JFK's greatest achievements/Apollo (Was: Deep Apologies to everyone....)

On Thu, 22 Jan 2009 20:48:58 -0800 (PST), Neil Gerace
wrote:

On Jan 23, 1:43*pm, OM wrote:

...That's the N-1. Note also that some sources also call this the
"G-1", with "G" standing for "Gherakles", which is supposed to be
Russlish for "Hercules".

Their word is closer to the Greek 'Heracles' though.

Webb's Giant?

On Fri, 23 Jan 2009 10:27:14 -0800 (PST), in a place far, far away,
Jack Linthicum made the phosphor on my
monitor glow in such a way as to indicate that:

On Jan 23, 12:19*pm, Brian Thorn wrote:
On Thu, 22 Jan 2009 07:16:06 -0800 (PST), Jack Linthicum

wrote:
This one even calls it the Saturn-Apollo Applications (SAA) Program
Office

http://altairvi.blogspot.com/2008/03...cations-summar...

That's an umbrella title to cover all the different studies NASA was
paying for at the time. *

There were a lot of those. NASA paid for lots of studies into
different concepts in order to determine how to proceed. That doesn't
mean NASA was saying "this is how we're going to do it, and this is
our program to do it." For one thing, Congress generallty gets to
decide that, not NASA. Launching Shuttle on Saturn V derivatives never
rose beyond the study level, even if that study was funded under the
Apollo Applications Program umbrella.

Brian

Cite?

Do you mean besides the fact that most of them never got funded, or
happened?

On Jan 23, 1:43*pm, (Rand Simberg)
wrote:
On Fri, 23 Jan 2009 10:27:14 -0800 (PST), in a place far, far away,
Jack Linthicum made the phosphor on my
monitor glow in such a way as to indicate that:



On Jan 23, 12:19*pm, Brian Thorn wrote:
On Thu, 22 Jan 2009 07:16:06 -0800 (PST), Jack Linthicum

wrote:
This one even calls it the Saturn-Apollo Applications (SAA) Program
Office

http://altairvi.blogspot.com/2008/03...cations-summar....

That's an umbrella title to cover all the different studies NASA was
paying for at the time. *

There were a lot of those. NASA paid for lots of studies into
different concepts in order to determine how to proceed. That doesn't
mean NASA was saying "this is how we're going to do it, and this is
our program to do it." For one thing, Congress generallty gets to
decide that, not NASA. Launching Shuttle on Saturn V derivatives never
rose beyond the study level, even if that study was funded under the
Apollo Applications Program umbrella.

Brian

Cite?

Do you mean besides the fact that most of them never got funded, or
happened?

I got almost all of those contractor reports that Brian Thorn cites,
for the period of time they were being done there was no question but
that there was funding and vision for future uses of the Saturn
boosters. The J or N-1 booster assured that. Of course, that ceased
after November 1968 but prior to that NASA seemed to believe the
program had a future. Changing political parties is and was an outside
factor in a program like the Apollo and Saturn.

As an aside we had people come to Washington with offers to take over
the payments on waterfront houses with docks and get ownership of the
house.

On Fri, 23 Jan 2009 10:27:14 -0800 (PST), Jack Linthicum
wrote:


That's an umbrella title to cover all the different studies NASA was
paying for at the time. *

There were a lot of those. NASA paid for lots of studies into
different concepts in order to determine how to proceed. That doesn't
mean NASA was saying "this is how we're going to do it, and this is
our program to do it." For one thing, Congress generallty gets to
decide that, not NASA. Launching Shuttle on Saturn V derivatives never
rose beyond the study level, even if that study was funded under the
Apollo Applications Program umbrella.

Cite?

I can't prove a negative. The burden is on you to prove that NASA had
a program to launch Shuttle on Saturn V. Not studies to do it, but a
full-fledged program.

SkyLab started out as a study in the Apollo Applications Program, too.
When it became a full-fledged program approved by Congress, it got its
own budget line entry and its own name. Where is the same for
Shuttle-Saturn?

Brian

On Jan 23, 2:17*pm, Brian Thorn wrote:
On Fri, 23 Jan 2009 10:27:14 -0800 (PST), Jack Linthicum

wrote:
That's an umbrella title to cover all the different studies NASA was
paying for at the time. *

There were a lot of those. NASA paid for lots of studies into
different concepts in order to determine how to proceed. That doesn't
mean NASA was saying "this is how we're going to do it, and this is
our program to do it." For one thing, Congress generallty gets to
decide that, not NASA. Launching Shuttle on Saturn V derivatives never
rose beyond the study level, even if that study was funded under the
Apollo Applications Program umbrella.
Cite?

I can't prove a negative. The burden is on you to prove that NASA had
a program to launch Shuttle on Saturn V. Not studies to do it, but a
full-fledged program.

SkyLab started out as a study in the Apollo Applications Program, too.
When it became a full-fledged program approved by Congress, it got its
own budget line entry and its own name. Where is the same for
Shuttle-Saturn?

Brian

Will this do?

http://www.astronautix.com/lvs/shuttle.htm

"Jack Linthicum" wrote in message
...
On Jan 23, 2:17 pm, Brian Thorn wrote:
SkyLab started out as a study in the Apollo Applications Program, too.
When it became a full-fledged program approved by Congress, it got its
own budget line entry and its own name. Where is the same for
Shuttle-Saturn?

Brian

Will this do?

http://www.astronautix.com/lvs/shuttle.htm

No silly boy, the above says that a pitiful $2.8 million was spent on
*studies* for launching shuttle on a Saturn IC stage. A study is *not* a
funded program.

Note that there were many studies of many different shuttle configurations.
The whole point that everyone is trying to beat into your head is a (paper)
study does not equal a (development) program.

Jeff
--
"Many things that were acceptable in 1958 are no longer acceptable today.
My own standards have changed too." -- Freeman Dyson

On Jan 23, 4:33*pm, "Jeff Findley"
wrote:
"Jack Linthicum" wrote in message

...
On Jan 23, 2:17 pm, Brian Thorn wrote:

SkyLab started out as a study in the Apollo Applications Program, too..
When it became a full-fledged program approved by Congress, it got its
own budget line entry and its own name. Where is the same for
Shuttle-Saturn?

Brian

Will this do?

http://www.astronautix.com/lvs/shuttle.htm

No silly boy, the above says that a pitiful $2.8 million was spent on
*studies* for launching shuttle on a Saturn IC stage. *A study is *not* a
funded program.

Note that there were many studies of many different shuttle configurations.
The whole point that everyone is trying to beat into your head is a (paper)
study does not equal a (development) program.

Jeff
--
"Many things that were acceptable in 1958 are no longer acceptable today.
My own standards have changed too." *-- Freeman Dyson

I guess those people I talked to at Santa Susana in 1967 were just
playing games. Funny I thought they were engineers with Rocketdyne.
You know rocket science.

On Fri, 23 Jan 2009 13:40:53 -0800 (PST), Jack Linthicum
wrote:


Note that there were many studies of many different shuttle configurations.
The whole point that everyone is trying to beat into your head is a (paper)
study does not equal a (development) program.

I guess those people I talked to at Santa Susana in 1967 were just
playing games. Funny I thought they were engineers with Rocketdyne.
You know rocket science.

Rocketdyne was an engine company, not a launch vehicle or spacecraft
design company. You most likely heard the engineers talking about
using J-2 engines, not Saturn V itself, in the Shuttle. This seems
very likely to me, as J-2 was around that time expected to power the
Shuttle Orbiter. It seems unlikely to me that Rocketdyne would be
designing a Shuttle-Saturn, since Saturn was built by Boeing, North
American, and Douglas.

In 1967, Shuttle as a concept was still very firmly in the "fully
reusable" phase of its development life. It was then planned to have a
flyback manned booster and a flyback manned orbiter, most concepts
(Lockheed, Boeing, Martin, North American, McDonnell-Douglas, Grumman,
Convair, and even Chrysler all were paid to do Shuttle studies at the
time) were to launch in a piggyback configuration. The fully reusable
Shuttle concept held the day until 1970 or so, when it became clear to
NASA that they would never get the necessary funding to develop such a
system from an increasingly hostile Congress and an indifferent
President.

Around 1971, NASA and the contractors started looking into launching
the Shuttle atop a modified Saturn V S-IC stage, but this didn't last
long because it was too expensive, largely because Saturn production
had already ended. NASA moved on to the current External Tank and
Solid Rocket Boosters layout.

The President and Congress approved the Space Shuttle as a program in
1972.

I recommend you find and read "Space Shuttle: The History of the
National Space Transporation System" by Dennis Jenkins.

Brian

Brian Thorn wrote:

On Fri, 23 Jan 2009 13:40:53 -0800 (PST), Jack Linthicum
wrote:


Note that there were many studies of many different shuttle configurations.
The whole point that everyone is trying to beat into your head is a (paper)
study does not equal a (development) program.

I guess those people I talked to at Santa Susana in 1967 were just
playing games. Funny I thought they were engineers with Rocketdyne.
You know rocket science.

Rocketdyne was an engine company, not a launch vehicle or spacecraft
design company. You most likely heard the engineers talking about
using J-2 engines, not Saturn V itself, in the Shuttle. This seems
very likely to me, as J-2 was around that time expected to power the
Shuttle Orbiter. It seems unlikely to me that Rocketdyne would be
designing a Shuttle-Saturn, since Saturn was built by Boeing, North
American, and Douglas.

Not only that - but in that era, it was pretty much par for the course
for both NASA and contractors to treat viewgraphs as though they were
active projects, though a little shy on cash at the moment. There was
(as we have discussed on s.s.h. before) a cultural belief that the
sharp budget cutbacks of '65/'66 were a short term aberration and that
soon the taps would open again and gush forth cash into the space
program.

D.
--
Touch-twice life. Eat. Drink. Laugh.

http://derekl1963.livejournal.com/

-Resolved: To be more temperate in my postings.
Oct 5th, 2004 JDL

On Jan 23, 6:33*pm, Brian Thorn wrote:
On Fri, 23 Jan 2009 13:40:53 -0800 (PST), Jack Linthicum

wrote:
Note that there were many studies of many different shuttle configurations.
The whole point that everyone is trying to beat into your head is a (paper)
study does not equal a (development) program.
I guess those people I talked to at Santa Susana in 1967 were just
playing games. Funny I thought they were engineers with Rocketdyne.
You know rocket science.

Rocketdyne was an engine company, not a launch vehicle or spacecraft
design company. You most likely heard the engineers talking about
using J-2 engines, not Saturn V itself, in the Shuttle. This seems
very likely to me, as J-2 was around that time expected to power the
Shuttle Orbiter. It seems unlikely to me that Rocketdyne would be
designing a Shuttle-Saturn, since Saturn was built by Boeing, North
American, and Douglas.

In 1967, Shuttle as a concept was still very firmly in the "fully
reusable" phase of its development life. It was then planned to have a
flyback manned booster and a flyback manned orbiter, most concepts
(Lockheed, Boeing, Martin, North American, McDonnell-Douglas, Grumman,
Convair, and even Chrysler all were paid to do Shuttle studies at the
time) were to launch in a piggyback configuration. The fully reusable
Shuttle concept held the day until 1970 or so, when it became clear to
NASA that they would never get the necessary funding to develop such a
system from an increasingly hostile Congress and an indifferent
President.

Around 1971, NASA and the contractors started looking into launching
the Shuttle atop a modified Saturn V S-IC stage, but this didn't last
long because it was too expensive, largely because Saturn production
had already ended. NASA moved on to the current External Tank and
Solid Rocket Boosters layout.

The President and Congress approved the Space Shuttle as a program in
1972.

I recommend you find and read "Space Shuttle: The History of the
National Space Transporation System" by Dennis Jenkins.

Brian

I wonder if you think the various companies in the space business then
just sort of turned out an engine and hoped that it would be adequate
for whatever the wild project the next stage was thinking about. I do
believe you lost me there. The Saturn production ended because the
NASA people decided the Shuttle would be too expensive for Nixon to
approve if it had a booster than would deliver the full capability.
200,000 Tons vs. 20 IIRC. Sad, you think people have the system down.