A Space & astronomy forum. SpaceBanter.com

Go Back   Home » SpaceBanter.com forum » Space Science » Policy
Site Map Home Authors List Search Today's Posts Mark Forums Read Web Partners

About Augustine Final Report



 
 
Thread Tools Display Modes
  #1  
Old November 4th 09, 02:00 PM posted to sci.space.policy
[email protected]
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 224
Default 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  
Old November 5th 09, 05:10 PM posted to sci.space.policy
RalphE
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 6
Default 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  
Old November 5th 09, 05:22 PM posted to sci.space.policy
kT
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 5,032
Default 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  
Old November 5th 09, 05:40 PM posted to sci.space.policy
Derek Lyons
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 2,999
Default 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  
Old November 5th 09, 06:10 PM posted to sci.space.policy
Greg D. Moore \(Strider\)[_494_]
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 1
Default 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  
Old November 5th 09, 10:10 PM posted to sci.space.policy
Derek Lyons
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 2,999
Default 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

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

vB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off
Forum Jump

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


All times are GMT +1. The time now is 12:58 AM.


Powered by vBulletin® Version 3.6.4
Copyright ©2000 - 2024, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.
Copyright ©2004-2024 SpaceBanter.com.
The comments are property of their posters.