 |
 | Home | Contact Us | FAQ | Search & Site Map | Link to Us |
 | Sign In | Join | Other 45 Sites in Network |
| HomeDiscussion GroupsSpace ScienceAstronomyAmateur AstronomySpace FlightSpace StationShuttleSpace HistorySpace PolicySETI SpaceKB.com Contact UsLink To UsSearch & Site Map |
Space Forum / Shuttle / April 2008>>> better, safer, smarter, cheaper, simpler, lighter, shorter Ares-1 design for the Shuttles' replacement (Orion) and (maybe) also for a (future) NEW (smaller) Shuttle >>>
a better, safer, smarter, cheaper, simpler, lighter, shorter Ares-1 design: http://www.ghostnasa.com/posts/026ares1a.html > a better, safer, smarter, cheaper, simpler, lighter, shorter Ares-1 > design: > > http://www.ghostnasa.com/posts/026ares1a.html sadly nasa must have decided the optimum pork for everyone is ares.......... the agency in whle cares about nothing else > a better, safer, smarter, cheaper, simpler, lighter, shorter Ares-1 > design: > > http://www.ghostnasa.com/posts/026ares1a.html You purpose a worse, more dangerous,dumber, costly, more complex, heavier and lastly non viable vehicle. Just stop polluting the internet with your garbage > > a better, safer, smarter, cheaper, simpler, lighter, shorter Ares-1 > > design: [quoted text clipped - 5 lines] > a worse, more dangerous,dumber, costly, more complex, heavier and > lastly non viable vehicle. None of the ideas (Ares 1 or this guy's ideas) are better than the Delta IV Heavy which is already in production; has been launched and is proven reliable. Ares 1 (NASA version) will be substatially more expensive than the Delta IV Heavy. There's really no reason at all to use the Ares 1. > None of the ideas (Ares 1 or this guy's ideas) are better than the Delta IV > Heavy which is already in production; has been launched and is proven > reliable. Ares 1 (NASA version) will be substatially more expensive than > the Delta IV Heavy. There's really no reason at all to use the Ares 1. the Delta IV Heavy already exists and costs less than develop any kind of Ares-1 but has flown just two times (IIRC) is not man-rated and can't lift the (8 mT propellents) lunar Orion but only the (2/4 mT propellents) orbital Orion (that, however, could be better than nothing... :) . On 23 Mar, 18:28, "Alan Erskine" <alan.ersk...@bigpond.com> wrote: > None of the ideas (Ares 1 or this guy's ideas) are better than the Delta IV > Heavy which is already in production; has been launched and is proven > reliable. Ares 1 (NASA version) will be substatially more expensive than > the Delta IV Heavy. There's really no reason at all to use the Ares 1. the Delta IV Heavy already exists and costs less than develop any kind of Ares-1 but has flown just two times (IIRC) is not man-rated and can't lift the (8 mT propellents) lunar Orion but only the (2/4 mT propellents) orbital Orion (that, however, could be better than nothing... :) The Delta IV has flown half a dozen times - twice in the Heavy configuration. The Ares 1 can only lift the LEO Orion too - an entirely different launch vehicle, the Ares V will be needed for Lunar missions; no difference. The Delta IV can be used as the basis of a 55 tonne LV (new core stage with the same RS-68 engines - would mean smaller payloads to the Moon - on the order of 7 tonnes landed - new mission configuration rather than a new program). There are also plans/proposals from Boeing for a Delta IV with a payload of about 100 tonnes LEO - not much less than the (less-than-capable) Ares V. On 23 Mar, 17:55, charliexmur...@yahoo.com wrote: > a worse, more dangerous,dumber, costly, more complex, heavier and > lastly non viable vehicle. just bad words... not only MY design, but, ALL rockets with the SRB-4 (instead of the SRB-5) are (at least) cheaper and faster to develop and build . >> a better, safer, smarter, cheaper, simpler, lighter, shorter Ares-1 >> design: [quoted text clipped - 7 lines] > > Just stop polluting the internet with your garbage He won't. The only solution is to killfile him. Jeff  SignatureA clever person solves a problem. A wise person avoids it. -- Einstein > a better, safer, smarter, cheaper, simpler, lighter, shorter Ares-1 > design: > > http://www.ghostnasa.com/posts/026ares1a.html Congratulations, you've actually come up with a worse idea than Ares. You show a system where you're supposedly sticking existing pieces together to form a working system. In fact, almost every existing component in your system would require extensive redesign, in many cases to the point of being a complete "do over". Just a few points from your proposed SLV: 1.) There's no way in hell you're going to stack a large vehicle on top of a shuttle external tank without significant reenforcement, it simply was not designed to carry large loads up on the nose. In fact, you would almost certainly have to completely re-design the external tank. 2.) Likewise, you are not going to attach a set of SSMEs to the bottom of a shuttle ET. It likewise was not designed to have all the force applied at that one locate. Again, complete re-design of ET. 3.) You damn sure better be recovering that SSME cluster. Didn't read enough to say if that's your plan but a SSME is designed to be reused many, many times and is therefore quite expensive for the specific impulse/lift capability. SSMEs were designed to be reused, but were not designed to be dunked in the ocean between uses. You would need to show a convincing plan to get that SSME cluster back to the ground without significant damage (and without spending several hours bobing around in the ocean). I frankly don't see that happening from what you've shown. 4.) There seems to be a lot of hand waving on everything forward of the shuttle ET. Assuming that part is less that 110~125 tons it's still only in LEO. All of that is new work. I would be tempted to say you've managed to preserve all of the shuttle's worse attributes while offering little improvement but that would be an overstatement. By getting rid of the tandem shuttle/ET stacking you have removed the worse flaw of the shuttle system. Good for you. However, while removing the worse flaw in the shuttle system you have managed to retain almost all of the most expensive components that have made the shuttle system so cost prohibitive to fly. In fact, I don't see any way your proposed system flys for *less* than the current cost to launch a shuttle. In fact, given that almost everything forward of the ET ends up either burning up in the atmosphere or in the ocean it will certainly cost *more* per launch than the current shuttle (and that's assuming that you *are* reusing the SSMEs, if not it will cost *much* more per launch). You have a good motive in wanting to use existing hardware as much as possible, however IMHO I think you have picked the wrong (i.e. most expensive) system to start from. I think starting from something like a Delta IV and man-rating the components would give you a much cheaper to launch system much quicker than either your idea or the Ares concept. > You show a system where you're supposedly sticking existing pieces > together to form a working system. In fact, almost every existing > component in your system would require extensive redesign, in many cases > to the point of being a complete "do over". yes, it needs some design and has costs, but LESS than the SRB-5 Ares-1 > There's no way in hell you're going to stack a large vehicle on top > of a shuttle external tank without significant reenforcement that's true (and I've already said that at the end of my FAST-SLV article) > Likewise, you are not going to attach a set of SSMEs to the bottom > of a shuttle ET. It likewise was not designed to have all the force > applied at that one locate. Again, complete re-design of ET. true, it's only a concept, not a ready-to-fly rocket, however, the ET changes (urely) need LESS time and mone than develop TWO brand new rockets > You damn sure better be recovering that SSME cluster. Didn't read > enough to say if that's your plan but a SSME is designed to be reused [quoted text clipped - 4 lines] > significant damage (and without spending several hours bobing around in > the ocean). I frankly don't see that happening from what you've shown. I've NOT said in the article (nor elsewhere) that the SSMEs must be recovered and reused (despite the rocket drawing's "engines' basket" seems suggest that) > There seems to be a lot of hand waving on everything forward of the > shuttle ET. Assuming that part is less that 110~125 tons it's still > only in LEO. All of that is new work. true, it's the LEO payload, that's why I suggest to "resize" the moon missions and its hardware for a crew of three (with one launch) OR use two FAST-SLV per mission for a very "hardware richer" moon mission > I would be tempted to say you've managed to preserve all of the > shuttle's worse attributes while offering little improvement but that [quoted text clipped - 9 lines] > (and that's assuming that you *are* reusing the SSMEs, if not it will > cost *much* more per launch). not true, if you scrap the Shuttle from the system, do a 100% expendable launcher and avoid to develop two new rockets, the time and money saved will be in the order of DOZENS billion$$$ (that's, also, why I've suggested to rearrange ONLY ready available space-hardware) > You have a good motive in wanting to use existing hardware as much as > possible, however IMHO I think you have picked the wrong (i.e. most > expensive) system to start from. I think starting from something like a > Delta IV and man-rating the components would give you a much cheaper to > launch system much quicker than either your idea or the Ares concept. smaller rockets like Delta, Atlas and Ariane can be used but they need DEEP changes in the ESAS hardware and lunar missions' architecture... these rockets can't be of much help with the planned missions' architecture . how many really believe bushes moon mars mission will survive his term in office? It was DOA from the get go, and had as much chance of flying as the saturn 5 in the saturn center, cleaned and painted but never going anywhere.......... bush will go down in history as the worst president ever, and ares just one of a long list of failures truly the delta heavy was a far better choice but lacked the pork....... if a manned system survives at all its its best chance. > how many really believe bushes moon mars mission will survive his term > in office? It was DOA from the get go, and had as much chance of [quoted text clipped - 8 lines] > > if a manned system survives at all its its best chance. Bob, Were you born full of sh.t or did you just fill up as you got older? > > how many really believe bushes moon mars mission will survive his term > > in office? It was DOA from the get go, and had as much chance of [quoted text clipped - 12 lines] > > Were you born full of sh.t or did you just fill up as you got older? first bush has devalued our money internationally. watched poor regulation kill our housing industry, and bring down the investment banks like bear, persiding over whats going to be a major recession, didnt get bin laden but did mire us in a endless war thats helped terrorism and de stabilized the mid east. plus his management in nasa picked the pork piggie ares, when the delta was a better faster and cheaper. if you want a bush 3rd term vote for mc cain mr 100 years.............. long term were not going to moon mars, the bush legacy costs will prevent that:( and he failed to support his own plan. ares like ISS is all about pork and jobs rather than doing things. ISS is a excellent example of how not to run a space program:( >>> how many really believe bushes moon mars mission will survive his term >>> in office? It was DOA from the get go, and had as much chance of [quoted text clipped - 26 lines] > > ISS is a excellent example of how not to run a space program:( So, you were born full sh.t. >> You damn sure better be recovering that SSME cluster. Didn't read >> enough to say if that's your plan but a SSME is designed to be reused [quoted text clipped - 8 lines] > recovered and reused (despite the rocket drawing's "engines' basket" > seems suggest that) Then you've missed my point entirely. The SSME is a *very* expensive engine. One of the major reasons that is it so expensive is that it is meant to be reused multiple times. You are chunking away a lot of money if you are using SSMEs as disposable engines. If you are going to do that, better to use an engine that was designed to be a one time use only engine. >> You show a system where you're supposedly sticking existing pieces >> together to form a working system. In fact, almost every existing [quoted text clipped - 70 lines] > > . A bit more on this subject. You could use a modified Delta IV to put an Orion class payload into LEO in a relatively short time frame by going through the design and making smart man rated upgrade. That coupled with a good Launch Abort System would very likely give you a safer system than what we have today with the Shuttle. Once you get Orion to LEO you can run it through its paces and shake out the bugs by making trips to the ISS and maybe even doing some minor Hubble maintenance (although admittedly you will definitely loose the ability to swap out large modules the way the shuttle currently can. You might swap gyros and top off fuel/cryonics and maybe replace a bad control computer - maybe). In any case, you get to gain experience using the Orion system in much the same roles the Soyuz is used now. While you are perfection the Orion in LEO, you have time to build your heavy lift capability. If this path had been taken when the CEV was kicked off I suspect you would have little to no window where the U.S. does not have a manned LEO capability (something that appears to be certain now. The only question is how big the window will be.) The heavy lift vehicle could be based on the upgrade path that Boeing has lain out for the Delta system past the IV Heavy. It could be based on something entirely different, and in fact it might even look like what is envisioned for the Ares V. Since the Delta IV/Orion could serve as the interim manned LEO capability it would take a lot of pressure out of the schedule. I think a Delta IV+ might well be a good path to a Heavy Lift capability but I am open to other suggestions here. One side benefit of going the Delta IV route is that some of the improvements needed to man rate the system will not actually cost that much and that subset of changes can get folded back into the non-manned program, improving the reliability of that system. It just makes sense to get as many launches (manned, non-manned, government, and commercial) on a few systems that have some reasonable commonality so you get many flight hours and experience that can feed back and forth. It would be great if you found problems on your commercial launches (which are going to fly at several times the rate of the manned launches) that prevented accidents on your manned launches. The problems are going to exist (no matter what system you pick), the only question is do you find and fix them before they kill someone. > >> You show a system where you're supposedly sticking existing pieces > >> together to form a working system. �In fact, almost every existing [quoted text clipped - 113 lines] > > - Show quoted text - yeah the fewer the launchers the better things are, although ideally US manned system would of had two different boosters, adds price competition and if one boosters gets grounded the other continues. I heard that thers little to man rate the delta since they strive for 100% safe launches anyway. add launch boost escape and your all set. spend the big bucks on the capsule and service module. this could still happen today, have shuttle fly out building ISS perhaps add some supply flights,, meanwhile start the delta heavy work....... fly shuttle as needed till delta is ready |
Reply to this Message |
 Sign In
 Join
 My Latest Posts My Monitored Threads My Blog My Photo Gallery My Profile My Homepage Start New Thread Enable EMail Alerts Rate this Thread
|
©2008 Advenet LLC Privacy Policy - Terms of Use
This website includes both content owned or controlled by Advenet as well as content owned or controlled by third parties.