|
|
Post by Jason Thompson on Dec 14, 2011 4:13:07 GMT -4
Therefore the capacity of 27 tons (by Pokrovsky) to moon is definitely the uppermost figure possible for Saturn V. Then you, like Mclellan, need to square that statement with the observed performance of the Saturn V on liftoff. Can you? |
|
|
|
Post by Tsialkovsky on Dec 14, 2011 7:55:01 GMT -4
The announced weight of Skylab is one of those anomalies that made me be sure about the Saturn capacity problem. If you calculate the weight of Skylab by comparing it with other similar stations (Salyut, Spacelab, ISS, MIR) or by considering the dimensions and estimating from cross sections how much there is metal etc you will end up to 30 tons. For example the weight of air lock was mentioned to be 22 tons which means that the module which is like a tube should be half filled by solid aluminium. The main body was 8 ton tank plus the interiors - and from photographs you can see that more than 80 % it was empty - Skylab was poorly planned and it was urgently sent without major interiors and equipment. I made this calculation and the result was the total of 30 tons for the whole Skylab. The biggest space station module ever lifted up have been 20 ton by Russians and Space Shuttle lifted less than 15 tons. Why NASA lied about Skylab weight - because they wanted to proof tha Saturn V was powerful ... which was not true.
Bob - what exactly you would like me to show ... I have very much materials.
Everybody knows that it is difficult to say afterwards what was the capacity of Saturn V. But we know for sure that the F-1 engine was very old fashioned compared with the 2 or 4 chamber engines. And we don't know what was the payload. I trust 99% the Russian spy organizations which measured the capacity. And we know how difficult it is for the modern rocket engineers to develop rockets able to lift >50 tons to low earth orbit. Falcon X Heavy are dreaming to achieve in the future the capacity of 53 tons with a gigantic engine systems.
Soviets never believed that a moon mission could be done by single rocket launch but with 2-3 separate rockets. They also estimated that more than 60 tons load is needed.
|
|
|
|
Post by Jason Thompson on Dec 14, 2011 8:11:16 GMT -4
The main body was 8 ton tank Sorry, what? The Skylab main body was a modified S-IVB rocket stage. Where is your source for claiming that it weighed only 8 tons? |
|
|
|
Post by Tsialkovsky on Dec 14, 2011 8:20:20 GMT -4
The main body was really S-IVB module - its empty weight was 9,559 kg but the J-2 engine with its controls were removed - here comes the weight of 8,000 kg for the Skylab body.
|
|
|
|
Post by echnaton on Dec 14, 2011 8:25:29 GMT -4
what exactly you would like me to show ... I have very much materials. Why don't you start with a clear and compelling narrative that ties together all the evidence, One that addresses your supposed discrepancies in the widely accepted history, demonstrates why they are wrong and proposed a better hypothesis? Your personal trust of some unattributed Russian spy reports is not even a a bare minimum for you to be taken seriously. You do want to be taken seriously, don't you? |
|
|
|
Post by Jason Thompson on Dec 14, 2011 8:33:04 GMT -4
The main body was really S-IVB module - its empty weight was 9,559 kg but the J-2 engine with its controls were removed - here comes the weight of 8,000 kg for the Skylab body. What is your source for that? Every source I have seen says the S-IVB had an empty mass of just over 13,000 kg. The J-2 engine was removed, but a docking/airlock module was added, as was entire solar telescope, several solar panels, and all the interior equipment and consumables. |
|
|
|
Post by Jason Thompson on Dec 14, 2011 8:35:28 GMT -4
Soviets never believed that a moon mission could be done by single rocket launch but with 2-3 separate rockets. Oh really? Then would you care to explain the planned use of the N-1 rocket to launch a Soyuz and a LOK lander, or the planned but never built UR-700 rocket? |
|
|
|
Post by Jason Thompson on Dec 14, 2011 8:35:45 GMT -4
And by the way, editing your posts to add more to them after the event is bad form.
|
|
Bob B.
Bob the Excel Guru?
Posts: 3,072
|
Post by Bob B. on Dec 14, 2011 9:28:47 GMT -4
Bob - what exactly you would like me to show ... I have very much materials. I want evidence, not unsubstantiated claims. |
|
Bob B.
Bob the Excel Guru?
Posts: 3,072
|
Post by Bob B. on Dec 14, 2011 9:50:26 GMT -4
But we know for sure that the F-1 engine was very old fashioned compared with the 2 or 4 chamber engines. Hogwash. Multi-chambers is by no means a sign of superior technology. It's just a different approach to the problem. The Soviets went the multi-chamber route because it was a smaller technological leap from previous less powerful engines. It was easier just to cluster several small chambers together and run them off common turbo-machinery than it was to make the leap to a single large chamber engine like the F-1. The difficulty in clustering a large number of small chambers and getting them all to work properly was one of the major factors leading to the failure of the N-1 rocket. If it is your claim that the F-1 was "old fashioned", I would have thought a discussion of its power cycle would have been a bit more creditable, but you didn't make that argument. The Soviets were dabbling with staged combustion at the time, which is a more advanced technology than the F-1's open cycle, but that has nothing to do with the number of chambers. edit spelling |
|
|
|
Post by Tsialkovsky on Dec 14, 2011 12:11:22 GMT -4
Americans really want to tell that there was a competition to the moon between USA and SU - and USA won. US media has done everything to find smallest pieces of Soviet moon interests. Unfortunately this is not true. N-1 was a natural continuation to develop bigger and bigger rockets mostly for construction of space stations - it was not a moon rocket. And Soviet engineers met the same probles as the US ... there is a physical limit with rocket size. N-1 failed and so did F-1, which was only little better than S-1B and definitely not capable of sending 47 tons with Saturn V to the trans lunar orbit (probably not even to LEO).
Soviet engineers, of course, studied very much possibilities to send manned space ships to any place. An Ukrainian side office even developed and tested moon lander and one idea was to send cosmonauts to go round the moon by Soyuz. But manned moon mission never was a priority in SU Glavcosmos. As anybody can see, the very successful robotic Luna program was the key interest. Moon travel was investigated - it was calculated that at least 60-70 ton payload is needed, heavy moon lander is difficult, radiation will be a major problem and docking in moon orbit without any ground services would be an obstackle.
This is the biggest rocket in the world so far - Energia (payload to LEO 200 ton):
Energia was able to put into geostationary orbit loads going up to 18 t, for a trajectory towards the Moon 32 t, and for Mars or Venus 28 t. Other projects envisaged the use of Energia to send loads from 5 to 6 t towards the Sun or Jupiter. So even this is very far from the necessary capacity to manned moon mission.
PS - Skylab empty body weight was taken from Wikipedia.
|
|
|
|
Post by tedward on Dec 14, 2011 12:18:08 GMT -4
Revisionism in action.
|
|
Bob B.
Bob the Excel Guru?
Posts: 3,072
|
Post by Bob B. on Dec 14, 2011 12:33:24 GMT -4
So, Tsialkovsky, when are you going to start providing some real evidence rather than just making stuff up?
|
|
|
|
Post by gwiz on Dec 14, 2011 12:50:13 GMT -4
Americans really want to tell that there was a competition to the moon between USA and SU - and USA won. US media has done everything to find smallest pieces of Soviet moon interests. Unfortunately this is not true. N-1 was a natural continuation to develop bigger and bigger rockets mostly for construction of space stations - it was not a moon rocket. It's depressing to compare such ignorance with the achievements of Boris Chertok, who died yesterday at the age of 99. He was at the core of the Soviet space program for decades, Sputnik, Vostok, Soyuz and their manned lunar programme. |
|
|
|
Post by Tsialkovsky on Dec 14, 2011 13:04:22 GMT -4
I know much about Soviet/Russian views - where to start? After the latest Russian revolultion many experts have started to publish materials that were secret for long time - some are speaking what foreigners want them to say (as they are looking for job abroad) and some speak about real facts. I am not looking for job and I am not a Russian citizen. Maybe Popov is good to start with (just general views about e.g. Apollo): manonmoon.ru/manonmoon.ru/book/22.htmmanonmoon.ru/book/0.htm |
|
