|
|
Thread Tools | Display Modes |
#1
|
|||
|
|||
About Augustine Final Report
Review of U.S. HUMAN SPACEFLIGHT Plans Committee Safety is of course of primary concern in any human-rated system, and Orion, and its companion Ares I launcher, are designed in accordance with NASAÆs latest human- rating requirements. The design includes an abort capability throughout ascent, as well as requirements to make loss of crew a factor of 10 less likely than at any previous... In its selection of a crew launch system, ESAS correctly placed a very high premium on crew safety, and the Ares I was selected because of its potential delivering at least ten times the level of crew safety as the current Shuttle. The launch vehicle confguration is one that best allows for crew escape in the event of a launch failure. The capsule is mounted at the top of the stack, and has an independent launch escape system. Like almost all manned rockets so far, even back to Mercury. Thats no news. But if the SRB of Ares I fails the crew has no "abort capability throughout ascent". The Launch Escape System (LES) can for most of the ascent only work after the SRB thrust is terminated. That means a self destruct explosion of the SRB. Even then, there is a time window the burning debris of the SRB will destroy the parachute of the crew capsule. And what about a recontact of the SRB with the second stage? Like it may happened at the Ares I-X flight? How much recontact will be acceptable before one aborts the mission? A small dent to the second stage. Would one abort a Moon mission with some billion $ still in orbit if there is no proof that the dent is deadly? Once the LES is jettisoned it may be time to remember Columbia. Add the low wind criteria of only 20 knots and the still open vibration problem. If the pressure oscilation of the first flight is like expected, is that for sure it wont get worse some flights later? The pogo of the Saturn V was not prdictable until they built the pogo surpressors in. You cant build anything such like in a SRB. The vibration damper they planned will only go to some limit. If that is exceeded the mission is over. All this ugly stuff would not be on the table if they chosed a liquid first stage, like all manned rockets so far had. In contrast, the Ares V Lite backs off on proposed performance by using a five-segment SRB (already in development) and five RS-68-family engines. Whether Lite or not, to cluster a radiation cooled engine like the RS-68 and put it close to the hot SRB plume is a big call for trouble, I wonder how the report could offer or support such an idea. It offered no way out. Granted, its somewhat late now to revival the F-1. But the SSME could even be more expensive in the long run then the F-1. "International cooperation" to get the RD-170 family? There are also important locations in free space that are of interest, including the EarthÆs Lagrange points. These are sites at the edge of the EarthÆs infuence, which will be important future points for observation toward the Earth and away from it. For example, the James Webb Space Telescope, the successor to the Hubble Space Telescope, will be placed at a Lagrange point. Once the James Webb Space Telescope is there you wont see any astronauts there. Their ship may emit gases that could condensate on the mirror or other cooled parts of this IR telescope. It has no flap like the HST to protect it from such exhausts. Any visit could ruin it. Any repair or update mission should be robotic with special (ion-) engines and Helium thrusters. The Lagrange points might also be the nodes of a future space transportation highway through the inner solar system. NOOO! Not as long as our most expensive telescopes are there!! [Mars:] Under current plans, as many as 12 Ares V vehicles would be needed to launch each biannual set of missions. It seems likely that some form of advanced propulsion may also be needed to make travel feasible. But any "advanced propulsion" will need more mass to launch, not less. A focused technology program almost a decade long would be required before system design could begin. Almost? Most are nuclear and may need well more. And it only cuts the travel time, not the launch mass. The absolute downpoint of the whole report this Voodoo graphic: Figure 7.1-1. With technology investments, the mass required for a Mars exploration mission decreases from eight times the mass of the International Space Station to a mass comparable to the Station. Source: NASA What mass they choose for ISS is not given. Its not 350 mt like mentioned before in the report. Doesnt matter. The time axis has no scale at all. There is a lot of wishfule thinking listed by buzzwords like the spells of Harry Potter. That load of **** shall lull the reader that with every year we wait a mission to Mars gets cheaper and cheaper. The whole report seems written by someone with limited technical insight who wants just strech the current activities. No Mars, maybe somewhat Moon but a lot of screwing like NASA did the past years. No options for a clear cut and some realy new way. Was it written by a lawyer? SENECA ## CrossPoint v3.12d R ## |
#2
|
|||
|
|||
About Augustine Final Report
X-No-Archive
On Nov 4, 5:00*am, wrote: * Review of U.S. HUMAN SPACEFLIGHT Plans Committee All this ugly stuff would not be on the table if they chosed a liquid first stage, like all manned rockets so far had. The pervasive presence of the SRB in the Ares family is not based on any technical merit. ATK is the sole manufacturer of large scale solid rockets in the US, which means they also supply all the solid ICBM systems. Without the NASA program using solid propulsion, the production lines at ATK would be mothballed (large military solids aren't used frequently) . The government doesn't want that to happen as it implies a loss of production capability for all the military solids as well, so they want to keep them online with NASA activities.. While I agree that many (very rational) technical arguments exists to not use the SRB in the next human-rated launch system (and I think you hit pretty much all of them), these are not the driving force behind the decision. This isn't unusual either, in my experience every design decision in a large-scale government funded program is heavily driven by political considerations (more so than technical ones). Ralph -- Dream of Space? Make it Real. http://www.OpenAerospace.Org/ |
#3
|
|||
|
|||
About Augustine Final Report
RalphE wrote:
X-No-Archive On Nov 4, 5:00 am, wrote: Review of U.S. HUMAN SPACEFLIGHT Plans Committee All this ugly stuff would not be on the table if they chosed a liquid first stage, like all manned rockets so far had. The pervasive presence of the SRB in the Ares family is not based on any technical merit. ATK is the sole manufacturer of large scale solid rockets in the US, which means they also supply all the solid ICBM systems. Without the NASA program using solid propulsion, the production lines at ATK would be mothballed (large military solids aren't used frequently) . The government doesn't want that to happen as it implies a loss of production capability for all the military solids as well, so they want to keep them online with NASA activities.. While I agree that many (very rational) technical arguments exists to not use the SRB in the next human-rated launch system (and I think you hit pretty much all of them), these are not the driving force behind the decision. This isn't unusual either, in my experience every design decision in a large-scale government funded program is heavily driven by political considerations (more so than technical ones). In other words, Americans, particularly those in positions of sufficient power to make important and almost irreversible decisions about the future of America, are irrational militant ****heads. Right. Got it. Thanks! |
#4
|
|||
|
|||
About Augustine Final Report
RalphE wrote:
X-No-Archive On Nov 4, 5:00*am, wrote: * Review of U.S. HUMAN SPACEFLIGHT Plans Committee All this ugly stuff would not be on the table if they chosed a liquid first stage, like all manned rockets so far had. The pervasive presence of the SRB in the Ares family is not based on any technical merit. ATK is the sole manufacturer of large scale solid rockets in the US, which means they also supply all the solid ICBM systems. Without the NASA program using solid propulsion, the production lines at ATK would be mothballed (large military solids aren't used frequently) . Try again Ralph. The US fires off (and thus purchases replacements for) MM-III's and D5's on a regular basis. D. -- Touch-twice life. Eat. Drink. Laugh. http://derekl1963.livejournal.com/ -Resolved: To be more temperate in my postings. Oct 5th, 2004 JDL |
#5
|
|||
|
|||
About Augustine Final Report
"Derek Lyons" wrote in message
... Try again Ralph. The US fires off (and thus purchases replacements for) MM-III's and D5's on a regular basis. OOC, how many a year, do you know? -- Greg Moore Ask me about lily, an RPI based CMC. |
#6
|
|||
|
|||
About Augustine Final Report
"Greg D. Moore \(Strider\)" wrote:
"Derek Lyons" wrote in message ... Try again Ralph. The US fires off (and thus purchases replacements for) MM-III's and D5's on a regular basis. OOC, how many a year, do you know? No many, a handful or so of each, generally acquired under multi year contracts. (IIRC, the USN just signed a three year deal to purchase 12 D5's.) I forgot to mention in my original post that we also acquire individual motors to replace those reaching their 'sell by' dates. IIRC, the USAF has either just completed or is in the process of completing the process of replaced all MM III motors (all three stages) in inventory, a process that began in 2002. There's also ongoing D5 motor production for the same reason. So while the production lines at ATK for big strategic rocket motors may be running slower than corporate executives may like, they are nowhere near ready to be mothballed as Ralph stated. 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 |
Augustine Commission Summary Report Available | David Spain | Policy | 48 | September 17th 09 03:47 AM |
Augustine Commission Summary Report Available | Derek Lyons | History | 5 | September 16th 09 03:52 AM |
Augustine Commission Summary Report Available | Derek Lyons | History | 2 | September 15th 09 05:42 AM |
Augustine Commission Summary Report Available | nathanjon | History | 0 | September 15th 09 02:24 AM |
Augustine Commission Summary Report Available | j0nathan[_2_] | History | 0 | September 12th 09 02:47 AM |