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.

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

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

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

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

On Sun, 20 Apr 2008 06:01:10 GMT, in a place far, far away,
(Derek Lyons) made the phosphor on my monitor glow
in such a way as to indicate that:

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.

I suspect that what Pat doesn't understand about orbital mechanics
(and rocketry in general), simple or otherwise, would fill a large
library.

"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?

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

On Sun, 20 Apr 2008 05:55:39 GMT, (Derek Lyons)
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.

Shhh! Its a lot more fun and poltiically-correct to blame Bush/Cheney!

Brian

"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