"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