Ares IV?!

Sounds like the Jupiter from Direct:
http://www.nasawatch.com/archives/20..._ares_1_a.html

Pat

Pat Flannery wrote:

Sounds like the Jupiter from Direct:
http://www.nasawatch.com/archives/20..._ares_1_a.html

Actually, it sounds to me like YET ANOTHER unaffordable, unsustainable,
solid rocket booster powered EXPENDABLE heavy lift launch vehicle.

We can't have enough of those, right?

Pat

On Sat, 25 Jul 2009 10:32:13 -0500, Pat Flannery
wrote:

Sounds like the Jupiter from Direct:
http://www.nasawatch.com/archives/20..._ares_1_a.html

Except the upper stage is the narrow-diameter Ares I variety instead
of the same diameter as the core.

But this is a step in the right direction.

Brian

On Sat, 25 Jul 2009 10:42:48 -0500, kT wrote:

Pat Flannery wrote:

Sounds like the Jupiter from Direct:
http://www.nasawatch.com/archives/20..._ares_1_a.html

Actually, it sounds to me like YET ANOTHER unaffordable, unsustainable,
solid rocket booster powered EXPENDABLE heavy lift launch vehicle.

We can't have enough of those, right?

Unaffordable? So we haven't been launching SRBs and ET tankage for the
last 28 years? I kinda thought we were. :-)

But now, the SRBs and ET tankage actually have the potential of
sending people (or really heavy unmanned missions) beyond LEO.

At least the NASA brass has come to its senses (per rumor) and FINALLY
has accepted what nearly everyone else has been saying for 3 or 4
years now: that they have exactly one chance to build a new rocket,
and they'd better not waste it on a dog like Ares I. They realized
they can only afford to build ONE new rocket, and the looming budget
cuts forced them to pick a cheaper design than the behemoth they
wanted. If they don't screw up anymore (a big 'if') this system may
actually work.

It's about damned time. I just hope the Ares project managers are
given a spatula and sent to their local McDonalds for jobs more
commensurate with their abilities.

But please, not MY local McDonalds. I don't want "quarter pounders"
that weigh 1/8 lb., cost $5 and make me wait 3 hours for it.

Brian

Brian Thorn wrote:
On Sat, 25 Jul 2009 10:42:48 -0500, kT wrote:

Pat Flannery wrote:

Sounds like the Jupiter from Direct:
http://www.nasawatch.com/archives/20..._ares_1_a.html
Actually, it sounds to me like YET ANOTHER unaffordable, unsustainable,
solid rocket booster powered EXPENDABLE heavy lift launch vehicle.

We can't have enough of those, right?

Unaffordable? So we haven't been launching SRBs and ET tankage for the
last 28 years? I kinda thought we were. :-)

And complaining about cost the entire time, while simultaneously
discarding the ET tankage after boosting it 98% of the way to orbit.

But now, the SRBs and ET tankage actually have the potential of
sending people (or really heavy unmanned missions) beyond LEO.

Actually, no, you'd need an upper stage for that.

The entire thrust of my COTS proposal is that core tanks can be boosted
all of the way to orbit with the SSMEs and *ANY* side mounted booster.

At least the NASA brass has come to its senses (per rumor) and FINALLY
has accepted what nearly everyone else has been saying for 3 or 4
years now: that they have exactly one chance to build a new rocket,

Who said that? If that was true, their chance is *LONG* over.

and they'd better not waste it on a dog like Ares I. They realized
they can only afford to build ONE new rocket, and the looming budget
cuts forced them to pick a cheaper design than the behemoth they
wanted. If they don't screw up anymore (a big 'if') this system may
actually work.

They can't *AFFORD* to build *ANY* large expendable SRB assisted rocket,
and they've demonstrated themselves incompetent independent of funding.

It's about damned time. I just hope the Ares project managers are
given a spatula and sent to their local McDonalds for jobs more
commensurate with their abilities.

Any new Ares project managers would screw that one up too.

Their launch vehicle architectural design paradigm is both obsolete and
even when it was current, it is fundamentally faulty to the *core*.

But please, not MY local McDonalds. I don't want "quarter pounders"
that weigh 1/8 lb., cost $5 and make me wait 3 hours for it.

Only an idiot would by and eat that kind of crap.

The same idiots that bought into Ares.

Brian

On Jul 25, 8:42*am, kT wrote:
Pat Flannery wrote:
Sounds like the Jupiter from Direct:
http://www.nasawatch.com/archives/20..._ares_1_a.html

Actually, it sounds to me like YET ANOTHER unaffordable, unsustainable,
solid rocket booster powered EXPENDABLE heavy lift launch vehicle.

We can't have enough of those, right?

Pat

There should be zero R&D related to the 100% reliable Saturn V, so why
waste time and spendy R&D on anything else?

~ BG

Brian Thorn wrote:
Except the upper stage is the narrow-diameter Ares I variety instead
of the same diameter as the core.

But this is a step in the right direction.


Although very easy to do, the alternative side-mount cargo/crew pod
doesn't sound good from a foam shedding or escape after a SRB failure
point of view.
I think the Jupiter-DIRECT approach is probably the the best mix of
simplicity, cargo capacity, and safety. Its much increased lifting
capacity over Ares 1means a more capable LES can be installed and avoid
the fratricide problem the Air Force found by getting the Orion a lot
further away in the event of a abort.
One thing that no one talks about is any future plans for space stations
after ISS... if there aren't going to be any future stations, then all
this effort to build something to carry crew and cargo to LEO is pretty
much a waste of time, as it will come on-line around the time the ISS
gets decommissioned (2015-2020 at the latest).

Pat

On Jul 26, 12:29*am, BradGuth wrote:
On Jul 25, 8:42*am, kT wrote:

Pat Flannery wrote:
Sounds like the Jupiter from Direct:
http://www.nasawatch.com/archives/20..._ares_1_a.html

Actually, it sounds to me like YET ANOTHER unaffordable, unsustainable,
solid rocket booster powered EXPENDABLE heavy lift launch vehicle.

We can't have enough of those, right?

Pat

There should be zero R&D related to the 100% reliable Saturn V, so why
waste time and spendy R&D on anything else?

*~ BG

On Jul 26, 12:29*am, BradGuth wrote:
On Jul 25, 8:42*am, kT wrote:

Pat Flannery wrote:
Sounds like the Jupiter from Direct:
http://www.nasawatch.com/archives/20..._ares_1_a.html

Actually, it sounds to me like YET ANOTHER unaffordable, unsustainable,
solid rocket booster powered EXPENDABLE heavy lift launch vehicle.

We can't have enough of those, right?

Pat

There should be zero R&D related to the 100% reliable Saturn V, so why
waste time and spendy R&D on anything else?

*~ BG

zero R&D?? It simply cannot be zero, or even very low, or low.
1000's of vendors and their products used to build Saturn V are gone.
The solutions those products offered would all need to be re-solved.

On Jul 26, 9:06*am, John wrote:
On Jul 26, 12:29*am, BradGuth wrote:



On Jul 25, 8:42*am, kT wrote:

Pat Flannery wrote:
Sounds like the Jupiter from Direct:
http://www.nasawatch.com/archives/20..._ares_1_a.html

Actually, it sounds to me like YET ANOTHER unaffordable, unsustainable,
solid rocket booster powered EXPENDABLE heavy lift launch vehicle.

We can't have enough of those, right?

Pat

There should be zero R&D related to the 100% reliable Saturn V, so why
waste time and spendy R&D on anything else?

*~ BG

*zero R&D?? It simply cannot be zero, or even very low, or low.
1000's of vendors and their products used to build Saturn V are gone.
The solutions those products offered would all need to be re-solved.

But the public has already paid for everything, including all of the
required R&D and extensive infrastructure to boot.

Are you saying we got summarily ripped off?

A group of dysfunctional 5th graders could have done a better job of
saving all the R&D documentation, as well as whatever working
prototypes.

What's your pathetic excuse this time, and for all the times before
and ever since?

Brad Guth, Brad_Guth, Brad.Guth, BradGuth, BG / “Guth Usenet”