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

[Kryten]

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.

I'm not exactly up with the pseudo-singularity fanboy definition, sorry. I use the definition that uses actual concepts, where we became a spacefaring species in 1961.

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.

The 40th assembly of the Committee on Space Research; so Saturday. Energiya and Krunichev might like to put around powerpoints of crewed landing and bases, but the HLV program is only funded to the vehicle design phase.

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.

NASA takes mission concepts from the scientific community, congress, and the president; not corporations. Boeing is hardly going to be able to override Obama.

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

My point was simply that NASA will study anything regardless of plausability or intention to actually do it, so studies don't mean very much.

Edited August 6, 2014 by Kryten

[Sky_walker]

My point was simply that NASA will study anything regardless of plausability or intention to actually do it, so studies don't mean very much.

My first thought: http://www.technobuffalo.com/2014/06/15/nasa-unveils-incredible-design-for-warp-drive-spacecraft/

[NASAFanboy]

NASA takes mission concepts from the scientific community congress, and the president; not corporations. Boeing is hardly going to be able to override Obama.

But Boeing can line the pockets of Congress with silver, and thats what matters to the government (money and the next election, not science). In fact, we've already seen two bills that both attempted to override the ARM in favor of a lunar return, and I'll be surprised if it was the last one.

I'm not exactly up with the pseudo-singularity fanboy definition, sorry. I use the definition that uses actual concepts, where we became a spacefaring species in 1961.

Spacefaring depends on how you think of it (An the definition of civilization). Since the mass amount of our civilization cannot go into space, we do not qualify. Unless we can make space travel commonplace, I'm afraid then we won't be a spacefaring species.

My point was simply that NASA will study anything regardless of plausability or intention to actually do it, so studies don't mean very much.

Yes, but the most plausible concepts have a much bigger chance to become a actual mission.

The 40th assembly of the Committee on Space Research; so Saturday. Energiya and Krunichev might like to put around powerpoints of crewed landing and bases, but the HLV program is only funded to the vehicle design phase.

And that's the first steps to the Moon.

[Fingal]

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".

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.

Have you been reading this? http://xkcd.com/1133/

[Kryten]

But Boeing can line the pockets of Congress with silver, and thats what matters to the government (money and the next election, not science).

Then where's your precious lunar return? if this was correct, it'd be a dead cert.

Spacefaring depends on how you think of it (An the definition of civilization). Since the mass amount of our civilization cannot go into space, we do not qualify. Unless we can make space travel commonplace, I'm afraid then we won't be a spacefaring species.

How would a lunar base help with that in any way, shape or form?

Yes, but the most plausible concepts have a much bigger chance to become a actual mission.

The most FUNDED concepts have the bigger chances. There are plenty of discovery and new frontiers class missions that are far more plausible than ARM, but don't havea snowballs chance due to issues with funding and/or RTG availability. No bucks, no buck rogers.

And that's the first steps to the Moon.

Is it really? Did you forget what happened to the last two HLV programs from these people?

Edited August 6, 2014 by Kryten

[cpast]

Have you been reading this? http://xkcd.com/1133/

Indeed I have

[undercoveryankee]

Here's the deal: There are SLS configurations planned with payload to orbit slightly larger than the Saturn V. Stacking a 1- or 2-seat lunar lander behind the Orion capsule is realistic in a technical sense if NASA's decision makers decided to fund such a lander.

Since right now it looks like the only thing anyone can agree on is that NASA should develop the capability to eventually do Mars, I expect any lunar landing that gets funded to be a multi-launch mission with 6-8 astronauts on the surface, so the technology that gets developed will be more applicable to Mars.

[Motokid600]

I think we need to go back to the Moon before Mars. Be a good opportunity to test new hardware. I'm not a fan of ARM, but honestly whatever puts people in space is enough for me..

[Whirligig Girl]

I think what the OP means is is it possible to nowadays build a rocket that does what the Saturn V did. Yes. One of the more evolved SLS blocks (Block III or IV) could easily carry an Orion MPCV and a 3-man Lunar Lander. Even more cargo capacity than Saturn V, for more practical missions.

[SciMan]

Kryten, NASAFanboy, I may not be the best at social skills (very mild AS), but it's rather obvious that there's some difference of opinion here.

As I see it, the thing that is causing the problem here is not fact or opinion.

The problem is both of you are using one word to refer to two related but distinct concepts. Specifically, Technical possibilities versus economical/political possibility.

If we are talking about Technical possibilities, like NASAfanboy: We could have been putting colonies on the moons of Jupiter and Saturn by now.

The laws of physics and our current technological abilities do not prevent it.

Warp drive ships, on the other hand, are pure speculation at this point. Science simply hasn't progressed far enough for us to know if it's even physically possible, or if current theories are just an artifact in our incomplete models of our world.

If we are talking about "realistic" possibilities, like Kryten is: We aren't going to send anything manned past LKO in the next 50-100 years. Maybe an unmanned mission or 5, if we're lucky. (obvious exaggeration, at least I hope so.)

Rockets are expensive, spacecraft even more so, and the R&D for a new rocket requires commitment to years of long-term spending with no appreciable returns in order to get anything useful out of them. Long term thinking is required, as well as knowing that the next administration won't pull the plug on the whole thing 4 years down the road.

Basically, a country-level government is both the worst and the best organization to ask for funding for the various sciences, but especially for space travel and exploration.

They're the worst organization because governments are usually too busy worrying about:

A. "How do we keep this country functioning"

B. "How do we keep other countries from taking over"

to be bothered with science. Add the fact that the answers for both A and B are constantly changing, and you get a generally pretty scatterbrained response to scientific funding that's almost always less than what would be optimal.

They're the best organization to look for funding, simply because no other organization has more money to spend (or a bigger line of credit).

[Rus-Evo]

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.

No you are not using logic. Should Europeans have not returned to North America after they had sent a handful of boats as they "had explored it already"? Of course not, there was much more to do there. Same with the moon.

[Dkmdlb]

We aren't going to send anything manned past LKO in the next 50-100 years.

Two things - First - LKO?

Second - 100 years? Really? Seems like some variation on Mars Direct would be pretty well within the realm of possibility for someone like SpaceX in the next couple of decades.

[SciMan]

Two things - First - LKO?

Second - 100 years? Really? Seems like some variation on Mars Direct would be pretty well within the realm of possibility for someone like SpaceX in the next couple of decades.

... Derp, been playing KSP too much again...

And I was referring only to government-funded missions. I have high hopes for private manned spaceflight, but the actual manned exploration stuff is still likely to be far too expensive for most corporations to fund. Of course, "most corporations" isn't exactly the best label for corporations that build rockets...

Edited August 8, 2014 by SciMan

[NASAFanboy]

And I was referring only to government-funded missions. I have high hopes for private manned spaceflight, but the actual manned exploration stuff is still likely to be far too expensive for most corporations to fund. Of course, "most corporations" isn't exactly the best label for corporations that build rockets...

I'd really doubt that. Congress use mandated the SLS and passed a bill to prevent future Presidents from canceling the program, and are fully funding the rocket. Sadly, Commerical Crew is not being as well funded. 100 years is too long, it'll probably last for another 10 years before one of the world governments or corporations manage to send someone off this crappy mudball to probably fly around a rock.

[Holo]

No you are not using logic. Should Europeans have not returned to North America after they had sent a handful of boats as they "had explored it already"? Of course not, there was much more to do there. Same with the moon.

Well of course. Erikson's voyages to North America revealed all possible knowledge about the Americas. Further expeditions there were complete wastes, and nothing good came of them, right up to the present day.

[magnemoe]

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.

If you simply want a sample return a probe is far cheaper. The poles is very interesting because it probably have ice.

It even make sense to send an unmanned mission first to learn about the area first before sending an manned mission so the astronauts know that to look for.

No Apollo 5 could not take the LEM to the poles you would either need an larger rocket or a lighter payload.