Re: Saturn V
- From: dg411@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx (Andre Lieven)
- Date: 17 May 2006 22:16:04 GMT
"Jeff Findley" (jeff.findley@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx) writes:
"Andre Lieven" <dg411@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote in message
news:e4fupj$pbs$1@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
Plus, that a lot of the relevent technology has so moved on, that trying
to rebuild a Saturn V would be impossible now.
You'd have to redesign a lot of the electronics, which means a lot of
sections and shapes will change. The IM won't need to be quite so
massive, for instance.
Plus, no matter how you slice it, it would still be an expensive
rocket. Eleven throw away large engines...
Just redesign the engines to be cheaper to mass produce using today's
technology. ;-)
Could be hard, if there have been non trivial changes in materials...
Seriously though, NASA has a tendency to change things to make them
"better" even though they're selling the design as based on such and
such operational system.
" I know engineers, they just love to change things ! " Dr. McCoy,
Star Trek The Motion Picture.
This appears to be the direction that the CLV and CaLV designs are
taking with respect to "shuttle derived" hardware.
Well, its a fair question to ask them just how much shuttle specific
hardware can be switched to a very different sort of launcher, where,
for example, a large part doesn't come back with all the reusable
liquid fuelled engines... ?
It'd be nice if some of the old Saturn V tech could be modernised for
use, without meaning Shuttle priced costs. 1.5 million pound engines
could be useful.
Andre
.
- Follow-Ups:
- Re: Saturn V
- From: Brian Thorn
- Re: Saturn V
- References:
- Saturn V
- From: BlagooBlanaa
- Re: Saturn V
- From: Jeff Findley
- Saturn V
- Prev by Date: Re: Scrapping of Saturn-V
- Next by Date: Re: Scrapping of Saturn-V
- Previous by thread: Re: Saturn V
- Next by thread: Re: Saturn V
- Index(es):
Relevant Pages
|
