Military vs Civilian Orbital Laboratories, Vehicles, and Crews

On Mar 12, 1:51*pm, Pat Flannery wrote:
wrote:

Thiokol did - to the everlasting chagrin of vonBraun who wanted
nothing to do with the SRBs. *I count them as army.

Large scale SRBs were first used for the Titan III, an Air Force, not
Army, project.
Although NASA looked at giant SRBs for the Saturn V first stage in case
the F-1 engine flopped, that was a civilian project, as there was no
military use for SRBs of that size.

Pat

http://www.ksc.nasa.gov/kscoralhisto...dannenberg.pdf
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Operation_Paperclip
http://www.ascho.wpafb.af.mil/START/CHAP7.HTM

Project Paperclip brought the German rocketmen over. They were
debriefed and that formed the basis of 34 monographs in 12 volumes -
classified - which proposed that large rockets be developed by the
army to replace long-range guns.

Now, I couldn't find an online reference to the ARMY version of the
New Horizons reports, but they exist, the Air Force got comparable
reports, which I give the URL describing them above, as did the Navy -
appropriate to their various roles. Each service came up with reasons
and rationales for their service to be the one to be responsible for
rockets. The Army wanted to replace long-range guns. The Air Force
said they flew through the Air. The Navy said that rockets projected
force across the oceans. They all were right, and we ended up with a
triad of nuclear capabilities - within each service.

Now, given the nature of the rocket equation, and the structural
fractions available at that time - about 16%, along with the low
performance of solid and storeable liquid fuels - 180 to 280 seconds,
and the size of nuclear warheads - tons, it was easy to see that a one
to ten ton payload would require a 200 to 2,000 ton launcher to
achieve intercontinental ranges - built with then available
technology.

So, the Army - at their Redstone Arsenal - IMMEDIATELY began a multi-
track approach, reducing the size of payloads, and finding the upper
limits of rocket engine sizes - reducing structural fractions and so
forth.

As a result, large chemical and solid fuel engines were under
development and testing at that time by the ARMY - in secret. The
solid-fueled rocket engine has many advantages for the military. It is
smaller which makes it very portable. The solid fuels are much easier
to handle than the caustic and sometimes super-cold liquids. Also,
solid fueled rockets are always ready to fire. They do not require the
preparation which a liquid fueled rocket would need.

The ARMY developed the biggest engines because they were the only
service that would have need of the biggest rockets. The Navy had to
put rockets on board ships. The Air Force had to carry rockets on
airplanes.

This resulted in the F1 engine and a big solid engine I don't recall
the name of at the moment - this was handed over to NASA - by
Kennedy's direction (Eisenhower kept it under wraps thinking how easy
it was for Klaus Fuchs to steal atom bomb secrets from the USA) - from
the ARMY. Big solids were also an important development as well -
and they were handed over - from the ARMY. Both systems were in the
500 to 750 ton range because that was the range needed for practical
intercontinental operations for the warhead weights in the 1940s. Of
course advances in weight saving technologies in the 1950s for
payloads and warheads meant smaller rockets would be suitable for use
as ICBMs. It was this secret - and our work in larger engines - that
Eisenhower worried the Russians were after with their publicised
Sputnik launches.

von Braun reveled in Sputnik, because he wanted an excuse to go to
orbit. Even so, he didn't like solid rockets because ALL the
reactants are in the combustion chamber and they easily exploded in
his view. They also performed poorly for space travel applications.

The point is, the large rocket engines - both solid and liquid - were
an Army development, and early-on, all the systems we used through the
1960s civilian space efforts had Army ancestry.

wrote:

Project Paperclip brought the German rocketmen over. They were
debriefed and that formed the basis of 34 monographs in 12 volumes -
classified - which proposed that large rockets be developed by the
army to replace long-range guns.


The Peenemunde team hated large solid fuel rockets, which they
considered lacked technological "sweetness".*
There's a funny story where things got heated about solids versus liquid
fuel at a cocktail party, and on of von Braun's crew berated one of the
Army engineers for favoring solids in pretty explicit language.
Afterwards he regretted what he had said, and went back to the engineer
stating he had been too close-minded about the advantages of solids for
military systems, "...and indeed (holding up his Martini) the more of
these liquids I consume, the more advantages I can see in solids."

* They also hated large numbers of clustered engines for the same
reason, and referred to the Saturn I as "Cluster's Last Stand".
They didn't know quite what they were going to do with the F-1 engine,
but if someone built it, they would definitely think of some good use
for it.
They wanted great big engines ASAP, and they wanted great big rockets ASAP.
This led to the Saturn I being ready to go before anyone had figured out
what exactly they were going to launch with it, but they always
considered it a pretty clumsy lash-up rather than a operational booster
that should be put into large scale production.

Now, I couldn't find an online reference to the ARMY version of the
New Horizons reports, but they exist, the Air Force got comparable
reports, which I give the URL describing them above, as did the Navy -
appropriate to their various roles.

Check out these two projects:
http://www.astronautix.com/articles/prorizon.htm
That's the Army one.
....and: http://www.astronautix.com/articles/lunex.htm
The Air Force one.

Each service came up with reasons
and rationales for their service to be the one to be responsible for
rockets. The Army wanted to replace long-range guns. The Air Force
said they flew through the Air. The Navy said that rockets projected
force across the oceans. They all were right, and we ended up with a
triad of nuclear capabilities - within each service.

Now, given the nature of the rocket equation, and the structural
fractions available at that time - about 16%, along with the low
performance of solid and storeable liquid fuels - 180 to 280 seconds,


Some of the early proposals can be seen he
http://www.project1947.com/gr/worldcircling.htm
The soviets went further than this...they looked into a atomic-powered
ICBM:
http://www.astronautix.com/lvs/yardicbm.htm

and the size of nuclear warheads - tons, it was easy to see that a one
to ten ton payload would require a 200 to 2,000 ton launcher to
achieve intercontinental ranges - built with then available
technology.

So, the Army - at their Redstone Arsenal - IMMEDIATELY began a multi-
track approach, reducing the size of payloads, and finding the upper
limits of rocket engine sizes - reducing structural fractions and so
forth.

As a result, large chemical and solid fuel engines were under
development and testing at that time by the ARMY - in secret.

The biggest one the Army ever came up with was the Nike-Zeus booster;
thrust was spectacular, but burn duration short.
The very large SRB's NASA tested were developed in regard to Apollo, and
never had a military background.
The F-1 proved a difficult nut to crack, and they looked into huge
solids to use in the Saturn V in case the F-1 didn't work, to prevent it
being a complete wash-out: http://www.astronautix.com/engines/aj2602.htm
Experience with building huge solids led directly to the Shuttle's SRBs.
The only thing the Air Force wanted giant solids for was to augment
their Titan IIs to carry Dyna-Soar, MOL, and heavy reconsats.
Although Dyna-Soar started out as a suborbital skip-bomber, it matured
as a manned recon system or space station ferry, not a directly
offensive weapon unless it was to be used for satellite inspection and
destruction like SAINT II:
http://www.astronautix.com/craft/saintii.htm

Pat

On Mar 12, 1:42 pm, wrote:
On Mar 12, 1:41 pm, Pat Flannery wrote:

wrote:
What would this path have given us? For the same money spent on
Shuttle, by 1980s we would have had a human presence on the Moon equal
to that of Little American in Antarctica, and in the 1980s,

Unlike Antarctica, the Moon is difficult to get to,

The moon in 2010 is not any more difficult to get to than the pole in
1910. Besides, we don't go to the moon because its easy, we go to
the moon, and do the other things in space we're capable of doing,
because its hard. These goals serve to measure the best in us and in
our nation.

A famous man said that once, and I thought it was true then, and its
true now.

and even with Saturn
V's with nuclear upper stages, very expensive to supply a base on.

It takes about 1 ton of supplies to keep a person well provisioned for
a year. This may be reduced substantially if a local source of water
is developed. The payload - one way - for the type of system you
describe is about 20 tons. The cost? About $200 million per flight -
using expendables, with partial reuse, and other upgrades, this would
easily be reduced to $100 million per flight. But $10 million per man-
year on the moon. So, $1 billion per year would keep 100 people
supplied on the moon, at the higher price, and 200 people supplied on
the moon at the lower price. A $5 billion per year effort - would
easily support 100 to 200 people doing useful stuff on the moon.

There's nothing there worth the effort

I disagree.

of going there from a economic
point of view,

How long did it take before the wasteland of North America began
paying off for the British? You know they said the very same thing in
Parlaiment about the Americas. Just because they could send ships
there (it took months not days) didn't mean they should. They did it
anyway because they had a sense of adventure and possibility that we
lack today - and it will do us in I fear.

and even from a scientific point of view its pretty
uninteresting.

Again, I disagree.

You may find water ice in the sunless valleys at the
poles, but you aren't going to find life of any sort.

I agree about the water, and you're likely right about life. Who said
life was the reason we're going anyway? Its human life I'm concerned
about.

Astronauts at a lunar base would soon find themselves bored out of their
minds

Depends on the details. Definitely more exciting than crewing a super-
tanker or nuclear sub for 90 days at a time.

from walking around in a barren, lifeless environment for two
weeks followed by hunkering down for a two week night, over and over again.

You don't know what it would be like. So, you're talking out of your
ass. All the lunar astronauts I spoke with said it was the most
exciting and thrilling time of their lives. About half of them had
serious shamanic insights that they're still trying to process. I
think things would be very interesting - for the crews on the moon and
mars, as well as for us on Earth.

They could drive around in rovers, but even then they'd have to not
journey too far as they would still need to have the ability to walk

That was a limit placed on the Apollo rover. With multiple rovers and
dozens of helpers, that limit would change.

back to some sort of shelter with life support if the rover broke down.

Depends on the details. We make pup-tents on Earth, I can imagine
making all sorts of equipment, and with 100 to 200 people around,
there's always help nearby.

Compared to the other moons of the solar system, our Moon is a very
boring place indeed.

I disagree.

It lacks volcanoes like Io, a atmosphere like Titan, a subsurface liquid
water ocean like Europa, Callisto, and Ganymede, nitrogen ice geysers
like Triton, or water ice geysers like Enceladus.

So, its a far safer place to learn the skills needed to live away from
Earth. A good place to start.

It's just a big dead ball of rock.

you are talking out of your ass again.

Like the summit of Mount Everest - once you get there, there's really
not much to do, so you plant a flag and head home again.

Yet thousands of people a year climb it.

Pat

Technically, our moon is about as tough of any place to get ourselves
safely to/from as it gets, and it is every bit as humanly lethal
unless you're extremely well outfitted and shielded, or intent upon
keeping yourself deep underground. Even the moon's L1 isn't hardly
human DNA friendly for a station-keeping outpost/gateway, not to
mention staying double-IR hotter than hell most of the time.

You consistently claim and/or spout as though being all-knowing and
thus as smart or better than Einstein, and yet you'll believe anything
that is government or faith-based published, and worse yet is that you
insist that all others do the same without a speck of remorse, or
else.

According to the lord Mook mindset, history simply can not ever be
revised, especially if it's truth related.

Our physically dark and electrostatic dusty moon is unavoidably
saturated in gamma and X-rays, plus we still do not have a viable fly-
by-rocket lander, of course neither does Russia or anyone else.

Of public owned and housed supercomputers and their extremely capable
simulations are rather oddly taboo or nondisclosure rated because, it
seems your close friends are living large while lying their infowar
spewing butts off.

Clearly you are one of them, except you're actually one of the bad bad
guys.
.. - Brad Guth

"Pat Flannery" wrote in message
...

Check out these two projects:
http://www.astronautix.com/articles/prorizon.htm
That's the Army one.

From above:

For the return to earth, from either the earth orbit or the
lunar surface, aerodynamic braking will be used, since it
allows significant overall payload increases when compared
to rocket braking. The aerodynamic braking body used for this
study is similar in shape to a JUPITER missile nose cone
modified by the addition of movable drag vanes at the base of
the cone.

...and: http://www.astronautix.com/articles/lunex.htm
The Air Force one.

From above:

A three-man Lunex Re-entry Vehicle. This vehicle must be
capable of re-entry into the earth's atmosphere at velocities
of 37,000 ft/sec. It must also be capable of making a
conventional aircraft landing.

Definitely an Air Force bias here as to the landing method. ;-)

Jeff
--
A clever person solves a problem.
A wise person avoids it. -- Einstein

On Mar 13, 12:43 pm, Eric Chomko wrote:
On Mar 12, 5:26 pm, wrote:



On Mar 12, 3:57 pm, Eric Chomko wrote:

On Mar 12, 4:56 pm, (Rand Simberg)
wrote:

On Wed, 12 Mar 2008 12:36:03 -0700 (PDT), in a place far, far away,
Eric Chomko made the phosphor on my monitor
glow in such a way as to indicate that:

On Mar 12, 12:01 pm, (Rand Simberg)
wrote:
On Wed, 12 Mar 2008 05:52:48 -0700 (PDT), in a place far, far away,
made the phosphor on my monitor glow in such
a way as to indicate that:

On Mar 12, 8:28 am, wrote:
The Shuttle got funded,
but not without getting a huge makeover by the Airforce that
dramatically increased development cost with wings engines and tiles
it didn't really need and the Army, that mandated SRBs which were
dangerous and low performing, in lieu of a fully reusable first stage,
increased operating costs.

Among with the other crazy non existent crap in your rant,

The Army had nothing to do with the Shuttle

Mook seems to be going more and more over the deep end in recent
years. Be careful. If you disagree with him, he'll call you evil.

Clearly no different than when you call others "moron" and the like.

That's only clear to morons.

Yes, I knew you'd bite, and you ARE evil. LOL!- Hide quoted text -

- Show quoted text -

He should get a phd and he could call himself Dr. Evil and his son,
brad evil.

He would continue to keep Brad in his killfile. LOL!

Why are you and others of your kind so deathly afraid of the truth?

What's wrong with other sharing the whole truth and nothing but the
truth, other than the likes of yourself having such a problem with
allowing such to take place?

Our willie.moo is actually afraid of his own shadow, but only because
it represents another lost soul that's forever stuck on his LLPOF
Earth w/o a stitch of remorse, and otherwise taking attention away
from the one and only lord Mook mindset in the universe that counts.
.. - Brad Guth

On Mar 13, 11:54 pm, wrote:
On Mar 12, 1:51 pm, Pat Flannery wrote:

wrote:

Thiokol did - to the everlasting chagrin of vonBraun who wanted
nothing to do with the SRBs. I count them as army.

Large scale SRBs were first used for the Titan III, an Air Force, not
Army, project.
Although NASA looked at giant SRBs for the Saturn V first stage in case
the F-1 engine flopped, that was a civilian project, as there was no
military use for SRBs of that size.

Pat


So, the Army - at their Redstone Arsenal - IMMEDIATELY began a multi-
track approach, reducing the size of payloads, and finding the upper
limits of rocket engine sizes - reducing structural fractions and so
forth.

This resulted in the F1 engine and a big solid engine I don't recall
the name of at the moment - this was handed over to NASA - by
Kennedy's direction (Eisenhower kept it under wraps thinking how easy
it was for Klaus Fuchs to steal atom bomb secrets from the USA) - from
the ARMY. Big solids were also an important development as well -
and they were handed over - from the ARMY. Both systems were in the
500 to 750 ton range because that was the range needed for practical
intercontinental operations for the warhead weights in the 1940s. Of
course advances in weight saving technologies in the 1950s for
payloads and warheads meant smaller rockets would be suitable for use
as ICBMs. It was this secret - and our work in larger engines - that
Eisenhower worried the Russians were after with their publicised
Sputnik launches.


The point is, the large rocket engines - both solid and liquid - were
an Army development, and early-on, all the systems we used through the
1960s civilian space efforts had Army ancestry.


All wrong. The F-1 was first an USAF project and not Army
Big solids were not Army but USAF

Redstone didn't even do one payload much less 'reduce their size"

From above:

* *A three-man Lunex Re-entry Vehicle. This vehicle must be
* *capable of re-entry into the earth's atmosphere at velocities
* *of 37,000 ft/sec. It must also be capable of making a
* *conventional aircraft landing.

Definitely an Air Force bias here as to the landing method. *;-)

Jeff

And a possibly interesting issue for the heatshield if it was to be
reusable. Unobtainium anyone? ;-)

On Mar 14, 4:21*pm, wrote:
On Mar 13, 11:54 pm, wrote:





On Mar 12, 1:51 pm, Pat Flannery wrote:

wrote:

Thiokol did - to the everlasting chagrin of vonBraun who wanted
nothing to do with the SRBs. *I count them as army.

Large scale SRBs were first used for the Titan III, an Air Force, not
Army, project.
Although NASA looked at giant SRBs for the Saturn V first stage in case
the F-1 engine flopped, that was a civilian project, as there was no
military use for SRBs of that size.

Pat

So, the Army - at their Redstone Arsenal - IMMEDIATELY began a multi-
track approach, reducing the size of payloads, and finding the upper
limits of rocket engine sizes - reducing structural fractions and so
forth.

This resulted in the F1 engine and a big solid engine I don't recall
the name of at the moment - this was handed over to NASA - by
Kennedy's direction (Eisenhower kept it under wraps thinking how easy
it was for Klaus Fuchs to steal atom bomb secrets from the USA) - from
the ARMY. * Big solids were also an important development as well -
and they were handed over - from the ARMY. *Both systems were in the
500 to 750 ton range because that was the range needed for practical
intercontinental operations for the warhead weights in the 1940s. * Of
course advances in weight saving technologies in the 1950s for
payloads and warheads meant smaller rockets would be suitable for use
as ICBMs. *It was this secret - and our work in larger engines - that
Eisenhower worried the Russians were after with their publicised
Sputnik launches.

The point is, the large rocket engines - both solid and liquid - were
an Army development, and early-on, all the systems we used through the
1960s civilian space efforts had Army ancestry.

All wrong. *The F-1 was first an USAF project and not Army
Big solids were not Army but USAF

Redstone didn't even do one payload much less 'reduce their size"- Hide quoted text -

- Show quoted text -

So, its your contention that the Army made no contributions whatever
to big rocket engines, big rockets, or paylods at all (irrespective of
whether or not t was redstone arsenal)

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Redstone_Arsenal

Redstone is the center of rocketry even today and its still an Army
base.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/F-1_%28rocket_engine%29

The F1 was an Air Force program, absolutely right, when it was turned
over to NASA - I mispoke. The need for a large engine was developed
in Army Ordnance where the rocket work began. This from the
debriefings were from the captured German rocket scientists
immediately following the war.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Joint_I...ectives_Agency

In early August 1945, Colonel Holger N. Toftoy, chief of the Rocket
Branch in the Research and Development Division of Army Ordnance,
offered initial one-year contracts to the rocket scientists. After
Toftoy agreed to take care of their families, 127 scientists accepted
the offer. In September 1945, the first group of seven rocket
scientists arrived from Germany at Fort Strong in the US: Wernher von
Braun, Erich W. Neubert, Theodor A. Poppel, August Schultze, Eberhard
F. M. Rees, Wilhelm Jungert and Walter Schwidetzky Eventually the
rocket scientists arrived at Fort Bliss, Texas for rocket testing at
White Sands Proving Grounds as "War Department Special Employees."

Eighty-six aeronautical experts were transferred to Wright Field,
which had also acquired aircraft and other equipment under Operation
Lusty.

So, the rocket program started out as an ordnance program. It was as
an Army ordnance program until the Air Force got control of it. The
need for a large engine was known at the beginning - that's what I was
responding to. I would have to look at records to know how far along
the E1 an F1 were when the Air Force got it.

You are insane.

Seek help.

You are delusional.

Don't post until you get professional help.