|
|
Thread Tools | Display Modes |
#1
|
|||
|
|||
Successful Ariane 5 Launch
Two satellites lofted via Ariane 5 rocket.
http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/sci/tech/4548562.stm -- Stephen Horgan "intelligent people will tend to overvalue intelligence" http://www.horgan.co.uk/ |
#2
|
|||
|
|||
Successful Ariane 5 Launch
Stephen Horgan,
Apparently our American Usenet folks (aka rusemasters) don't actually give a tinkers damn about your reliable and efficient Ariane-5 being at best 82.3:1 for getting whatever's 9.6 tonnes into GSO. So what's so great about that? I've relocated somewhat interesting Saturn-V and Apollo mission numbers that are even more impressive than I'd thought, as for appreciating what their LXO/RP-1 first stage managed to get off the ground, as supposedly being much better Isp than having to use modern day SRBs that are apparently nowhere as thrust/inert mass efficient as per those extremely old LOX/RP-1 methods. At 55.43:1 represents perhaps the "smallest orbital launch vehicle" that should manage to get fairly compact, and supposedly smaller yet with using SRBs instead of a massive LOX/RP-1 first stage. Meaning that a 10X microsatellite collective deployment worth of 10 each 10 kg satellites as a deployment group representing 100 kg intended for orbiting the moon, at perhaps their starting in at only 25 km off the deck, shouldn't involve a liftoff mass of at most not much greater than 5 tonnes. I'm thinking that a modern SRB instead of LOX/RP-1 and a good usage of nifty composites should eventually represent much less inert/dry mass, whereas getting such things down to as good as 25:1, thereby a 2.5 tonne rocket and payload at liftoff should manage to get those ten microsatellites into orbiting and subsequently a few semi-soft landings upon our moon. Is that good news or what? http://space.kursknet.ru/cosmos/engl...hines/ap17.sht Fully loaded spacecraft mass (including crew and the return ascent stage): 52,740 kg For some reason this Russian information source has our Saturn-V inert mass a wee bit on the high side (must have included the spacecraft portion): MO/inert mass = 1,057.942 tonnes http://www.nasm.si.edu/collections/i...lo/saturnV.htm The complete assembly including the Apollo spacecraft and the Saturn launch vehicle stood 363 feet tall (110.6 meters) and weighed over 6 million pounds (2.7 million kg). http://www.nasm.si.edu/collections/i...RES/Fig49a.jpg Saturn-V First stage LXO: 3,258,280 lbs = 1,477.93 tonnes RP-1: 417,334 lbs = 189.30 tonnes ? First stage mix at 7.8:1 = thrust: 7,680,982 lbs = 3,484 tonnes ? First stage inert/dry mass = 294,200 lbs = 133.447 tonnes Second stage LXO: 828,114 lbs = 375.626 tonnes LH2: 158,231 lbs = 71.772 tonnes Third stage LXO: 190,785 lbs = 86.539 tonnes LH2: 43,452 lbs = 19.710 tonnes ------------------------------------- Total fuel load = 2,220.877 tonnes According to yet another official source; Apollo-17 launch mass: 2,923,387 kg = 2,923.387 tonnes, as opposed to the previous 2.7 million kg, which beggs to ask why these mass related numbers are all over the map. Inert/dry mass = 2,923.387 - 2,220.877 = 702.51 tonnes This otherwise gives us their impressive payload ratio = 2,923.387 / 52.74 = 55.43:1 I'm to guess that because 55.43:1 is soooo gosh darn impressive that folks simply don't seem to want to discuss this achievement. Perhaps it's because within the past 4 decades there has been absolutely nothing developed that comes close after taking better than twice that amount for accomplishing a moon shot. Even the very latest and bestest capability of a fully loaded 790 tonne Ariane-5 that utilizes nifty SRBs only has a capability of getting 9.6 tonnes into GSO, and even achieving that much is 82.3:1. Here's some basic oxidiser/fuel formulation info. LXO/RP-1 Isp = LOX/Kerosene. Isp: 353.00 vac. Isp: 300.00 sl. H2O2/RP-1 Isp = H2O2-95%/RP-1. Isp: 319.00 vac. Isp: 273.00 sl. 98% H2O2/RP-1 has a maximum Isp of 362, slightly better than LOX/RP-1 of 353. What's wrong with this pictu LXO/RP-1 Optimum Oxidiser to Fuel Ratio: 2.56:1, which beggs yet another question as to why the Saturn-V first stage took such a ratio of 7.8:1, as that seems a wee bit LOX rich and/or RP-1 lean. If anything, you'd think running a bit RP-1 rich would have been the case, or perhaps that's where the smoke and mirrors of how they'd managed to outperform SRBs by such a huge factor. http://www.friends-partners.org/part...s/h2oosene.htm As a comparison; H2O2-98%/Kerosene has an optimum Oxidiser to Fuel Ratio of 7.07 Density: 1.31 g/cc. Temperature of Combustion: 2,975.00 deg K. Ratio of Specific Heats: 1.20. Characteristic velocity c: 1,665 m/s. Isp Shifting: 276. Isp Frozen: 270. Pp Isp Shifting: 362. Mol: 22.00 M. At any rate, if we are to take the 55.43:1 as being gospel, and applied that formula as to getting microsatellites efficiently off and running their missions around our moon, as such that's actually not half bad (key word being "half"), whereas in fact it's offering a downright impressive 3-stage overall ratio that shouldn't be ignored. Of course, all cloak and dagger kidding aside, perhaps using first stage SRBs should actually be even better. There's also a bit more interesting H2O2 usage as extra bang/kg to being had: H2O2/propargyl alcohol adds 40% to the H2O2/RP-1 payload capability H2O2/methylacetylene adds 16% to the H2O2/RP-1 payload capability Of course H2O2 is essentially made primarily from plain old water plus good amount of applied electrical energy for adding that extra amount of Oxygen, of which we all know that Earth has way more than it's fair share of water, especially ever since our artificial induced pollution and subsequent global warming has been running our environment amuck. Methyl acetylene alcohol is made from just about anything that grows, including all sorts of weeds and certainly the remains of food stocks that are so fiber based that cows can't hardly digest, but we certainly could just as well make such remainders into methyl acetylene alcohol. - Brad guth |
#3
|
|||
|
|||
Quote:
And also each case is unique! After a bad start-up (ariane5) there is continuous improvements (remember Ariane4...) and I bet that before 2020 we'll see between 100 and 200 takeoffs(!) and a great and very comfortable reliability (today, the truth about Ariane5 reliability is not "82.3:1", not at all; the "82,3:1" makes sense about the past and the very beginning). And the ariane5 ECB (12mt in geo) is coming... and will carry a new passenger: http://www.orbitalrecovery.com/index.htm (competitiveness?) and the P80 technology (new vega launcher) is coming... (new EAP for Ariane5, more powerful and less expensive) and a few other improvements like a new vulcain3... 25mt in leo... new thermoplastics (core) etc... Ariane5 will be a great launcher. Rémy |
#4
|
|||
|
|||
Successful Ariane 5 Launch
Rémy MERCIER; - Ariane5 will be a great launcher.
As you say, and I totally agree that it already is a great launcher as is. I see nothing all that poor or improper about the 82.3:1 ratio that'll only get better with composites, and perhaps along with using 98%-H2O2/C3H40 could make that worthy of accomplishing 18+t to GSO. I also agree that the supposed 55:1 ratio of the old Saturn-V is most likely as much a myth as were all of those supposed WMD. Personally, I think someone has been fibbing their Saturn-V butts off. Thanks for all the positive feedback. I'm looking forward to seeing the 12t payload capability. Either that or using Ariane5 for those LL1/ME-L1 missions of establishing the LSE-CM/ISS, that might as well become ESA as not. As is I think the Ariane5 has what it takes for establishing the first and subsequently one and only prototype moon-tethered deployment. - Brad Guth |
#5
|
|||
|
|||
Successful Ariane 5 Launch
SRB + H2O2/C3H40 Isp kicks microsatellite rocket butt, as well as
offering a real boost alternative on behalf of most any spaceplane: In spite of what the likes of most Usenet infomercial spooks (aka Art Deco, Bookman and countless others) have to say, which usually is of absolutely no honest worth to the given topic, whereas here's some interesting info of what the likes of perhaps yourself, Rusty, Henry Spencer and so many other supposedly smart folks and wizards must already have known about using 98%-H2O2 along with a little something else, of what's apparently been need-to-know and/or Usenet taboo that's delivering a whole lot better Isp than plain old H2O2/RP-1. RP-1 = C12H24 (H2O2/RP-1 is thereby not quite as good as for using H2O2 along with plain old Kerosene/hexadecane C12H26), and it seems that each of those are seriously dragging rocket butt when it comes down to using H2O2/C3H4O. PROPARGYL ALCOHOL / Acrolein = C3H40 or C3H4O / CHCCH2OH 2-Propyn-1-ol as C3H4O / CH CCH2OH having the molecular mass: 56.1 http://www.emsdiasum.com/microscopy/...msds/10100.pdf PRODUCT NAME: ? propargyl alcohol CAS NO. 107-02-8 MOLECULAR FORMULA: C3H40 VAPOR DENSITY: 1.94 SPECIFIC GRAVITY: 0.839 ( 944 kg/m3 if in slush mode) http://www.atsdr.cdc.gov/MHMI/mmg124.html http://yarchive.net/space/rocket/fue...l_alcohol.html "Propargyl alcohol is even better with hydrogen peroxide - a model peroxide/propargyl alcohol SSTO puts about 40% more payload into orbit than peroxide/kerosene." "In addition to being energetic, it is dense at 944 kg/m^3 (vs. about 800 kg/m^3 for kerosene)." http://www.dunnspace.com/alternate_ssto_propellants.htm H2O2/propargyl alcohol yields roughly 40% more payload than H2O2/RP-1 H2O2/RP-1 = 335 LH2/LOX Isp = 440 H2O2/C3H40 = 469 Obviously H2O2/C3H40 offers an even greater fuel density than LH2/LOX, thus the physical size of a given rocket is reduced, thereby reducing the inert/dry mass which is actually far more important than the Isp advantage. That plus capable of being hosted as nearly uninsulated and unpressurized adds further benefits and thereby additional reductions of inert/dry mass. Any time you can package more energy into a smaller volume is a very good thing, exactly the reason as to why SRBs pack such a punch. Perhaps slush H2O2/C3H40 is offering the best all around compromise. H2O2/C3H40 is where my latest SWAG has shifted on behalf of folks getting private research and even commercial microsatellites into orbiting and eventually semi-soft or survivably hard/impact landings upon our moon, as per having suggested where the most serious rocket thrust or Isp/kg and Isp/m3 is to being found (short of going first stage SRB or of something thermal nuclear), as per mass and volume representing the best push comes to shove argument. Short of what modern SRBs should still outperform on behalf of the first stage, it looks as though H2O2/C3H40 is a viable formulation of keen interest, of a final do-everything solution that could make for a two stage method of delivery to the moon as good as 25:1, meaning 26 tonnes worth of rocket plus payload liftoff mass (including the first stage SRB) per tonne of the actual payload is about as good as it gets. Taking the fullest advantage of the modern SRB for the initial thrust to nearly half LEO altitude, plus a mostly composite upper stage that simply isn't going to represent all that much inert/dry mass, especially since either H2O2 or C3H40 need be pressurized nor sub-frozen like LH2/LO2. Therefore little if any insulation demands, and of storage tanks of composite basalt fibers and microballoons which can't weigh 50% of what traditional tankage involves, possibly involving the inert/dry mass of the SRBs being composite would become truly impressive if merely a 25% reduction in the (EAP) 37t inert/dry mass became 28t is by itself worth another 18t of extra payload and/or fuel for the Ariane-5. So, I can't see why not 25:1 for getting items into orbiting our moon, or at least on behalf of establishing the LL1/ME-L1 platform as tethered to our moon. - Brad Guth -- Posted via Mailgate.ORG Server - http://www.Mailgate.ORG |
#6
|
|||
|
|||
Successful Ariane 5 Launch
SRB+H2O2/C3H40 Isp at better density and less volume seriously kicks
microsatellite rocket butt, as well as having offered a real payload boosting alternative on behalf of most any SSTO+SRB spaceplane: Because folks that usually claim as knowing all there is to know are suddenly too dumbfounded, especially about their own supposed 55:1 ratio of what our Saturn-V supposedly accomplished (at somewhat unbelievably weird oxidiser/fuel ratios none the less), whereas this ongoing effort of my learning rocket-science is taking a toll by way of my not realizing how some of the posted numbers are derived. At least I've been looking for all the right answers, and willing to learn, plus my sharing whatever hasn't been a problem. Therefore, with a little help from Bruce Dunn and the likes of Mike Lorrey, in spite of whatever the dislikes of mostly Usenet infomercial spooks (aka Art Deco, Bookman and countless others) have to say, which usually is of absolutely no honest worth to the given topic, whereas here's some interesting info updates of what yourself, Mike Lorrey, Rusty, Henry Spencer and so many other supposedly smart folks and wizards must already have known about using nearly frozen 98%-H2O2 along with a little something else, of what's apparently been need-to-know and/or Usenet taboo that's been capable of delivering better Isp and a whole lot greater payloads than plain old H2O2/RP-1. RP-1 = C12H24 (H2O2/RP-1 is thereby not quite as good as for using H2O2 along with plain old Kerosene/hexadecane C12H26). However, it seems that each of those are seriously dragging rocket butt when it comes down to using H2O2/C3H4O. PROPARGYL ALCOHOL / Acrolein = C3H40 or C3H4O / CHCCH2OH 2-Propyn-1-ol as C3H4O / CH CCH2OH having the molecular mass: 56.1 http://www.emsdiasum.com/microscopy/...msds/10100.pdf PRODUCT NAME: ? propargyl alcohol, structurally "methyl acetylene alcohol" CAS NO. 107-02-8 MOLECULAR FORMULA: C3H40 VAPOR DENSITY: 1.94 SPECIFIC GRAVITY: 0.839 (@25°C) ( 0.095 g/cm3 at extreme slush mode) http://www.atsdr.cdc.gov/MHMI/mmg124.html http://www.dunnspace.com/alternate_ssto_propellants.htm http://yarchive.net/space/rocket/fue...l_alcohol.html "Propargyl alcohol is even better with hydrogen peroxide - a model peroxide/propargyl alcohol SSTO puts about 40% more payload into orbit than peroxide/kerosene." "In addition to being energetic, it is dense at 944 kg/m^3 (vs. about 800 kg/m^3 for kerosene)." http://www.chemicalland21.com/arokor...%20ALCOHOL.htm PROPARGYL ALCOHOL SPECIFIC GRAVITY 0.96 - 0.97 http://www.dunnspace.com/alternate_ssto_propellants.htm "H2O2/propargyl alcohol yields roughly 40% more payload than H2O2/RP-1" 40% is a rather significant advantage, especially if a portion of that performance enhancement goes towards reducing the inert/dry mass of the delivery rocket. Smaller rockets means a lower ratio of total rocket mass to payload, thus either more payload and/or smaller and less complex rockets of essentially SSTO+SRB. http://www.chem007.com/specification...%20alcohol.asp Formula HC?CCH2OH (C3H4O) Density 0.9485 g/cm3 (20 °C) Heat of combustion - 1805 kJ/mol http://www.astronautix.com/props/index.htm LOX/KERO density: 1.025 kg/litre H2O2/KERO density: 1.314 kg/litre http://yarchive.net/space/rocket/fue...lled_fuel.html Warm JP-5 (nearly RP-1) 0.8 g/cc @50°C, chilled to 0.867 g/cc @-40°C RP-1 @98 K (-175°C) = 0.941 g/cc, otherwise typically 0.85 g/cc H2O2/C12H26 7:1 = 307/353 - Density: 1.35 g/cc LOX/LH2 std. 6:1 = 391/451 - Density: 0.36 g/cc LOX/Slush LH2 4:1 = 391/451 - Density: 0.40 g/cc LOX/RP1-C12H24 2.7:1 = 327/376 - Density: 1.12 g/cc H2O2/C3H4O 4.25:1 = 305/350 ? Density: 1.33 g/cc I'm still not aware of or smart enough to realize how 6:1 LOX/LH2 manages to obtain such a low density score. Obviously H2O2/C3H4O offers a significantly greater fuel density than LH2/LOX, thus the physical size of a given rocket is capably reduced, thereby reducing the inert/dry mass, which because of launch/payload mass ratios being so high (Ariane5 being 82:1) is actually far more of an important issue than whatever Isp. That plus H2O2/C3H4O is capable of being hosted as nearly uninsulated and unpressurized adds further benefits and thereby additional reductions of inert/dry mass. Any time you can package more energy into a smaller volume is a very good thing, exactly the reason as to why SRBs pack such a punch. Perhaps slush H2O2/C3H40 is offering us the best all around liquid fuel compromise, whereas H2O2/C3H4O at 274 K (1°C) should offer even better density without either of these elements having to go cryogenic as with LOX/LH2. H2O2/C3H4O is where my latest SWAG has shifted on behalf of common folks (us village idiots) getting private research and even commercial microsatellites into orbiting and eventually semi-soft or survivably hard/impact landings upon our dark and nasty moon, as per having suggested where the most serious rocket thrust or Isp/kg and/or Isp/m3 is to being found (short of going first stage SRB or of something thermal nuclear), as per given mass and volume representing the best push comes to shove argument. Short of what modern SRBs should still outperform on behalf of the first or parallel stage, it looks as though H2O2/C3H4O has been a viable formulation of keen interest, of a final do-everything matrix of liquid solutions that could make for a two stage or SRB+SSTO method of delivery to the moon as good as 25:1, meaning 26 tonnes worth of rocket that's inclusive of the payload as liftoff mass (including whatever first stage SRB) per tonne of the actual payload is about as good as it gets. Taking the fullest advantage of the modern SRB for the initial thrust achieving nearly half LEO altitude, plus a mostly composite main or upper stage that simply isn't going to represent all that much inert/dry mass, especially since either H2O2 or C3H40 need be all that pressurized nor sub-frozen and subsequently insulated like the demans of LH2/LO2. Therefore little if any insulation demands, and of storage tanks of composite basalt fibers and microballoons which can't weigh 50% of what traditional tankage involves, and quite possibly involving the inert/dry mass reductions of the SRBs being composite would become truly impressive if merely a 25% reduction in the (EAP) 37t inert/dry mass became 28t, which by itself is worth another 18t of extra payload and/or in exchange for extra fuel for the Ariane-5. So, I can't see why not as good as 25:1 for getting items into orbiting our moon, or at least on behalf of establishing the LL1/ME-L1 platform as tethered to our moon. - Brad Guth |
#7
|
|||
|
|||
Successful Ariane 5 Launch
This contribution is still a learning curve of work in progress, that's
partially taboo and/or need-to-know as a result of others (mostly the Usenet naysayers) that are not about to be caught dead sharing. Thus I'm having to locate somewhat interesting numbers that at least others and I can use for future arguments. Ariane 5 / Flight 162 http://www.arianespace.com/site/news...on_up_131.html "Combined weight of the complete triple payload "stack" -- including the dispensers and adapter hardware -- was approximately 6,160 kg." "During the multi-step mission sequence, the 2,750-kg. INSAT 3E was released approximately 29 minutes into the flight after riding in the upper payload slot atop the Ariane 5's SYLDA 5 dispenser system." "The SYLDA 5 structure was separated three minutes later, exposing e-BIRD for its deployment at 34 minutes into the flight. e-BIRD, which had a liftoff mass of 1,525 kg." Their final launch task of deploying SMART-1 came 8 minutes later, 42 minutes after liftoff: SMART-1 was by far the smallest of the Flight-162 payloads, weighing in at 370 kg was released as for eventually (about as slow as you'd dare go) heading itself towards orbiting the moon. "Flight 162 is the first time Ariane 5 has launched three satellites" Total of these three individual satellites represented a combined payload mass of 4645 kg. The total launch vehicle mass at liftoff was about 743~746 metric tonnes, and of that only 8% of the total payload(s) that amounted to 4645 kg was attributed to SMART-1 at merely 370 kg (seems hardly worth mentioning). Actually, it's more like 6% of their grand payload plus dispenser total. Seems only fair that perhaps at most SMART-1 should have to pay for 8% of the ride. Even though numbers are seemingly all over the place, whereas I'd have to say that's about as complex and otherwise as efficient as multi-task deployments get. Though seemingly offering a good enough deployment ratio, as having suggested something that's overall better off than 745:4.645 = 160:1. However, a dedicated all-in-one GSO deployment of 82:1 is considerably better off, as well as for whatever a dedicated Ariane-5 should manage on behalf of a dedicated translunar deployment should very well become twenty fold greater than SMART-1, making their existing translunar deployment capability of 7.2t into a ratio that's closer to the 110:1 mark as being rather oddly rocket-science deficient, at nearly twice as bad off as the reported performance of what the Saturn-5 with it's antiquated LOX/RP-1 first stage having supposedly accomplished such an extensively better than SRB performance as of today (is that impressive, or what?). With the new and improved inert/dry mass of the Ariane-5 as becoming touted for getting 12t into GSO with an 800t gross liftoff is 66.7:1, whereas if the translunar demand is half again demanding as per GSO, as such making their lastest improved capability 100:1 By way of the old Saturn-5 example, it's certainly suggesting a somewhat pathetic ratio as for the Ariane-5 class of their translunar deployment phase as having accommodated the SMART-1 portion, that was pretty much entirely on it's own ION micro-thruster after Ariane-5 dropped off the first two primary items along the way. Unfortunately, I believe SMART-1 was actually another wag-the-dog sort of pro-NASA/ESA infomercial, representing yet another limited cost impact mission that has taken (as in wasted) the most time while having diverted the public media, plus otherwise having accomplished little if any improvement in lunar-science (partly because of SMART-1 having been way too damn far away from the moon). Here's some of the interesting old numbers that do and don't add up. Saturn-5 total Mass: 3,054,750 kg A-17 Launch mass ? : 2,923,387 kg The Apollo-17 Spacecraft total (meaning all inclusive) mass of 52,740 kg was either suggesting a ratio as poor as 58:1 or of it's rather unusually impressive 55.4:1, whereas Apollo-15 having accomplished 65:1 is still impressive by modern standards if using Saturn-V w/seacraft tally of 3,054,750 kg as their total liftoff mass; therefore you get to pick and chose whatever suits your argument. It's only because these NASA/Apollo numbers simply are not adding up, is why I'm having to suggest that our Apollo spacecraft inert/dry mass wasn't nearly as bad off as we'd been told, and that they essentially utilized this insider (aka need-to-know) advantage of instead of such inert mass, of rather hauling extra fuel and having utilized such extra capacity on behalf of their spacecraft being the forth stage that was essential in order to have achieved the fully robotic portions of orbiting our moon, then having recovered the film from somewhere within the relative safety of the LL-1/ME-L1 zone that remains as so gosh darn unusually bad-topic as well as science and physics taboo/nondisclosure these days. - Brad Guth |
#8
|
|||
|
|||
Successful Ariane 5 Launch
This contribution is still an ongoing learning curve of work in
progress, that's partially taboo and/or need-to-know as a direct result of others (mostly the Usenet naysayers) that are not about to be caught dead sharing. Thus I'm having to locate somewhat interesting numbers that at least others and I can use for future arguments. Ariane 5 / Flight 162 http://www.arianespace.com/site/news...on_up_131.html "Combined weight of the complete triple payload "stack" -- including the dispensers and adapter hardware -- was approximately 6,160 kg." "During the multi-step mission sequence, the 2,750-kg. INSAT 3E was released approximately 29 minutes into the flight after riding in the upper payload slot atop the Ariane 5's SYLDA 5 dispenser system." "The SYLDA 5 structure was separated three minutes later, exposing e-BIRD for its deployment at 34 minutes into the flight. e-BIRD, which had a liftoff mass of 1,525 kg." Their final launch task of deploying SMART-1 came 8 minutes later, 42 minutes after liftoff: SMART-1 was by far the smallest of the Flight-162 payloads, weighing in at 370 kg was released as for eventually (about as slow as you'd dare go) heading itself towards orbiting the moon. "Flight 162 is the first time Ariane 5 has launched three satellites" Total of these three individual satellites represented a combined payload mass of 4645 kg. The total launch vehicle mass at liftoff was about 743~746 metric tonnes, and of that only 8% of the total payload(s) that amounted to 4645 kg was attributed to SMART-1 at merely 370 kg (seems hardly worth mentioning). Actually, it's more like 6% of their grand payload plus dispenser total. Seems only fair that perhaps at most SMART-1 should have to pay for 8% of the ride. Even though numbers are seemingly all over the place, whereas I'd have to say that's about as complex and otherwise as efficient as multi-task deployments get. Though seemingly offering a good enough deployment ratio, as having suggested something that's overall better off than 745:4.645 = 160:1. However, a dedicated all-in-one GSO deployment of 82:1 is considerably better off, as well as for whatever a dedicated Ariane-5 should manage on behalf of a dedicated translunar deployment should very well become twenty fold greater than SMART-1, making their existing translunar deployment capability of 7.2t into a ratio that's closer to the 110:1 mark as being rather oddly rocket-science deficient, at nearly twice as bad off as the reported performance of what the Saturn-5 with it's antiquated LOX/RP-1 first stage having supposedly accomplished such an extensively better than SRB performance as of today (is that impressive, or what?). With the new and improved inert/dry mass of the Ariane-5 as becoming touted for getting 12t into GSO with an 800t gross liftoff is 66.7:1, whereas if the translunar demand is half again demanding as per GSO, as such making their lastest improved capability 100:1 By way of the old Saturn-5 example, it's certainly suggesting a somewhat pathetic ratio as for the Ariane-5 class of their translunar deployment phase as having accommodated the SMART-1 portion, that was pretty much entirely on it's own ION micro-thruster after Ariane-5 dropped off the first two primary items along the way. Unfortunately, I believe SMART-1 was actually another wag-the-dog sort of pro-NASA/ESA infomercial, representing yet another limited cost impact mission that has taken (as in wasted) the most time while having diverted the public media, plus otherwise having accomplished little if any improvement in lunar-science (partly because of SMART-1 having been way too damn far away from the moon). Here's some of the interesting old numbers that do and don't add up. Saturn-5 total Mass: 3,054,750 kg A-17 Launch mass ? : 2,923,387 kg The Apollo-17 Spacecraft total (meaning all inclusive) mass of 52,740 kg was either suggesting a ratio as poor as 58:1 or of it's rather unusually impressive 55.4:1, whereas Apollo-15 having accomplished 65:1 is still impressive by modern standards if using Saturn-V w/seacraft tally of 3,054,750 kg as their total liftoff mass; therefore you get to pick and chose whatever suits your argument. It's only because these NASA/Apollo numbers simply are not adding up, is why I'm having to suggest that our Apollo spacecraft inert/dry mass wasn't nearly as bad off as we'd been told, and that they essentially utilized this insider (aka need-to-know) advantage of instead of such inert mass, of rather hauling extra fuel and having utilized such extra capacity on behalf of their spacecraft being the forth stage that was essential in order to have achieved the fully robotic portions of orbiting our moon, then having recovered the film from somewhere within the relative safety of the LL-1/ME-L1 zone that remains as so gosh darn unusually bad-topic as well as science and physics taboo/nondisclosure these days. - Brad Guth |
#9
|
|||
|
|||
Successful Ariane 5 Launch
This contribution is still an ongoing learning curve of work in
progress, that's partially taboo and/or need-to-know as a direct result of others (mostly the Usenet naysayers) that are not about to be caught dead sharing. Thus I'm having to locate somewhat interesting numbers that at least others and I can use for future arguments. Ariane 5 / Flight 162 http://www.arianespace.com/site/news...on_up_131.html "Combined weight of the complete triple payload "stack" -- including the dispensers and adapter hardware -- was approximately 6,160 kg." "During the multi-step mission sequence, the 2,750-kg. INSAT 3E was released approximately 29 minutes into the flight after riding in the upper payload slot atop the Ariane 5's SYLDA 5 dispenser system." "The SYLDA 5 structure was separated three minutes later, exposing e-BIRD for its deployment at 34 minutes into the flight. e-BIRD, which had a liftoff mass of 1,525 kg." Their final launch task of deploying SMART-1 came 8 minutes later, 42 minutes after liftoff: SMART-1 was by far the smallest of the Flight-162 payloads, weighing in at 370 kg was released as for eventually (about as slow as you'd dare go) heading itself towards orbiting the moon. "Flight 162 is the first time Ariane 5 has launched three satellites" Total of these three individual satellites represented a combined payload mass of 4645 kg. The total launch vehicle mass at liftoff was about 743~746 metric tonnes, and of that only 8% of the total payload(s) that amounted to 4645 kg was attributed to SMART-1 at merely 370 kg (seems hardly worth mentioning). Actually, it's more like 6% of their grand payload plus dispenser total. Seems only fair that perhaps at most SMART-1 should have to pay for 8% of the ride. Even though numbers are seemingly all over the place, whereas I'd have to say that's about as complex and otherwise as efficient as multi-task deployments get. Though seemingly offering a good enough deployment ratio, as having suggested something that's overall better off than 745:4.645 = 160:1. However, a dedicated all-in-one GSO deployment of 82:1 is considerably better off, as well as for whatever a dedicated Ariane-5 should manage on behalf of a dedicated translunar deployment should very well become twenty fold greater than SMART-1, making their existing translunar deployment capability of 7.2t into a ratio that's closer to the 110:1 mark as being rather oddly rocket-science deficient, at nearly twice as bad off as the reported performance of what the Saturn-5 with it's antiquated LOX/RP-1 first stage having supposedly accomplished such an extensively better than SRB performance as of today (is that impressive, or what?). With the new and improved inert/dry mass of the Ariane-5 as becoming touted for getting 12t into GSO with an 800t gross liftoff is 66.7:1, whereas if the translunar demand is half again demanding as per GSO, as such making their lastest improved capability 100:1 By way of the old Saturn-5 example, it's certainly suggesting a somewhat pathetic ratio as for the Ariane-5 class of their translunar deployment phase as having accommodated the SMART-1 portion, that was pretty much entirely on it's own ION micro-thruster after Ariane-5 dropped off the first two primary items along the way. Unfortunately, I believe SMART-1 was actually another wag-the-dog sort of pro-NASA/ESA infomercial, representing yet another limited cost impact mission that has taken (as in wasted) the most time while having diverted the public media, plus otherwise having accomplished little if any improvement in lunar-science (partly because of SMART-1 having been way too damn far away from the moon). Here's some of the interesting old numbers that do and don't add up. Saturn-5 total Mass: 3,054,750 kg A-17 Launch mass ? : 2,923,387 kg The Apollo-17 Spacecraft total (meaning all inclusive) mass of 52,740 kg was either suggesting a ratio as poor as 58:1 or of it's rather unusually impressive 55.4:1, whereas Apollo-15 having accomplished 65:1 is still impressive by modern standards if using Saturn-V w/seacraft tally of 3,054,750 kg as their total liftoff mass; therefore you get to pick and chose whatever suits your argument. It's only because these NASA/Apollo numbers simply are not adding up, is why I'm having to suggest that our Apollo spacecraft inert/dry mass wasn't nearly as bad off as we'd been told, and that they essentially utilized this insider (aka need-to-know) advantage of instead of such inert mass, of rather hauling extra fuel and having utilized such extra capacity on behalf of their spacecraft being the forth stage that was essential in order to have achieved the fully robotic portions of orbiting our moon, then having recovered the film from somewhere within the relative safety of the LL-1/ME-L1 zone that remains as so gosh darn unusually bad-topic as well as science and physics taboo/nondisclosure these days. - Brad Guth |
Thread Tools | |
Display Modes | |
|
|
Similar Threads | ||||
Thread | Thread Starter | Forum | Replies | Last Post |
Space Calendar - November 23, 2005 | [email protected] | History | 2 | November 25th 05 03:36 AM |
Space Calendar - May 26, 2005 | [email protected] | History | 0 | May 26th 05 04:47 PM |
Space Calendar - April 28, 2005 | [email protected] | Astronomy Misc | 0 | April 28th 05 05:21 PM |
Space Calendar - March 25, 2005 | [email protected] | History | 0 | March 25th 05 04:46 PM |
Space Calendar - August 27, 2004 | OzPirate | Policy | 0 | August 27th 04 10:11 PM |