NP Tues March 17 2020

[ijuin 572]

And we have the space program in the first place because of war--WWII gave us large, long-range missiles, and also gave us a payload that made it worth the enormous cost of the missiles (i.e. nukes). Without that, nobody would have spent billions of dollars on developing rockets in the first place--and the first space launch rockets were derived from nuclear-carrying missiles. (Sputnik was given a precise payload weight that allowed other nations to calculate that any rocket that could put it into the observed orbit could also drop a nuke on Washington D.C. from within the USSR, and furthermore, the current Soyuz rockets till uses a first stage and external boosters descended from the original R-7 missile).

[hkmaly 490]

48 minutes ago, Darth Fluffy said:

Maybe not quite Rule 34 level, but warfare does not lead technology gently by the hand; it shoves it forward into harms way, damn the consequences. Between that and the space program we have our modern tech environment.

The top motivation for progress was always survival - which, in war, meant having better weapons.

The second most important motivation was laziness. There is plenty of people who would spend lot of time working hard on something which allows them to avoid the work they are supposed to do. Usually, it only pays of when the invention gets successful and more people starts using it, but hey, that inventing work was more fun and it didn't looked as SO much work originally ...

11 minutes ago, ijuin said:

And we have the space program in the first place because of war--WWII gave us large, long-range missiles, and also gave us a payload that made it worth the enormous cost of the missiles (i.e. nukes). Without that, nobody would have spent billions of dollars on developing rockets in the first place--and the first space launch rockets were derived from nuclear-carrying missiles. (Sputnik was given a precise payload weight that allowed other nations to calculate that any rocket that could put it into the observed orbit could also drop a nuke on Washington D.C. from within the USSR, and furthermore, the current Soyuz rockets till uses a first stage and external boosters descended from the original R-7 missile).

Note also that both US and USSR build their rocket program based on German V-2 rocket. Which Germans fired in large numbers despite not having the nukes to put as payload. I think that even without nukes, the rocket program would continue under assumption that they will find SOMETHING to put inside.

[ijuin 572]

The V-2 sized rockets were relatively cheap, but the development costs on the Atlas ICBM alone exceeded $8 billion in 1960 dollars--about a hundred billion today. Nobody's going to justify that kind of money just to drop a mere two tonnes of regular explosives onto another nation when we already had B-52s and other large bombers which were much cheaper. And nobody but NOBODY is going to build any 120-tones-to-orbit rockets until the space race is already underway.

[hkmaly 490]

13 minutes ago, ijuin said:

The V-2 sized rockets were relatively cheap, but the development costs on the Atlas ICBM alone exceeded $8 billion in 1960 dollars--about a hundred billion today. Nobody's going to justify that kind of money just to drop a mere two tonnes of regular explosives onto another nation when we already had B-52s and other large bombers which were much cheaper. And nobody but NOBODY is going to build any 120-tones-to-orbit rockets until the space race is already underway.

Regular explosives probably not. However, two tonnes of poison, delivered without any warning due to the rocket being faster than sound, could be worth it. Not speaking about biological warfare. Those B-52 would be hard to get above Moscow without anyone noticing ...

[Darth Fluffy 302]

On 3/20/2020 at 5:17 AM, ijuin said:

The V-2 sized rockets were relatively cheap, but the development costs on the Atlas ICBM alone exceeded $8 billion in 1960 dollars--about a hundred billion today. Nobody's going to justify that kind of money just to drop a mere two tonnes of regular explosives onto another nation when we already had B-52s and other large bombers which were much cheaper. And nobody but NOBODY is going to build any 120-tones-to-orbit rockets until the space race is already underway.

The V-2 is fairly heavily constructed, for a rocket. Modern rockets require a structure to hold them up until full, even then the gantry is only removed in the last seconds. I think everyone's designs are similar. The Shuttle was different, in that it had to support itself as an air frame during re-entry.

[Pharaoh RutinTutin 1,586]

18 minutes ago, Darth Fluffy said:

Modern rockets require a structure to hold them up until full, even then the gantry is only removed in the last seconds.

American rockets are traditionally assembled vertically and then balanced precariously on one of the world's largest, most powerful, and slowest moving vehicles that hauls the rocket a few miles from the Vehicle Assembly Building to the launch pad
Russian rockets, if I remember correctly, are assembled horizontally, hauled to the launch pad with an ordinary locomotive, and then pushed up to launch position by a hydraulic press that doubles as part of the pre-launch stabilizing structure

24 minutes ago, Darth Fluffy said:

The Shuttle was different, in that it had to support itself as an air frame during re-entry

The air frame was ordinary aluminum as used in any other jet aircraft
ANY failure of the heat resistant tiles was a disaster because aluminum can not withstand re-entry temperatures

[hkmaly 490]

10 hours ago, Pharaoh RutinTutin said:

11 hours ago, Darth Fluffy said:

Modern rockets require a structure to hold them up until full, even then the gantry is only removed in the last seconds.

American rockets are traditionally assembled vertically and then balanced precariously on one of the world's largest, most powerful, and slowest moving vehicles that hauls the rocket a few miles from the Vehicle Assembly Building to the launch pad
Russian rockets, if I remember correctly, are assembled horizontally, hauled to the launch pad with an ordinary locomotive, and then pushed up to launch position by a hydraulic press that doubles as part of the pre-launch stabilizing structure

Russian rockets are build to withstand it.

[Darth Fluffy 302]

10 hours ago, Pharaoh RutinTutin said:

American rockets are traditionally assembled vertically and then balanced precariously on one of the world's largest, most powerful, and slowest moving vehicles that hauls the rocket a few miles from the Vehicle Assembly Building to the launch pad
Russian rockets, if I remember correctly, are assembled horizontally, hauled to the launch pad with an ordinary locomotive, and then pushed up to launch position by a hydraulic press that doubles as part of the pre-launch stabilizing structure

We have different types; the Minuteman is basically a very big skyrocket firework. It's smallish so that it can be easily transported. The crawler was for the Saturn, for the moon shot. There may well have been an equivalent for the earlier shots. The crawler is weird, as is the whole setting. It is enormous, like small fleet of bulldozers coupled together, but I've seen it up close, and it doesn't look big. You mind can't get a handle on it. Even worse it the freaking Vehicle Assembly Building. It's so freaking big, there's nothing around for your head to compare it to. Put it this way, as you approach, about an hour out, you'll see a yard shed, standing alone. It will slowly grow in your vision as you drive towards it, but there's nothing around it. When you get pretty close, you'll notice a dusting of toy cars and trees and such around it's base. In maybe ten minutes, you are pulling in and parking with them, and this huge building is looming over you.

The crawler was still intact in the late 80s, as was the building, but some parts of the Saturn infrastructure were discarded, burning their bridges to ensure the Shuttle went forward.

 

The air frame was ordinary aluminum as used in any other jet aircraft
ANY failure of the heat resistant tiles was a disaster because aluminum can not withstand re-entry temperatures

Aluminum is a questionable material to use for several reasons, although it is widely used. Titanium has an elastic limit, like iron and steel, and can withstand a bit of deformation. It's light as well, though I think aluminum may be lighter. Aluminum has no elastic limit, and develops growing fractures every time it is stressed; a really bad choice for an airplane. That's why they have to be constantly inspected and are often grounded for fractures.

The C-5 fleet was having issues within a couple of decades. OTOH, the Buff and the Russian bomber are both geriatric, roughly 60 years old, so it can work.

If you really want light, I believe magnesium has been used in a few aircraft. All the risks of aluminum, plus a spectacularly bright burning.

I like the idea of the shuttle, but the reality didn't live up to the expectations. Maybe that's why no one else pursued it.

 

 

 

[ijuin 572]

5 hours ago, hkmaly said:

Russian rockets are build to withstand it.

Which means more weight devoted to the rocket's structure, and thus a corresponding reduction in payload capacity. This is why the N-1 moon rocket had about 20% less payload capacity than the Saturn V despite a higher launch mass.

[ChronosCat 155]

On 3/21/2020 at 10:56 PM, Darth Fluffy said:

I like the idea of the shuttle, but the reality didn't live up to the expectations. Maybe that's why no one else pursued it.

The Soviet Union had a shuttle program too. However, development was years behind the US, and the project was suspended for budgetary reasons and eventually cancelled before they could do any manned space flights. (They built a workable shuttle and got one unmanned space test flight in, though.)

[Darth Fluffy 302]

12 minutes ago, ChronosCat said:

The Soviet Union had a shuttle program too. However, development was years behind the US, and the project was suspended for budgetary reasons and eventually cancelled before they could do any manned space flights. (They built a workable shuttle and got one unmanned space test flight in, though.)

Right, Buran. I did not know Buran had actually been built. The article lists five space planes that have achieved actual flight.

Buran was larger than the Shuttle. Someone, Japan or the EU, maybe both, had plans for one smaller than the shuttle.

A much earlier unsuccessful program was Dynasoar.

[hkmaly 490]

On 3/23/2020 at 3:42 PM, ChronosCat said:

The Soviet Union had a shuttle program too. However, development was years behind the US, and the project was suspended for budgetary reasons and eventually cancelled before they could do any manned space flights. (They built a workable shuttle and got one unmanned space test flight in, though.)

Well, it was Soviet Union shuttle program. Despite the linked article claiming it was canceled, I would suspect what actually happened was that after collapse of Soviet Union it never actually turned into Russia shuttle program ...