1. Welcome! Please take a few seconds to create your free account to post threads, make some friends, remove a few ads while surfing and much more. ClutchFans has been bringing fans together to talk Houston Sports since 1996. Join us!

Wernher von Braun - Reason we walked on moon

Discussion in 'BBS Hangout' started by Bandwagoner, Mar 23, 2012.

  1. rocketsjudoka

    rocketsjudoka Member

    Joined:
    Jul 24, 2007
    Messages:
    58,169
    Likes Received:
    48,341
    That is my point. Too much credit is given to Von Braun for the US successes. He was part of a big team and his successes and failures were also due to politics.

    I don't see it as accurate to say that the US succeeded because of Von Braun where the Russians failed (by logical extension because they didn't have Von Braun).
     
  2. rocketsjudoka

    rocketsjudoka Member

    Joined:
    Jul 24, 2007
    Messages:
    58,169
    Likes Received:
    48,341
    [​IMG]
     
  3. SwoLy-D

    SwoLy-D Member

    Joined:
    Jul 20, 2001
    Messages:
    37,618
    Likes Received:
    1,456
    I thought you'd make a LONG-*SS photo with IMPACT font and you'd post it instead of that.

    I am disappoint, Señor aquí 'tan, DIRECTOR TéCNICO.:eek:
     
  4. Dairy Ashford

    Dairy Ashford Member

    Joined:
    May 20, 2002
    Messages:
    14,585
    Likes Received:
    1,888
    Which makes it that much more of a miracle that we got him, our military is basically Germany's with nukes and minorities.
     
  5. KingCheetah

    KingCheetah Atomic Playboy
    Supporting Member

    Joined:
    Jun 3, 2002
    Messages:
    59,079
    Likes Received:
    52,748
    The Russian N1 would have certainly worked if it had been properly funded and not insanely rushed to beat the US. It's a very good design and undoubtedly inspired the design of the SpaceX Falcon S9, which has about the same number of small engines. This allows the payload to safely make it to orbit with multiple engine failures.
     
  6. Bandwagoner

    Bandwagoner Member

    Joined:
    Jan 26, 2006
    Messages:
    27,105
    Likes Received:
    3,757
    I disagree, the falcon heavy has a bunch of engines because they wanted to simplify the first stage by just putting three Falcon 9 boosters together. I think if you are designing a heavy lift from the ground up you upscale the engines like the Saturn V. Adding engines generally makes reliability drop. 30 engines isn't a well designed first stage. Bigger = better

    [​IMG]

    His designs were groundbreaking, and successful. Sputnik was an R7 which is a V2 with 4 boosters strapped to the first stage. He had incredible foresight and began planning the Saturn as a condition of continuing to work with NASA. His designs were at the core of First american satellite, first Russian satellite, first man on Moon, first american in space.
     
    #26 Bandwagoner, Mar 23, 2012
    Last edited: Mar 23, 2012
  7. KingCheetah

    KingCheetah Atomic Playboy
    Supporting Member

    Joined:
    Jun 3, 2002
    Messages:
    59,079
    Likes Received:
    52,748
    From their website:

    The Falcon Heavy is designed for extreme reliability and can tolerate the failure of several engines and still complete its mission. As on commercial airliners, protective shells surround each engine to contain a worst-case situation such as fire or a chamber rupture, and prevent it from affecting the other engines and stages. A disabled engine is automatically shut down, and the remaining engines operate slightly longer to compensate for the loss without detriment to the mission.

    spacex.com
     
  8. heypartner

    heypartner Member

    Joined:
    Oct 27, 1999
    Messages:
    63,511
    Likes Received:
    59,008
    I'm no rocket enthusiast, but instinctively to me that reads like a sales brochure. Less is better. There are so many analogies in other science (certainly computer science) that complex, more, redundancy is only better ... on paper. In practice, do it right with less is better.

    Multiple redundancies means you expect failure. Maybe that works for a mission to another solar system...but for (what?) 20 seconds of burn, strip out the redundancy and focus on less main engines.
     
  9. KingCheetah

    KingCheetah Atomic Playboy
    Supporting Member

    Joined:
    Jun 3, 2002
    Messages:
    59,079
    Likes Received:
    52,748
    The entire Space X vehicle is made much more simply than a traditional rocket -- (as in) there are fewer parts less to break/ go wrong. Also, as i'm sure you know Nasa is very big on redundancy -- I believe they typically have at least 4 of each critical part (example - on board computer systems). Since Nasa will be using this rocket i'm sure they insisted Space X follow suit.

    The Falcon will be the first rocket since Saturn to be able to complete the mission with an engine failure. My memory is fuzzy on this, but I believe Saturn could make orbit on 3 engines -- the Falcon will obviously be able to lose many more than that.

    Nasa wouldn't have pumped in a billion plus dollars in development to the company if they thought it was a bad design.
     
  10. heypartner

    heypartner Member

    Joined:
    Oct 27, 1999
    Messages:
    63,511
    Likes Received:
    59,008
    ^^^
    My bad. I thought we were still talking about the Russian one that failed with all those little engines.

    Redundancy of the system is one thing (like a plane)...I was talking purely about overly redundant amount of engines that the systems fuel.

    But you know what...Linux proves little engines of huge amount beats IBM's massive supercomputers. First Palo Alto's defense lab used 1,000s of networked Linux boxes to perform faster, then Google did it.

    So, nevermind me.
     
  11. KingCheetah

    KingCheetah Atomic Playboy
    Supporting Member

    Joined:
    Jun 3, 2002
    Messages:
    59,079
    Likes Received:
    52,748
    No problem. My original point was mainly that the Russian rocket was a good design, but failed primarily because it was massively underfunded and rushed to beat us. The Russians have an excellent history with rocketry and would have most likely been successful if they funded the development properly and took there time.
     
  12. got em COACH

    got em COACH Member

    Joined:
    Sep 6, 2008
    Messages:
    3,253
    Likes Received:
    1,090
    Mi mal ¿dónde están mis modales :eek::eek::eek: x 10

    [​IMG]
     
    #32 got em COACH, Mar 24, 2012
    Last edited: Mar 24, 2012
  13. heypartner

    heypartner Member

    Joined:
    Oct 27, 1999
    Messages:
    63,511
    Likes Received:
    59,008
    [​IMG]
    Wow, your right. In Apollo 17s famous first ever picture of the full view of Earth...there are no stars, either. That whole Rocket taking off thing and visibly orbiting the Earth must have been staged, as well. That must have been taken in a hollywood studio, too.

    And in 2003, the first photo of Earth from Mars has no stars

    [​IMG]

    Trips to Mars...obviously fake, because there was no stars.

    The reason:

    From National Geographics bust of the conspiracy theories

    http://news.nationalgeographic.com/news/2009/07/photogalleries/apollo-11-hoax-pictures/photo3.html

    the astronauts photographed their lunar adventures using fast exposure settings, which would have limited incoming background light.

    "They were taking pictures at 1/150th or 1/250th of a second," Bad Astronomy's Plait said. "In that amount of time, stars just don't show up."
     
  14. Bandwagoner

    Bandwagoner Member

    Joined:
    Jan 26, 2006
    Messages:
    27,105
    Likes Received:
    3,757
    Redundancy in computers isn't the same as having a bunch of small engines and it certainly cannot be compared to parallel computing. There are more parts and plumbing in a rocket with many small engines. That seems pretty obvious. There is also more waste. The first stage is a great system, strapping three together is a way to get a heavy lift vehicle without designing new engines and boosters. It isn't the best way.
     

Share This Page

  • About ClutchFans

    Since 1996, ClutchFans has been loud and proud covering the Houston Rockets, helping set an industry standard for team fan sites. The forums have been a home for Houston sports fans as well as basketball fanatics around the globe.

  • Support ClutchFans!

    If you find that ClutchFans is a valuable resource for you, please consider becoming a Supporting Member. Supporting Members can upload photos and attachments directly to their posts, customize their user title and more. Gold Supporters see zero ads!


    Upgrade Now