Russia to approve new Moon rocket

On Thu, 19 Mar 2009 22:19:56 -0700 (PDT), BradGuth
wrote:


Why not use the 100% reliable and 30% inert massive Saturn 5
configuration?

Why reinvent the wheel?

Even if the plans were available (I think NASA says they are, other
documentaries say they aren't), I doubt that some 30 years later that
any of the tooling, materials, electronics, et al are still in
existance to build another Saturn V even if they did want to.

From what I understand, that's why they're designing and building a
completely new one (Ares) for Moon, Mars, and Beyond:

http://www.nasa.gov/mission_pages/co...res/index.html

Could be wrong though.

Saturn V must have been incredible to see launch though. I've only
seen the display at Kennedy Space Center... massive......

In article ,
Just go look it up! wrote:

On Thu, 19 Mar 2009 22:19:56 -0700 (PDT), BradGuth
wrote:


Why not use the 100% reliable and 30% inert massive Saturn 5
configuration?

Why reinvent the wheel?

Even if the plans were available (I think NASA says they are, other
documentaries say they aren't), I doubt that some 30 years later that
any of the tooling, materials, electronics, et al are still in
existance to build another Saturn V even if they did want to.

From what I understand, that's why they're designing and building a
completely new one (Ares) for Moon, Mars, and Beyond:

http://www.nasa.gov/mission_pages/co...res/index.html

Could be wrong though.

Saturn V must have been incredible to see launch though. I've only
seen the display at Kennedy Space Center... massive......

The plans still exist, on microfilm.

Many of the suppliers no longer exist, though. Of those that do, very
few if any are still manufacturing the parts that you'd find on the SV
plans. Also, much of the institutional knowledge that was assumed
context for the plans has disappeared in the intervening time.

It could be rebuilt, given time and money. It's faster and cheaper to
build a new one, and as a bonus, the result of that effort will use
modern materials and electronics instead of being aluminum everything
and using computers that need to be installed with a crane.

--
Mike Ash
Radio Free Earth
Broadcasting from our climate-controlled studios deep inside the Moon

"Mike Ash" wrote in message
...
In article ,
Just go look it up! wrote:

On Thu, 19 Mar 2009 22:19:56 -0700 (PDT), BradGuth
wrote:


Why not use the 100% reliable and 30% inert massive Saturn 5
configuration?

Why reinvent the wheel?

Even if the plans were available (I think NASA says they are, other
documentaries say they aren't), I doubt that some 30 years later that
any of the tooling, materials, electronics, et al are still in
existance to build another Saturn V even if they did want to.

From what I understand, that's why they're designing and building a
completely new one (Ares) for Moon, Mars, and Beyond:

http://www.nasa.gov/mission_pages/co...res/index.html

Could be wrong though.

Saturn V must have been incredible to see launch though. I've only
seen the display at Kennedy Space Center... massive......

The plans still exist, on microfilm.

Many of the suppliers no longer exist, though. Of those that do, very
few if any are still manufacturing the parts that you'd find on the SV
plans. Also, much of the institutional knowledge that was assumed
context for the plans has disappeared in the intervening time.

It could be rebuilt, given time and money. It's faster and cheaper to
build a new one, and as a bonus, the result of that effort will use
modern materials and electronics instead of being aluminum everything
and using computers that need to be installed with a crane.

The Wright "Flyer" didn't have computers.
http://www.rc-airplane-world.com/ima...washington.jpg

"Androcles" wrote in message
...



It could be rebuilt, given time and money. It's faster and cheaper to
build a new one, and as a bonus, the result of that effort will use
modern materials and electronics instead of being aluminum everything
and using computers that need to be installed with a crane.

The Wright "Flyer" didn't have computers.

http://www.rc-airplane-world.com/ima...washington.jpg


It was also a very inferior flying machine compared to those built today.

Keith

"Keith Willshaw" wrote in message
...

"Androcles" wrote in message
...




Spamming lied and said I wrote:
It could be rebuilt, given time and money. It's faster and cheaper to
build a new one, and as a bonus, the result of that effort will use
modern materials and electronics instead of being aluminum everything
and using computers that need to be installed with a crane.


I wrote this:
The Wright "Flyer" didn't have computers.

http://www.rc-airplane-world.com/ima...washington.jpg


Mike Ash did not write:
It was also a very inferior flying machine compared to those built today.


No good reason to rebuild it, then, even if the plans are on microfiche.

What would be good is if ignorant, lying, spamming *******s like

left the correct attributions alone instead of snipping them and making
it appear to other readers as if they were as stupid as the moron
.

"Androcles" wrote in message
...

"Keith Willshaw" wrote in message
...

"Androcles" wrote in message
...




Spamming lied and said I wrote:
It could be rebuilt, given time and money. It's faster and cheaper to
build a new one, and as a bonus, the result of that effort will use
modern materials and electronics instead of being aluminum everything
and using computers that need to be installed with a crane.


I wrote this:
The Wright "Flyer" didn't have computers.

I know you may wish to learn to understand what indented quotes mean
and come to understand the word 'spamming'




http://www.rc-airplane-world.com/ima...washington.jpg


Mike Ash did not write:
It was also a very inferior flying machine compared to those built today.


No Keith Willshaw wrote that




No good reason to rebuild it, then, even if the plans are on microfiche.

What would be good is if ignorant, lying, spamming *******s like

left the correct attributions alone instead of snipping them and making
it appear to other readers as if they were as stupid as the moron
.


When people resort to Ad Hominem attacks it reflects badly on themselves
especially when they use words they dont understand

Quote
Spam
Unsolicited e-mail, often of a commercial nature, sent indiscriminately to
multiple mailing lists, individuals, or newsgroups; junk e-mail.
/Quote

Keith

In article ,
"Keith Willshaw" wrote:

"Androcles" wrote in message
...

"Keith Willshaw" wrote in message
...

"Androcles" wrote in message
...




Spamming lied and said I wrote:
It could be rebuilt, given time and money. It's faster and cheaper to
build a new one, and as a bonus, the result of that effort will use
modern materials and electronics instead of being aluminum everything
and using computers that need to be installed with a crane.


I wrote this:
The Wright "Flyer" didn't have computers.

I know you may wish to learn to understand what indented quotes mean
and come to understand the word 'spamming'

Just FYI, if you didn't already know, Androcles is a notorious troll in
certain groups (I'm guessing he's posting "from" sci.astro) and has a
particularly bizarre obsession with quoting and suchalike. Best to just
leave him be if you ask me.

--
Mike Ash
Radio Free Earth
Broadcasting from our climate-controlled studios deep inside the Moon

"Keith Willshaw" wrote in message
...

"Androcles" wrote in message
...

"Keith Willshaw" wrote in message
...

"Androcles" wrote in message
...




Spamming lied and said I wrote:
It could be rebuilt, given time and money. It's faster and cheaper to
build a new one, and as a bonus, the result of that effort will use
modern materials and electronics instead of being aluminum everything
and using computers that need to be installed with a crane.


I wrote this:
The Wright "Flyer" didn't have computers.

I know you may wish to learn to understand what indented quotes mean
and come to understand the word 'spamming'




http://www.rc-airplane-world.com/ima...washington.jpg


Mike Ash did not write:
It was also a very inferior flying machine compared to those built
today.


No Keith Willshaw wrote that

What do mean, "No"?

I said Mick Ash did NOT write that, you stupid *******.

So :
Yes, Mike Ash did not write:
It was also a very inferior flying machine compared to those built today.


You can't read, can you?
Why don't you just **** off, you are clearly an imbecile.

*plonk*

Do not reply to this generic message, it was automatically generated;
you have been kill-filed, either for being boringly stupid, repetitive,
unfunny, ineducable, repeatedly posting politics, religion or off-topic
subjects to a sci. newsgroup, attempting free advertising or because
you are a troll; any reply will go unread.

Boringly stupid is the most common cause of kill-filing, but because
this message is generic the other reasons have been included. You are
left to decide which is most applicable to you.

There is no appeal, I have despotic power over whom I will electronically
admit into my home and you do not qualify as a reasonable person I would
wish to converse with or even poke fun at.

This should not trouble you, many of those plonked find it a blessing
that they are not required to think and can persist in their bigotry
or crackpot theories without challenge.

You have the right to free speech, I have the right not to listen. The
kill-file will be cleared annually with spring cleaning or whenever I
purchase a new computer or hard drive.

I hope you find this explanation is satisfactory but even if you don't,
damnly my frank, I don't give a dear. Have a nice day.

Mike Ash wrote:
In article ,
Just go look it up! wrote:

On Thu, 19 Mar 2009 22:19:56 -0700 (PDT), BradGuth
wrote:


Why not use the 100% reliable and 30% inert massive Saturn 5
configuration?

Why reinvent the wheel?
Even if the plans were available (I think NASA says they are, other
documentaries say they aren't), I doubt that some 30 years later that
any of the tooling, materials, electronics, et al are still in
existance to build another Saturn V even if they did want to.
[snip]

The plans still exist, on microfilm.

Which plans? For the rocket itself or for the thousands of test jigs needed to
build it?

Many of the suppliers no longer exist, though. Of those that do, very
few if any are still manufacturing the parts that you'd find on the SV
plans. Also, much of the institutional knowledge that was assumed
context for the plans has disappeared in the intervening time.

It could be rebuilt, given time and money. It's faster and cheaper to
build a new one, and as a bonus, the result of that effort will use
modern materials and electronics instead of being aluminum everything
and using computers that need to be installed with a crane.

Mike Ash wrote in
news:mike-C5831A.22355920032009@reserved-multicast-range-NOT-
delegated.ex
ample.com:

In article ,
Just go look it up! wrote:

On Thu, 19 Mar 2009 22:19:56 -0700 (PDT), BradGuth
wrote:


Why not use the 100% reliable and 30% inert massive Saturn 5
configuration?

Why reinvent the wheel?

Even if the plans were available (I think NASA says they are, other
documentaries say they aren't), I doubt that some 30 years later that
any of the tooling, materials, electronics, et al are still in
existance to build another Saturn V even if they did want to.

From what I understand, that's why they're designing and building a
completely new one (Ares) for Moon, Mars, and Beyond:

http://www.nasa.gov/mission_pages/co...res/index.html

Could be wrong though.

Saturn V must have been incredible to see launch though. I've only
seen the display at Kennedy Space Center... massive......

The plans still exist, on microfilm.

Many of the suppliers no longer exist, though. Of those that do, very
few if any are still manufacturing the parts that you'd find on the SV
plans. Also, much of the institutional knowledge that was assumed
context for the plans has disappeared in the intervening time.

It could be rebuilt, given time and money. It's faster and cheaper to
build a new one, and as a bonus, the result of that effort will use
modern materials and electronics instead of being aluminum everything
and using computers that need to be installed with a crane.

Also centrally important is the different sizes of the payloads. The
Saturn carried both crew, lander and return vehicle. The Ares I will
carry crew only, and the Ares V will carry the much larger lander and I
believe the return vehicle. The Ares I is thus smaller, the Ares V
larger, and if we reused the Saturn, we'd have the worst of both
possible worlds.

I do believe that they tipped their hats in tribute to the grand old
heavy lifter from the sixties, by giving the Ares heavy lifter the
number V.

Also, I think we should have a rescue plan, in case those guys get stuck
up there. Otherwise, the day will quite likely come when we relive the
depressing experiences of the Columbia and the Apollo 13.