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

Jack Hyacinthie wrote:
Remember, if you
answer you are just using more traffic volume.

*plink*
--
Kevin Willoughby lid

It doesn't take many trips in Air Force One
to spoil you. -- Ronald Reagan

Jack Linthicum wrote:

I happen to know that is not true, little time with CIA, some people
who wanted to get credit. They used what was described as a Soviet
Redstone/Jupiter, ie a cobbled up SS-4 or 5 (I forget which).


Well, if that's the case, then there's a major scandal out there that
James Oberg or any other space historian never managed to uncover.
Since they had already flown a R-7 over intercontinental range before
the launch of Sputnik 1, what would be their reason to do that? Also,
whatever launched it left a near 100-foot-long object in orbit as well
as the satellite, so what was that supposed to be?
They didn't even have another non-R-7 based booster capable of launching
a satellite operational till 1962 when the Small Cosmos Launcher (type
B-1 or SL-7) came on line...which was based on the SS-4 "Sandal", and it
used two stages to do it, the one that reached orbit being only around
30 feet long.
Whatever info you got from the CIA might have been based on Soviet
newsreel footage from the time of the launch, which either showed the
R-7 so concealed in its exhaust glare and smoke that you couldn't see
it in any detail, or used stock footage of other missile launches to
simulate the launch of the satellite.
One easy way to check on whether it's actual launch footage is to see if
it's taken in daytime or at night...Sputnik 1 was launched at night.
Here's You Tube video of the launch:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=qcex_MuBT7Y

Pat

Jack Linthicum wrote:
Don't you realize how much valuable "bandwidth" you are wasting on a
crossposted letter of no interest to at least half of the people
forced to examine it?

Comparing Henry's contribution to ssh and your contribution... I can't
wait for the new killfile to take effect.
--
Kevin Willoughby lid

It doesn't take many trips in Air Force One
to spoil you. -- Ronald Reagan

Derek Lyons wrote:

Keep in mind that the US stopped after developing the first
generation, to which you are comparing the Soviet second and later
generations.


Shaddock was first generation as far as their submarine-launched one went.
They never did deploy a first generation cruise missile similar to our
Regulus I on a sub
They only put the unsuccessful SSN-1 Scrubber and the short range SSN-2
Styx on surface ships prior to deploying Shaddocks on them and subs.
(took me forever to track this down, but here's the only photo of a
Scrubber I ever found on the web or anywhere else for that matter:
http://img152.exs.cx/img152/4605/ksshrocket9sd.jpg )
I was surprised to see that Shaddock was subsonic; I was expecting to
see a supersonic speed given its streamlining and swept wings, more in
line with the performance of our Regulus II - in fact, all of my old
missile books gave a speed of between Mach 1.2 and 2 for Shaddock.
In fact, Shaddock and Regulus II are pretty similar looking when you get
right down to it, and I wonder if some espionage was involved in the
Shaddock's design.

In either case, the missile had to be moved out onto a deck launcher
for liftoff, and the crew in the case of the internal hanger was
expected to check out and do maintenance on the missiles during the cruise.


Maintaining the missile during cruise means the availability of the
missile is increased. On at least one of my patrols we would have
returned to port with as much as 25% of our missile battery out of
commission has we not been able to perform corrective maintenance. On
one patrol that would have included a missile that failed less than
twenty four hours after departing the pier.


Chelomei came to the conclusion that the crew messing around with the
missiles could cause more harm than good,


Which is a direct result of the Soviet manning and training policy for
military personnel. He lacked the trained technicians the US had (and
has) because of this.


It's also a precursor to our concept of delivering Tomahawks as
certified rounds that have their launch capsules stored in the
inaccessible vertical launch tubes on the later Los Angles class subs,
rather than storing them in the torpedo room.
Just like in the Russian case, this frees up internal volume in the
pressure hull for other things.


after a Whiskey class sub carrying a Shaddock in a deck hanger had the
hanger flood and the sub capsize, that there had to be a better way to do
this. His solution was to incorporate sealed launch tubes into the secondary
hull of the sub.


Being a missile designer rather than a submarine designer he failed to
realize that this method has significant downsides - it makes the
submarine much larger, much noisier, and much more difficult to
maneuver.


Except for the indentations in the hull for the launch blast deflectors,
a Echo class wasn't much less streamlined than our Nautilus or Skate
subs, and although the "stretched" Echo II class lost speed and
maneuverability, the Echo I could cruise at 26 knots (Echo II could only
do around 20 knots and was supposed to be a real pain in the rear to
maneuver).
Noise is unavoidable with the dual-hull design with all of its
free-flood holes, and early on the Soviets favored speed over stealth.


These were inaccessible to the crew in normal
operations, and their interiors were both humidity and temperature
controlled to keep the missiles in pristine condition.


I take it you've never actually been onboard a US submarine and seen
how the weapons (torpedoes and missiles of all types) are handled and
maintained.

Again, Chelomei's problems in this respect stemmed from the system he
worked under.


The ground-launched Shaddock variant (Sepal) also traveled around in a
climate-controlled sealed launcher, which looked for all the world like
a oil tank truck:
http://www.fas.org/nuke/guide/russia...ssc-1a_001.jpg
I think Chelomei's concept was that it was ready to go before loading,
and if everything was kept in a changeless state after loading, then the
missile would be ready to go when needed.
The other advantage was that the missile was now exterior to the
pressure hull, if something went funny with it, the tube could be
flooded. Having the missile inside the pressure hull means that a fire
of any sort in it is not only going to contaminate the sub's air supply,
but leave you with no quick means of getting rid of the missile, unlike
a hot-running torpedo.
What you were supposed to do if a Shaddock acted up probably involved
blowing ballast, as you flooded its launch tube, and it that didn't work
elevating the twin launcher, opening the tube it was in and firing its
RATO engines to get it away from the sub.
Whatever it did must have found favor with the Russians, as all of the
big sub-launched cruise missiles that followed Shaddock had their launch
tubes exterior to the pressure hull. In fact on the Typhoon (Project 941
Akula) class they moved the SLBMs out of the pressure hull(s) and stuck
them in two rows between the twin forward pressure hulls that serve as
crew accommodation areas and join the control area to the bow area.
After the internal missile explosion on the Yankee class K-219, this
probably seemed like a very wise move to have made indeed. The reason
that Typhoons stick so far out of the water when surfaced is that a lot
of their internal volume is free flood areas or very large ballast tanks.
Great photos, although I suspect they're photoshoped:
http://dashing.livejournal.com/1735665.html
That beach looks a tad warm to be at Severodvinsk, as claimed. :-)



Pat

"Jack Linthicum" wrote in message
...

As Henry has pointed out, many problem with booster design go away if
you swallow your engineers pride and brute force the issue by simply
making the dammed thing bigger.


But when bigger means more of everything your failure rate reaches
100%.

--------------

Sure if that's what bigger meant. That's not what it means here.

And quite honestly, even if you go from 98% success rates to 96% but your
costs drop in 1/2, for a weapon's system you've come out ahead.


--
Greg Moore
Ask me about lily, an RPI based CMC.

Mark Borgerson wrote:

:In article ,
says...
: Mark Borgerson wrote:
:
: :In article ,
: says...
: : Mark Borgerson wrote:
: :
: : :In article ,
: : says...
: : : Dave Michelson wrote:
: : : :
: : : :The real question: How much of the anti-Apollo-Saturn feeling within the
: : : :Nixon administration was due to Nixon and his dislike for Kennedy and
: : : :how much was just Republican ideology (space = military + LEO) that
: : : :would continue into the Reagan years?
: : : :
: : :
: : : How much of it was due to LBJ handing Nixon an economy that was in
: : : shambles, with no spare money for ANYTHING?
: : :
: : :Umm, sort of like the economy GWB handed to President Obama?
: : :
: :
: : Umm, no, not like it at all, and it wasn't a political statement,
: : Confused.
: :
: :I guess you are. Who said it was a political statement?
: :
:
: Your reaction about how it was 'party independent' handing off a bad
: economy, which you've 'cleverly' snipped, did.
:
:It was your commment about presidents from two different parties that
:brought politics into the discussion.
:

I didn't mention their parties.

:
:In any case, davem certainly
:brought politics into the discussion with his comments on
:Republican ideology.
:

Then perhaps you should have replied to him and not waited to make
some stupid comment to me.

:
:If I snipped the part about 'party independent', why does it
:appear about 30 lines down this post? Perhaps you forgot to
:hit the "show quoted text" link in Google Groups.
:

And perhaps you're too stupid to read the message headers. If you
weren't, you'd know I'm not posting through Google Groups.

:
: You've now passed 'confused' and into 'liar'.
:
: :
: : The economy that LBJ handed over was essentially superheated due to
: : enacting the Great Society and trying to run the Vietnam War while not
: : putting the economy on a 'war' footing, hence allowed little room for
: : further deficits (which would heat it further). Thus cutting spending
: : on space (and anywhere else he could come up with) made good sense for
: : Nixon at the time.
: :
: : A large expenditure on space (or anything else) in the present
: : economy, on the other hand, is probably a good thing.
: :
: :I agree. But I think I'd prefer spending on the power transmission
: :and transportation infrastructure.
: :
:
: Irrelevant to the point, which is that the economy that LBJ handed
: Nixon and the economy that Bush handed Obama are two *VERY* different
: things.
:
:Then why your previous comment on large expenditures? It's OK for
:you to advocate spending, but irrelevant when I propose
:a different target for the spending?
:

We're talking about Saturn V procurement ending. I'm not 'advocating'
anything in particular (yet).

:
: :
: : :
: : :Seems like handing over either a good or bad economy is something
: : :that crosses party lines.
: : :
: :
: : No doubt, but we're talking about the cancellation (or failure to
: : restart) the Saturn V lines and killing missions that could have used
: : existing flyable hardware (two complete Saturn V boosters were left to
: : rot).
: :
: :Were they? I thought they ended up in museums. At least there
: :they have some educational value.
: :
:
: No, they were essentially left to rot.
:
:LOL! How quickly does a liguid-fueled booster rot? I could understand
:a bit of weathering of the paint, or even a bit of corrosion. But rot??
:

It cost something like $38 million to put one of them back into good
enough condition to put it in a museum. They rot pretty quickly,
given that price tag.

:
:If nobody was interested in them or had any notion of some future value,
:they would have ended up in a scrap metal processing facility.
:

But they didn't. Instead they sat and rotted.

: They then were picked up and
: tens of millions of dollars spent to renovate them so that they could
: be put in museums.
:
: :
: : I'm pretty sure that Obama isn't going to have anything to do with
: : that.
: :
: :With what? The Saturn V lines?
: :
:
: That is what everyone but you seems to be discussing, Confused.
:
:
:I guess you are. It was you that introduced LBJ and Nixon into
:the thread.
:

Well, that is where the cancellations occurred. I'm sorry to have
confused you further by posting facts.

:
:I wasn't sure whether you'd transitioned back
:from politics and presidents to boosters.
:

You should just give up. You obviously cannot read or follow a
conversation. Congratulations on moving from 'Confused' to 'Stupid'.


--
"Some people get lost in thought because it's such unfamiliar
territory."
--G. Behn

"Greg D. Moore \(Strider\)" wrote:

"Jack Linthicum" wrote in message
...

As Henry has pointed out, many problem with booster design go away if
you swallow your engineers pride and brute force the issue by simply
making the dammed thing bigger.


But when bigger means more of everything your failure rate reaches
100%.

--------------

Sure if that's what bigger meant. That's not what it means here.

Greg - Jack is the Stuffie of s.m.n., long on (self proclaimed)
experience, but short on common sense and somewhat disconnected from
reality.

And quite honestly, even if you go from 98% success rates to 96% but your
costs drop in 1/2, for a weapon's system you've come out ahead.

From the point of view of the book keeper back in the Capital, sure.
Not so much from the point of view from the guys out on the sharp end
because costing half as much means they get half as many weapons...

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

http://derekl1963.livejournal.com/

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

(Derek Lyons) wrote:
:
:Being a missile designer rather than a submarine designer he failed to
:realize that this method has significant downsides - it makes the
:submarine much larger, much noisier, and much more difficult to
:maneuver.
:

Quite. The Whiskey Twin-Cylinders purportedly sounded like freight
trains at anything over dead slow and the Long-Bins weren't much
better.


--
You have never lived until you have almost died.
Life has a special meaning that the protected
will never know.

Pat Flannery wrote:

Derek Lyons wrote:

Being a missile designer rather than a submarine designer he failed to
realize that this method has significant downsides - it makes the
submarine much larger, much noisier, and much more difficult to
maneuver.

Except for the indentations in the hull for the launch blast deflectors,
a Echo class wasn't much less streamlined than our Nautilus or Skate
subs,

That's kind of like saying except for the lack of sufficient engine
thrust and a little streamling a 747 is just like a Concorde. Apples
and oranges - because that one difference (the launch blast
deflectors) are the source of many of the problems and a major
contributor to those they were not the primary source of.

The other advantage was that the missile was now exterior to the
pressure hull, if something went funny with it, the tube could be
flooded. Having the missile inside the pressure hull means that a fire
of any sort in it is not only going to contaminate the sub's air supply,
but leave you with no quick means of getting rid of the missile, unlike
a hot-running torpedo.

That would come as massive surprise to US SSBN operators since,
despite having the missiles inside the pressure hull, exactly none of
those things are true.

For torpedo tube launched weapons, well - that's what damage control
training is for.

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

http://derekl1963.livejournal.com/

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

OM wrote:

:On Mon, 26 Jan 2009 05:01:32 -0800 (PST), Jack Linthicum
wrote:
:
: There's a pretty detailed history of all the R-7 variants hehttp://www.astronautix.com/lvs/soyuz.htm
:
:I happen to know that is not true, little time with CIA, some people
:who wanted to get credit. They used what was described as a Soviet
:Redstone/Jupiter, ie a cobbled up SS-4 or 5 (I forget which).
:
:...Lessee, who to trust? Mark Wade, who uses trusted and valued
:sources, or an obvious troll who in 90% of his posts has claimed that
:known, trusted sources are either incorrect or lying?
:
:Jack Linthicum & John Maxson - separated at afterbirth?
:

Or maybe before conception. Is 'Linthi' perhaps Latin for 'dribbled'?


--
"May God have mercy upon my enemies; they will need it."
-- General George S Patton, Jr.