Ares-1 second stage MYSTERY

On Dec 25, 5:37 pm, gaetanomarano wrote:
.

Could a crane with HALF its max power lift TWICE the weight???
Clearly, it CAN'T.

But that's EXACTLY what "should" happen with the (latest) Ares-1
second stage!!!

The problem is explained in detail in my new article "Ares-1 second
stage MYSTERY"

http://www.ghostnasa.com/posts/017aresmystery.html

Obviously the extremely old and rather inert massive though trusty
Saturn V accomplished all of that, with fuel and payload to spare. Go
figure.

- Brad Guth

..

the Apollo 7 and Saturn 1B is NOT a good example nor a good comparison

just read this:

http://www.astronautix.com/flights/apollo7.htm

and scroll the chronology to the Apollo 7 launch in Oct. 11, 1968

the Apollo 7 payload mass was: Apollo CSM 101 14,674 kg (32,350 lb)
while the (current design) Orion mass is over TWICE that: 30.5 mT

the "lunar" Apollo CSM was about 30.5 mT but over 18.4 mT was the
PROPELLENT mass for Trans Earth Injection, while, the "orbital" Apollo
CSM (or the "orbital" Orion) needs only a small amount of propellent
to deorbit

also, the Saturn 1B + the Apollo 7 total upperstages' mass was ONLY
(118,800 kg second stage gross mass + 14,674 kg Apollo 7 mass) 133,474
kg. while the Ares-1 upperstages' mass (2nd stage, Orion, SM, LAS,
propellents) is 192 mT ... 50% more than Apollo 7 and its 2nd stage!!!

just add that the Saturn 1B first stage had liquid engines that could
have a constant thrust, while, the Ares-1 will use an SRB that has a
thrust that QUICKLY FALLS after the first 90 seconds from lift off:

http://www.ghostnasa.com/posts/IMAGES/012srbthrust.jpg

last, the 5-segments SRB burn time is only 5 seconds more than a
standard SRB (123 sec.) then just 128 seconds, while, the Saturn 1B
first stage burn time was 155 seconds:

http://www.astronautix.com/lvs/saturnib.htm

that means the J-2 started at an higher altitude, acceleration and
speed

that's why a 231,913 lbf thrust J-2 was ENOUGH for the job, while, the
CLV was early designed around the (twice the J-2 thrust) SSME, while,
clearly, the 294,000 lbf thrust J-2X has NOT enough power to lift an
(over twice the Apollo 7) Orion

..

..

note: the Apollo SM propellent was used ALSO for Lunar Orbit
Insertion, while, the Orion will brake to lunar orbit with the Altair
engines

..

On Dec 28, 8:34 am, gaetanomarano wrote:
.

note: the Apollo SM propellent was used ALSO for Lunar Orbit
Insertion, while, the Orion will brake to lunar orbit with the Altair
engines

.

The SM tanks on Apollo 7 and Saturn IB launches were not filled to
capacity

On Dec 28, 8:31 am, gaetanomarano wrote:
.
that's why a 231,913 lbf thrust J-2 was ENOUGH for the job, while, the
CLV was early designed around the (twice the J-2 thrust) SSME, while,
clearly, the 294,000 lbf thrust J-2X has NOT enough power to lift an
(over twice the Apollo 7) Orion

.


Listen loser. You have yet to post anything to prove your point

Just add that the Saturn 1B first stage had liquid engines that could
have a constant thrust, while, the Ares-1 will use an SRB that has a
thrust that QUICKLY FALLS after the first 90 seconds from lift off:

So what? That helps keep the G's done. Again, thrust is NOT power.
Total impulse is. Since you can't comprehend what total impulse is,
you latch onto other parameter that don't matter as much

last, the 5-segments SRB burn time is only 5 seconds more than a
standard SRB (123 sec.) then just 128 seconds, while, the Saturn 1B
first stage burn time was 155 seconds:
that means the J-2 started at an higher altitude, acceleration and
speed

So what. The five segment provides more total impulse to carry a
heavier upperstage. Since you can't comprehend what total impulse is,
you latch onto other parameters that don't matter as much


that's why a 231,913 lbf thrust J-2 was ENOUGH for the job, while, the
CLV was early designed around the (twice the J-2 thrust) SSME, while,
clearly, the 294,000 lbf thrust J-2X has NOT enough power to lift an
(over twice the Apollo 7) Orion

Wrong again. Thrust doesn't matter for upperstages. You have even
posted the reason why Ares CAN work

"while the Ares-1 upperstages' mass (2nd stage, Orion, SM, LAS,
propellents) is 192 mT"

The Ares-I upperstage has more fuel so it can burn longer and provide
more TOTAL IMPULSE

On 28 Dic, 14:47, wrote:

The SM tanks on Apollo 7 and Saturn IB launches were not filled to
capacity

that's exactly what I've said in my post (if you've read it...)

..

On 28 Dic, 14:59, wrote:

The Ares-I upperstage has more fuel so it can burn longer and provide
more TOTAL IMPULSE

you missed a simple point: the Ares-1 payload is over TWICE the
Saturn1B/Apollo7 payload, that's why a close-to-J-2 engine is not
enough for the job but needs an SSME-class engine (and more
propellents than Saturn1B 2nd stage, of course)

..

On Dec 28, 9:46 am, gaetanomarano wrote:
On 28 Dic, 14:59, wrote:

The Ares-I upperstage has more fuel so it can burn longer and provide
more TOTAL IMPULSE

you missed a simple point: the Ares-1 payload is over TWICE the
Saturn1B/Apollo7 payload, that's why a close-to-J-2 engine is not
enough for the job but needs an SSME-class engine (and more
propellents than Saturn1B 2nd stage, of course)


No it doesn't. The engine thrust doesn't matter
So what if the payload is twice the Saturn1B/Apollo7 payload, it has
more propellant than S-IVB and the Orion SM engine is a 3rd stage.

On 28 Dic, 17:39, wrote:

the Orion SM engine is a 3rd stage

the Orion SM is NOT planned to work as 3rd stage since its FULL
propellents' load must be used for TLI

..

"gaetanomarano" wrote in message
...
On 28 Dic, 17:39, wrote:

the Orion SM engine is a 3rd stage

the Orion SM is NOT planned to work as 3rd stage since its FULL
propellents' load must be used for TLI

.



Not last I heard. Last I heard the Orion SM was also going to be used to
finish getting it into orbit.



--
Greg Moore
SQL Server DBA Consulting Remote and Onsite available!
Email: sql (at) greenms.com http://www.greenms.com/sqlserver.html