NASA need 1960's saturns to inspire them..

page: 1
1
<<   2  3  4 >>

log in

join

posted on Aug, 16 2006 @ 09:20 PM
link   
OK this has got to be the stupidest and most defeatist attitude I have ever seen any where ever.

NASA are looking at the saturn rockets, looking at the plans, and actually taking bits off them to study for a new rocket.!!!

Just what the freaking heck have they been up to for the last 50 YEARS!!! ??? Day dreaming?

Heres the link from CNN nesw for you, but its depressing reading it really is.

50 years and they look to the saturn design for inspiration and guidance...


www.cnn.com...

Americans should riot over this at the gates.... 50 years... thats like designing the stealth fighter from a spifires parts and plans because you lack any thing better....




posted on Aug, 16 2006 @ 09:25 PM
link   
It's like designing a 21st century jet, from the pieces and parts of the F-5 tiger. (Better perspective).



posted on Aug, 16 2006 @ 09:29 PM
link   



Source.

If it wasn't for the Kitty Hawk, then we would not have stealth aircraft today. All throughout Human history, we have built upon that which has gone before. How does this differ from the natural progression that any man made object you care to survey has gone through to take it's current form?


[edit on 16/8/06 by Implosion]


jra

posted on Aug, 16 2006 @ 09:39 PM
link   
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.



posted on Aug, 16 2006 @ 09:45 PM
link   
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........



posted on Aug, 16 2006 @ 10:03 PM
link   

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?



posted on Aug, 16 2006 @ 10:09 PM
link   
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?



posted on Aug, 16 2006 @ 10:25 PM
link   

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]



posted on Aug, 16 2006 @ 10:32 PM
link   
IT's not using updated tech.. as in the article, they are going to use ACTUAL components from the museum pieces.



posted on Aug, 16 2006 @ 10:34 PM
link   
No, it doesn't say that at all. Maybe you should reread the article or not take what it's saying out fo context.



posted on Aug, 16 2006 @ 10:37 PM
link   
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!)



posted on Aug, 16 2006 @ 10:42 PM
link   

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?



posted on Aug, 16 2006 @ 10:49 PM
link   
NASA is turning into an embarassment. This is rediculous!


apc

posted on Aug, 16 2006 @ 11:45 PM
link   
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]


jra

posted on Aug, 16 2006 @ 11:59 PM
link   

Originally posted by SteveR
NASA is turning into an embarassment. This is rediculous!


What is rediculous?

Here's the plan for what it will be like. upload.wikimedia.org...

The Ares I is the crew launch rocket and the Ares V is the cargo launcher. It looks nothing like the Saturn, It won't use parts from the Saturn. It's just the style of rocket that's similar. Just like how all comercial aircraft like the 757 and the A330 and all those kinds of planes have the same basic design. How come no ones complaining about that?

None of you have answered my question. What do you think would be better if not this? It's a more cost effective design, since we know it works and they will incorperate some things from the shuttles launch system, like the fuel tank and the SSRBs



posted on Aug, 17 2006 @ 01:31 PM
link   
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.


apc

posted on Aug, 17 2006 @ 03:22 PM
link   
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.



posted on Aug, 17 2006 @ 03:32 PM
link   
We're going to the moon in another pipe





Mod Note: One Line Post – Please Review This Link.

[edit on 8/17/2006 by 12m8keall2c]



posted on Aug, 17 2006 @ 03:46 PM
link   
It worked for ford with the GT40



posted on Aug, 17 2006 @ 06:49 PM
link   

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.





top topics
 
1
<<   2  3  4 >>

log in

join