8 Reasons Why Going Back to the Moon Is Loony by MARGARET WERTHEIM

On 18 Jan 2006 17:21:51 -0800, "Brad Guth"
wrote:

I believe in whatever actually works, as having been proven by the
likes of the Lunar Prospector and Clementine missions. As to the
Saturn-V/apollo crapolla of their perpetrated cold-war, by way of their
own rocket-science numbers, it's somewhat unlikely they got their whole
9 yards of nearly 50t up to GSO (God forbid, why the hell would you
want to get your DNA parked there?).


The numbers William posted are the underpinning for what works. You
want to figure out how big a rocket would be required to get Apollo to
the Moon? Plug in the mubers yourself. Want to figure out how big a
rocket you need to get your payloads where you want to go? Ditto.

So, what portion(s) of the Apollo missions made the roundabout and
returned with all of those terrific Kodak moments as obtained from
lunar orbit?

Are we talking 5t, 10t or perhaps(iffy) 15t ???
-
All of it.



----== Posted via Newsfeeds.Com - Unlimited-Unrestricted-Secure Usenet News==----
http://www.newsfeeds.com The #1 Newsgroup Service in the World! 120,000+ Newsgroups
----= East and West-Coast Server Farms - Total Privacy via Encryption =----

b.g.; What does his publishing of whatever 'should work' have
to do with the real thing?

When they are based on the laws of physics and play out in reality,
they have everything to do with it.
Michael Gallagher,
Then you're saying, and/or at least suggesting, that ACC had
established the 57:1 ratio within his fly-by-rocket physics for getting
the likes of 51t deployed into orbiting our moon? (somehow I don't
think so, at least not via our rocket-science of the mid to late 60's
wasn't quite that good, nor is that good as of today)

AFAIK, that information is publicly available, but as it is somwhat
involved, may be hard to find. You might not find it at a public
library, for instance. But it's not classified. You should probably
do your search in "space hisory." Whether you agree with what you
read is your problem.
I tend to read whatever I can. Just seems rather odd that the likes of
the Steven Pietrobon's LRB upgrade of using that somewhat better off
than all-solid method, especially of h2o2/c3h4o as core instead of his
original h2o2/kero performance
http://www.sworld.com.au/steven/pub/lrb.pdf is quite easy to locate
and even somewhat village idiot understandable, as opposed to all of
the need-to-know of hocus-pocus and perpetrated cold-war cloak and
dagger aspects of our NASA (aka MI6/NSA-CIA--DoD) Apollo fiasco that
simply doesn't seem to add up, that is unless we're talking about 15t
or perhaps as few as 5t making their go around and science recovery
(including those nifty Kodak moments obtained from orbit), which is
still ten fold better off than anything the USSR accomplished.
-
Brad Guth

As I'd just contributed, as to my question about rocket-science that's
on paper as opposed to what has actually been accomplished if you'd
care to exclude the Apollo missions of supposedly taking 51t into lunar
orbit, or at least 51t past LL1.
b.g.; What does his publishing of whatever 'should work' have
to do with the real thing?

If what yove've previously contribited is still the holy grail status
quo matter of fact:
When they are based on the laws of physics and play out in reality,
they have everything to do with it.
Michael Gallagher,
Then you're saying, and/or at least suggesting, that ACC had
established the 57:1 ratio within his fly-by-rocket physics for getting
the likes of 51t safely and somewhat quickly deployed into orbiting our
moon? (somehow I don't think so, at least not via our rocket-science
of the mid to late 60's wasn't quite that good, nor is that good as of
today)

AFAIK, that information is publicly available, but as it is somwhat
involved, may be hard to find. You might not find it at a public
library, for instance. But it's not classified. You should probably
do your search in "space hisory." Whether you agree with what you
read is your problem.
I tend to read whatever I can. Just seems rather odd that the likes of
Steven Pietrobon's LRB upgrade of using that somewhat better off than
all-solid method, especially of h2o2/c3h4o as core instead of his
original h2o2/kero performance
http://www.sworld.com.au/steven/pub/lrb.pdf is quite easy to locate
and even somewhat village idiot understandable, as opposed to all of
the need-to-know of hocus-pocus and perpetrated cold-war cloak and
dagger aspects of our NASA (aka MI6/NSA-CIA--DoD) Apollo fiasco that
simply doesn't seem to add up, that is unless we're talking about 15t
or perhaps as few as 5t making their go around and science recovery
(including those nifty Kodak moments obtained from orbit), which is
still ten fold better off than anything the USSR accomplished.

If the "S-IVB was the THIRD stage of the Saturn V. It was a three
stage rocket, not four." thus having no benefit of SRBs at launch and
no such SRM kicker stage seems rather inert massive, thus extremely
impressive for the mid to late 60's of rocket-science that can't be
duplicated nor much less out done by anyone (including ourselves) as of
today.
-
Brad Guth

Michael Gallagher; What matters is not just the mass of the payload
but how fast you want it to go.
How absolutely true, in that 3 days to the moon along with getting 51+t
pass LL-1 is still a pretty nifty trick that's still
taboo/nondisclosure as all get-out...

The New Horizons porbe, for instance, was launched on an
Atlas V and left Earth at 30,000 mph -- well over planetary escape
velocity of 25,000 mph. But would you need as big a rocket if you
wanted to put the same size vehicle in Low Earth orbit at 17,500 mph?
No. You would need a smaller rocket ... which would, logically,
change the ratio you are playing with. But the ratio means NOTHING.
You can't find it anywhere because in all probability, it has nothing
to do with determining the size of a booster for a given mission. The
basic laws of motion, beginning with F=ma, do. Remember that form
highschool?
In other words and of whatever hard-rocket-science knowledge that
you've apparently based your entire life upon, whereas New Horizons
having proven once again that perhaps not more than 15t of the
extremely old and badly outdated Saturn-V NASA/Apollo missions made it
into orbiting our moon, if that much.

Oops! If it rocks your mainstream status quo good ship LOLLIPOP, it
isn't going to fly, especially if I'm not into worshiping your pagan
brown-nosed NASA/Apollo cult.

If you want to believe that our government never lies it's sorry butts
off, never perpetrated the cold-war(s) and, that your beloved NASA is
better than unprotected sex, in which case I have nothing that's
suitable for your extremely brown-nosed mindset or just typically
mainstream snookered/dumbfounded soul to ponder.
-
Brad Guth

The rocket/payload ratio is irellevant. Basically, you take the mass
of your payload, figure out where you want to send it, and doing the
math tells you how big the rocket should be. The farther you want to
go, the bigger the rocket. It's the difference between getting a
payload to 17,500 mph to orbit the Earth .... and just under planetary
escape velocity of 25,000 mph, fast enough to head out to the Moon but
slow enough that it slows down and doesn't whip past the Moon into
deep space. See?
Michael Gallagher,
That's absolutely the terrific sort of news that I could use, whereas
then my original 32:1 ratio of what modern day applied rocket to
payload is entirely doable, as for getting a good batch of those 10 kg
microsatellites into orbiting our moon. Although, considering that it
was so much slower while capable of taking the more direct route, I'm
still but wondering as why it took 764:1 for accommodating the Lunar
Prospector? (what the hell were they doing wrong?)

They are around here, on this forum, and have tried to explain. Why
don't you listen?
I don't have to listen outside of what you've just stipulated, that
such old and outdated as the inert massive rocket-science was as of 4
decades ago, whereas their better than 60:1 ratio worked like such a
charm that has never been accomplished since. So, let us stick with
what works.

After all, exactly like Lunar Prospector, a batch of these
microsatellites are not hauling DNA, thus having to spend lots more
time within the Van Allen zone of death because of taking the more
direct route, and if need be taking twice as long getting to the moon
isn't a problem, and then because of using the significant payload
advantage of LRBs running on h2o2/c3h4o, plus having the core/2nd stage
of LO2/LH2 and a couple of disposable composite solids should more than
outperform the old and somewhat (aka outdated) inert massive Saturn-V
alternative by at least 2:1.

Lets see, even if we used the old but totally proven 60:1 method is
going to get 51+ tonnes of microsatellites (5,000 of those 10 kg units
plus a mothership) past LL-1 and into orbiting our moon within less
than three days because, of such a robotic mission being able to take
the shortcut directly through the very worse of the Van Allen zone. Of
course we should be able to double upon that performance with the
newest improvements in rocket-science that'll cut the inert/dry mass
nearly if not better than half. Thereby 100+ tonnes should be doable
with not more than a 3200 tonne liftoff mass.

I wasn't exactly planning on doing 5,000 and/or much less 10,000
microsatellites at once, but what the hell, I'll take whatever's
available. A Saturn-V has got to be dirt cheap, especially since the
LXO/LH2 and even the RP-1 fuel is cheap at government wholesale bulk
prices, and otherwise since all the R&D as well as having a 100% safety
record is a done deal.
-
Brad Guth