[1.0.5] FASA 5.44

[Cdodders]

I know that the Saturn I and IB first stages used clustered tanks, which were directly descended from the V2. But how is the Saturn V descended from the V2? I'd like to know.

Designed by the same guy that designed the V-2, Redstone, Jupiter and Saturn series. Saturn V craft is essentially an evolved Saturn 1, which is an evolved Jupiter, which is an evolved Redstone, which is an evolved V-2

[NathanKell]

I shouldn't clog up the thread further, but Saturn V is *not* an evolved Saturn I. Saturn I (originally C-1) was a cluster of Redstone tanks around a single Jupiter tank, and was an interim heavy LV bunged together by ABMA out of spare parts (quite literally). The original upper stage was to be "a complete Titan I." What you're talking about is that Saturn V was developed from the Saturn C-5, which was one of a suite of Saturns designed around the F-1. While it was designed by the ABMA team, and certainly used experience from the V-2, it was not directly derived from the V-2 in the way that Redstone (and thus Saturn I) was.

[GoldForest]

Just going to put this pic I found out there of a Jupiter III

My god, look at that thing. It's HUGE.

Hey Frizzank, you said you like to do the concept crafts as well as real ones right?

Can we possibly get THAT in the mod? Or as a separate mod?

Lol Just kidding, but my god, imagine what we could do with that thing?

SHHHH! Don't tell Jeb!

[ethan829]

My god, look at that thing. It's HUGE.

Hey Frizzank, you said you like to do the concept crafts as well as real ones right?

Can we possibly get THAT in the mod? Or as a separate mod?

Lol Just kidding, but my god, imagine what we could do with that thing?

SHHHH! Don't tell Jeb!

It's not even a real concept

http://jamesmargerum.deviantart.com/art/Moon-Rocket-Jupiter-Class-315090176

[Reddragon]

For Jupiter I always think about the SDLV one: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Jupiter_%28rocket_family%29

[GoldForest]

It's not even a real concept

http://jamesmargerum.deviantart.com/art/Moon-Rocket-Jupiter-Class-315090176

I know. I was just putting it out there. I meant to put fictional craft as well, but forgot to put it in the sentence lol

[BioHaZarD.PT]

Reddragon: Mark Wade (of Astronautix) has about 99 bones to pick with NASA; I'd take everything he writes with a (decently-sized) grain of salt. For example it's far from clear that solid-boosted hydrolox is all that great of a thing, let alone that a lifting body RV is useful (if you don't need crossrange, wings are worth less than nothing). SLS would have been better than STS, but then again almost anything would have been.

While solid-boosted hydrolox is cheaper than kerolox-boosted hydrolox (that's why NASA scaled back from liquid to solid boosters for STS), what's expensive here is the hydrolox part. A pure kerolox LV is actually cheaper, IIRC, and certainly less dangerous for crewed missions. Solids and crew are a bad mix.

I share the sentiment about wings. Unless you need them for crossrange or to recover expensive launch engines (Space Shuttle style), wings are nothing but dead weight that you need to carry back and forth. Plus they increase the surface area requiring heatshielding which adds even more weight and caused a lot of problems in the Space Shuttle. Capsules seem to be the way to go for now, and they can also be reusable even if they land on water.

Strangely NASA seems to trust SRBs a lot. In the canceled Ares I the whole first stage was a large SRB (which produced too much vibrations for crew... hence the cancellation). Now, I never heard of a SRB exploding, but they can't be throttled or shut down in case of trouble either. So why does NASA love SRBs so much? Is it perhaps because it's cheaper to make very powerful boosters with solid fuel? Kerolox is cheap but engines like the F-1 are very expensive. Or is it because of Space Shuttle legacy?

[okan170]

Cheaper to develop. At the time they were approved, NASA was under a huge budget crunch on the Shuttle. Originally the boosters were to be Kerolox and recoverable/reusable. This was expensive as heck to develop and congress balked at the bill. Thus the ATK Reusable Solid Rocket Booster, which is partially based on their expertise on building large segmented SRBs for the Titan motors.

Thing is, over time, the SRBs are far costlier to procure and operate, and it was one of those cases where budget and time conspired to leave the Shuttle with a more expensive operational life in order to save on its very development.

[NathanKell]

Also, SRBs explode all the time. Challenger, most infamously, but there have been a fair few Titan UA120x and USRM explosions IIRC.

Ares I was about reusing STS hardware (although in fact they ended up not reusing hardware, it was all new-build "derived" hardware unlike DIRECT/Jupiter....)

[GoldForest]

Also, SRBs explode all the time. Challenger, most infamously, but there have been a fair few Titan UA120x and USRM explosions IIRC.

Ares I was about reusing STS hardware (although in fact they ended up not reusing hardware, it was all new-build "derived" hardware unlike DIRECT/Jupiter....)

The Shuttle SRBs didn't explode all the time. They only exploded once and that was because of cold weather and NASA going with a different company than they usually went with. The two companies made their SRBs differently. I'm not going to go indepth about this, but point is the Shuttle SRBs have been launched what? Over 200 times? And only one of them have exploded? (Only one of the challengers SRBs was faulty, the other one exploded because of the other explosions) One explosion vs 200+ safe launches? The numbers are looking good.

They have been claimed to be the safest SRBs and were proposed to be used on Liberty along with another safe launch system. The Ariane 5 first stage I believe?

Point is, the shuttle SRBs are as safe as a butter knife.

[BioHaZarD.PT]

NASA has a chance to change course in the Space Launch System. Block 1 will use SRBs, but for the Block 2 (the true heavy lifter) there's a booster competition closing in 2015. Candidates are an Advanced SRB and 2 liquid boosters, one with two F-1B's (cheaper more powerful F-1) and the other with a US made version of the Russian NK-33 (of N1 heritage). Will be interesting to see who wins.

In the Challenger disaster the SRB didn't explode. It had a leak near the bottom that melted the aft attachment to the external tank. It got loose and penetrated the external tank, which exploded. The 2 SRBs continued to fly more or less intact.

[GoldForest]

NASA has a chance to change course in the Space Launch System. Block 1 will use SRBs, but for the Block 2 (the true heavy lifter) there's a booster competition closing in 2015. Candidates are an Advanced SRB and 2 liquid boosters, one with two F-1B's (cheaper more powerful F-1) and the other with a US made version of the Russian NK-33 (of N1 heritage). Will be interesting to see who wins.

In the Challenger disaster the SRB didn't explode. It had a leak near the bottom that melted the aft attachment to the external tank. It got loose and penetrated the external tank, which exploded. The 2 SRBs continued to fly more or less intact.

Oh yeah. my bad lol I forgot about that. So yeah, the SRBs still flew. It was just that one O-ring that ruptured. Because of cold weather.

Kids, take a note.

"If you are going to use O-rings in cold weather, you're going to have a bad time."

[BioHaZarD.PT]

Something interesting I found. Here's the big problem with an accident involving an exploding SRB: a massive cloud of slowly burning solid fuel chunks. If the escape tower doesn't pull the capsule away from that cloud (a very real possibility on the Ares I), there's a chance one of those chunks melts the parachutes.

http://www.newscientist.com/blogs/shortsharpscience/2009/07/death-knell-for-nasas-ares-roc.html

Here's a video of the Titan IV explosion (self-destruct after loss of guidance) mentioned in the article:

[Damaske]

NASA has a chance to change course in the Space Launch System. Block 1 will use SRBs, but for the Block 2 (the true heavy lifter) there's a booster competition closing in 2015. Candidates are an Advanced SRB and 2 liquid boosters, one with two F-1B's (cheaper more powerful F-1) and the other with a US made version of the Russian NK-33 (of N1 heritage). Will be interesting to see who wins.

In the Challenger disaster the SRB didn't explode. It had a leak near the bottom that melted the aft attachment to the external tank. It got loose and penetrated the external tank, which exploded. The 2 SRBs continued to fly more or less intact.

I thought it was the o-ring leaked, got burned up, that jet of fire then melted into the external tank and set off the fuel within once it melted though the tanks side.

[BioHaZarD.PT]

I thought it was the o-ring leaked, got burned up, that jet of fire then melted into the external tank and set off the fuel within once it melted though the tanks side.

It did cause a leak in the liquid hydrogen tank 64 seconds into the flight, but it only exploded a few seconds later.

At T+73.124, the aft dome of the liquid hydrogen tank failed, producing a propulsive force that pushed the hydrogen tank into the liquid oxygen tank in the forward part of the ET. At the same time, the right SRB rotated about the forward attach strut, and struck the intertank structure. This resulted in the spontaneous conflagration of the fuel which exploded the external tank, creating a massive plume of water vapor exhaust that enveloped the entire stack.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Space_Shuttle_Challenger_disaster

[gooddog15]

So........ has anyone used titan rocket boosters as a first stage?

[GoldForest]

So........ has anyone used titan rocket boosters as a first stage?

I have. Nice subject change lol

[okan170]

The Shuttle SRBs didn't explode all the time. They only exploded once and that was because of cold weather and NASA going with a different company than they usually went with. The two companies made their SRBs differently. I'm not going to go indepth about this, but point is the Shuttle SRBs have been launched what? Over 200 times? And only one of them have exploded? (Only one of the challengers SRBs was faulty, the other one exploded because of the other explosions) One explosion vs 200+ safe launches? The numbers are looking good.

They have been claimed to be the safest SRBs and were proposed to be used on Liberty along with another safe launch system. The Ariane 5 first stage I believe?

Point is, the shuttle SRBs are as safe as a butter knife.

Not to dispute any of this, though technically the Challenger's SRBs did not explode. They were detonated by range safety after vehicle breakup. The burn-through was an equally unstoppable situation though.

[gooddog15]

I have. Nice subject change lol

Mission successful!

Anyway, its really cool to strap jeb to it and watch it fly into interplanetary space at mach 12 with reentry effects in reverse

[HeadHunter67]

I thought it was the o-ring leaked, got burned up, that jet of fire then melted into the external tank and set off the fuel within once it melted though the tanks side.

That is correct. The SRB didn't explode, it leaked - and that jet blew up the EFT.

[GoldForest]

Not to dispute any of this, though technically the Challenger's SRBs did not explode. They were detonated by range safety after vehicle breakup. The burn-through was an equally unstoppable situation though.

I already admitted my mistake.

The odds still stand however.

1 < 200+

Failures < successes.

I'd call that the safest SRB around don't you?

[gooddog15]

I already admitted my mistake.

The odds still stand however.

1 < 200+

Failures < successes.

I'd call that the safest SRB around don't you?

The only thing thats safer would be model rocket motors, and maybe minuteman 3 ICBMs and other solid propelled missiles

[GoldForest]

The only thing thats safer would be model rocket motors, and maybe minuteman 3 ICBMs and other solid propelled missiles

Lol, If you want to replace broken O-rings with motors that won't start every time you push the button.

[gooddog15]

Lol, If you want to replace broken O-rings with motors that won't start every time you push the button.

*launching a model rocket*

3.....2......1...... IGNITION!

*prfiztfis*

DAMMIT!!!!!!!!

[GoldForest]

*launching a model rocket*

3.....2......1...... IGNITION!

*prfiztfis*

DAMMIT!!!!!!!!

Lol That's how I imagine it.