Ares vs Delta or Atlas

So, why not upgrade the Delta or Atlas instead of building Ares 1 or
2. Are the solid boosters really more reliable and safe? Could an
upgraded Delta or Atlas launch Orion without huge changes to the
launch support facilities?

Please, no replies from Kt Or Guth

Frogwatch wrote:

Please, no replies from Kt Or Guth

With all due respect sir, go **** yourself.

Just asking your question reveals a stunning ignorance of the issues.

On 31 Dec, 16:01, Frogwatch wrote:
So, why not upgrade the Delta or Atlas instead of building Ares 1 or
2. *Are the solid boosters really more reliable and safe? *Could an
upgraded Delta or Atlas launch Orion without huge changes to the
launch support facilities?

Please, no replies from Kt Or Guth

SATURN my friend if they havn't destroyed the blueprints.

- Ian Parker

"Frogwatch" wrote in message
...
So, why not upgrade the Delta or Atlas instead of building Ares 1 or
2. Are the solid boosters really more reliable and safe? Could an
upgraded Delta or Atlas launch Orion without huge changes to the
launch support facilities?

Please, no replies from Kt Or Guth

No; solids are less safe than liquids - have a look at the Delta II launch a
couple of years ago - BOOM!

Oh, and asking trolls not to reply is like posting a sign saying "Keep off
the grass" - you know what's going to happen. Just killfile them and be
done with it.

"Ian Parker" wrote in message
...
On 31 Dec, 16:01, Frogwatch wrote:
So, why not upgrade the Delta or Atlas instead of building Ares 1 or
2. Are the solid boosters really more reliable and safe? Could an
upgraded Delta or Atlas launch Orion without huge changes to the
launch support facilities?

Yes you could launch Orion on EELV's. The changes to the "launch support
facilities" would likely be much smaller and cheaper than what NASA is
currently proposing to do to the shuttle facilities in order to support Ares
I and Ares V.

Please, no replies from Kt Or Guth

I guess you should have also said "no replies from Ian Parker" who's
clueless on this topic.

SATURN my friend if they havn't destroyed the blueprints.

No the blueprints have not been destroyed. This is an urban ledgend.
Jeff
--
"Many things that were acceptable in 1958 are no longer acceptable today.
My own standards have changed too." -- Freeman Dyson

Ian Parker wrote:

:On 31 Dec, 16:01, Frogwatch wrote:
: So, why not upgrade the Delta or Atlas instead of building Ares 1 or
: 2. *Are the solid boosters really more reliable and safe? *Could an
: upgraded Delta or Atlas launch Orion without huge changes to the
: launch support facilities?
:
: Please, no replies from Kt Or Guth
:
:SATURN my friend if they havn't destroyed the blueprints.
:

Blueprints are the least of your problems if you want to replicate
Saturn V. You have to build all new tooling, find or rebuild sources
for all those 1960's components, etc.

Trying to just repeat the past is generally not a good approach. We
could build a much better Saturn V these days if a Saturn V is what is
wanted.


--
"The reasonable man adapts himself to the world; the unreasonable
man persists in trying to adapt the world to himself. Therefore,
all progress depends on the unreasonable man."
--George Bernard Shaw

On Dec 31, 9:01*am, Frogwatch wrote:
So, why not upgrade the Delta or Atlas instead of building Ares 1 or
2.

I don't think that an upgraded Delta or Atlas could do the job of a
Saturn V. Those are much smaller rockets than Ares.

John Savard

On Dec 31, 1:08*pm, Fred J. McCall wrote:

Trying to just repeat the past is generally not a good approach. *We
could build a much better Saturn V these days if a Saturn V is what is
wanted.

Making a rocket engine as big as one of the five in a Saturn V that
will work safely will require a fair amount of research and testing,
so although you're probably right, the investment in all the static
tests to ensure the engine would not blow up on the launch pad is of
enough value that it is understandable that it would be desired to
make use of it if possible.

John Savard

On 31 Dec, 20:08, Fred J. McCall wrote:
Ian Parker wrote:

:On 31 Dec, 16:01, Frogwatch wrote:
: So, why not upgrade the Delta or Atlas instead of building Ares 1 or
: 2. *Are the solid boosters really more reliable and safe? *Could an
: upgraded Delta or Atlas launch Orion without huge changes to the
: launch support facilities?
:
: Please, no replies from Kt Or Guth
:
:SATURN my friend if they havn't destroyed the blueprints.
:

Blueprints are the least of your problems if you want to replicate
Saturn V. *You have to build all new tooling, find or rebuild sources
for all those 1960's components, etc.

Trying to just repeat the past is generally not a good approach. *We
could build a much better Saturn V these days if a Saturn V is what is
wanted.

Futurologists have things called S curves. There is a concept called
technological maturity. The big expendible became "mature" round about
the time of the Moon landings. The "mature" big expendible calls
itself Saturn 5.

Ares is not really a leap. Ares, of course, uses modern electronics
which BTW does not ensure stability against oscillations. Ares is a
modern version of Saturn. It is better than Saturn but is it better
enough to justify its price tag? It is NOT a different concept, like a
nuclear rocket, an ion drive or even the use of AI to mine the Moon/
Astreroids would be.

You are of course absolutely right. It is generally unwise to go back
to the past. It is also unwise to abandon an existing technology until
the new one has proved itself.


- Ian Parker

Fred J. McCall wrote:
Trying to just repeat the past is generally not a good approach. We
could build a much better Saturn V these days if a Saturn V is what is
wanted.


I think it should look like this:
http://www.dvdtalk.com/dvdsavant/images/138firstart.jpg

Pat