more Ares-1 design flaws found

On Dec 11, 1:09*pm, " wrote:
Bob, I did that once. Do you really again want me to show you how easy it
is to find a list of the experiments going on right now?

And hate to disappoint you, not all science is earth shaking. In fact most
is rather boring. But it hardly means no science is going on at ISS.

so how revelant is the experiments that could ONLY BE DONE IN SPACE?

Very


Somehow most appear busy work..........

Better than war.


is it truly worth the yearly cost?

Yes, compared to other tax dollars, much...


obama and congress will be asking THIS QUESTION shortly..........


Good

is nasa ready for the challenge?


You betcha!

On Dec 15, 11:03�am, Eric Chomko wrote:
On Dec 11, 1:09�pm, " wrote:

Bob, I did that once. Do you really again want me to show you how easy it
is to find a list of the experiments going on right now?

And hate to disappoint you, not all science is earth shaking. In fact most
is rather boring. But it hardly means no science is going on at ISS.

so how revelant is the experiments that could ONLY BE DONE IN SPACE?

Very



Somehow most appear busy work..........

Better than war.



is it truly worth the yearly cost?

Yes, compared to other tax dollars, much...



obama and congress will be asking THIS QUESTION shortly..........

Good

is nasa ready for the challenge?

You betcha!

yep nasa designed ares, a costly, poor design pork piggie payoff to
existing contractors, that mired us in years of delays and wastewd
resources.

if nasa had gone with a existing expendable we would be ready to start
flying........

" wrote in news:4a90bc4a-ecc7-45a3-a457-
:



if nasa had gone with a existing expendable we would be ready to start
flying........

Flying what?

--Damon

On Dec 15, 5:44�pm, Damon Hill wrote:
" wrote in news:4a90bc4a-ecc7-45a3-a457-
:



if nasa had gone with a existing expendable we would be ready to start
flying........

Flying what?

--Damon

delta and atlas heavies. nasa specified 8 crew in capsule to lock out
existing boosters. they wanted more pork

using both existing expendables would mean a booster problem wouldnt
ground the program...........

the money wasted on a new booster could of been invested in a superior
service module and capsule

nasa only cares about spending money, as a retired pad worker said its
a jobs program.

\science exploration and everything else comes dead last. the top ands
only priority is SPENDING MONEY!

On Tue, 15 Dec 2009 10:03:33 -0800 (PST), "
wrote:

if nasa had gone with a existing expendable we would be ready to start
flying........

Maybe, assuming we designed a capsule to fit the existing Delta IV
heavy or Atlas V heavy. We'd still have to man-rate the rockets and
modify the existing pads, but maybe.

However, when you loook at the Atlas V and Delta IV product cards ....

http://www.ulalaunch.com/docs/produc...tCardFinal.pdf

http://www.ulalaunch.com/docs/produc...tCardFinal.pdf

..... both vehicles can be upgraded to payload capacities approaching
or exceeding the Saturn V! So it would be realatively easy to develop
a version that can lift Orion as is. Only it might need a new launch
pad -- the Delta IV card acknowledges this -- so LC39 would still have
to be modified for a new launch vehicle family. But at least you
wouldn't have to deal with those pesky 5-segement solids.

On Wed, 16 Dec 2009 06:16:09 -0800 (PST), "
wrote:

On Dec 15, 5:44?pm, Damon Hill wrote:
" wrote in news:4a90bc4a-ecc7-45a3-a457-
:



if nasa had gone with a existing expendable we would be ready to start
flying........

Flying what?

--Damon

delta and atlas heavies. nasa specified 8 crew in capsule to lock out
existing boosters ....

Of course. It's not as if they wanted to fly the same sized crews
they've been flying on the shuttle for more than 25 years, as well as
maintane the pilot and specialist astronaut structure. I mean they
couldn't want to put geologists on site on the Moon, could they?

Then again ....


.... they wanted more pork


And a contract for Atlas and Delta CBCs isn't pork? That hardware is
made somewhere. The Atlas first stage engines are made in RUSSIA.
Whose congressional district are they in?

Is it only pork when it goes somewhere you don't want it to go?

using both existing expendables would mean a booster problem wouldnt
ground the program...........


Except who says we'd have to stick with the existing versions of both?

http://www.ulalaunch.com/docs/produc...tCardFinal.pdf

http://www.ulalaunch.com/docs/produc...tCardFinal.pdf

The upgraded versions of both the Atlas 5 and Delta IV both go into a
range for launching Orion as is. IMHO, even sticking with the Delta 4
heavy we've flown (the Atlas V heavy has never flown AFAIK), neither
the rockets or the pads could be used as-is anyway -- new fairings,
modifications to the pads for crew access and emergency crew egress,
etc. You'd have to build new pads or reconfiguer LC39 for it anyway.

The only launcher that could be ready to go with a minimum of
modifcations to it and its pad is the side-mounted shuttle derived
concept.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=xOnlAUpYWoc

And even then the key word is "minimum," and SSME engines would have
to be put back in production. (Personally, I think the sidemount
defeats the purpose of retiring the shuttle, since the whole point of
Orion Ares I is to put the crew ON TOP of the rocket where they can't
be hit by ice falling off the side of it, but I digress.)

Using Atlas V and Delta IV upgrades might take less time to develop
than Ares, but I think the ease of it is being oversold.

.....nasa only cares about spending money .... the top ands
only priority is SPENDING MONEY!


It'd cost money to modify launch pads and put CBCs in production,
stack them, fuel them, and launch then. Just because it wouldn't be
Ares I doesn't mean it's suddenly done pro-bono by Rocket Stacker
Elves.