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

"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, 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

Quadibloc wrote:
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.


The Russians already have a engine in service that is more powerful than
a F-1, the RD-171:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/RD-171
This generates 1,697,000 lb thrust at sea level, versus the F-1's
1,522,000 thrust at sea level.
It is used on the Zenit launch vehicle's first stage.
Half of the four chambered RD-171 forms the two chambered RD-180 engine
for Atlas V.

Pat

On Dec 31, 1:57*pm, Pat Flannery wrote:

Half of*the four chambered RD-171

Of course, the F-1 had but a *single* chamber...

John Savard

On Dec 31, 2:57*pm, Pat Flannery wrote:

Half of *the four chambered RD-171 forms the two chambered RD-180 engine
for Atlas V.


And 1/4 of it forms the single-chambered RD-191 for at least one
Angara version and the air-launched Baykal.

I'm beginning to wonder if we shouldn't take A and maybe B slightly
seriously. With Russia it's hard to tell, but those rockets do look
doable. At least technically -- what would then be done with them
that's worth doing is another question.

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