|
|
Thread Tools | Display Modes |
#21
|
|||
|
|||
Commercial Ares I?!
On Sat, 19 Apr 2008 14:01:36 -0500, in a place far, far away, Pat
Flannery made the phosphor on my monitor glow in such a way as to indicate that: Brian Thorn wrote: ATK trying to sell Ares I to the military is not "Military Related". I'd forgotten something; back when Ares 1 was being referred to as "The Stick", everyone on the space newsgroups was complaining about NASA developing a new launch vehicle when Orion could be launched on a Delta IV Heavy, or a Atlas V with strap-on SRBs, and developing a whole new launch vehicle for it seemed both expensive and wasteful of NASA resources. We can now make a guess as to why the decision to develop a new booster was made: neither Delta IV or Atlas V has a rapid launch capability, which is looked on as a asset of Ares I, making it suitable for DOD needs. I suspect that the military has had its fingers in this program from the word go, and as the design progresses it's going to get some features the military wants added to it. Nothing major, mind you. Say a alternate storable hypergolic or solid upper stage... so it can get airborne really fast if the need arises. If the military had a need for such a vehicle, they'd be paying for it, and not hoping that NASA would do it. They don't. |
#22
|
|||
|
|||
Commercial Ares I?!
Brian Thorn wrote: We can now make a guess as to why the decision to develop a new booster was made: neither Delta IV or Atlas V has a rapid launch capability, But can be made rapid at a fraction of the cost, and none of the joint-effort hassle, of Air Force participation in Ares. You put a solid upper stage on it, and keep it on a pad, and "rapid" can be around 5 minutes from the word go. Even using storable propellants, you could get it tanked up for launch if a crises arose and still get it airborne in a matter of a few minutes. You just have to give the guidance system the trajectory you want for your payload to go into the intended orbit and let her rip, letting a propulsion system on the payload itself do any fine orbit trim after its inserted into basically the right orbit. Pat Pat Pat which is looked on as a asset of Ares I, making it suitable for DOD needs. Ares I has nothing but paper numbers, and doesn't appear to be even remotely capable of "rapid launch", given its large heritage in the Shuttle program (which looks rapid only when compared to nightmares like Titan IV.) Atlas and Delta are exactly what the military wants, and ought to be, since they drove the specs. Worse, Ares is almost certainly going to be a launcher very hostile to sensitive military payloads. I suspect that the military has had its fingers in this program from the word go, I don't. Not for a minute. The military won't go near this thing, having already learned their lesson from the Shuttle. And they're no longer fans of big solids after the Titan 34D, IV and IV-B debacles. and as the design progresses it's going to get some features the military wants added to it. Nothing major, mind you. Say a alternate storable hypergolic or solid upper stage... so it can get airborne really fast if the need arises. Neither option would give the Ares I the performance it needs for a serious payload. Ares I needs a long-burning, high iSp stage to have even close to reasonable payload. The LH2 stage is huge for an upper stage and would be extremely difficult to replace with "Super Agena" or "Super IUS", what-have-you. The "Military Ares" is a figment of your imagination, pure and simple. "The Abyss" Oh, that movie...it starts out with such promise, then falls apart right before your eyes. Ever see the Director's Edition, the version Cameron wanted before Fox chopped it up for theaters? Much, much better. That dialog...Y-e-e-s-h! That was getting into Lucas/Bruckheimer territory. I'm surprised that some Navy SEALs didn't beat the living crap out of James Cameron for the way they were portrayed in the film. Not really, it was that high pressure nervous syndrome thing that got to Coffey, and the others were following his orders, under extremely adverse conditions. There was a nuke onboard, afterall. Ensign Monk turned out to be a good guy. Brian |
#23
|
|||
|
|||
Commercial Ares I?!
Pat Flannery wrote:
We can now make a guess as to why the decision to develop a new booster was made: No need to guess - we have, in black-and-white, Congress specifically directing NASA to reuse existing hardware and to preserve existing jobs. D. -- Touch-twice life. Eat. Drink. Laugh. http://derekl1963.livejournal.com/ -Resolved: To be more temperate in my postings. Oct 5th, 2004 JDL |
#24
|
|||
|
|||
Commercial Ares I?!
Pat Flannery wrote:
Brian Thorn wrote: We can now make a guess as to why the decision to develop a new booster was made: neither Delta IV or Atlas V has a rapid launch capability, But can be made rapid at a fraction of the cost, and none of the joint-effort hassle, of Air Force participation in Ares. You put a solid upper stage on it, and keep it on a pad, and "rapid" can be around 5 minutes from the word go. In other words, in order to make an Ares I capable of rapid launch... you have to modify it such that it is no longer an Ares I. Even using storable propellants, you could get it tanked up for launch if a crises arose and still get it airborne in a matter of a few minutes. You just have to give the guidance system the trajectory you want for your payload to go into the intended orbit and let her rip, letting a propulsion system on the payload itself do any fine orbit trim after its inserted into basically the right orbit. Um. Without going into a whole bunch of stuff that might earn me a summer vacation in Leavenworth... You haven't a clue what you are talking about Pat. Hell, complicated stuff like the detailed design of the guidance system aside - simple orbital mechanics tells you that you must launch when a window is available for your desired orbit and not at any other time. D. -- Touch-twice life. Eat. Drink. Laugh. http://derekl1963.livejournal.com/ -Resolved: To be more temperate in my postings. Oct 5th, 2004 JDL |
#25
|
|||
|
|||
Commercial Ares I?!
On Sat, 19 Apr 2008 23:34:02 -0500, in a place far, far away, Pat
Flannery made the phosphor on my monitor glow in such a way as to indicate that: Brian Thorn wrote: We can now make a guess as to why the decision to develop a new booster was made: neither Delta IV or Atlas V has a rapid launch capability, But can be made rapid at a fraction of the cost, and none of the joint-effort hassle, of Air Force participation in Ares. You put a solid upper stage on it, and keep it on a pad, and "rapid" can be around 5 minutes from the word go. Even using storable propellants, you could get it tanked up for launch if a crises arose and still get it airborne in a matter of a few minutes. You just have to give the guidance system the trajectory you want for your payload to go into the intended orbit and let her rip, letting a propulsion system on the payload itself do any fine orbit trim after its inserted into basically the right orbit. Yes, it's such a magical rocket, that you don't even have to wait for a launch window. rolling eyes |
#26
|
|||
|
|||
Commercial Ares I?!
|
#27
|
|||
|
|||
Commercial Ares I?!
"Rand Simberg" wrote in message
... I suspect that what Pat doesn't understand about orbital mechanics (and rocketry in general), simple or otherwise, would fill a large library. I don't understand orbital mechanics either. All I know is it's more a matter of how long the launch vehicle would take to assemble and the SRB's (and therefore their derivatives) ain't quick; none of the shuttle major assemblies is a quick-build. Also, the USAF paid for the development of the Atlas V and Delta IV for their orbital needs, so it's doubtful they would be interested in another LV to do the same job. Unless of course, they're still 'punishing' Boeing for the 'spying' incident a couple of years ago; Lockheed seem to have forgiven them, but maybe not the AF. Wasn't that the reason why the number of D-IV launchers for the AF was reduced and the difference taken up by the Atlas V? |
#28
|
|||
|
|||
Commercial Ares I?!
On Sat, 19 Apr 2008 23:34:02 -0500, Pat Flannery
wrote: But can be made rapid at a fraction of the cost, and none of the joint-effort hassle, of Air Force participation in Ares. You put a solid upper stage on it, A solid upper stage won't work, they just don't have the burn times and the iSp that are needed to reach orbit after the 2 minute boost on an Ares I SRB. You'd need two or three solid upper stages or one really humongous upper stage, like the size of a Minuteman or MX. In any event, this vehicle is no longer an Ares I. So if it is just the big solid first stage that the Air Force wants, why wouldn't they just use the big solid booster from Atlas 5, which they already have control over (more than NASA's SRB, anyway.) Even using storable propellants, you could get it tanked up for launch if a crises arose and still get it airborne in a matter of a few minutes. Yeah, right! Pump the UDMH boys, we gotta get this spysat launched! No, don't worry about safety, that stuff won't hurt you if a little leaks! Pat, I like your style. You're usually a pretty good participant in sci.space, but in this case, your hatred and paranoia of Bush/Cheney has so clouded your thinking that you are truly embarrassing yourself. Brian |
#29
|
|||
|
|||
Commercial Ares I?!
|
#30
|
|||
|
|||
Commercial Ares I?!
"Alan Erskine" wrote:
"Rand Simberg" wrote in message ... I suspect that what Pat doesn't understand about orbital mechanics (and rocketry in general), simple or otherwise, would fill a large library. I don't understand orbital mechanics either. All I know is it's more a matter of how long the launch vehicle would take to assemble and the SRB's (and therefore their derivatives) ain't quick; none of the shuttle major assemblies is a quick-build. Even if they are quick build - they also have to be designed to be quick response. And the operational systems (data handling, launch control, etc...) ditto. It's not simple. D. -- Touch-twice life. Eat. Drink. Laugh. http://derekl1963.livejournal.com/ -Resolved: To be more temperate in my postings. Oct 5th, 2004 JDL |
Thread Tools | |
Display Modes | |
|
|
Similar Threads | ||||
Thread | Thread Starter | Forum | Replies | Last Post |
ATK Plans Commercial Ares I | [email protected] | Policy | 32 | April 12th 08 09:46 AM |
I've added FOUR updates to my Ares-1 article with some NEW calculations that (clearly) show WHY the new Ares-1 can't fly | gaetanomarano | Policy | 0 | November 12th 07 10:21 AM |
NewSpace rockets __ EELVs __ Ares-I __ REVISED Orion/Ares-I __ FAST-SLV __ chances of success | gaetanomarano | Policy | 9 | June 16th 07 12:03 AM |
in my opinion (both) Ares-I and Ares-V could NEVER fly once! ...could NASA rockets win vs. privates on launch date and prices? | gaetanomarano | Policy | 0 | May 10th 07 11:11 PM |
Commercial use of SRB | [email protected] | Policy | 1 | September 12th 05 11:35 PM |