Replacement for shuttle. Why not the Saturn V?

Posted by: preearth

Replacement for shuttle. Why not the Saturn V? - 02/24/11 11:08 AM

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
Posted by: kallog

Re: Replacement for shuttle. Why not the Saturn V? - 02/24/11 04:49 PM

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.
Posted by: ImagingGeek

Re: Replacement for shuttle. Why not the Saturn V? - 02/24/11 08:46 PM

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
Posted by: preearth

Re: Replacement for shuttle. Why not the Saturn V? - 02/24/11 10:21 PM

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.
Posted by: Bill

Re: Replacement for shuttle. Why not the Saturn V? - 02/25/11 03:15 AM

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
Posted by: kallog

Re: Replacement for shuttle. Why not the Saturn V? - 02/25/11 03:45 AM

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?

Posted by: ImagingGeek

Re: Replacement for shuttle. Why not the Saturn V? - 02/25/11 05:36 PM

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
Posted by: ImagingGeek

Re: Replacement for shuttle. Why not the Saturn V? - 02/25/11 08:16 PM

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
Posted by: preearth

Re: Replacement for shuttle. Why not the Saturn V? - 02/25/11 09:46 PM

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.
Posted by: kallog

Re: Replacement for shuttle. Why not the Saturn V? - 02/26/11 10:18 AM

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?
Posted by: kallog

Re: Replacement for shuttle. Why not the Saturn V? - 02/26/11 10:20 AM

Originally Posted By: ImagingGeek

Reusable would be nice...


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

Re: Replacement for shuttle. Why not the Saturn V? - 02/26/11 04:07 PM

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
Posted by: ImagingGeek

Re: Replacement for shuttle. Why not the Saturn V? - 02/26/11 04:08 PM

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
Posted by: preearth

Re: Replacement for shuttle. Why not the Saturn V? - 02/26/11 09:32 PM

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.
Posted by: Bill

Re: Replacement for shuttle. Why not the Saturn V? - 02/27/11 03:09 AM

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
Posted by: kallog

Re: Replacement for shuttle. Why not the Saturn V? - 02/27/11 03:52 AM

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?
Posted by: preearth

Re: Replacement for shuttle. Why not the Saturn V? - 02/27/11 04:23 AM

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.
Posted by: kallog

Re: Replacement for shuttle. Why not the Saturn V? - 02/27/11 04:57 AM

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!
Posted by: preearth

Re: Replacement for shuttle. Why not the Saturn V? - 05/06/11 05:13 AM

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).
Posted by: kallog

Re: Replacement for shuttle. Why not the Saturn V? - 05/06/11 10:42 AM

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?
Posted by: Bill

Re: Replacement for shuttle. Why not the Saturn V? - 05/06/11 02:42 PM

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
Posted by: Garminforerunner

Re: Replacement for shuttle. Why not the Saturn V? - 05/30/11 06:22 PM

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
Posted by: paul

Re: Replacement for shuttle. Why not the Saturn V? - 05/31/11 06:54 PM

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.










Posted by: kallog

Re: Replacement for shuttle. Why not the Saturn V? - 06/01/11 03:28 PM

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?
Posted by: paul

Re: Replacement for shuttle. Why not the Saturn V? - 06/02/11 04:21 PM

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.












Posted by: kallog

Re: Replacement for shuttle. Why not the Saturn V? - 06/02/11 10:49 PM

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.
Posted by: paul

Re: Replacement for shuttle. Why not the Saturn V? - 06/03/11 12:03 AM

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.
















Posted by: kallog

Re: Replacement for shuttle. Why not the Saturn V? - 06/03/11 12:25 PM

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.
Posted by: paul

Re: Replacement for shuttle. Why not the Saturn V? - 06/03/11 04:45 PM

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.

Posted by: kallog

Re: Replacement for shuttle. Why not the Saturn V? - 06/04/11 01:42 AM

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.
Posted by: paul

Re: Replacement for shuttle. Why not the Saturn V? - 06/04/11 03:59 PM

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.

















Posted by: kallog

Re: Replacement for shuttle. Why not the Saturn V? - 06/05/11 04:36 AM

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.
Posted by: paul

Re: Replacement for shuttle. Why not the Saturn V? - 06/05/11 05:47 AM

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.
Posted by: kallog

Re: Replacement for shuttle. Why not the Saturn V? - 06/09/11 10:38 AM

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.
Posted by: Bill

Re: Replacement for shuttle. Why not the Saturn V? - 06/09/11 02:41 PM

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
Posted by: preearth

Re: Replacement for shuttle. Why not the Saturn V? - 08/24/11 02:31 PM

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.
Posted by: preearth

Re: Replacement for shuttle. Why not the Saturn V? - 10/31/11 09:36 PM

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.
Posted by: preearth

Re: Replacement for shuttle. Why not the Saturn V? - 01/20/12 08:20 AM

So I still want to know why they just don't role out the Saturn V's once again.
Posted by: preearth

Re: Replacement for shuttle. Why not the Saturn V? - 03/31/12 12:21 PM

I'm surprised that no one has asked why I no longer believe in the "moon landing."
Posted by: preearth

Re: Replacement for shuttle. Why not the Saturn V? - 06/05/12 02:02 AM

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?
Posted by: Bill S.

Re: Replacement for shuttle. Why not the Saturn V? - 06/05/12 12:46 PM

Quote:
I'm surprised that no one has asked why I no longer believe in the "moon landing."


Could it be that no one is confident of getting an answer?
Posted by: preearth

Re: Replacement for shuttle. Why not the Saturn V? - 07/27/12 02:55 AM

Originally Posted By: Bill S.
Quote:
I'm surprised that no one has asked why I no longer believe in the "moon landing."

Could it be that no one is confident of getting an answer?

Nope.

Have a look at http://space.about.com/od/frequentlyaskedquestions/tp/LunarLandingHoax.htm

Almost every argument presented is obvious trash.

Must have been written by total idiots (or a total idiot).

It was articles like this, and others from www.bautforum.com, that convinced me that the moon-landing was faked (I know, I know, these articles are meant to prove the moon-landing happened, but they do exactly the opposite).
Posted by: Bill S.

Re: Replacement for shuttle. Why not the Saturn V? - 07/27/12 06:36 PM

This could just be considered to be off topic, but has anyone else thought what a good thing it is that crackpots usually seem to disagree with one another? If all the crackpots in the world agreed, that could influence reality to make them right. What a mad cosmos we would be living in!

How's that for a crackpot idea?
Posted by: preearth

Re: Replacement for shuttle. Why not the Saturn V? - 09/29/12 11:09 AM

Anyone like to start a thread where the validity of the arguments presented in http://space.about.com/od/frequentlyaskedquestions/tp/LunarLandingHoax.htm are discussed?
Posted by: preearth

Re: Replacement for shuttle. Why not the Saturn V? - 11/21/12 08:57 PM

Funny that no one here is interested in the moon-landing.
Posted by: preearth

Re: Replacement for shuttle. Why not the Saturn V? - 02/06/13 04:19 AM

Originally Posted By: preearth
Anyone like to start a thread where the validity of the arguments presented in http://space.about.com/od/frequentlyaskedquestions/tp/LunarLandingHoax.htm are discussed?

Funny that no one here is interested in the moon-landing. Let's see a new thread from Bill.
Posted by: Neohippy

Re: Replacement for shuttle. Why not the Saturn V? - 02/07/13 04:40 PM

Originally Posted By: preearth
Originally Posted By: preearth
Anyone like to start a thread where the validity of the arguments presented in http://space.about.com/od/frequentlyaskedquestions/tp/LunarLandingHoax.htm are discussed?

Funny that no one here is interested in the moon-landing. Let's see a new thread from Bill.



It's not funny at all. Who cares? It happened 44 years ago (or didn't, whatever).
If it was a hoax, what possible ramifications does it have now?

Are you the type to say and do something pessimistic just because nobody else has in some time? Lighten up dude.

Why not talk about something upbeat for once, instead of crapping over the same theories that have been crapped on for decades. Maybe change it up, and support some new theories that have promise. Leave the beaten and dead horse where it lies.

It sounds like you may need a hug, but I fear you would think the person hugging you has some sort of agenda against you, and the hug is just a distraction to make you let your guard down...
Posted by: preearth

Re: Replacement for shuttle. Why not the Saturn V? - 03/21/13 09:28 AM

Originally Posted By: preearth
Anyone like to start a thread where the validity of the arguments presented in http://space.about.com/od/frequentlyaskedquestions/tp/LunarLandingHoax.htm are discussed?

Funny that no one here is interested in the moon-landing. Let's see a new thread from Bill.

Come on Bill. A big chance to show your expertise on the fake moon landing.