|
|
|
Thread Tools | Display Modes |
#1
|
|||
|
|||
Saturn 5 is returning:)
|
#2
|
|||
|
|||
Saturn 5 is returning:)
In article 2d9e2408-78a1-47c3-890e-84e7b662cd60
@f5g2000vby.googlegroups.com, says... http://spaceflightnow.com/news/n1204/18dynetics/ Saturn V is *not* returning. Jeff -- " Ares 1 is a prime example of the fact that NASA just can't get it up anymore... and when they can, it doesn't stay up long. " - tinker |
#3
|
|||
|
|||
Saturn 5 is returning:)
On Apr 19, 7:18*am, Jeff Findley wrote:
Saturn V is *not* returning. Not _exactly_, but the article *was* about the return - yes, really - of the F-1 engine. Which is the important part of the Saturn V. A powerful kerosene- oxygen engine made in the U.S.A. that eliminates the need to rely on solid boosters for personnelled flight is *really* good news for U.S. space capabilities. That would mean the U.S. would finally regain the ground it lost when the Saturn V was abandoned. That the F-1 engine would be placed in new rocket designs more closely matching the capabilities desired for planned future missions is only to be expected, and entirely desirable. John Savard |
#4
|
|||
|
|||
Saturn 5 is returning:)
Oh, and here's a less positive news story:
http://www.newsdaily.com/stories/bre...-space-future/ John Savard |
#5
|
|||
|
|||
Saturn 5 is returning:)
Quadibloc writes:
That would mean the U.S. would finally regain the ground it lost when the Saturn V was abandoned. That the F-1 engine would be placed in new rocket designs more closely matching the capabilities desired for planned future missions is only to be expected, and entirely desirable. It would still mean that this launcher would use three totally different engines on the boosters, first and second stage. With one or two launches a year this is a receipt for economic disaster. Jochem -- "A designer knows he has arrived at perfection not when there is no longer anything to add, but when there is no longer anything to take away." - Antoine de Saint-Exupery |
#6
|
|||
|
|||
Saturn 5 is returning:)
On Thu, 19 Apr 2012 23:27:32 +0200, Jochem Huhmann
wrote: It would still mean that this launcher would use three totally different engines on the boosters, first and second stage. With one or two launches a year this is a receipt for economic disaster. It depends on the details. I'll bet that if NASA with SLS revives the F-1 (F-1B?) the DoD would be *very* interested in using it for their planned flyback booster core in the 2020s. This isn't the first time F-1 revival has been proposed. It came up a lot in ALS/NLS in the '80s/'90s. Brian |
#7
|
|||
|
|||
Saturn 5 is returning:)
Brian Thorn writes:
On Thu, 19 Apr 2012 23:27:32 +0200, Jochem Huhmann wrote: It would still mean that this launcher would use three totally different engines on the boosters, first and second stage. With one or two launches a year this is a receipt for economic disaster. It depends on the details. I'll bet that if NASA with SLS revives the F-1 (F-1B?) the DoD would be *very* interested in using it for their planned flyback booster core in the 2020s. This isn't the first time F-1 revival has been proposed. It came up a lot in ALS/NLS in the '80s/'90s. Still, for SLS (which is meant to fly crazily rarely anyway) it would mean three different engines. Compared to using the SRBs for the boosters (which at least have the tooling and propellants and everything ready) I can't see the economic case for them for ten years or so and even then... To put it into other words: SLS is a disaster, no matter what engines you use. Jochem -- "A designer knows he has arrived at perfection not when there is no longer anything to add, but when there is no longer anything to take away." - Antoine de Saint-Exupery |
#8
|
|||
|
|||
Saturn 5 is returning:)
On Fri, 20 Apr 2012 00:56:49 +0200, Jochem Huhmann
wrote: Still, for SLS (which is meant to fly crazily rarely anyway) it would mean three different engines. Compared to using the SRBs for the boosters (which at least have the tooling and propellants and everything ready) I can't see the economic case for them for ten years or so and even then... SLS is already three different engines. The SRBs are still complex machines built on production lines and shipped cross-country. They are far from cheap, especially the new FSB. SRBs are and always will be inherantly less safe than liquid engines. And since SLS's SRBs aren't even recoverable, NASA won't have the advantage of inspecting them post-flight for problems like they did in the Shuttle program. So an F-1 based booster, especially if the production costs can be leveraged with EELV's successor which should be coming along around the same time, does make some sense. F-1 production costs could well be shared with J-2X and SSME infrastructure to a degree as well, actually making this system cheaper than SRB in the long run. (And propellant is ready for F-1, too... it uses RP-1 just like Atlas 5 and Falcon 9.) To put it into other words: SLS is a disaster, no matter what engines you use. Maybe, but I don't think it is quite as doomed as you suggest. Brian |
#9
|
|||
|
|||
Saturn 5 is returning:)
"Brian Thorn" wrote in message
... On Thu, 19 Apr 2012 23:27:32 +0200, Jochem Huhmann wrote: It would still mean that this launcher would use three totally different engines on the boosters, first and second stage. With one or two launches a year this is a receipt for economic disaster. It depends on the details. I'll bet that if NASA with SLS revives the F-1 (F-1B?) the DoD would be *very* interested in using it for their planned flyback booster core in the 2020s. This isn't the first time F-1 revival has been proposed. It came up a lot in ALS/NLS in the '80s/'90s. Also google "Jarvis" Booster. Brian -- Greg D. Moore http://greenmountainsoftware.wordpress.com/ CEO QuiCR: Quick, Crowdsourced Responses. http://www.quicr.net |
#10
|
|||
|
|||
Saturn 5 is returning:)
On Apr 19, 11:32*pm, "Greg \(Strider\) Moore"
wrote: "Brian Thorn" *wrote in message ... On Thu, 19 Apr 2012 23:27:32 +0200, Jochem Huhmann wrote: It would still mean that this launcher would use three totally different engines on the boosters, first and second stage. With one or two launches a year this is a receipt for economic disaster. It depends on the details. I'll bet that if NASA with SLS revives the F-1 (F-1B?) the DoD would be *very* interested in using it for their planned flyback booster core in the 2020s. This isn't the first time F-1 revival has been proposed. It came up a lot in ALS/NLS in the '80s/'90s. Also google "Jarvis" Booster. Brian -- Greg D. Moore * * * * * * * * *http://greenmountainsoftware.wordpress.com/ CEO QuiCR: Quick, Crowdsourced Responses.http://www.quicr.net The elephant in the room, after the election ENTITLEMENTS MUST BE CUT, or our country will go bankrupt.... thats medicare, social security plus everthing else......... now how much support will the voters have for space spending while cutting benefits is????? bet a private industry comany would be happy to build a heavy lifter if there was money to pay for it?? |
|
Thread Tools | |
Display Modes | |
|
|
Similar Threads | ||||
Thread | Thread Starter | Forum | Replies | Last Post |
ASTRO: Returning from the crypt and three first lights | Richard Crisp[_1_] | Astro Pictures | 7 | March 17th 10 01:18 AM |
Returning After A Few Years | Terratek | Amateur Astronomy | 0 | December 25th 07 09:16 PM |
returning interplanetary probe? | Jim Oberg | History | 1 | April 18th 07 08:01 PM |
SAH not returning WU and serving Fatal Error 100... | jon renner | SETI | 10 | October 28th 03 07:29 PM |