Mobiles,Lunar Module and NASA

>Someone on the Fanderson list pointed out that the >upcoming
> SHADO mobile diecast models from Product >Enterprise don't
> look right. Specifically, they have too much dirt on >them,
> and never appeared this way in the series.

If its a dirt simulation its very poor,When I first saw them I thought it was camoflage.Clearly the plan was to produce a horse.Like most things when too many people are involved , you end up with a camel.It reminds me of what Dinky did with the Interceptor.Were the people from quality assurance on holiday when this model landed on their bench

One thing has always puzzled me about NASA.Why did'nt they lanch the Shuttle like the Lunar Module in UFO.This may have been addressed before,but it seems to me it would have used straight forward existing technology,it would have cheaper and less dangerous.
The disaster's of Challenger and Columbia would also have been avoided.Ok you would have required some thrust to penetrate into Space,but surely it would have been minimal.
I can't beleive the shuttle was too heavy.

Regards Mark UK

[Non-text portions of this message have been removed]

On Sat, 30 Jul 2005, "Mark Davies" <[hidden email]>
posted the following:

> One thing has always puzzled me about NASA.Why
> did'nt they lanch the Shuttle like the Lunar Module in
> UFO.This may have been addressed before,but it
> seems to me it would have used straight forward
> existing technology,it would have cheaper and
> less dangerous.

That is probably because the SHADO Lunar Module carrier
is *not* "straight-forward-existing-technology" for a
number of reasons.

First, vertical-takeoff jet-engined transports are
non-existent in the modern aeropace world, owing to the
difficulties involved with designing and manufacturing
vectored-thrust powerplants of sufficient performance.

In fact, none of the four VTOL fighter jets to reach even
limited production (the Hawker Harrier, the YAK-36, the
Boeing YF-32 and the Lockheed YF-35) have much in the
way of heavy-load-lifting ability unless launched
conventionally.

Consider also that the space shuttle itself is mostly
cargo and engine. Nearly all of the fuel is stored
in the external fuel tank discarded after it reaches
orbit. By contrast, the SHADO Lunar Module appears
to have far more capacity for fuel, while carrying only
a handful of passengers. (Score one for Derek Meddings
and Mike Trim, but it does make you wonder what sort
of vehicle would actually have transported all of the
heavy equipment necessary to create Moonbase in the
first place.)

Finally, note that it is extremely difficult to get a
vehicle of sufficent size launched into Earth orbit from
a subsonic aircraft. Both the X-15 and Dick Rutan's
recent efforts achieved only sub-orbital heights.  
Neither of these vehicles approximates the size of the
SHADO Lunar Module, let alone that of the Space Shuttle.

Again, the limited amount of onboard fuel plays an issue.
Recognize that in terms of total weight, the Saturn Vs used
by the Apollo moonshots were roughly 97% fuel. In other
words, it takes an incredible amount of fuel to reach the moon.

And while we can carry the space shuttle on a 747
transport, there is yet to be an aircraft which could
carry the total weight of the space shuttle and all of
its fuel needed to achieve escape velocity. (And the
shuttle merely achieves Earth orbit, getting nowhere
near the moon.)

Having said that, let me also say that for the input of
a genuine rocket scientist, you probably should re-direct
this question to Mr. SeaLaunch himself, our own Marc Martin.

Regards,

JEK

> Having said that, let me also say that for the input of
> a genuine rocket scientist, you probably should re-direct
> this question to Mr. SeaLaunch himself, our own Marc Martin.

Heh, heh... you know, I've actually worked on designs for
rockets like that...

It seems that the rocket industry is pretty old-fashioned,
and they'd like to stick to 1950's technology as long as
possible.

Besides, all this futuristic stuff usually can (on paper)
deliver no payload at all to orbit, so there needs to
be some sort of breakthrough in propulsion technology
to get the payload mass up to some useful amount.

Marc

--- In [hidden email], Marc Martin <marc@u...> wrote:

> It seems that the rocket industry is pretty old-fashioned,
> and they'd like to stick to 1950's technology as long as
> possible.

Does this mean that the saying "well it's not rocket science" doesn't
have the same connotation any more? Sorry, couldn't resist it {grin}.

When the shuttle was originally designed, wasn't there some pressure
to increase it's size iro payload for military purposes, that meant
it required much more fuel to leave earth? I'm recalling a
documentary about the Challenger disaster, implying that it was
enevitable, because of this influence on its size and (potential)
use?

BTW, I received an email from Nick Williams in response to my query
over which of the two days at their 'Countdown to Disaster'
convention would be more interesting from a UFO fan's perspective. He
said they cannot say, as their programme isn't decided until the last
possible moment. His suggestion was to pre-register for the first
day, giving me the option to stay for the second, as most guests
attend for the whole convention apparently. 'On the door
Registrations' were discouraged, but possible.

I'll have to see how things work out......

Sarah

... oh, for the good old days of the Apollo program...


--- In [hidden email], "moonbasegirl" <shaded2cinders@y...>
wrote:
> --- In [hidden email], Marc Martin <marc@u...> wrote:
>
> > It seems that the rocket industry is pretty old-fashioned,
> > and they'd like to stick to 1950's technology as long as
> > possible.
>
> Does this mean that the saying "well it's not rocket science"
doesn't
> have the same connotation any more? Sorry, couldn't resist it
{grin}.
>
> When the shuttle was originally designed, wasn't there some
pressure
> to increase it's size iro payload for military purposes, that meant
> it required much more fuel to leave earth? I'm recalling a
> documentary about the Challenger disaster, implying that it was
> enevitable, because of this influence on its size and (potential)
> use?
>
> BTW, I received an email from Nick Williams in response to my query
> over which of the two days at their 'Countdown to Disaster'
> convention would be more interesting from a UFO fan's perspective.
He
> said they cannot say, as their programme isn't decided until the
last
> possible moment. His suggestion was to pre-register for the first
> day, giving me the option to stay for the second, as most guests
> attend for the whole convention apparently. 'On the door
> Registrations' were discouraged, but possible.
>
> I'll have to see how things work out......
>
> Sarah

--- In [hidden email], Jeff Kuzma <105416.1170@c...> wrote:
> On Sat, 30 Jul 2005, "Mark Davies" <aonq79@d...> posted the
following:

>> One thing has always puzzled me about NASA. Why didn't they launch
the Shuttle like the Lunar Module in UFO? This may have been
addressed before, but it seems to me it would have used
straightforward existing technology, it would have cheaper and less
dangerous. <<

[Snip VTOL discussion]

Well, not cheaper. One of the original shuttle designs was a carrier
aircraft design, but IIRC it was canned because the disposable
external tank was considered cheaper, quicker to get into service and
less technically risky. You always have to remember the politics of
spaceflight... B-/

W.r.t. VTOL capability, there's not a lot of point in going for that.
A good runway will dramatically boost your payload capability (cf.
the ski-jumps on RN carriers for SHars), and that's the bottom line
in this sort of thing -- how much mass can you boost into the correct
trajectory, be in orbit or translunar? Zero X was not a bad idea,
though the lifting bodies obviously needed work. <g>

> Consider also that the space shuttle itself is mostly cargo and
engine. Nearly all of the fuel is stored in the external fuel tank
discarded after it reaches orbit. By contrast, the SHADO Lunar Module
appears to have far more capacity for fuel, while carrying only a
handful of passengers. (Score one for Derek Meddings and Mike Trim,
but it does make you wonder what sort of vehicle would actually have
transported all of the heavy equipment necessary to create Moonbase
in the first place.) <

SHADO spacecraft obviously have some kind of high-powered drive that
we know nothing about. It's not just the LM, but also the
Interceptors; to do what they do requires delta-V capability far
beyond anything we have (not to mention some kind of incredibly
energy-dense fuel). I'm afraid that we have to chalk it up to
doubletalk technology.

Having said that, a possible way of getting a lot of stuff to
Moonbase could have been to use the Orion concept. Given the need for
SHADO in the first place, I suspect that certain governments could
have been agreeable to the development of this technology -- under
heavy international supervision (the IAO, I would presume), if needed
to allay other nations' fears.

> Finally, note that it is extremely difficult to get a vehicle of
sufficent size launched into Earth orbit from a subsonic aircraft.
Both the X-15 and Dick Rutan's recent efforts achieved only sub-
orbital heights. Neither of these vehicles approximates the size of
the SHADO Lunar Module, let alone that of the Space Shuttle.

> And while we can carry the space shuttle on a 747 transport, there
is yet to be an aircraft which could carry the total weight of the
space shuttle and all of its fuel needed to achieve escape velocity.
(And the shuttle merely achieves Earth orbit, getting nowhere near
the moon.) <

Well, there was that incarnation of HOTOL that was going to be
launched from the back of a modified (8-engined, IIRC) An-225
Mriya... The concept of a winged spacecraft is not one that has been
properly investigated in a practical sense -- that is, in terms of of
flying hardware. We've had lots of plans and projects, but nothing
that actually takes off, with or without a carrier, and _flies_ into
orbit (or wherever) -- well, maybe the Pegasus, but I can't remember
if that ever worked. The Shuttle is a full-size version of what model
rocketeers (used to?) call a "boost-glider" -- it goes up like a
rocket and glides back down; what it doesn't do is use wing-borne
lift to help it get into space.

Phil, an aerospace engineer -- does that make me a "rocket
scientist"? <g>

On Tue, 09 Aug 2005, "Phil" <[hidden email]>
posted:

> You always have to remember the politics of
> spaceflight... B-/

Yes, you certainly do, as recent problems with
the Space Shuttle have repeatedly demonstrated.

> SHADO spacecraft obviously have some kind
> of high-powered drive that we know nothing
> about. It's not just the LM, but also the
> Interceptors; to do what they do requires
> delta-V capability far beyond anything we
> have...I'm afraid that we have to chalk it
> up to doubletalk technology.

Agreed. This is especially prevalent when one
considers the B-142 Probe from "Close-Up."
Notice how the whole issue of tagging along with
a hyper-light-speed UFO is ignored altogether
in that episode.

> Having said that, a possible way of getting
> a lot of stuff to Moonbase could have been
> to use the Orion concept.

Interesting idea, but I thought that the Space
Shuttle as originally conceived was also to
be supplemented by a new generation of heavy-
lift rockets to replace the Saturn V. Obviously
the latter never developed, which may have added
to the increased size of the Shuttle. Or am I
reading too much into this whole thing?

> The concept of a winged spacecraft is not
> one that has been properly investigated in
> a practical sense -- that is, in terms of of
> flying hardware...We've had lots of plans
> and projects....

Agreed, especially in light of the termination
some years back of the National Space Plane
project. Plenty of designs and concepts over
the last 40-odd years, but somehow we keep falling
back on the old-reliable pad-launched approach.

But, as Marc Martin repeatedly points out, "Someone
has to pay for this stuff." And evidently 'nobody'
really wanted to do so.

> Phil, an aerospace engineer -- does that make
> me a "rocket scientist"? <g>

You clearly know more than me, so I will let Marc
make that call!

JEK