It's like designing a 21st century jet, from the pieces and parts of the F-5 tiger. (Better perspective).

I fail to see whats wrong with using a Saturn inspired design to get back to the Moon. It just so happens to be a good design. With the techonolgy we have now in computers and materials. It should do rather well I'd think. Could you tell me why you think this isn't a good idea? What do you think would be better?

Seeing as how we've only been to the moon a few times, their hasn't been much of a chance for the designs to improve and evolve. Using something similar to the Saturn will help us get back to the moon quicker. Since we know the design works. If going to the moon becomes routine, then the designs will no doubt evolve much further. But right now, with NASA's very limited budget, it's better to go with what works.

OK heres the deal. Look at the huge monster heavy lift rockets in Russia. They have never been to the moon but have better rocket design than NASA. they can lift more and further, hence NASA using them to take heavy kit into space.

Forget staurn, its glory days are gone. They want rockets? then design a heavy lifter and make moon travel more than a six seat tin can that would not look out of place in the 1960's.

Saturn is the past - learn from it, yes, design bigger and better? you'd sure hope so. The russians must be rolling in the ailse at launch stations reading that little gem........

Originally posted by D4rk Kn1ght
OK heres the deal. Look at the huge monster heavy lift rockets in Russia. They have never been to the moon but have better rocket design than NASA. they can lift more and further, hence NASA using them to take heavy kit into space.

And this rocket you're speaking of is...?

Saturn is the past - learn from it, yes, design bigger and better? you'd sure hope so.

And what do you think they're doing, just rebuilding the Saturn V?

The rocket im speaking of is the one NASA has to pay the Russians each time it wants heavy lift into space.

If they are calling it saturn, then its not going to be too far from a rebuild is it? oh and they are looking at the plans as well...so no, I expected more than rebuilding a 1960' design.

innovation and design ideas must surely have come along far far ahead of 1960's kit surely?

Originally posted by D4rk Kn1ght
The rocket im speaking of is the one NASA has to pay the Russians each time it wants heavy lift into space.

Do you mean Progress? The Progress M, which has the largest payload capacity, can loft 2,600 kg to LEO. That is the type that NASA is currently using to loft supplies to the ISS on occasion. The Saturn V could launch 118,000 kg to LEO, or 47,000 kg to Lunar Orbit. The Space Shuttle can loft a payload of over 25,000 kg to LEO.

So... What is this spacecraft you're speaking of?

If they are calling it saturn, then its not going to be too far from a rebuild is it? oh and they are looking at the plans as well...so no, I expected more than rebuilding a 1960' design.

No, they're not naming it within the Saturn line of rockets. While using updated Saturn technology, it will be called Ares. This is no different than the Saturn rockets using updated technology of its own predecessors.

EDIT TO ADD: Also, NASA already has two heavy lift rockets: The Atlas V Heavy (25,000 kg to LEO) and the Delta IV Heavy (not used for LEO, but can take over 13,000 kg to GTO).

[edit on 8/16/2006 by cmdrkeenkid]

IT's not using updated tech.. as in the article, they are going to use ACTUAL components from the museum pieces.

No, it doesn't say that at all. Maybe you should reread the article or not take what it's saying out fo context.

heres the defeatist part. This is his own words here.

The move makes sense: The new engine Snoddy is working on, a J-2X, is an updated version of the J-2 engine that powered the third stage of the 363-foot (109-meter) Saturn V rocket during Apollo.

"We've gone back to the days of simplicity. You can get more complicated, but why bo?ther" Snoddy said.

Don Krupp, chief of the vehicle analysis branch at Marshall, said it is unlikely any of the antique parts will actually fly in space; instead, they will be used for research and development.


Don Krupp, chief of the vehicle analysis branch at Marshall, said it is unlikely any of the antique parts will actually fly in space...... UNLIKELY!!??!! iT SHOULD BE IN NO WAY SHAPE OR FORM!!!


"why bother?"

Indeed when you can sit back and copy 1960's stuff....

Oh and i bow to the heavy lift I got my figures mixed.... I apologise, i had saturns figures placed the wrong way round.... My bad and I apologise...

(Feel very sheepish now..... sorry!)

Originally posted by D4rk Kn1ght
"We've gone back to the days of simplicity. You can get more complicated, but why bother" Snoddy said.

That makes sense, actually. Why? It means that someone at NASA is letting the engineers do the engineering, instead of some beaurocrats. The simpler the better for an engineer - less parts to break, get damaged, or generally for anything to go wrong. Plus, with NASA's limited budget, simpler also means cheaper.

Don Krupp, chief of the vehicle analysis branch at Marshall, said it is unlikely any of the antique parts will actually fly in space...... UNLIKELY!!??!! iT SHOULD BE IN NO WAY SHAPE OR FORM!!!

I'm pretty sure he was just speaking off the cuff when that was quoted. Why? Because there would be no need for those old parts to fly. With modern technology we can no doubt manufacture more durable and lighter components. On top of that, safety of the components would be a major concern.

Oh and i bow to the heavy lift I got my figures mixed.... I apologise, i had saturns figures placed the wrong way round.... My bad and I apologise...

No worries, we all make mistakes, right?

NASA is turning into an embarassment. This is rediculous!

If anyone criticizing NASA for these designs has a problem with them, I encourage [these people] to attempt to design a better more economical idea and lay out a plan to have it successfully launch in the next six years.

Can't do it? Gee... I wonder why not. Maybe because... it would cost WAY TOO MUCH. NASA is doing the best they can with what they have. Sorry... no scramjet warpdrive hyperspace propulsion system is going to get off the launch pad by the next decade. We need something to replace the shuttle... we need something to get to the Moon... and we need it now.

[edit on 16-8-2006 by apc]

IIRC a TV documentery told me (so it must be true!) that the Saturn 5's design and components had to be destroyed before NASA could get funding for the space shuttle.


Dont forget that NASA have not had much to do with large rockets since the 70's. Good for them for looking back at somthing that worked and hopfully lear from it.

The best part about the design... if it explodes the crew just might live. That's the great thing about having a pod on top. When something goes wrong, just eject the pod.

It worked for ford with the GT40

Originally posted by apc
The best part about the design... if it explodes the crew just might live. That's the great thing about having a pod on top. When something goes wrong, just eject the pod.

I swear i heard that this doesnt work somewhere - i heard that the rocket will blow up far too fast for the escape, and that it was just there to, well, make the pilots feel happy. Well there is a chance i spose lol.

I spose it'd work if they got off before it blew up. But the big fireball is often one of the first warnings.