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

Pat Flannery wrote:
:
:frank wrote:
: On Jan 24, 11:17 pm, Fred J. McCall wrote:
:
: Pat Flannery wrote:
:
: :
: ::Jack Linthicum wrote:
:
: : 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 never saw a 200-foot-tall ICBM concept, did you? Behold the N1GR-2
: :with it's nest of 100 megaton yield warheads riding atop it:
: :http://www.astronautix.com/project/gr2.htm
: :I've got to make a model of one of these terrors sooner or later:
: :http://www.astronautix.com/graphics/n/n11gr2.jpg
: :Even one launch of this thing cold annihilate every major city in the US
: :if all the warheads got through.
: :New York City and Washington DC would become small bays on the US east
: :coast; and Chicago a small increase in the size of Lake Michigan.
: :
:
: Where's it say the thing carried more than one warhead, Pat? It says
: it could carry payloads of UP TO 100 MT IN YIELD.
:
: That's one bomb.
:
: --
: "Millions for defense, but not one cent for tribute."
: -- Charles Pinckney
:
:
: Not to mention the Soviets had some spectacular space disasters. Last
: time I had access to the NORAD satellite list, they had the record for
: the amount of debris associated with one launch, I think a few hundred
: pieces. Though some of our early stuff was just as bad.
:
: I seriously doubt it would ever work. Not to mention getting a 100 MT
: device guided to a target. If you have crap targeting you go to large
: yield, once you get accuracy down, its pretty much a waste using large
: yields. Easier to maintain the arsenal. And in the end, this all
: costs bucks, even in Communist countries.
:
:
:Well, take a look at the drawing with the multiple huge RVs riding atop
:the second and third stages of the N-1 that is linked above.
:

Where's it say those are RVs, Pat? How do you know that the thing at
the front isn't the RV and those things you're calling RVs aren't
engines?

Once again, read the text of the very article you linked to.


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

On Jan 25, 6:23*am, Fred J. McCall wrote:
Pat Flannery wrote:

::frank wrote:

: On Jan 24, 11:17 pm, Fred J. McCall wrote:
: *
: Pat Flannery wrote:
:
: :: ::Jack Linthicum wrote:

:
: : 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 never saw a 200-foot-tall ICBM *concept, did you? Behold the N1GR-2 *
: :with it's nest of 100 megaton yield warheads riding atop it:
: :http://www.astronautix.com/project/gr2.htm
: :I've got to make a model of one of these terrors sooner or later:
: :http://www.astronautix.com/graphics/n/n11gr2.jpg
: :Even one launch of this thing cold annihilate every major city in the US
: :if all the warheads got through.
: :New York City and Washington DC would become small bays on the US east
: :coast; and Chicago a small increase in the size of Lake Michigan.
: :
:
: Where's it say the thing carried more than one warhead, Pat? *It says
: it could carry payloads of UP TO 100 MT IN YIELD.
:
: That's one bomb.
:
: --
: "Millions for defense, but not one cent for tribute."
: * * * * * * * * * * * * * *-- Charles Pinckney
: * *
:
: Not to mention the Soviets had some spectacular space disasters. Last
: time I had access to the NORAD satellite list, they had the record for
: the amount of debris associated with one launch, I think a few hundred
: pieces. Though some of our early stuff was just as bad.
:
: I seriously doubt it would ever work. Not to mention getting a 100 MT
: device guided to a target. If you have crap targeting you go to large
: yield, once you get accuracy down, its pretty much a waste using large
: yields. Easier to maintain the arsenal. And *in the end, this all
: costs bucks, even in Communist countries.
: *
:
:Well, take a look at the drawing with the multiple huge RVs riding atop
:the second and third stages of the N-1 that is linked above.
:

Where's it say those are RVs, Pat? *How do you know that the thing at
the front isn't the RV and those things you're calling RVs aren't
engines?

Once again, read the text of the very article you linked to.

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

http://www.astronautix.com/lvs/n1.htm

N1 1962.
N1 24 engine version
Credit - © Mark Wade
Status: Study 1962.

Final configuration of the N1 at the time of development go-ahead in
1962. The 75 tonne payload was to consist of the Raskat dispenser,
which would have delivered 17 multi-megaton nuclear warheads,
essentially destroying the United States in a single launch. The
design also supported the OS-1 heavy space station and TMK manned Mars
flyby requirements - as opposed to any manned lunar landing project.

In the early projects a 'super ICBM' payload was proposed for the N1.
The Raskat dispenser would have delivered 17 multi-megaton nuclear
warheads, essentially destroying the United States in a single launch.

Liftoff Thrust: 33,927.500 kN (7,627,205 lbf). Total Mass: 2,110,000
kg (4,650,000 lb). Core Diameter: 10.00 m (32.00 ft). Total Length:
74.00 m (242.00 ft).

* Stage1: 1 x N1 1962 - A. Gross Mass: 1,384,000 kg (3,051,000
lb). Empty Mass: 117,000 kg (257,000 lb). Motor: 24 x NK-15. Thrust
(vac): 39,420.000 kN (8,861,960 lbf). Isp: 331 sec. Burn time: 103
sec. Length: 30.00 m (98.00 ft). Diameter: 10.00 m (32.00 ft).
Propellants: Lox/Kerosene.

* Stage2: 1 x N1 1962 - B. Gross Mass: 506,000 kg (1,115,000 lb).
Empty Mass: 50,000 kg (110,000 lb). Motor: 8 x NK-15V. Thrust (vac):
13,778.000 kN (3,097,417 lbf). Isp: 347 sec. Burn time: 106 sec.
Length: 20.00 m (65.00 ft). Diameter: 6.80 m (22.30 ft). Propellants:
Lox/Kerosene.

* Stage3: 1 x N1 1962 - V. Gross Mass: 193,000 kg (425,000 lb).
Empty Mass: 16,000 kg (35,000 lb). Motor: 4 x NK-19. Thrust (vac):
1,560.000 kN (350,700 lbf). Isp: 347 sec. Burn time: 368 sec. Length:
12.00 m (39.00 ft). Diameter: 4.80 m (15.70 ft). Propellants: Lox/
Kerosene.

On Jan 25, 5:33*am, Jack Linthicum
wrote:

Final configuration of the N1 at the time of development go-ahead in
1962. The 75 tonne payload was to consist of the Raskat dispenser,
which would have delivered 17 multi-megaton nuclear warheads,
essentially destroying the United States in a single launch. The

While 17 Tzar Bombas would make a mess of the Northeast
Corridor, 17 hundred megaton holes in CONUS would not
destroy the USA.

The only weapon concept I'm aware of would have been
able to destroy whole countries would have been the
SLAM, aka Project Pluto, which also had a H-Bomb
magazine in addition to its radioactive wake

**
mike
**

Pat Flannery wrote:

It would be a bit long to explain his work on the Soviet
submarine-launched "Shaddock" cruise missile series, but the overall
concept and operational details of the system went past the U.S. Navy's
Regulus I/II system of the 1950's like it was something out of WW II.


Apples and oranges - Shaddock and Regulus operated in different
enviroments against different sets of targets. It's not clear they
can be usefully compared.

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

http://derekl1963.livejournal.com/

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

mike wrote:

On Jan 25, 5:33*am, Jack Linthicum
wrote:

Final configuration of the N1 at the time of development go-ahead in
1962. The 75 tonne payload was to consist of the Raskat dispenser,
which would have delivered 17 multi-megaton nuclear warheads,
essentially destroying the United States in a single launch. The

While 17 Tzar Bombas would make a mess of the Northeast
Corridor, 17 hundred megaton holes in CONUS would not
destroy the USA.

No, physically the USA would survive with wide swaths untouched after
such an attack. Economically and psychologically? It would have been
destroyed.

Not to mention I doubt they'd stop at just launching one.

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

http://derekl1963.livejournal.com/

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

Rand Simberg wrote:

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

That's a tad misleading. Johnson capped production but left NASA with
enough Saturns in the pipeline for four or five years and a time-limited
option to re-start production, i.e., as long as Saturns were being
built, the tooling and staff were still available.

If Nixon is not well regarded, it's because his administration chose not
to exercise that option when the time came because they were
fundamentally opposed to the notion. Moreover, his office cut funds to
fly Saturns that had already been built, just to emphasize the point.

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?

--
Dave Michelson

On Jan 25, 2:28*pm, Dave Michelson wrote:
Rand Simberg wrote:

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

That's a tad misleading. Johnson capped production but left NASA with
enough Saturns in the pipeline for four or five years and a time-limited
option to re-start production, i.e., as long as Saturns were being
built, the tooling and staff were still available.

If Nixon is not well regarded, it's because his administration chose not
to exercise that option when the time came because they were
fundamentally opposed to the notion. Moreover, his office cut funds to
fly Saturns that had already been built, just to emphasize the point.

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?

--
Dave Michelson


If you look at this Wiki article you can see a "fair and balanced"
approach with Spiro Agnew chairing the National Aeronautics and Space
Council

In 1969, United States Vice President Spiro T. Agnew chaired the
National Aeronautics and Space Council, which discussed post-Apollo
options for manned space activities 1/. The recommendations of this
body would heavily influence these directions.

They considered four major options:

* manned Mars expedition
* follow-on lunar program
* low earth orbital infrastructure program
* discontinuing manned space activities

Based on the advice of the Space Council, president Richard M. Nixon
made the decision to pursue the low earth orbital infrastructure
program. This program mainly consisted of a space station and space
shuttle. However funding restrictions precluded pursuing both
simultaneously, so NASA chose to develop the space shuttle first and
then use the shuttle to construct and service a space station.

The primary intended use of the space shuttle was supporting the
future space station. This function would dictate most of the
shuttle's features. The U.S. Air Force was also interested in using
the shuttle, and NASA welcomed their participation and influence to
ensure political and financial support for the shuttle program.

http://www.hq.nasa.gov/office/pao/History/taskgrp.html,


Then, giving budget considerations as reason President Richard Nixon,
NASA's budget slide accelerated. Nixon shut down the Saturn production
lines (January 1970), approved the Space Shuttle with inadequate
funding support (January 1972), and indefinitely deferred a permanent
space station, moon base, and Mars missions. Work toward using Saturn-
Apollo hardware in post-Apollo missions continued, however.

On Jan 25, 3:00*pm, OM wrote:
On Sun, 25 Jan 2009 03:04:57 -0800 (PST), Jack Linthicum

wrote:

Then why did they ask Nixon and why did he make a statement limiting
the cost?

...Speaking of costs and limitations, how about helping to conserve
bandwidth by trimming your quotes before you post again?

* * * * * * * * * * * * * * * *OM

--

* ]=====================================[
* ] * OMBlog -http://www.io.com/~o_m/omworld* [
* ] * * * *Let's face it: Sometimes you *need* * * * * [
* ] * * * * *an obnoxious opinion in your day! * * * * * [
* ]=====================================[

I don't pay for bandwidth. You do? Not very utile.

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?

Your closing assumption about "Republican ideology" is merely wrong.


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

On Jan 25, 3:00*pm, OM wrote:

...Speaking of costs and limitations, how about helping to conserve
bandwidth by trimming your quotes before you post again?



I don't think you are aware that the bandwidth remains the same no
matter how long the transmission is. You are really talking about time
and volume of the traffic which you seem to think should be minimum.
May I recommend your little box in which you and many others seem to
feel the need to demonstrate all of your inabilities. Remember, if you
answer you are just using more traffic volume.