to get another pump, or more likely, put out a proposal for one that can meet the original requirements, and then requalify it and set up a maunfacturing facility. Repeat 25000 times (for every part that you need but can't get), and you have run through a couple billion dollars do build a 40-year-old design.

The basic design of OSP might end up looking like an Apollo capsule from the outside, but the details will be completely different, and that's where the rubber meets the road. An it makes no sense to ressurect something that looks like a Saturn 1b (expensive even at the time, compared to similar vehicles like the Titan 3 series) when you can come up with a Delta IV "Extra Heavy" using parts that are still in production, well understood, and at minimal developmental costs.

Brett

Reply to
Brett Buck

I don't really want to get into this.... (famous last words, eh?? LOL) ...but I don't beleive that.

I could *easily* imagine someone around 1920 saying "There will NEVER be truely cheap access to air travel" or, earlier, "There will NEVER be turely cheap access to horseless carrages", etc, etc, etc.

It'll happen. How? I haven't a clue, but that doesn't lessen the probability one iota. I doubt if George Washington knew *how* affordable automobiles would come about. I doubt if he could figure out how affordable air travel would come about either. Yet, here they are.

I *will* say *this* with confidence. If you are so certain that "There will NEVER be truely cheap access to space", I know that *you* will not be the person to develop it. It will be someone else.

There, I said it! *S* dipping my toes into the rmr river of controversy is not for the faint of heart... >vbg<

jim

Alan J>On 11 Sep 2003 19:14:32 GMT, snipped-for-privacy@aol.com (RayDunakin) wrote: >

Reply to
Jim Flis

can you point me to where they are?

*IF* you went through the same old design part by part. would be easier if one just said "ok, stage X gave XYZ specifications, lets see what matches up nowadays" bet we make it lighter, faster, stronger with more payload capability.

lemme know where them drawing are, our clubs got a couple of fanatics that would want to try tearing into them

Reply to
tater schuld

Reply to
Chris Taylor Jr

Which winds up being a partially new machine using Delta IV or Atlas V parts, and with no resemblance to the original. Which was, in fact, the point of my post.

If you want a Saturn 1b capabilities, but not the actual item, then you already have it - Titan IVb. Shuttle-C was approaching Saturn V capabilites (to LEO, anyway). Today, I would be tempted to cluster Delta IV first stages.

This is a much more practical approach than attempting to remake or refurbish a Saturn V.

Brett

Reply to
Brett Buck

The government itself considers itself to have two catagories: military and civilian. Yes even the employees.

Jerry

Reply to
Jerry Irvine

How about there will never be cheap chemical propulsion access to space.

Reply to
Jerry Irvine

If the ATF situation goes to crap we can all just start building Saturn V's. FULL SCALE.

Nice hobby :)

Jerry

Reply to
Jerry Irvine

It is not rue that the Apollo drawings are lost. Back for the 30th anniversary in 1999 they were all located: on microfiche under Peter Alway's bed :-)

Bob Kaplow NAR # 18L TRA # "Impeach the TRA BoD" >>> To reply, remove the TRABoD!

Reply to
Bob Kaplow

Bob, that's not true at all.

Everybody know's Peter has the full-size drawings rolled up under his bed...

David Erbas-White

Reply to
David Erbas-White

Why would a completely reuseable vehicle not be economical?? If the only thing you have to replace each time is the fuel, that certainly seems economical to me.

Whether or not that's possible with current technology (or even in the foreseeable future) is another story.

Reply to
RayDunakin

I agree, never say never... the possibility exists.

the conversation started with the SAIB's recommendation to can the shuttle and get a replacement. the replacement needs to be here long before it is reasonable to get good reuse from space vehicles.

can today's aerospace industry deliver an inexpensive and serviceable single-use live-human carrier? or will it be a bloated over spent misdirected pork-barrel project?

in 1920 noone knew how to make aluminum skinned monoplanes but they had to fly something so they flew the best things they knew, canvas and spruce biplanes.

except for the hassle of water recovery (and it doesn't have to be done that way) the capsule proposal looks pretty good to me.

Reply to
Cliff Sojourner

Totally agree. I think we will achieve CATS in my lifetime, and most likely it'll be from a properly funded small company. Once achieved, there'll be a load of cash heavy venture capitalist in line to fund a program. Hopefully, as history has shown with other forms of human exploration, space exploration will end up being driven by economic forces, rather than political.

I think it is possible to build decent rockets, while maybe not totally recoverable, with off-the-shelf parts and today's technology. Check out Germany's old OTRAG program. While not completely successful (due to a funding cutoff), they lofted some pretty impressive flights using rockets built of standard industrial tubing, windshield wiper motors, etc.

tah

Reply to
hiltyt

How ironic is it that a rocket of that low of cost had its funding cut off?

Jerry

Reply to
Jerry Irvine

How dilusional are you?

Jerry

Reply to
Jerry Irvine

Well, according to Mr. Alway, it was a combination of getting their funding cut off, and political problems. Some viewed the program as a "secret German weapons program". I think they may've been a victim of bad timing. Cold War, and all. Too bad, but in light of most political "standards", almost totally predictable. Let's hope Rutan, et.al. have better success.

tah

Reply to
hiltyt

Good point ...

Reply to
tad danley

PolyTech Forum website is not affiliated with any of the manufacturers or service providers discussed here. All logos and trade names are the property of their respective owners.