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 (), 226 Guests and 0 Spiders 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)
paul 1
True 1
Page 1 of 3 1 2 3 >
Topic Options
#37526 - 02/24/11 11:08 AM Replacement for shuttle. Why not the Saturn V?
preearth Offline
Senior Member

Registered: 05/22/10
Posts: 370
U.S. needs replacement for the space shuttle.
Why not the Saturn V?


The space shuttle Discovery is poised to make its last flight today (24 Feb 2011).

When all the shuttles are grounded, the United States will have no rockets to service the International Space Station.

So, why don't they just roll out a few more Saturn V's and solve the problem?

After all, didn't the Saturn V take 45,000 kgs (100,000 lb) to the moon.

The fully fueled lunar lander and command module apparently weighed 45,000 kgs.

45,000 kgs to the moon. What's that to low earth orbit?

It must be about 135,000 kgs (300,000 lb) to low earth orbit (LEO)?

I believe the shuttle lifts 18,000 kg (40,000 lb) to LEO.

So, the Saturn V could more than do the job.

Such an easy solution.

Are the NASA people nuts. Why haven't they thought of this?


This article is from my forum:

http://www.preearth.net/phpBB3/search.php?search_id=newposts
_________________________
Earth formed from a collision
www.preearth.net

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

Top
.
#37529 - 02/24/11 04:49 PM Re: Replacement for shuttle. Why not the Saturn V? [Re: preearth]
kallog Offline
Megastar

Registered: 03/17/10
Posts: 1100
Originally Posted By: preearth
So, why don't they just roll out a few more Saturn V's and solve the problem?


What problem?

There are plenty of rockets around. Why pick one specific old design that was intended for a different purpose? Just because the Saturn V is popularly known doesn't make it the best choice.

I heard on TV that NASA is handing off the Earth orbit work to private enterprise and will instead focus on deep space exploration. Sounds like it's just not their job anymore.

Top
#37534 - 02/24/11 08:46 PM Re: Replacement for shuttle. Why not the Saturn V? [Re: kallog]
ImagingGeek Offline
Senior Member

Registered: 05/19/10
Posts: 410
Loc: Canada
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 - many operating ones have a better mass-to-LEO capability than the 1b:

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

What made saturnV's so special was their ability to accelerate a fairly large mass to the moon (and, in theory, into inter-planetary orbits).

Bryan
_________________________
UAA...CAUGCUAUGAUGGAACGAACAAUUAUGGAA

Top
#37535 - 02/24/11 10:21 PM Re: Replacement for shuttle. Why not the Saturn V? [Re: ImagingGeek]
preearth Offline
Senior Member

Registered: 05/22/10
Posts: 370
Originally Posted By: kallog
What problem?

Sometimes I wonder whether you just deliberately lie about things.

The problem that you refuse to see, is the acknowledged problem of having no suitable replacement for the shuttle.

Originally Posted By: ImagingGeek
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.

As usual with the Geek, he just claims (lies?) the Saturn V is not the best choice,... but I can equally state that it is the best choice.

And, at least, I can give one valid reason.

A Saturn V can lift some 135,000 kgs (300,000 lb) to low earth orbit (LEO).

This is SEVEN times the payload of the shuttle.

That seems good to me.


As to the Geek's moronic comment, that, "the ability to lift mass into orbit has nothing to do with the ability to go to the moon." Well,... that is just ridiculous. Even ordinary folk should suspect that, that statement, is total trash.

The Geek's understanding of physics has obviously not been improved by his absence.
_________________________
Earth formed from a collision
www.preearth.net

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

Top
#37539 - 02/25/11 03:15 AM Re: Replacement for shuttle. Why not the Saturn V? [Re: preearth]
Bill Offline
Megastar

Registered: 12/31/10
Posts: 1858
Loc: Oklahoma, USA
Well, For one thing we don't need that much lift because right now we aren't going to the Moon. For a Geosynchronous Transfer Orbit (GTO) there are several launch vehicles that are currently available. For example The Delta IV built by Boeing. If you check the specs down the right side of the artcle you will find what it can take to GTO and to LEO.

There is no real need to re-engineer the Saturn V for current production. That would be a large undertaking. While we could probably find the prints to make one the actual production would require a great deal of engineering. The decisions made in the 1960s may not be the best in the 21st Century. So we can just go ahead and use what we have, which are probably better designs than the Saturn V.

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

Top
#37542 - 02/25/11 03:45 AM Re: Replacement for shuttle. Why not the Saturn V? [Re: preearth]
kallog Offline
Megastar

Registered: 03/17/10
Posts: 1100
Originally Posted By: preearth
A Saturn V can lift some 135,000 kgs (300,000 lb) to low earth orbit (LEO).

[b]This is SEVEN times the payload of the shuttle.


If it's 7 times what they need then it'll be wasting money. All that extra capacity will mean extra weight and extra costs in lots of areas. Are they going to just fill the fuel tanks part way up? Will it have to be completely redesigned to allow that?

They're already sending cargo to the ISS with all sorts of other rockets. And there have been private manned trips too. What more do they need?

I have a feeling you're suffering from a bit of patriotism. The Japanese, Russians, Europeans are all doing it but America can't.

It also seems to be a waste sending cargo on a manned rocket (shuttle or Saturn V)). Having to support people makes it much more expensive. Wouldn't it be more efficient to have small people-carrying ones, and large, unsafe, cargo carrying ones?



Edited by kallog (02/25/11 03:50 AM)

Top
#37554 - 02/25/11 05:36 PM Re: Replacement for shuttle. Why not the Saturn V? [Re: preearth]
ImagingGeek Offline
Senior Member

Registered: 05/19/10
Posts: 410
Loc: Canada
Originally Posted By: preearth
A Saturn V can lift some 135,000 kgs (300,000 lb) to low earth orbit (LEO).

This is SEVEN times the payload of the shuttle.

That seems good to me.

And since nothing we launch these days weigh that much, why is it a good thing?

Originally Posted By: preearth
As to the Geek's moronic comment, that, "the ability to lift mass into orbit has nothing to do with the ability to go to the moon." Well,... that is just ridiculous.


Hardly. Once in orbit relatively small amounts of thrust are needed to change to a TLO type orbit. Ergo, rockets designed for that purpose tend to have upper stages which are intended for such low-thrust purposes. LEO launches, in contrast, require a completely different thrust profile - high thrust, throughout the entire launch. As such their upper stages (if they have them) are designed for that intent. If you wanted to use the SaturnV for optimal LEO launches you'd need to redesign the upper stages for higher thrust applications, to maximise your to-orbit payload.

Different jobs, different thrust profiles. Basic rocket science.

Bryan
_________________________
UAA...CAUGCUAUGAUGGAACGAACAAUUAUGGAA

Top
#37561 - 02/25/11 08:16 PM Re: Replacement for shuttle. Why not the Saturn V? [Re: kallog]
ImagingGeek Offline
Senior Member

Registered: 05/19/10
Posts: 410
Loc: Canada
Originally Posted By: kallog
Wouldn't it be more efficient to have small people-carrying ones, and large, unsafe, cargo carrying ones?


Reusable would be nice...

Bryan
_________________________
UAA...CAUGCUAUGAUGGAACGAACAAUUAUGGAA

Top
#37562 - 02/25/11 09:46 PM Re: Replacement for shuttle. Why not the Saturn V? [Re: ImagingGeek]
preearth Offline
Senior Member

Registered: 05/22/10
Posts: 370
Originally Posted By: kallog
If it's 7 times what they need then it'll be wasting money.

Why do you make such very, very stupid statements?

Obviously, you only need to send up the Saturn V one time for every SEVEN times the space shuttle went up, in order to transfer the same amount of cargo.

Since it turned out that the shuttle flights were MORE expensive than the Saturn V flights, this in itself, would save a large fortune.

I was wondering exactly why you would attempt such a blatant piece of misdirection (i.e., a deliberate attempt to deceive) and it occurred to me that you are worried that people will ask;

Why did they build the space shuttle, if the Saturn V was SEVEN times as good?

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.

And as to the Geek's moronic comments,... they just keep on coming.

Originally Posted By: ImagingGeek
Once in orbit relatively small amounts of thrust are needed to change to a TLO type orbit.

Is this another deliberate piece of deception by ImagingGeek?

We are NOT talking about the difference between a LEO and TLO type orbit, we are talking the difference between getting to low Earth orbit and to the Moon.

You either don't have a clue, or are being deliberately deceptive.
_________________________
Earth formed from a collision
www.preearth.net

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

Top
#37570 - 02/26/11 10:18 AM Re: Replacement for shuttle. Why not the Saturn V? [Re: preearth]
kallog Offline
Megastar

Registered: 03/17/10
Posts: 1100
Originally Posted By: preearth
I was wondering exactly why you would attempt such a blatant piece of misdirection (i.e., a

You're wrong. I just didn't consider lumping all the stuff together into fewer launches.

Quote:

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


Oh yes, that must be it. I knew the moon landing was faked, and I knew that persuading people the Saturn V isn't very good would lead to a complex chain of reasoning that would keep this horrible truth a secret. Open your eyes to the real world man!!! If I knew the moon landing was faked, why would I keep it a secret? And why by such a convoluted and vulnerable trick? Why wouldn't I just avoid talking about anything to do with it?

Top
#37571 - 02/26/11 10:20 AM Re: Replacement for shuttle. Why not the Saturn V? [Re: ImagingGeek]
kallog Offline
Megastar

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

Reusable would be nice...


If it ends up cheaper that way, sure. But it shouldn't be a requirement.

Top
#37575 - 02/26/11 04:07 PM Re: Replacement for shuttle. Why not the Saturn V? [Re: preearth]
ImagingGeek Offline
Senior Member

Registered: 05/19/10
Posts: 410
Loc: Canada
Originally Posted By: preearth
Originally Posted By: kallog
If it's 7 times what they need then it'll be wasting money.

Why do you make such very, very stupid statements?

Obviously, you only need to send up the Saturn V one time for every SEVEN times the space shuttle went up, in order to transfer the same amount of cargo.

But that does not mean its a better way of doing things. Launches must be very carefully timed to get the payload into the desired orbit - you cannot simply package up multiple payloads and launch at the same time - at least not economically. To do that you have to add the additional tertiary stages to move your payloads into the desired orbits. That equals more mass, which equals more cost.

Likewise, the mass of the saturnV is a big drawback - not only does it need the thrust to lift its payload, but it also needs the thrust to lift itself and its fuel. In the case of the saturnV, it burned 2,594,211 kg of fuel to put 118,000 kg of payload into LEO (fuel:payload ratio of 200:1). Modern launch vehicles are much more efficient - the Arian 5 for example uses ~1,368,400 kg of fuel to put 21,000kg of mass into LEO - a f:p ratio of 65:1, about 3X more efficient than the saturn v.

Originally Posted By: preearth

Since it turned out that the shuttle flights were MORE expensive than the Saturn V flights, this in itself, would save a large fortune.

I've never once said that the space shuttle was a good idea. But its still a better idea than your half-baked idea of resurrecting a 1960's piece of technology which is 1/3rd as efficient as today's technology.

Originally Posted By: preearth
I was wondering exactly why you would attempt such a blatant piece of misdirection

LOL, I forgot that in your imaginary world, being correct is "misdirection".

Luckily, we all live in the real world, not your make-believe world where, amoung other things, newtons laws do not hold...

Originally Posted By: preearth
Why did they build the space shuttle, if the Saturn V was SEVEN times as good?

Three reasons - first, because they wanted a reusable lift vehicle to get into LEO, instead of a non-reusable lift vehicle to go to the moon.

Secondly, because the saturn v is not 7 times better. The space shuttle puts upto 24,000kg into orbit (that's shuttle + cargo), and provides an area for scientific work (which was one of the shuttles main purpose). Thats (118,000kg/24,000kg) 5X, not 7X less mass than saturnv, and includes the mass to support crew + experiments, plus carry a payload into orbit. The satrunV's lift mass doesn't include mass for crew/science, and once you add that the "extra" lift capasity of the saturn drops to ~4X the shuttle.

And thirdly, because there was (and still is) no need for such a large rocket. Its far, far, far cheaper to design low-mass payloads and launch them on small rockets than it is to use a big rocket.

Originally Posted By: preearth

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

Your inability to understand basic math, basic economics, and basic science?

Originally Posted By: preearth

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.

Or maybe, you're just a nut. Especially given that the LRO's imaged the appolo landing sites from orbit, and directly observed the lunar modules launch stage, sitting on the moon.

Originally Posted By: preearth
Originally Posted By: ImagingGeek
Once in orbit relatively small amounts of thrust are needed to change to a TLO type orbit.

Is this another deliberate piece of deception by ImagingGeek?

We are NOT talking about the difference between a LEO and TLO type orbit, we are talking the difference between getting to low Earth orbit and to the Moon.

You either don't have a clue, or are being deliberately deceptive.


LOL, maybe read up on what those terms mean. LEO = low earth orbit, i.e. putting [censored] in space. TLO = trans-lunar orbit, i.e. the orbit you need to go to the moon.

The only stupidity is from you, pre.

Bryan
_________________________
UAA...CAUGCUAUGAUGGAACGAACAAUUAUGGAA

Top
#37576 - 02/26/11 04:08 PM Re: Replacement for shuttle. Why not the Saturn V? [Re: kallog]
ImagingGeek Offline
Senior Member

Registered: 05/19/10
Posts: 410
Loc: Canada
Originally Posted By: kallog
Originally Posted By: ImagingGeek

Reusable would be nice...

If it ends up cheaper that way, sure. But it shouldn't be a requirement.


One would think reusable would be cheaper. After all, if the launch stages could be recovered and reused you would save on the cost of producing new engines, tanks, etc, for every launch.

Bryan
_________________________
UAA...CAUGCUAUGAUGGAACGAACAAUUAUGGAA

Top
#37579 - 02/26/11 09:32 PM Re: Replacement for shuttle. Why not the Saturn V? [Re: ImagingGeek]
preearth Offline
Senior Member

Registered: 05/22/10
Posts: 370
Originally Posted By: ImagingGeek
LOL, I forgot that in your imaginary world, being correct is "misdirection".

Being correct is something the Geek hardly ever is.

Listen to what the nut is trying to tell you.

He is basically claiming that it was much "cheaper" (and more "efficient") to DESIGN, TEST and USE the space shuttle, rather than to use a rocket that had already been designed, tested and proved (was it really proved?) and that everyone already knew, could carry some 5-7 times the payload of the shuttle, that they were about to design.

What would you do?
What would be cheaper?
What would be more efficient?

Choice A) Design, test and eventually use a totally new space vehicle (the shuttle),... OR,...

Choice B) Use an established design (the Saturn V) that you knew could carry some 5-7 times as much into orbit, as the vehicle you were about to design.


Only a group of total fools (NASA and ImagingGeek) would have chosen choice A.

So, why did NASA go with A?

ImagingGeek pretends he doesn't see any problem here,... move along folks,... nothing to see here,...

And yes, ImagingGeek is trying to mislead you.
_________________________
Earth formed from a collision
www.preearth.net

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

Top
#37583 - 02/27/11 03:09 AM Re: Replacement for shuttle. Why not the Saturn V? [Re: preearth]
Bill Offline
Megastar

Registered: 12/31/10
Posts: 1858
Loc: Oklahoma, USA
The Space Shuttle was originally designed to be a reusable space launch vehicle to carry all kinds of stuff to LEO. The Saturn V was designed to be a one time vehicle to carry man to the moon.

The Space Shuttle was designed to be a universal carrier. You could package up almost anything that would fit into the payload bay and send it up. This included the Space Lab (a manned laboratory in space), satellites, the International Space Station (ISS), and maintenance equipment. For example it was used to repair and maintain the Hubble Space Telescope. At one time they called it a 'space truck', and planned to have weekly launches. Re-engineering the Saturn V to accomplish those goals would have been (and still would be) a major undertaking.

The Shuttle never succeeded the way they were sure it would. It turned out to be much more delicate than they had thought. But trying to re-engineer the Saturn V using modern components would be extremely difficult, and there are already plenty of rockets available to perform the space launches that we are performing now days.

A few days ago I mentioned the Delta IV launch system. This system comes in a number of configurations to accommodate a wide range of payloads. So this is one launch system that works much better than the Saturn V for the launches we do today, which don't require the lift capability of the Saturn V. The Saturn V would be inappropriate for most of the payloads we are sending up now days.

Yes we should work on a new manned vehicle. Things like maintenance on the Hubble just can't be done without a manned presence. Some people claim we can do everything with robots, but it isn't really true. If we send a man up to do some kind of maintenance he can frequently figure out where to kick it to make it work. A robot can't.

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

Top
#37585 - 02/27/11 03:52 AM Re: Replacement for shuttle. Why not the Saturn V? [Re: Bill]
kallog Offline
Megastar

Registered: 03/17/10
Posts: 1100
Originally Posted By: Bill
The Space Shuttle was originally designed to be a reusable space launch vehicle to carry all kinds of stuff to LEO. The Saturn V was designed to be a one time vehicle to carry man to the moon.


I think that's the most significant fact in all this.

PreEearth. Which would be a better option:

1) Building and destroying 200 Saturn V rockets, to do 200 (or even 50 if it takes 4 times as much stuff) trips into orbit
2) Building half a dozen shuttles to do the same amount of work?

Top
#37587 - 02/27/11 04:23 AM Re: Replacement for shuttle. Why not the Saturn V? [Re: kallog]
preearth Offline
Senior Member

Registered: 05/22/10
Posts: 370
Originally Posted By: Bill
There is no real need to re-engineer the Saturn V for current production. That would be a large undertaking. While we could probably find the prints to make one the actual production would require a great deal of engineering.

Bill, you are just plain wrong about all this.

It was fairly simple to reconfigure the Saturn V to launch Skylab to low Earth orbit.

"Skylab was America's first manned space station. It was built from the S-IVB stage of a Saturn V Moon rocket, its hydrogen tank being converted at the factory into spacious two-storey accommondation for a three-man crew. The bottom section contained a ward room, sleep compartments and a zero-g washroom/toilet; above was the spacious workshop. The total internal volume of Skylab with Apollo Command and Service modules docked was about 368 m^3 - approximately the same as a small two-bedroom house."

About three launches of a Saturn V in the "Skylab configuration" (each 368 m^3) would have built the international space station (935 m^3).

HOWEVER, "To construct the international space station, more than 100 international space flights will have been conducted on five different types of vehicles launched from four different countries."

So, we can roughly compare costs.

Since the space shuttle launches were more expensive than the Saturn V launches (which includes the cost of the expendable rocket), we see that building the international space station using the shuttle, etc, cost about 33 times as much, than if Saturn V's had been used.
_________________________
Earth formed from a collision
www.preearth.net

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

Top
#37590 - 02/27/11 04:57 AM Re: Replacement for shuttle. Why not the Saturn V? [Re: preearth]
kallog Offline
Megastar

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

"To construct the international space station, more than 100 international space flights will have been conducted on five different types of vehicles launched from four different countries."


Actually you raise an important point there. The "International" space station was partly a political device. It would have shared the work between different countries even if it cost more overall.

I know you have a patriotic view, so you may not see the point of this. But it's about building interdependencies and goodwill between potential enemy countries. As well as the benefits of sharing resources and knowledge and giving more space agencies opportunities to develop better things.

And I really don't see the harm in spending extra money on so many launches and vehicles. It can only add to the body of knowledge about spaceflight, bringing more opportunities closer, improving safety, reducing costs, etc.

If it really was all about money then there would be no ISS and no men on the moon!

Top
#38322 - 05/06/11 05:13 AM Re: Replacement for shuttle. Why not the Saturn V? [Re: kallog]
preearth Offline
Senior Member

Registered: 05/22/10
Posts: 370
Originally Posted By: kallog
I really don't see the harm in spending extra money on so many launches and vehicles.

Actually, the US didn't have much choice about it, since the Saturn V obviously didn't live up to specifications (otherwise they would have used it).
_________________________
Earth formed from a collision
www.preearth.net

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

Top
#38327 - 05/06/11 10:42 AM Re: Replacement for shuttle. Why not the Saturn V? [Re: preearth]
kallog Offline
Megastar

Registered: 03/17/10
Posts: 1100
Originally Posted By: preearth
Originally Posted By: kallog
I really don't see the harm in spending extra money on so many launches and vehicles.

Actually, the US didn't have much choice about it, since the Saturn V obviously didn't live up to specifications (otherwise they would have used it).


Um. It was already used for other launches. In what way could it not have met specifications, making it unsuitable for the ISS but suitable for moon missions and Skylab?

If it was unsuitable for something it wasn't intended for, couldn't that be because its specifications weren't written for that purpose?

Top
Page 1 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.