Brian.Crawford@p12.f15.n114.z1.fidonet.org (Brian Crawford) (06/16/89)
I have just read a newspaper article on the new TITAN 4 launcher being used by
the military. It was described as the U.S.`s "newest and biggest launcher."
How does this compare with the SATURN V ?
--
Uucp: ...{gatech,ames,rutgers}!ncar!noao!asuvax!stjhmc!15.12!Brian.Crawford
Internet: Brian.Crawford@p12.f15.n114.z1.fidonet.orgstramm@beowulf.ucsd.edu (Bernd Stramm) (06/17/89)
In article <4301.24986D0D@stjhmc.fidonet.org> Brian.Crawford@p12.f15.n114.z1.fidonet.org (Brian Crawford) writes: >I have just read a newspaper article on the new TITAN 4 launcher being used by >the military. It was described as the U.S.`s "newest and biggest launcher." > >How does this compare with the SATURN V ? According to Scientific American, March 89, it will deliver 40 Kpounds to LEO, and about 12 Kpounds to geostationary. I don't recall Saturn V, but I'm sure it was considerably more. The shuttle does about 55 or so to LEO. A Proton about 42/8 and an Ariane 5 about 43/15. All numbers from the same source. The dumb units too :-) ###################################################################### stramm%cs@ucsd.edu ARPA (new) | Bernd Stramm stramm@sdcsvax.ucsd.edu ARPA (old) | CSE Department, UC San Diego bstramm@ucsd BITNET | La Jolla, Ca 92093
ccoprmd@prism.gatech.EDU (Matthew DeLuca) (06/18/89)
In article <6663@sdcsvax.UCSD.Edu> stramm%cs@UCSD.EDU (Bernd Stramm) writes: >In article <4301.24986D0D@stjhmc.fidonet.org> Brian.Crawford@p12.f15.n114.z1.fidonet.org (Brian Crawford) writes: >>I have just read a newspaper article on the new TITAN 4 launcher being used by >>the military. It was described as the U.S.`s "newest and biggest launcher." >> >>How does this compare with the SATURN V ? > According to the material I have, from a couple of different sources, the Titan 4 can lift 32,000 lbs to LEO. The Satun V, on the other hand, can lift about 200,000 lbs to the same orbit. I have no figures on geosynchronous capabilities. -- --------------------------------------------------------------------------------Matthew DeLuca : Georgia Institute of Technology : [This space for rent] ARPA: ccoprmd@hydra.gatech.edu : --------------------------------------------------------------------------------
deg@druwy.ATT.COM (Donald E. Gillespie) (06/19/89)
In article <4301.24986D0D@stjhmc.fidonet.org>, Brian.Crawford@p12.f15.n114.z1.fidonet.org (Brian Crawford) writes: > I have just read a newspaper article on the new TITAN 4 launcher being used by > the military. It was described as the U.S.`s "newest and biggest launcher." > > How does this compare with the SATURN V ? > From the articles I read, it seems that the Titan 4 is slightly smaller than the Saturn V. However, since Saturn V no longer exists, that would make Titan 4 the "biggest" launcher we currently have. -- Don Gillespie att!druwy!deg
petej@phred.UUCP (Pete Jarvis) (06/19/89)
>In article <4301.24986D0D@stjhmc.fidonet.org> Brian.Crawford@p12.f15.n114.z1.fidonet.org (Brian Crawford) writes: >According to Scientific American, March 89, it will deliver 40 Kpounds >to LEO, and about 12 Kpounds to geostationary. I don't recall Saturn V, >but I'm sure it was considerably more. The shuttle does about 55 or so >to LEO. A Proton about 42/8 and an Ariane 5 about 43/15. All numbers >from the same source. The dumb units too :-) > >stramm%cs@ucsd.edu ARPA (new) | Bernd Stramm The Saturn V can deliver 285,000 lbs to Earth orbit or 100,000 lbs to Lunar orbit. Peter Jarvis.....
Peter.Galatin@p4.f528.n107.z1.fidonet.org (Peter Galatin) (06/20/89)
MD> From: ccoprmd@prism.gatech.EDU (Matthew DeLuca) MD> Date: 17 Jun 89 17:53:16 GMT MD> Organization: Georgia Institute of Technology MD> Message-ID: <845@hydra.gatech.EDU> MD> Newsgroups: sci.space.shuttle MD> In article <6663@sdcsvax.UCSD.Edu> stramm%cs@UCSD.EDU (Bernd Stramm) w >In article <4301.24986D0D@stjhmc.fidonet.org> Brian.Crawford@p12.f15.n114.z1 MD> .fidonet.org (Brian Crawford) writes: >>I have just read a newspaper article on the new TITAN 4 launcher MD> being used by >>the military. It was described as the U.S.`s "newest and biggest MD> launcher." >> I'm just wondering, is there an easier way to quote these messages? --- GroupMail 2.1 * Origin: Blue Ribbon BBS - 201-791-7471 (107/528.4) -- Peter Galatin - via UFgate - FidoNet Node 1:107/528 Internet: Peter.Galatin@p4.f528.n107.z1.fidonet.org
henry@utzoo.uucp (Henry Spencer) (06/20/89)
In article <4301.24986D0D@stjhmc.fidonet.org> Brian.Crawford@p12.f15.n114.z1.fidonet.org (Brian Crawford) writes: >I have just read a newspaper article on the new TITAN 4 launcher being used by >the military. It was described as the U.S.`s "newest and biggest launcher." > >How does this compare with the SATURN V ? The Titan 4 is much smaller. The statement remains accurate, since the Saturn V no longer exists as a usable launcher. -- You *can* understand sendmail, | Henry Spencer at U of Toronto Zoology but it's not worth it. -Collyer| uunet!attcan!utzoo!henry henry@zoo.toronto.edu
mws@aplpy.jhuapl.edu (Michael W. Stalnaker) (06/20/89)
In article <4127@druwy.ATT.COM> deg@druwy.ATT.COM (Donald E. Gillespie) writes: > >From the articles I read, it seems that the Titan 4 is slightly smaller >than the Saturn V. However, since Saturn V no longer exists, that would >make Titan 4 the "biggest" launcher we currently have. > ***SLIGHTLY*** smaller???? The Titan IV has a thrust rating of right about three million pounds, (+- 10%), and can only get about 40-50 thousand pounds to low earth orbit. (Henry, what's the real number?) The Saturn V had a total lift-off thrurst of seven and a half million pounds, and could put about 250,000 pounds into low earth orbit. And just think sports fans! NASA is kinda-sorta-maybe exploring a shuttle derivative (Shuttle-C) that will let us put a whole whopping 150,000 pounds into orbit at once. If we had a sane space program, that would be medium lift, *NOT* heavy lift. There is only one Heavy Lift booster on the planet right now, or likely to make the scene within 20 years... it's called Energia. --Mike Stalnaker mws@aplpy.jhuapl.edu "Progress: (verb) the opposite of Congress"
roy@phri.UUCP (Roy Smith) (06/20/89)
In <1989Jun19.192514.4696@utzoo.uucp> henry@utzoo.uucp (Henry Spencer) writes: > The Titan 4 is much smaller. The statement remains accurate, since the > Saturn V no longer exists as a usable launcher. I am sure this is exposing my incredible naivete in the subject, but just what the hell is so hard about building a big rocket? You need a motor (or several), some fuel/oxidizer tanks, some plumbing to get the contents of the latter to the former, a stabilizer system, a big space to put the payload in, and maybe some stap-on solid boosters. Now, even I know that this is a huge gross generalization of the design of a big rocket, but I still don't see why the introduction of the Titan-4 is such a big deal. There is nothing in the Titan-4 that hasn't been done before, in smaller and in larger scale. It seems to me that the announcement of the Titan-4 is about on the same order of interest as the announcement of yet another 2 MIPS workstation. Question: How much would it cost to build a new shuttle if you left out all the re-entry equipment (i.e. no wings, etc) and all the life support systems (i.e. no crew compartment) and used the space and weight saved to boost unmanned payloads as a non-reusable launcher? What I'm talking about is basicly just reusing the SSMEs, ET, and SRMs as a already-designed propulsion system. Is it possible that this could ever compete with an expendable in terms of cost/payload-mass-lifted? Feel free to tell me I'm all wet, if that is indeed the case. -- Roy Smith, Public Health Research Institute 455 First Avenue, New York, NY 10016 {allegra,philabs,cmcl2,rutgers,hombre}!phri!roy -or- roy@alanine.phri.nyu.edu "The connector is the network"
leech@Apple.COM (Jonathan Patrick Leech) (06/20/89)
In article <1624@aplcen.apl.jhu.edu> mws@aplpy.jhuapl.edu (Michael W. Stalnaker) writes: >pounds to low earth orbit. (Henry, what's the real number?) The Saturn V had >a total lift-off thrurst of seven and a half million pounds, and could put >about 250,000 pounds into low earth orbit. And just think sports fans! NASA >is kinda-sorta-maybe exploring a shuttle derivative (Shuttle-C) that will let >us put a whole whopping 150,000 pounds into orbit at once. 150K pounds of cargo vs. 250K pounds of 3rd stage, since Saturn was not designed for or used as a LEO cargo booster, with the sort-of exception of Skylab. -- Jon Leech (leech@apple.com) Apple Integrated Systems __@/
rubinoff@linc.cis.upenn.edu (Robert Rubinoff) (06/20/89)
In article <3810@phri.UUCP> roy@phri.UUCP (Roy Smith) writes: >... There is nothing in the Titan-4 that hasn't >been done before, in smaller and in larger scale. It seems to me that the >announcement of the Titan-4 is about on the same order of interest as the >announcement of yet another 2 MIPS workstation. I think the interest in the Titan-4 is because it's the only thing we(=US) have *now* that is that powerful (except the shuttle). So it's really as if we once had 16 MIPS workstations but had abandoned anything faster than 1/2 MIPS. Then a 2 MIPS workstation would be noteworthy. Robert
henry@utzoo.uucp (Henry Spencer) (06/21/89)
In article <3810@phri.UUCP> roy@phri.UUCP (Roy Smith) writes: >... just what the hell is so hard about building a big rocket? You need a >motor (or several), some fuel/oxidizer tanks, some plumbing to get the >contents of the latter to the former, a stabilizer system, a big space to >put the payload in, and maybe some stap-on solid boosters. The trickiest parts are the motor -- getting stable combustion is not always an easy business, and instabilities generally mean explosions -- and the pumps. The power output of a big rocket engine is measured in gigawatts, in a package only a few feet across. It doesn't take much of that energy going in the wrong direction to make a heap big mess in a heap big hurry. And pumping tons of sometimes-cryogenic-and-always-highly-reactive liquids per second against high pressures is not a trivial problem either. The power output of the pump turbine on a single F-1 engine (the Saturn V first stage had five) was 55,000 horsepower. The biggest problem in reviving the Saturn V is that the engines are long out of production. >... I still don't see why the introduction of the >Titan-4 is such a big deal... Basically, it's not. It's a slightly souped-up version of the assorted Titan 3 variants, a little bigger and a little more powerful. The biggest problem was structural worries about the new larger payload shroud. > Question: How much would it cost to build a new shuttle if you >left out all the re-entry equipment (i.e. no wings, etc) and all the life >support systems (i.e. no crew compartment) and used the space and weight >saved to boost unmanned payloads as a non-reusable launcher? ... What you've described is pretty much the same as either the Hughes/Boeing Jarvis proposal or NASA's current Shuttle-C proposal. It can certainly be done. It's not impossibly expensive, but it's not exactly cheap either, especially with NASA doing it. >Is it possible that this could ever >compete with an expendable in terms of cost/payload-mass-lifted? ... There is no fundamental reason why it couldn't; Jarvis was proposed as a reasonably competitive big expendable. Shuttle-C will not be economically competitive, if it is built, because it will be built and launched by NASA; its specialty will be getting unusually big payloads into orbit in one piece. -- NASA is to spaceflight as the | Henry Spencer at U of Toronto Zoology US government is to freedom. | uunet!attcan!utzoo!henry henry@zoo.toronto.edu
henry@utzoo.uucp (Henry Spencer) (06/21/89)
In article <32548@apple.Apple.COM> leech@Apple.COM (Jonathan Patrick Leech) writes: > 150K pounds of cargo vs. 250K pounds of 3rd stage, since Saturn >was not designed for or used as a LEO cargo booster, with the sort-of >exception of Skylab. Used as, true. Designed for? The Saturn V was meant as a general-purpose heavy launcher, not just as an Apollo booster, although Apollo's needs got first priority for obvious reasons. I've seen various numbers for LEO cargo capacity, but 250K pounds *of cargo* is not unrealistic -- that thing was *big*. The final Saturn Vs launched over 100K pounds of cargo to *escape velocity*. Skylab weighed 100K+, I think, and it was launched by only 2/3 of a Saturn V. (The second stage of that booster is the biggest object ever to reenter from orbit, much bigger than Skylab itself.) -- NASA is to spaceflight as the | Henry Spencer at U of Toronto Zoology US government is to freedom. | uunet!attcan!utzoo!henry henry@zoo.toronto.edu
Rob.Lerman@f57.n203.z1.FIDONET.ORG (Rob Lerman) (06/22/89)
> >> > > I'm just wondering, is there an easier way to quote these > messages? Can't you just quote what you just need to? I don't know how much you fully need to quote here in Usenet. By the way, could you please let me know if my message here gets through to you on this area. Thanks, Rob Lerman 1:203/57 -- Rob Lerman - via FidoNet node 1:147/10 UUCP: ...!uokmax!metnet!203!57!Rob.Lerman INTERNET: Rob.Lerman@f57.n203.z1.FIDONET.ORG
vail@tegra.UUCP (Johnathan Vail) (06/23/89)
In article <1989Jun21.165020.1506@utzoo.uucp> henry@utzoo.uucp (Henry Spencer) writes: NASA is to spaceflight as the | Henry Spencer at U of Toronto Zoology US government is to freedom. | uunet!attcan!utzoo!henry henry@zoo.toronto.edu At first this looks like a cheap shot from the great white north. But after thinking about it it is really quite accurate. NASA has accomplished some of the best spaceflight the world has seen and the US gov't provides IMO one of the freer countries in the world. Of course both do it with a *LOT* of unneeded beurocracy and waste, and have been slipping badly in these goals recently. "Even Marilyn Monroe was a man, but, this, tends to get overlooked, by, our mother fixated overweight sexist media" -- Robin Hitchcock _____ | | Johnathan Vail | tegra!N1DXG@ulowell.edu |Tegra| (508) 663-7435 | N1DXG@145.110-,145.270-,444.2+,448.625- -----
boley@ingr.com (Kirk Boley) (06/24/89)
> In article <4301.24986D0D@stjhmc.fidonet.org> Brian.Crawford@p12.f15.n114.z1.fidonet.org (Brian Crawford) writes: > >How does this compare with the SATURN V ? > > According to Scientific American, March 89, it will deliver 40 Kpounds > to LEO, and about 12 Kpounds to geostationary. I don't recall Saturn V, > but I'm sure it was considerably more. The shuttle does about 55 or so > to LEO. A Proton about 42/8 and an Ariane 5 about 43/15. All numbers > from the same source. The dumb units too :-) > If I remember these numbers correctly, the Saturn V would lift 90Kpounds to the moon, and 75Kpounds to Mars. These figures are from an old World Book Encyclopedia (1967), so I don't know how accurate they are. The article didn't say anything about how much Saturn V would lift to LEO or Geostationary, but a Saturn V lifted Skylab to LEO, and I think that Skylab is still the biggest object ever lifted (maybe not by now). It always pisses me off when I think about NASA and the U.S. government letting Skylab re-enter. I don't know what kind of shape it was in, but it seems like (with a little refurb) we could be using it right now as a platform for future space projects. Maybe I'm wrong. -- ******************************************************************************* Standard disclaimer. | Kirk Boley, Intergraph Huntsville, UAH Witty .sig message. | 61 hours to go and counting... ...!uucp!ingr!boley *******************************************************************************
petej@phred.UUCP (Pete Jarvis) (07/05/89)
In article <5681@ingr.com> boley@ingr.com (Kirk Boley) writes: >The article didn't say anything about how much Saturn V would lift to LEO >or Geostationary, but a Saturn V lifted Skylab to LEO, and I think that The Saturn V could lift 285,000 pounds to LEO, 100,000 pounds to the Moon. Peter Jarvis..........