"Frogwatch" wrote in message
...
On Jul 20, 1:22 pm, thunder wrote:
On Mon, 20 Jul 2009 09:52:19 -0700, Frogwatch wrote:
NASA wants to de-orbit the space station believe it or not in 2016.

Yup, $100 billion spent, a now that it's nearing completion? If NASA
wants to de-orbit the ISS, perhaps, it's time to de-orbit NASA.
Personally, I think they are just fishing for more $$, and more
projects.

I cannot even blame NASA, they did what seemed right, ending the
Saturn V top develop a "re-usable" cheap system except it is neither
reusable nor cheap. Thye all made a simple mistake with ending the
Saturn V.

Standing next to a Saturn V is a humbling experience. Frigging huge.
Amazing they worked as well as they did. How many million parts? NASA was
building a smaller, cheaper shuttle, and to get more money, accepted
military money to build a big delivery truck. They should have build 2
sizes. One for the big parts and a smaller one for research and delivery of
smaller stuff to orbit. Most of the satellites could have been deliver to
low orbit via a small shuttle. And a smaller shuttle could have been built
without the huge aux tanks and most likely fly from an airfield, not a
launch pad.

On Jul 20, 3:59*pm, "Calif Bill" wrote:
"Frogwatch" wrote in message

...
On Jul 20, 1:22 pm, thunder wrote:

On Mon, 20 Jul 2009 09:52:19 -0700, Frogwatch wrote:
NASA wants to de-orbit the space station believe it or not in 2016.

Yup, $100 billion spent, a now that it's nearing completion? If NASA
wants to de-orbit the ISS, perhaps, it's time to de-orbit NASA.
Personally, I think they are just fishing for more $$, and more
projects.

I cannot even blame NASA, they did what seemed right, ending the
Saturn V top develop a "re-usable" cheap system except it is neither
reusable nor cheap. *Thye all made a simple mistake with ending the
Saturn V.

Standing next to a Saturn V is a humbling experience. *Frigging huge.
Amazing they worked as well as they did. *How many million parts? *NASA was
building a smaller, cheaper shuttle, and to get more money, accepted
military money to build a big delivery truck. *They should have build 2
sizes. *One for the big parts and a smaller one for research and delivery of
smaller stuff to orbit. *Most of the satellites could have been deliver to
low orbit via a small shuttle. *And a smaller shuttle could have been built
without the huge aux tanks and most likely fly from an airfield, not a
launch pad.

The shuttle is far from re-usable requiring a near complete rebuild of
its propulsion system every time. The analogy of throwing away your
car every time you use it that was used to justify trying to develop a
re-usable system is a false one because your car's mass is not 90%
fuel just to get to the grocery store whereas being 90% fuel (roughly)
is an actual physics requirement of rockets needing to get to 17,000
mph. It truly is cheaper to throw the rocket away than to try to re-
use it.
Rather than try to develop a re-usable system, they should have
concentrated on making the Saturn V cheaper. Add Solid Rocket
boosters for more payload capability. Development of low mass
composite fuel tanks would have considerably increased payload. Ramp
up to a 4 person command module. Develop a re-usable LEM because you
do not want to lift that thing into space and then to the moon every
time you want to use it.
A shuttle is a bizarre thing to lift into orbit, those wings have mass
and that reduces payload capability, forget it, it was a bad idea.
The Saturn came in three diff sizes already.
If only....If only we had not made the mistake of trying to build the
shuttle, we would have a robust reliable evolved Saturn based launch
system.

On Jul 20, 4:19*pm, Frogwatch wrote:
On Jul 20, 3:59*pm, "Calif Bill" wrote:



"Frogwatch" wrote in message

...
On Jul 20, 1:22 pm, thunder wrote:

On Mon, 20 Jul 2009 09:52:19 -0700, Frogwatch wrote:
NASA wants to de-orbit the space station believe it or not in 2016.

Yup, $100 billion spent, a now that it's nearing completion? If NASA
wants to de-orbit the ISS, perhaps, it's time to de-orbit NASA.
Personally, I think they are just fishing for more $$, and more
projects.

I cannot even blame NASA, they did what seemed right, ending the
Saturn V top develop a "re-usable" cheap system except it is neither
reusable nor cheap. *Thye all made a simple mistake with ending the
Saturn V.

Standing next to a Saturn V is a humbling experience. *Frigging huge.
Amazing they worked as well as they did. *How many million parts? *NASA was
building a smaller, cheaper shuttle, and to get more money, accepted
military money to build a big delivery truck. *They should have build 2
sizes. *One for the big parts and a smaller one for research and delivery of
smaller stuff to orbit. *Most of the satellites could have been deliver to
low orbit via a small shuttle. *And a smaller shuttle could have been built
without the huge aux tanks and most likely fly from an airfield, not a
launch pad.

The shuttle is far from re-usable requiring a near complete rebuild of
its propulsion system every time. *The analogy of throwing away your
car every time you use it that was used to justify trying to develop a
re-usable system is a false one because your car's mass is not 90%
fuel just to get to the grocery store whereas being 90% fuel (roughly)
is an actual physics requirement of rockets needing to get to 17,000
mph. *It truly is cheaper to throw the rocket away than to try to re-
use it.
Rather than try to develop a re-usable system, they should have
concentrated on making the Saturn V cheaper. *Add Solid Rocket
boosters for more payload capability. *Development of low mass
composite fuel tanks would have considerably increased payload. Ramp
up to a 4 person command module. *Develop a re-usable LEM because you
do not want to lift that thing into space and then to the moon every
time you want to use it.
A shuttle is a bizarre thing to lift into orbit, those wings have mass
and that reduces payload capability, forget it, it was *a bad idea.
The Saturn came in three diff sizes already.
If only....If only we had not made the mistake of trying to build the
shuttle, we would have a robust reliable evolved Saturn based launch
system.

NASA now proposes to develop the Ares/AresV rockets supposedly based
on shuttle hardware and while this is a good thing compared to the
shuttle, I prefer the so-called Direct concept that actually does use
shuttle hardware. The NASA Ares rockets would use a new version of
the shuttle solid rockets lengthened by a half core length thus
requiring a lot of testing and unknowns. Direct uses existing shuttle
solids, existing shuttle external tank and existing Atlas rocket
engines. The payload would sit atop the whole thing unlike the
shuttle where the payload (shuttle) rides aside the tank.
I will support either one or even the alternative of man rating the
Atlas V Heavy. However, I think manned spaceflight should be the
province of pvt industry and NASA (and FAA) should simply get out of
the way and allow it to happen.
BTW, there is a $50 million prize for first pvt manned orbiting craft
to dock with another craft (I forget the rest of the requirements) but
it was put up by Bigelow Aerospace.

On Mon, 20 Jul 2009 13:02:48 -0400, Gene Kearns
wrote:

On Mon, 20 Jul 2009 09:28:40 -0700 (PDT), Frogwatch penned the
following well considered thoughts to the readers of rec.boats:

1965 Budget for NASA was 33.5B
1966 Budget for NASA was 32.1B
1967 Budget for NASA was 29.7B
1968 Budget for NASA was 26.1B
1969 Budget for NASA was 21.4B


In 2000, the budget dipped below 15B and hasn't been any more than
half of the 1965 budget amount since. When it was important to us, we
spent 5.5% of the national budget on NASA, we now spend about .55% or
less... 1/10th of the commitment.

We've made a decision where our money *won't* be spent... is it any
wonder that it shows?

The space race is over. It was more a product of the cold war than
anything else.
Personally I'm a sci-fi fan and believe we should strive to do those
things Captain Kirk so eloquently spoke of.
When he tore his eyes from those pantyhose wearing space gals,
or took a break from wondering what the Klingons were up to,
he often got all starry-eyed about distant stars and man's need to
explore and settle new worlds.
Besides, where will we escape to when the earth turns socialist?
Having said that, you won't see me within 10 miles of a rocket ship.

--Vic

On Jul 20, 4:53*pm, Vic Smith wrote:
On Mon, 20 Jul 2009 13:02:48 -0400, Gene Kearns



wrote:
On Mon, 20 Jul 2009 09:28:40 -0700 (PDT), Frogwatch penned the
following well considered thoughts to the readers of rec.boats:

1965 Budget for NASA was 33.5B
1966 Budget for NASA was 32.1B
1967 Budget for NASA was 29.7B
1968 Budget for NASA was 26.1B
1969 Budget for NASA was 21.4B

In 2000, the budget dipped below 15B and hasn't been any more than
half of the 1965 budget amount since. When it was important to us, we
spent 5.5% of the national budget on NASA, we now spend about .55% or
less... 1/10th of the commitment.

We've made a decision where our money *won't* be spent... is it any
wonder that it shows?

The space race is over. *It was more a product of the cold war than
anything else.
Personally I'm a sci-fi fan and believe we should strive to do those
things Captain Kirk so eloquently spoke of.
When he tore his eyes from those pantyhose wearing space gals,
or took a break from wondering what the Klingons were up to,
he often got all starry-eyed about distant stars and man's need to
explore and settle new worlds.
Besides, where will we escape to when the earth turns socialist?
Having said that, you won't see me within 10 miles of a rocket ship.

--Vic

If I had a terminal illness, you could give me a one way trip to the
moon where I could explore a lunar lava tube and a bit of CO in my
Oxygen tank at the end and I'd die a happy man.

H the K wrote:
Frogwatch wrote:
I remember frantically mowing lawns and collecting old coke bottles so
I could replace the 2 bad tubes on our old B&W TV set so I could watch
the moon landing. I was 13 and had just been with a scout group to
Titusville, FL to watch Apollo 11 take off and I had models of the
Saturn V and LEM and could quote facts and stats on the Saturn V. It

If there is any hope, it will not be found in the labrynthine
bureaucracy of NASA but in the minds of entrepreneurs willing to take
risks. Anybody with any remaining hope for the future will do all
they can to keep NASA and the govt off the backs of space
entrepreneurs.


Too bad Bush blew the national wad on his wars of convenience. Now we
have to spend what is left and what we can borrow to fix his messes. No
money for space now.


I believe we have done nothing significant in space since long before
the Bushes. Clinton was not interested in the space program since there
were no skirts on the Moon or Mars

On Mon, 20 Jul 2009 14:09:10 -0700 (PDT), Frogwatch
wrote:



If I had a terminal illness, you could give me a one way trip to the
moon where I could explore a lunar lava tube and a bit of CO in my
Oxygen tank at the end and I'd die a happy man.

If I wasn't averse to rocket ships, I'd probably go for a super nova.
Great light show.

--Vic

"Frogwatch" wrote in message
...
On Jul 20, 3:59 pm, "Calif Bill" wrote:
"Frogwatch" wrote in message

...
On Jul 20, 1:22 pm, thunder wrote:

On Mon, 20 Jul 2009 09:52:19 -0700, Frogwatch wrote:
NASA wants to de-orbit the space station believe it or not in 2016.

Yup, $100 billion spent, a now that it's nearing completion? If NASA
wants to de-orbit the ISS, perhaps, it's time to de-orbit NASA.
Personally, I think they are just fishing for more $$, and more
projects.

I cannot even blame NASA, they did what seemed right, ending the
Saturn V top develop a "re-usable" cheap system except it is neither
reusable nor cheap. Thye all made a simple mistake with ending the
Saturn V.

Standing next to a Saturn V is a humbling experience. Frigging huge.
Amazing they worked as well as they did. How many million parts? NASA was
building a smaller, cheaper shuttle, and to get more money, accepted
military money to build a big delivery truck. They should have build 2
sizes. One for the big parts and a smaller one for research and delivery
of
smaller stuff to orbit. Most of the satellites could have been deliver to
low orbit via a small shuttle. And a smaller shuttle could have been built
without the huge aux tanks and most likely fly from an airfield, not a
launch pad.

The shuttle is far from re-usable requiring a near complete rebuild of
its propulsion system every time. The analogy of throwing away your
car every time you use it that was used to justify trying to develop a
re-usable system is a false one because your car's mass is not 90%
fuel just to get to the grocery store whereas being 90% fuel (roughly)
is an actual physics requirement of rockets needing to get to 17,000
mph. It truly is cheaper to throw the rocket away than to try to re-
use it.
Rather than try to develop a re-usable system, they should have
concentrated on making the Saturn V cheaper. Add Solid Rocket
boosters for more payload capability. Development of low mass
composite fuel tanks would have considerably increased payload. Ramp
up to a 4 person command module. Develop a re-usable LEM because you
do not want to lift that thing into space and then to the moon every
time you want to use it.
A shuttle is a bizarre thing to lift into orbit, those wings have mass
and that reduces payload capability, forget it, it was a bad idea.
The Saturn came in three diff sizes already.
If only....If only we had not made the mistake of trying to build the
shuttle, we would have a robust reliable evolved Saturn based launch
system.
_____________________________________________

Build a shuttle, that is carried to 50k feet by a modified airplane
platform, and then launch from there. You will already have 500 mile per
hour speed, and be above 60% of the admosphere. Sure you have the wings,
but make the body a lifting body and most of the wing disappears. Use
rocket for the really large stuff, but the modified airplane / shuttle would
suffice for lots of the lift jobs and would require much less fuel. Not the
90% fuel as you already have some speed so less inertia and lots less air
resistance to overcome

wrote in message
...
On Mon, 20 Jul 2009 15:50:14 -0700, "Calif Bill"
wrote:

Build a shuttle, that is carried to 50k feet by a modified airplane
platform, and then launch from there. You will already have 500 mile per
hour speed, and be above 60% of the admosphere. Sure you have the wings,
but make the body a lifting body and most of the wing disappears. Use
rocket for the really large stuff, but the modified airplane / shuttle
would
suffice for lots of the lift jobs and would require much less fuel. Not
the
90% fuel as you already have some speed so less inertia and lots less air
resistance to overcome


They already did that. It was the X15


Prototype. Needs to be bigger. I stood next to an X15 at Wright-Patt AF
museum. Pretty small airplane. No room for a toilet.

wrote:
On Mon, 20 Jul 2009 15:50:14 -0700, "Calif Bill"
wrote:

Build a shuttle, that is carried to 50k feet by a modified airplane
platform, and then launch from there. You will already have 500 mile per
hour speed, and be above 60% of the admosphere. Sure you have the wings,
but make the body a lifting body and most of the wing disappears. Use
rocket for the really large stuff, but the modified airplane / shuttle would
suffice for lots of the lift jobs and would require much less fuel. Not the
90% fuel as you already have some speed so less inertia and lots less air
resistance to overcome


They already did that. It was the X15



It would be a better investment to put a few spaceward-aimed broadcast
beacons in orbit, and hope that a friendly alien civilization hears
their signals and stops by with technology a few thousand years more
advanced than ours they are willing to share.