Did is possible that NASA ever built lunar rocket like SATURN V

[Pawelk198604]

I know about SLS, but i mean rocket that carry both CM/SM and LM at the same time?

[Guest]

Yes, it is possible.

[Yourself]

Yes, it is possible.

To elaborate, yes it's possible, because that's exactly what they did.

[Pawelk198604]

To elaborate, yes it's possible, because that's exactly what they did.

LM on the bottom and CM/SM with astronaut on top:D ?

Edited August 6, 2014 by Pawelk198604

[cpast]

I know about SLS, but i mean rocket that carry both CM/SM and LM at the same time?

NASA developed a rocket very much like the Saturn V; it was so good that one might say it was indistinguishable from a Saturn V. It was named for some planet, I think the sixth one from the sun? And it was the fifth iteration, so it was named something along the lines of "Saturn V".

LM on the bottom and CM/SM with astronaut on top:D ?

No, the LM was near the top as well. Lots of fire comes out of the bottom, so it's a bad place to put things you don't want to be burned. The LM was behind the CSM though, again, exactly like on a Saturn V, because it was a Saturn V.

Edited August 6, 2014 by cpast

[LaytheAerospace]

I am confused. Is this a serious question? I'll presume it is.

I used to live in Huntsville, and saw an actual Saturn V built by NASA nearly every day, at the US Space and Rocket Center along I-565 as I drove to work. So yes, it is possible, and was done half a century ago.

[cpast]

I suppose technically, the S-1C was built by Boeing, the S-II by North American, and the S-IVB by Douglas (incidentally, all are now part of Boeing) with designs from NASA and on contracts from NASA. That's pretty pedantic, though.

[Pawelk198604]

No, the LM was near the top as well. Lots of fire comes out of the bottom, so it's a bad place to put things you don't want to be burned. The LM was behind the CSM though, again, exactly like on a Saturn V, because it was a Saturn V.

I was referring to SLS

[SargeRho]

Jupiter-232; proposed, never built.

Ares V; Partially built, cancelled along with the Ares I in the Constellation progra, wouldn't carry Lunar Lander and Crew together.

Edited August 6, 2014 by SargeRho

[Kryten]

I was referring to SLS

SLS isn't supposed to carry CM and LM together because it's simply not supposed to carry an LM at all. Unless the samples from Apollo magically vanish, there's no reason to do a similar mission.

[NASAFanboy]

there's no reason to do a similar mission.

Why not? You don't need a reason to go to the Moon, if the government wants to go, then just go. Better than spending it on a bunch of obsure projects that never make it at all. Just because there is no reason to explore doesn't mean we cannot explore. After all, there was no reason for our ancestors to leave the cave and no reason for them to farm and no reason for us to build the ISS or shuttle. Screw reason and logic, go with progress.

On the other hand, the SLS can be modifed to fit an lunar lander that's smaller but similar to the design of the late Altair, and Boeing is actively pushing for it [1]

[1]: http://www.nasaspaceflight.com/2013/01/boeing-discusses-sls-robust-lunar-program/

Here's a picture of what it could look like. That vehicle under Orion is a lunar lander. This is all speculation of course, and I still have to wonder what Charlie Bolden has against the Moon, although its more likely that he secretly supports one but Obama has some form of celestial grudge against it. But what did the Moon ever do to Obama?

Edited August 6, 2014 by NASAFanboy

[Kryten]

Doing the same thing again is not progress or exploration, try using a bloody dictionary. Oh, wait, that was using logic. Sorry, I promise it won't happen again.

[Ralathon]

SLS isn't supposed to carry CM and LM together because it's simply not supposed to carry an LM at all. Unless the samples from Apollo magically vanish, there's no reason to do a similar mission.

We've got samples for 6 locations on the moon, 7 if you count the russian return sample, but that was only a few grams. Most of those locations where chosen because they make good landing sites, not because they're particularly interesting to geologists.

Claiming that we know everything there is to know about the moon because of those samples is like picking up a rock in the Sahara and claiming you know everything about the African continent. We need more sample return missions from the moon.

[Kryten]

Claiming that we know everything there is to know about the moon because of those samples is like picking up a rock in the Sahara and claiming you know everything about the African continent. We need more sample return missions from the moon.

We don't know everything, but we know enough that a similar mission isn't going to produce significantly higher science returns than some far, far cheaper automated missions. Yes, they might only produce a few grams each; what does it matter? Modern analytic techniques hardly require fist-sized rocks.

[NASAFanboy]

Doing the same thing again is not progress or exploration, try using a bloody dictionary. Oh, wait, that was using logic. Sorry, I promise it won't happen again.

Not progress or exploration? So if we established a base on the Moon tomorrow, it wouldn't be progress toward a spacefaring civilization? A return to the moon in the future will be a permanent one, and a base on the Moon is going to be absolutely crucial to establishing ourselves as a spacefaring species not bound to a single crappy mudball tumbling through the universe. Instead, we get a crappy mudball and a rock, but that's much better than just a mudball.

By your logic, we shouldn't have the ISS (Because all missions do the 'same thing'), or even human spaceflight to anywhere anymore. Because it's not "progress". So now what? Screw the Mars rovers (Because they're exploring the same planet), screw the probes (Becuase they're all doing the same thing by exploring space), by your logic, we should just screw over the whole space program and let it rot in misery, because doing the same thing isn't "progress" or "exploration". We have space programs for a reason, and that is to make us a spacefaring species as soon and as fast as possible.

Edited August 6, 2014 by NASAFanboy

[Kryten]

Not progress or exploration? So if we established a base on the Moon tomorrow, it wouldn't be progress toward a spacefaring civilization? A return to the moon in the future will be a permanent one, and a base on the Moon is going to be absolutely crucial to establishing ourselves as a spacefaring species not bound to a single crappy mudball tumbling through the universe.

I'm sorry, but this is nonsense. Nobody is planning a lunar base; any return would be footprints and flags, just with more footprints and bigger flags. Any talk of a lunar base is just that; talk. Frankly any talk of a crewed landing is not much more at this point.

We have space programs for a reason, and that is to make us a spacefaring species as soon and as fast as possible.

This is also complete nonsense. Space programs are instruments for national gain, either through direct economic programs, technological and scientific programs, or prestige projects. Not one of them has an objective remotely similar to what you just said.

[Sky_walker]

Kryten - you need to update your info.

Whatever any of the plans is realistic tough... that's another matter.

[Kryten]

Kryten - you need to update your info.

Show me one actual current lunar base plan. Not a 'we would like to', a funded project.

[NASAFanboy]

I'm sorry, but this is nonsense. Nobody is planning a lunar base; any return would be footprints and flags, just with more footprints and bigger flags. Any talk of a lunar base is just that; talk. Frankly any talk of a crewed landing is not much more at this point.

And how do you know that any return would just be 'flags and footprints', and why woul you be against a lunar base?

This is also complete nonsense. Space programs are instruments for national gain, either through direct economic programs, technological and scientific programs, or prestige projects. Not one of them has an objective remotely similar to what you just said.

Yes, but their long-term objective is just that. By that standard, we can just give up on space and explore some other rubbish instead.

Edited August 6, 2014 by NASAFanboy

[Sky_walker]

Show me one actual current lunar base plan. Not a 'we would like to', a funded project.

Well, concept is a first stage of planning, so it still qualifies against the "nobody is planning a lunar base"

[Kryten]

And how do you know that?

By looking at sources that aren't outdated wikipedia pages. Russian plans aren't funded past Luna-27, Indian plans are 'we would like to' with no funding beyond the basic crew vehicle, NASA hasn't been looking into it since the cancellation of constellation, CSTC isn't funding it... who does that leave? North Korea?

Yes, but their long-term objective is just that. By that standard, we can just give up on space and explore some other rubbish instead.

No it isn't. Sorry to disappoint, but 'making us a spacefaring species' isn't even a real goal; it's basically the engineering fanboy equivalent of 'achieve singularity' for computer science fanboys.

Edited August 6, 2014 by Kryten

[NASAFanboy]

By looking at sources that aren't outdated wikipedia pages. Russian plans aren't funded past Luna-27, Indian plans are 'we would like to' with no funding beyond the basic crew vehicle, NASA hasn't been looking into it since the cancellation of cancellation, CSTC isn't funding it... who does that leave? North Korea?

You forgot about China, Putin is taking up a new initiative to get back to the Moon, and major aerospace contractors in the USA are also looking into it. You forgot about NASA's study with Bigelow on establishing a lunar outpost that was done in 2013, did you?

No it isn't. Sorry to disappoint, but 'making us a spacefaring species' isn't even a real goal; it's basically the engineering fanboy equivalent of 'achieve singularity' for computer science fanboys.

Yes, it is. Their efforts that exploration will eventually lead to this. Show me how NASA isn't helping us progress forward to a spacefaring future. Show me how the combined efforts of the sapce agencies of the world isn't going to help us achieve that goal. Also, a quote from NASA's webpage.

"NASA's long-term goal to provide safe and affordable space travel to enable research and human expansion"

http://www.hq.nasa.gov/office/nsp/assess.htm

And that is how a spacefaring future takes shape.

Edited August 6, 2014 by NASAFanboy

[Sky_walker]

you forgot about ESA

ESA has no desire to make a moon landing in any foreseeable future. If anything - at a very best case (and an extremely unlikely one) they might send an astronaut onboard Orion with US crew to do the landing - but they certainly won't be pushing for that on their own.

ESA is focused on robotics, not a manned space flight, even if that's slowly changing (DC4EU).

[Kryten]

You forgot about China,

CSTC=China science and technology corporation. As they're the only major contractor, their projects tend to become things that CNSA pick up down the line, such as the CZ-5 family (which spent about three years as an unfunded private proposal). If they aren't working on it, CNSA isn't even thinking about it.

you forgot about ESA,

No funded independent human spaceflight program, never mind lunar program. The whole thing would be completely at odds with their aims and culture anyway, as noted by Sky_walker.

Putin is talking up a new initiative to get back to the Moon,

FTFY. Again, no funding beyond Luna-27/Luna-Resurs.

and major aerospace contractors in the USA are also looking into it.

NASA isn't, so it's irrelevant. Boeing are about as likely to start an independent moonbase as they are to declare independence from the US.

You forgot about NASA's study with Bigelow on establishing a lunar outpost that was done in 2013, did you?

A study is a study; as I'm sure I've already said, NASA has studies for crewed trips to Jupiter.

Yes, it is. Their efforts that exploration will eventually lead to this. Show me how NASA isn't helping us progress forward to a spacefaring future.

According to you, the way into a 'spacefaring future' is a moon base. NASA isn't making a moon base, so they aren't helping. Oh, I'm sorry, logic again; I'll try and keep it in hand.

Show me how the combined efforts of the sapce agencies of the world isn't going to help us achieve that goal.

Same as above, except replace 'NASA' with 'anybody else with the slightest chance'.

[NASAFanboy]

According to you, the way into a 'spacefaring future' is a moon base. NASA isn't making a moon base, so they aren't helping. Oh, I'm sorry, logic again; I'll try and keep it in hand.

If you truly took my words that literally, you really do have a case of tunnel-vision, huh? I said making a moonbase is going to help us become a spacefaring species through one of the possible routes, not exactly that we needed a moonbase to become a spacefaring species.

FTFY. Again, no funding beyond Luna-27/Luna-Resurs.

Since when did you last update your information? The wikipage was last updated around 2012, and most of the news I'm getting is around 2014.

NASA isn't, so it's irrelevant. Boeing are about as likely to start an independent moonbase as they are to declare independence from the US.

NASA depends on its contractors to manufacture things, and sometimes accepts mission proposals put forward by its contractors (A good number of its current missions today were put forward as proposals by contractors). Thats not irrelevant if you look at history and stopped dismissing everythinh.

A study is a study; as I'm sure I've already said, NASA has studies for crewed trips to Jupiter.

If you equate the two (A moonbase with a manned mission to Callisto), then you really don't get the whole point of 'plausibility'...

Edited August 6, 2014 by NASAFanboy