NASA Needs A Bigger Ares V

"Rand Simberg" wrote in message
...
On Fri, 29 Feb 2008 02:24:59 GMT, in a place far, far away, Brian
Thorn made the phosphor on my monitor glow
in such a way as to indicate that:

Maybe go back to the higher Isp SSME instead of RS-68?

That would really up the per-flight cost.

You mean higher than it will be with the current configuration? :-/

On Fri, 29 Feb 2008 08:37:47 GMT, in a place far, far away, "Alan
Erskine" made the phosphor on my monitor
glow in such a way as to indicate that:

"Rand Simberg" wrote in message
...
On Fri, 29 Feb 2008 02:24:59 GMT, in a place far, far away, Brian
Thorn made the phosphor on my monitor glow
in such a way as to indicate that:

Maybe go back to the higher Isp SSME instead of RS-68?

That would really up the per-flight cost.

You mean higher than it will be with the current configuration? :-/

Yes, that's that's what those words generally mean. I wasn't implying
that the current planned cost will be low.

On Feb 28, 3:47 am, gaetanomarano wrote:


however, I think that a 6th RS-68 is NOT the best solution, that (in
my opinion) is to add one-two further STANDARD 4-segments SRBs to the
current design (with 3 to 5 RS-68s)



Not viable. Too big for current pads and infrastructure.

On Thu, 28 Feb 2008 23:44:30 -0500, "Greg D. Moore \(Strider\)"
wrote:

Kill this albatross now. If we're going to do anything, stick with shuttle
until a better idea comes along.

Or go to DIRECT, which uses most of the same parts much more
effectively.

Brian

I notice the crew are going up on a second launch. Given that you're
doing Earth orbit rendezvous anyway, couldn't the payload problems be
solved by dumping the Ares 1 and sending the crew up on a second Ares 5?

On Sat, 01 Mar 2008 15:25:22 +0000, Russell Wallace
wrote:

I notice the crew are going up on a second launch. Given that you're
doing Earth orbit rendezvous anyway, couldn't the payload problems be
solved by dumping the Ares 1 and sending the crew up on a second Ares 5?

Yes, though a second Ares V would be a lot more expensive than an Ares
I.

Brian

On Sat, 01 Mar 2008 15:25:22 +0000, in a place far, far away, Russell
Wallace made the phosphor on my
monitor glow in such a way as to indicate that:

I notice the crew are going up on a second launch. Given that you're
doing Earth orbit rendezvous anyway, couldn't the payload problems be
solved by dumping the Ares 1 and sending the crew up on a second Ares 5?

The payload problem could be solved even more cheaply by not
developing Ares V at all, putting up propellant depots that would be
supplied by the private sector, and doing LEO assembly. They're going
to have to learn to do this for Mars anyway, unless they plan to build
an Ares VIII (something that, sadly, they're probably considering).

Brian Thorn wrote:
Yes, though a second Ares V would be a lot more expensive than an Ares
I.

Per unit, yes. On the other hand, if the Ares 1 program were shut down
it would save a fortune in development and operating cost, and another
fortune in development cost on trying to shoehorn payloads into it; I
imagine the savings would pay for a lot of extra Ares 5 launches.

On Mar 1, 3:37 pm, Russell Wallace
wrote:
Brian Thorn wrote:
Yes, though a second Ares V would be a lot more expensive than an Ares
I.

Per unit, yes. On the other hand, if the Ares 1 program were shut down
it would save a fortune in development and operating cost, and another
fortune in development cost on trying to shoehorn payloads into it; I
imagine the savings would pay for a lot of extra Ares 5 launches.

Overkill and it would be more expensive over all. Ares I is
developing the 5 segment SRB and the J-2 for the Ares V. The Ares I
upperstage will be similar to the EDS. So shutting down the Ares I
doesn't save much and the per unit cost of the Ares V would over
shadow the small savings. Orion on Ares V for LEO would be like
launching a Delta II payload on a Delta IV heavy

On Sat, 01 Mar 2008 20:37:44 +0000, in a place far, far away, Russell
Wallace made the phosphor on my
monitor glow in such a way as to indicate that:

Brian Thorn wrote:
Yes, though a second Ares V would be a lot more expensive than an Ares
I.

Per unit, yes. On the other hand, if the Ares 1 program were shut down
it would save a fortune in development and operating cost, and another
fortune in development cost on trying to shoehorn payloads into it; I
imagine the savings would pay for a lot of extra Ares 5 launches.

Except it would (at least in theory) increase the cost of the Ares 5
development, because it's supposed to piggy back off, and use
flight-proven components of, the Ares 1. Better to launch lots of
small rockets than a few big ones, from a cost standpoint, both
developmentally and operationally.