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

On Fri, 23 Jan 2009 16:23:37 -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, 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.


Saturn production ended because Lyndon Johnson decided to end
production, and it had nothing to do with Richard Nixon.

On Jan 23, 7:38*pm, (Rand Simberg)
wrote:
On Fri, 23 Jan 2009 16:23:37 -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, 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.

Saturn production ended because Lyndon Johnson decided to end
production, and it had nothing to do with Richard Nixon.

Yes. Certainly.

http://www.geocities.com/launchreport/satstg2.html

Jack Linthicum wrote:
Yeah that's probably it. I did my time before they started putting all
those crisp numbers on everything. The J structure was built while the
moon race was heating up. Catch Picture #51

http://www.globalsecurity.org/intell..._follow-on.htm


Thanks for finding that; it's a very interesting article. :-)

Pat

On Jan 24, 5:46*am, Jack Linthicum
wrote:
On Jan 23, 7:38*pm, (Rand Simberg)
wrote:



On Fri, 23 Jan 2009 16:23:37 -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, 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.

Saturn production ended because Lyndon Johnson decided to end
production, and it had nothing to do with Richard Nixon.

Yes. Certainly.

http://www.geocities.com/launchreport/satstg2.html

and

The Story of the Space Shuttle, By David Michael Harland

http://books.google.com/books?id=FUt...=1&ct=resu lt

page 2

Neil Gerace 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.


AFAIK, the Soviets only referred to it as N-1.
"G" was a code designation used by the US government under the Sheldon
system, which designated Soviet space launch vehicles by alphabetical
sequence of when they entered service:
http://www.tbs-satellite.com/tse/onl...nc_soviet.html

Pat

On Jan 24, 6:21*am, Pat Flannery wrote:
Jack Linthicum wrote:
Yeah that's probably it. I did my time before they started putting all
those crisp numbers on everything. The J structure was built while the
moon race was heating up. Catch Picture #51

http://www.globalsecurity.org/intell...04/open-source...

Thanks for finding that; it's a very interesting article. :-)

Pat

If you want more try soviet n-1 j booster on google

Pat Flannery wrote:

AFAIK, the Soviets only referred to it as N-1.
"G" was a code designation used by the US government under the Sheldon
system, which designated Soviet space launch vehicles by alphabetical
sequence of when they entered service:
http://www.tbs-satellite.com/tse/onl...nc_soviet.html

As a follow-up to that, I'm trying to find out what a "E" type launch
vehicle was, but so far with no luck.
About the only candidate I have for it is the SS-X-10 "Scrag" missile
(GR-1) which was part of the FOBS system, but which was canceled -
leaving only two prototypes to be trundled through Moscow during a parade:
http://www.fas.org/nuke/guide/russia/icbm/gr-1.htm

Pat

On Jan 24, 2:36*pm, Pat Flannery wrote:
Pat Flannery wrote:

AFAIK, the Soviets only referred to it as N-1.
"G" was a code designation used by the US government under the Sheldon
system, which designated Soviet space launch vehicles by alphabetical
sequence of when they entered service:
http://www.tbs-satellite.com/tse/onl...nc_soviet.html

As a follow-up to that, I'm trying to find out what a "E" type launch
vehicle was, but so far with no luck.
About the only candidate I have for it is the SS-X-10 "Scrag" missile
(GR-1) which was part of the FOBS system, but which was canceled -
leaving only two prototypes to be trundled through Moscow during a parade:http://www.fas.org/nuke/guide/russia/icbm/gr-1.htm

Pat

Perhaps

11A59 Polyot 11A59 Korolev SL-10 Polyot Two stage version of
Vostok 11A57. Used for flight test of prototype Chelomei ASAT.

http://www.designation-systems.net/n...soviet-mw.html

Jack Linthicum wrote:
rce...

Thanks for finding that; it's a very interesting article. :-)

Pat


If you want more try soviet n-1 j booster on google



That article was probably one of the few things on the web regarding the
N-1 I hadn't seen yet.
There's a 1/144th scale model of one sitting in front of me as I type
this. :-)

Pat

On Jan 24, 3:38*pm, Pat Flannery wrote:
Jack Linthicum wrote:
rce...

Thanks for finding that; it's a very interesting article. :-)

Pat

If you want more try soviet n-1 j booster on google

That article was probably one of the few things on the web regarding the
N-1 I hadn't seen yet.
There's a 1/144th scale model of one sitting in front of me as I type
this. :-)

Pat

The concept of the J booster as the "world's largest anti-personnel
weapon" was a subject of discussion in CIA circles. It seemed to
designed to fail.

You do know that the presentation for the Space Shuttle was trimmed of
the Saturn launcher to allow the budget to kind of reflect Nixon's
desire for a $5 B shuttle instead of the $14B proposed?


http://ocw.mit.edu/NR/rdonlyres/Aero...shtl_orign.pdf