Welcome to
Science a GoGo's
Discussion Forums
Please keep your postings on-topic or they will be moved to a galaxy far, far away.
Your use of this forum indicates your agreement to our terms of use.
So that we remain spam-free, please note that all posts by new users are moderated.


The Forums
General Science Talk        Not-Quite-Science        Climate Change Discussion        Physics Forum        Science Fiction

Who's Online
0 registered (), 203 Guests and 1 Spider online.
Key: Admin, Global Mod, Mod
Latest Posts
Is there anybody out there?
by paul
12/07/19 03:58 AM
Top Posters (30 Days)
True 1
paul 1
Page 2 of 3 < 1 2 3 >
Topic Options
#38328 - 05/06/11 02:42 PM Re: Replacement for shuttle. Why not the Saturn V? [Re: kallog]
Bill Offline
Megastar

Registered: 12/31/10
Posts: 1858
Loc: Oklahoma, USA
Actually I saw a report recently that a private company, I don't remember which, was proposing a heavy launch vehicle that would provide services that would match the Saturn. They plan to do it for a lot less money.

Bill Gill
_________________________
C is not the speed of light in a vacuum.
C is the universal speed limit.

Top
.
#38667 - 05/30/11 06:22 PM Re: Replacement for shuttle. Why not the Saturn V? [Re: kallog]
Garminforerunner Offline
Junior Member

Registered: 05/30/11
Posts: 2
The saturnV would not be the best choice - the ability to lift mass into orbit has nothing to do with the ability to go to the moon. To lift a large mass into LEO you need a lot of thrust at launch. In the case of the saturnV, this is only provided by the first stage (AKA the saturn 1b). Compared to modern lift vehicles the 1B isn't anything special

Top
#38679 - 05/31/11 06:54 PM Re: Replacement for shuttle. Why not the Saturn V? [Re: Garminforerunner]
paul Offline
Megastar

Registered: 03/21/06
Posts: 4136
I know its not very complicated but in my opinion a lighter than
air platform would be much better.

with todays carbon fiber composite materials the platform could be much lighter and much stronger than steel.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Carbon_fiber



Quote:
An example image from a hobby high altitude balloon launched by the Make Stuff Club from Kalamazoo College http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/High-altitude_balloon




you could lift a payload to a high altitude , where much less thrust or force would be needed to reach LEO , then the payload which could be a remote vehicle could lift into LEO.

when a saturn 5 rocket lifts off its weight alone is
6,699,000 pounds (3,039,000 kg)

I would imagine that most of that weight is in the 1st 2nd and 3rd stage rockets and their fuel.

fuel weight would not be much of a factor if you dont need to expend much fuel for a lift off.

the remote vehicle itself could return to the platform after
it has delivered its payload.

the platform could then be lowered back to ground level to await the next payload delivery by compressing the lifting gas into cylinders for later use.

and you could use solar power to operate the compressors and charge the battery arrays that are used to operate the electronics systems and subsystems.


the payloads could be supplies and building materials used to construct a expedition vehicle to the moon or mars or wherever.

you could use the ISS as a home base for the construction workers that are building the expedition vehicles.

the total cost would be greatly reduced.
and the re-useable platform and re-useable remote vehicle systems means you dont need to continuously expend great amounts of tax dollars , which converts into more accomplishments to every dollar expended.

plus we shouldn't pile all the responsibility of
payload duties on the russian's either.










_________________________
3/4 inch of dust build up on the moon in 4.527 billion years,LOL and QM is fantasy science.

Top
#38689 - 06/01/11 03:28 PM Re: Replacement for shuttle. Why not the Saturn V? [Re: paul]
kallog Offline
Megastar

Registered: 03/17/10
Posts: 1100
Originally Posted By: paul
I know its not very complicated but in my opinion a lighter than
air platform would be much better.

I've sometimes wondered that too. Though it wouldn't get very high (40km compared to 200km for ISS).

Perhaps the cost of such a monstrous balloon would actually be more than a rocket.

Another issue would be how do you keep it from flying away when the rocket leaves the balloon? Compress the gas into cylinders? The weight of those cylinders would be significant.

Maybe carbon nanotubes will save the day :P I heard somewhere of the possibility of building a rigid vacuum-filed balloon with them.

Quote:

plus we shouldn't pile all the responsibility of
payload duties on the russian's either.

What if it's the Russians who do it?

Top
#38696 - 06/02/11 04:21 PM Re: Replacement for shuttle. Why not the Saturn V? [Re: kallog]
paul Offline
Megastar

Registered: 03/21/06
Posts: 4136
Quote:
I've sometimes wondered that too. Though it wouldn't get very high (40km compared to 200km for ISS).


well it might remove the necessity of using the 1st stage rocket on a saturn 5 that produces 7.6 million pounds of thrust to reach 200,000 ft altitude.

from that point you would only need to supply 1 million lbs of thrust to continue further if you were delivering a saturn 5 sized payload from the 2nd stage upwards.

but theres no need to have such large payloads.

and they do make pressure vessels that resemble ballons.

so the balloon can be adjusted in size as it moves further upwards and gas can also be pumped in to give more lift as required.

this way the platform could achieve a higher altitude than the 51 k ft record.

perhaps the gas could even be given a electric charge that could help the lifting even further.

heck you might even be able to get the platform all the way to the ISS.

without consuming any fuels at all.
because you would only be releasing gas into a container and then compressing that gas back into a container.

the electric charge could be accomplished using solar power , electric or thermal.

Quote:
What if it's the Russians who do it?


this is space were talking about here , and the ISS
is not a U.S. only project.

the I is for International.












_________________________
3/4 inch of dust build up on the moon in 4.527 billion years,LOL and QM is fantasy science.

Top
#38699 - 06/02/11 10:49 PM Re: Replacement for shuttle. Why not the Saturn V? [Re: paul]
kallog Offline
Megastar

Registered: 03/17/10
Posts: 1100
Originally Posted By: paul

so the balloon can be adjusted in size as it moves further upwards and gas can also be pumped in to give more lift as required.

Yes but I wonder about the weight of the tanks used to store the compressed gas. It might not add up.

Quote:

this way the platform could achieve a higher altitude than the 51 k ft record.

Huh? How does compressing the gas help altitude?



Quote:

this is space were talking about here , and the ISS
is not a U.S. only project.

Yes, so you don't need to be concerned with which country is doing things in space.

Top
#38700 - 06/03/11 12:03 AM Re: Replacement for shuttle. Why not the Saturn V? [Re: kallog]
paul Offline
Megastar

Registered: 03/21/06
Posts: 4136
Quote:
and they do make pressure vessels that resemble ballons.

so the balloon can be adjusted in size as it moves further upwards and gas can also be pumped in to give more lift as required.

this way the platform could achieve a higher altitude than the 51 k ft record.


Quote:
Huh? How does compressing the gas help altitude?


it wouldn't help altitude , you would only compress the gas back into the pressure vessels when you want the balloon to descend.

todays high altitude balloons expand as they rise , and when they expand they are expanding because the gas inside the balloon is expanding , because the pressure outside the balloon is decreasing.

I said that the balloons could be adjusted as needed as far as size is concerned.

the bigger the balloon gets the more altitude you can get from the balloon because the increased surface area of the balloon can allow the lower pressure outside the balloon to lift it higher.

so to achieve higher altitude you must allow more compressed gas to enter the balloon so that the balloon size can increase.

think of a balloon who's skin is made up of thousands of long skinny balloons.

you allow gas to fill these long skinny balloons and they each become huge balloons that add lift.


mostly these days I think they just fill a weather balloon to a 10-20% capacity and allow the balloon to rise until the balloon burst due to the stresses placed on the balloon by the expanding gas inside the balloon and the ever decreasing pressures outside the balloon as the balloon rises.

if you can get the balloon through the mesosphere and you can charge the gas inside the balloon opposite the ion charges in the thermosphere then the opposite charges might attract the balloon to lift the balloon even higher.

and if that works then you should be able to achieve a type of buoyancy inside the thermosphere using electric charge.

so you would have to be carefull how much of a charge you add because it could be lifted to the exosphere 600 km up.

and once you reach ISS altitude you could use ion engines like the lifters you see on you tube to maneuver
around to the ISS.

so no fuel would be expended in the entire operation.

it would be completely re-usable , and it might even be safer.

Quote:
Yes, so you don't need to be concerned with which country is doing things in space.


sure you need to be concerned , and air superiority is
usually the first goal in a conflict.

and air superiority should override political stupidity
even if it means that the stupid politicians supporters don't make as much money as they would like.
















_________________________
3/4 inch of dust build up on the moon in 4.527 billion years,LOL and QM is fantasy science.

Top
#38703 - 06/03/11 12:25 PM Re: Replacement for shuttle. Why not the Saturn V? [Re: paul]
kallog Offline
Megastar

Registered: 03/17/10
Posts: 1100
Wikipedia High Altitude Balloon has an interesting idea about using a floating platform to generate rocket fuel using oxygen from the surrounding air and power from a ground laser. That would save having to lift a whole load of fuel up to the height of the platform.

Quote:

sure you need to be concerned , and air superiority is
usually the first goal in a conflict.

It's got to be someone. No reason America is any more special than anywhere else. If you were a Russian you'd probably be saying you want it to be Russia. So the whole idea is pointless.

Top
#38704 - 06/03/11 04:45 PM Re: Replacement for shuttle. Why not the Saturn V? [Re: kallog]
paul Offline
Megastar

Registered: 03/21/06
Posts: 4136
Quote:
It's got to be someone. No reason America is any more special than anywhere else. If you were a Russian you'd probably be saying you want it to be Russia. So the whole idea is pointless.


you sure do have a way of turning peoples written words around , I said that the ISS was a international project.

then you say there should be no concern about who builds things in space.

I reply with a really good reason , then you bring up Russia again as if I never mentioned international.

would you like Iran or North Korea to have missle or laser systems in space?

I only recall that Russia has attacked one other country and as far as I can tell the attack or invasion was to secure land in order to move oil from Russia through Afghanistan and into India.

a job that the U.S. accomplished after Russia broke up.

same same ..


I don't count the defence of Russia in WW2 as an attack on Germany but as a defensive move to protect their borders and their peoples.


Quote:
If you were a Russian you'd probably be saying you want it to be Russia.


I think that since it is a International issue it should be a International project.

_________________________
3/4 inch of dust build up on the moon in 4.527 billion years,LOL and QM is fantasy science.

Top
#38705 - 06/04/11 01:42 AM Re: Replacement for shuttle. Why not the Saturn V? [Re: paul]
kallog Offline
Megastar

Registered: 03/17/10
Posts: 1100
Quote:

plus we shouldn't pile all the responsibility of
payload duties on the russian's either.


How about "We shouldn't pile all the responsibility of ISS crew transport on America". It might help them to develop new weapons.

You know why most people don't like the America? Because unlike North Korea, it keeps bombing everyone! America has created a terrorist problem in Pakistan which is worse than 9/11. Maybe you also forgot the Korean and Vietnam wars, America's unnecessary carpet bombing of German cities which today, if done by a small country, would be considered using weapons of mass destruction and genocide, and could result in the president being tried and executed.

America is a country that should be relieved of it's military capability. It's too dangerous in the world.

Top
#38706 - 06/04/11 03:59 PM Re: Replacement for shuttle. Why not the Saturn V? [Re: kallog]
paul Offline
Megastar

Registered: 03/21/06
Posts: 4136
Originally Posted By: kallog
How about "We shouldn't pile all the responsibility of ISS crew transport on America".


http://www.spacetoday.org/SpcStns/SoyuzTransport.html

Quote:
Russia's Soyuz transports, used today to ferry cosmonauts and astronauts to the International Space Station, are the longest serving manned spacecraft in the world.

With the temporary halt in U.S. space shuttle flights after the Columbia tragedy, the ISS has to depend on Russia's Soyuz transports for crew trips to space and back to Earth.



maybe you dont know why we were in the Korean conflict.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Korean_War

Quote:
The Korean War (25 June 1950 armistice signed 27 July 1953[28]) was a military conflict between South Korea, supported by the United Nations, and North Korea, supported by the People's Republic of China (PRC), with military material aid from the Soviet Union. The war was a result of the physical division of Korea by an agreement of the victorious Allies at the conclusion of the Pacific War at the end of World War II.

The Korean peninsula was ruled by Japan from 1910 until the end of World War II. Following the surrender of Japan in 1945, American administrators divided the peninsula along the 38th Parallel, with United States troops occupying the southern part and Soviet troops occupying the northern part.[29]

The failure to hold free elections throughout the Korean Peninsula in 1948 deepened the division between the two sides, and the North established a Communist government. The 38th Parallel increasingly became a political border between the two Koreas. Although reunification negotiations continued in the months preceding the war, tension intensified. Cross-border skirmishes and raids at the 38th Parallel persisted. The situation escalated into open warfare when North Korean forces invaded South Korea on 25 June 1950.


North Korea ((( INVADED ))) South Korea.

Why we became involved in Vietnam.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Vietnam_War

we became involved in Vietnam to restrict the expansion of communism from spreading throughout S.E. Asia.

many other countries were involved in Vietnam alongside the U.S. according to the above article it was pretty much a international involvement.

















_________________________
3/4 inch of dust build up on the moon in 4.527 billion years,LOL and QM is fantasy science.

Top
#38707 - 06/05/11 04:36 AM Re: Replacement for shuttle. Why not the Saturn V? [Re: paul]
kallog Offline
Megastar

Registered: 03/17/10
Posts: 1100
Originally Posted By: paul
we became involved in Vietnam to restrict the expansion of communism from spreading throughout S.E. Asia.


You say the free market has ruined your country. Would you be happy to get shot in the head by an Islamist invader trying to save you from the evils of capitalism? If not, then don't pretend America did any good by murdering civilians in SE Asia.

Top
#38708 - 06/05/11 05:47 AM Re: Replacement for shuttle. Why not the Saturn V? [Re: kallog]
paul Offline
Megastar

Registered: 03/21/06
Posts: 4136
Quote:
You say the free market has ruined your country


it has , and many others.

Quote:
Would you be happy to get shot in the head


no

Quote:
by an Islamist invader


or anyone else.

Quote:
trying to save you from the evils of capitalism?


Is that what they were doing on 911?

and is that why they attacked the world trade centers?

Quote:
If not, then don't pretend


am I the one pretending?

Quote:
America did any good by murdering civilians in SE Asia.


murdering civilians is never anything good.

but that is what happens in war almost every time.

can you name any war where civilians were not murdered?

if communism is such a wonderful thing then why are you in the U.K.?

are you pretending that the British have never murdered any civilians?

or did the Nazi Germans never murder civilians , or the Japanese , or the Chinese or Russians.

you seem to be anti American in general looking only at the evils that America has done without bothering to look at the evils that other nations have done.

do you even begin to imagine that America has murdered more civilians than the rest of the world?

I think that some of the worlds leaders have murdered more of their own civilians than have ever been killed in all the wars that have ever been in recorded history.
_________________________
3/4 inch of dust build up on the moon in 4.527 billion years,LOL and QM is fantasy science.

Top
#38746 - 06/09/11 10:38 AM Re: Replacement for shuttle. Why not the Saturn V? [Re: paul]
kallog Offline
Megastar

Registered: 03/17/10
Posts: 1100
Originally Posted By: paul
Is that what they were doing on 911?

I guess so! Maybe America should have been less defensive and let them win. Then you'd all have happier lives as loyal Muslims who don't have to pay interest on loans.


Quote:

are you pretending that the British have never murdered any civilians?

you seem to be anti American in general looking only at the

I'm not anti-American. I'm anti-patriot. It's patriots that cause wars. These are people who blindly believe they have more rights than others, and who believe their way of doing things should be forced onto others who don't want it. Basically applies to every war.

A lot of people died fighting on the side of the Allies in WWII. But why did they do that? The only two answers I've ever heard, no matter who I ask are:
"We'd all be speaking German" and
"We'd all be slaves to the Nazis"
Both are pretty minor and baseless reasons. It seems like there really was no reason for millions to kill each other. No reason other than blind patriotism.

Top
#38748 - 06/09/11 02:41 PM Re: Replacement for shuttle. Why not the Saturn V? [Re: kallog]
Bill Offline
Megastar

Registered: 12/31/10
Posts: 1858
Loc: Oklahoma, USA
Kallog, how old are you? I was a child during WWII and that was in fact a justified war. The Nazis did in fact attempt to over run the world and did many horrific acts based on their perverted ideas that they were the only "race" that deserved to exist. There have been many wars which were not as justified at WWII, but don't run that one down. And yes I am old enough to remember it. I wasn't old enough to fight in it, but I lived through it.

And now why don't we get this thread back to science, or

Bill Gill


Edited by Bill (06/09/11 02:42 PM)
_________________________
C is not the speed of light in a vacuum.
C is the universal speed limit.

Top
#39722 - 08/24/11 02:31 PM Re: Replacement for shuttle. Why not the Saturn V? [Re: preearth]
preearth Offline
Senior Member

Registered: 05/22/10
Posts: 370
Originally Posted By: preearth
Why did they build the space shuttle, if the Saturn V was SEVEN times as good (lifted SEVEN times as much into low earth orbit)?

And, the answer is that they wouldn't, so what gives?

It seems most likely that the Saturn V didn't live up to specifications and if it didn't live up to specifications, then it could never have got to the moon.

So, this appears to be a proof (of sorts) that the moon landing was faked.

I must,... if I can get the time, have a closer look at the moon landing,... because it is beginning to smell, just like the Einstein lie,.... it started with a bad smell and on a closer look, it became abundantly clear, that Einstein was a total fraud.

Einstein was NOT first to publish E=mc^2.

Yeap, the moon landing is another fraud.

It is obvious once you bother to look.
_________________________
Earth formed from a collision
www.preearth.net

Plate-tectonics is wrong
www.preearth.net/plate.html

Top
#41251 - 10/31/11 09:36 PM Re: Replacement for shuttle. Why not the Saturn V? [Re: preearth]
preearth Offline
Senior Member

Registered: 05/22/10
Posts: 370
Originally Posted By: preearth
Yeap, the moon landing is another fraud.

It is obvious once you bother to look.

None seems to disagree with this claim. That's nice.
_________________________
Earth formed from a collision
www.preearth.net

Plate-tectonics is wrong
www.preearth.net/plate.html

Top
#42156 - 01/20/12 08:20 AM Re: Replacement for shuttle. Why not the Saturn V? [Re: preearth]
preearth Offline
Senior Member

Registered: 05/22/10
Posts: 370
So I still want to know why they just don't role out the Saturn V's once again.
_________________________
Earth formed from a collision
www.preearth.net

Plate-tectonics is wrong
www.preearth.net/plate.html

Top
#42991 - 03/31/12 12:21 PM Re: Replacement for shuttle. Why not the Saturn V? [Re: preearth]
preearth Offline
Senior Member

Registered: 05/22/10
Posts: 370
I'm surprised that no one has asked why I no longer believe in the "moon landing."
_________________________
Earth formed from a collision
www.preearth.net

Plate-tectonics is wrong
www.preearth.net/plate.html

Top
#43894 - 06/05/12 02:02 AM Re: Replacement for shuttle. Why not the Saturn V? [Re: preearth]
preearth Offline
Senior Member

Registered: 05/22/10
Posts: 370
Originally Posted By: preearth
I'm surprised that no one has asked why I no longer believe in the "moon landing."

So no one is interested in the fake moon landings. That's interesting,... isn't it?
_________________________
Earth formed from a collision
www.preearth.net

Plate-tectonics is wrong
www.preearth.net/plate.html

Top
Page 2 of 3 < 1 2 3 >



Newest Members
debbieevans, bkhj, jackk, Johnmattison, RacerGT
865 Registered Users
Sponsor
Facebook

We're on Facebook
Join Our Group

Science a GoGo's Home Page | Terms of Use | Privacy Policy | Contact Us
Features | News | Books | Physics | Space | Climate Change | Health | Technology | Natural World

Copyright © 1998 - 2016 Science a GoGo and its licensors. All rights reserved.