|
Post by JayUtah on Jan 25, 2008 23:32:56 GMT -4
...but the blueprints must have survived somehow or somewhere...
They did, generally, but that doesn't mean you can just start up building it again. The design specifies 30-year-old parts that don't exist anymore. It calls for techniques invented specially for the Saturn V that aren't familiar to today's workers.
You need much more than blueprints to build a rocket. Building aerospace stuff is not at all like building a car or a house.
The design work and machining has already been paid for...
...and no longer exists. Tooling is ephemeral and constitutes the major expense of manufacturing. That's why it's such a big deal when a major aerospace design officially goes out of production. It means effectively that you can't ever build any more of them without substantial reinvestment. Saturn V tooling would have to be reinvented and modernized for uprated designs. But the tooling still exists for the STS SRM and ET, so that will be used.
|
|
|
Post by Bing Gordon on Jan 25, 2008 23:37:33 GMT -4
Good points one and all folks, I must bow to your superior knowledge.I am probably still clinging hard to a childhood dream of witnessing a Saturn launch too hard.....
|
|
|
Post by JayUtah on Jan 25, 2008 23:39:28 GMT -4
Wasn't the success of the Saturn V due mainly to the F1 rocket?
In large part, yes. But an equally important step was the operational use of LOX/LH2 propellant in the upper stages, which was fairly unprecedented. That gave the whole vehicle sufficient specific impulse to get its payload to the Moon.
Solid fuels have lower specific impulses, but much higher thrust densities. That means a smaller casing can contain overall more thrust capacity. That's how the comparatively small shuttle SRBs manage to have such a pronounced effect.
|
|
|
Post by Czero 101 on Jan 25, 2008 23:42:21 GMT -4
Good points one and all folks, I must bow to your superior knowledge.I am probably still clinging hard to a childhood dream of witnessing a Saturn launch too hard..... There's absolutely nothing wrong with that. I would give almost anything to be able to witness first hand a Saturn V liftoff.... Cz
|
|
|
Post by JayUtah on Jan 26, 2008 0:07:24 GMT -4
I must bow to your superior knowledge.
Well don't feel too beat upon. It just happens to be the industry I work in, so I'd better know something about it!
I am probably still clinging hard to a childhood dream of witnessing a Saturn launch too hard.....
No dishonor in that. I never saw one in person either. Saw 'em on the tube, though.
|
|
|
Post by PhantomWolf on Jan 27, 2008 16:34:05 GMT -4
While pointing out that I have no rocket building experience, but instead of using bigger boosters, why not just use more of the ones they have now?
Would it be possible to have them set off as a chained event, so use one pair to launch and a second pair as a second stage, firing just before the first two seperate?
|
|
|
Post by Obviousman on Jan 28, 2008 5:37:50 GMT -4
North American became North American Rockwell, then Rockwell International, then got sold to Boeing.
|
|
Bob B.
Bob the Excel Guru?
Posts: 3,072
|
Post by Bob B. on Jan 28, 2008 10:07:41 GMT -4
North American became North American Rockwell, then Rockwell International, then got sold to Boeing. Yep, companies are always being bought, sold, and merged with others. It gets confusing trying to keep track of it all. A few months ago I tried to track down the history of all the big-name aviation companies of the last century. As best as I can tell, they've all merged into three current companies, as follows: Northrup Grumman * Northrup * Grumman Boeing * Boeing * Hughes * McDonnell * Douglas * North American Lockheed Martin * Lockheed * Martin Some of the mergers that happened along the way to the current lineup where, * McDonnell Douglas * North American Rockwell * Rockwell International * Martin-Marietta
|
|
|
Post by echnaton on Jan 28, 2008 12:16:06 GMT -4
My favorite multi name aerospace company was Morton-Thiokol. They simultaneously produced table salt, automotive wax and solid fuel rockets.
|
|
|
Post by PhantomWolf on Jan 28, 2008 20:01:37 GMT -4
Well with Ted Kennedy throwing his support behind Obama I fear we can kiss Constellation goodbye, unless all you Americans start a letter writting campaign and change his mind on Space by cutting the defence budget instead of NASA's.
|
|
Bob B.
Bob the Excel Guru?
Posts: 3,072
|
Post by Bob B. on Jan 28, 2008 21:00:49 GMT -4
Well with Ted Kennedy throwing his support behind Obama I fear we can kiss Constellation goodbye, unless all you Americans start a letter writting campaign and change his mind on Space by cutting the defence budget instead of NASA's. It way too early to start that kind of talk. The guy hasn't even won the nomination yet, much less the presidency.
|
|
|
Post by echnaton on Jan 29, 2008 10:43:33 GMT -4
Just remember how many people in three of the largest states (Texas, Florida and California) are employed by the manned space program. Between NASA and the contractors, it is a huge Federal jobs program. The Congressional delegations from those states don't want those jobs to go away. The aerospace industry doesn't want those jobs to go away. Even if he wins, Obama probably won't have the clout to eliminate the program. Congress is very conservative when it comes to holding on to preexisting programs. A President could slow the program by undermining the budget, but the program is likely to survive to the next administration and even the one after that. After all we wouldn't want to see Jay out of work.
|
|
Jason
Pluto
May all your hits be crits
Posts: 5,579
|
Post by Jason on Jan 29, 2008 12:15:11 GMT -4
It's pretty certain there will be some sort of manned space program, under whatever president, even if Mr. Obama becomes President and runs the economy into the ground with his wealth redistribution plans there will still be something going on.
|
|
|
Post by Hypersonic on Jan 29, 2008 14:49:22 GMT -4
Some good news on the Ares I: Aviation WeekThe problems are not as bad as feared, and should be manageable. As usual, Jay is right [Edited by LunarOrbit to fix the link]
|
|
reynoldbot
Jupiter
A paper-white mask of evil.
Posts: 790
|
Post by reynoldbot on Jan 29, 2008 17:24:34 GMT -4
My favorite multi name aerospace company was Morton-Thiokol. They simultaneously produced table salt, automotive wax and solid fuel rockets. Morton-Thiokol leaves a bad taste in my mouth considering their management decisions leading up to the Challenger disaster, which as it happens occured exactly 22 years ago yesterday. Of course, judging a whole company over one event over 20 years ago is a bit foolish, but it would be easier to forgive if NASA had learned its lesson. The Columbia disaster showed us that NASA fell right back into that same mindset as soon as Challenger became yesterday's news. In fact, at both events management quelched the engineers' concerns by asking them to prove the mission was unsafe rather than the other way around.
|
|