.
the (FAST-SLV-like but FOUR months LATER) Direct needs TWO launches
(like in my ArianeX proposal) to accomplish the same goal of just ONE
Ares-5/cargo-Altair
that's NOT so cheap... and NOT so reliable due to the number of
launches, engines and motors that MUST work well:
cargo-Direct: TWO launches, four SRB, six RS-68, two J-2X = "12"
Ares-5: one launch, two SRB, six RS-68, one J-2X = "9"
MY Ares 5+: one launch, three SRBs, three RS-68, one J-2X = "7"
http://www.ghostnasa.com/posts/032ares5srb3.html
please consider, that, in EVERY cargo launch, the two cargo-Direct
rocket MUST work well to avoid the full cargo-mission to FAIL
last... think that ESAS is MAINLY a CARGO landing program (rather than
a crew landing program like Apollo) since it's goal is (or should
be...) to land the hardware for outposts, long stay, scientific
research, etc.
so, have a simple, cheap, reliable, easy and heavy-payload launcher,
is a key feature of the full ESAS program
.
from NASA study .pdf the Direct EDS looks have TWO engines... so the
total number of engines/motors in a two-launches cargo missions should
be "13" rather than "9" of the Ares-5 and "7" of the Ares 5+, so, the
Ares-5 is about 50% more reliable than Direct and MY Ares 5+ is about
100% more reliable than Direct!!!
.
just consider, that, the ABSOLUTE needs of a SUCCESSFUL rendezvous at
EVERY Direct's (cargo or crew) mission, ADDS so much risks (then a
GIANT LOSS of reliability) that OUTCLASS of ONE ORDER OF MAGNITUDE the
simple (unreliable) fact that EACH cargo-Direct needs TWICE the
engines/motors of MY Ares 5+ or 50% the engines/motors of an Ares-5
that must ALWAYS work well !!!
.
gaetanomarano - 05 Jul 2008 14:39 GMT
.
post edit: or 50% ...MORE... engines/motors of an Ares-5
charliexmurphy@yahoo.com - 05 Jul 2008 15:00 GMT
> .
>
[quoted text clipped - 42 lines]
>
> .
All this doesn't matter since 3 SRB's are not feasible.
kT - 05 Jul 2008 15:35 GMT
>> just consider, that, the ABSOLUTE needs of a SUCCESSFUL
> All this doesn't matter since 3 SRB's are not feasible.
A single inline SRB in a straight stack isn't feasible either, but that
didn't stop Michael Griffin from forcing NASA to spend billions of
dollars and several time critical years just to demonstrate that.
Hades - 05 Jul 2008 15:37 GMT
gaetanomarano wrote :
> the (FAST-SLV-like but FOUR months LATER) Direct ...
Again you are lying, poor crying sissy ...
Theses concepts are old, and are in the original ESAS report :
http://www.nasa.gov/mission_pages/exploration/news/ESAS_report.html
Even Direct guys don't claim (like you) they have invented this
concept.
kT - 05 Jul 2008 15:39 GMT
> gaetanomarano wrote :
>
[quoted text clipped - 6 lines]
> Even Direct guys don't claim (like you) they have invented this
> concept.
Yes, but he hasn't spent billions of dollars and wasted YEARS pursueing
the bullshit concepts of ESAS and Direct like launch vehicles.
You want BULLSHIT? You only have to look as far as NASA.
Geronimo ain't got nothing on NASA bullshit.