|
|
|
Thread Tools | Display Modes |
#1
|
|||
|
|||
better, safer, smarter, cheaper, simpler, lighter, shorter Ares-1design for the Shuttles' replacement (Orion) and (maybe) also for a (future)NEW (smaller) Shuttle
a better, safer, smarter, cheaper, simpler, lighter, shorter Ares-1
design: http://www.ghostnasa.com/posts/026ares1a.html |
#2
|
|||
|
|||
better, safer, smarter, cheaper, simpler, lighter, shorterAres-1 design for the Shuttles' replacement (Orion) and (maybe) also for a(future) NEW (smaller) Shuttle
On Mar 23, 5:13�am, gaetanomarano wrote:
a better, safer, smarter, cheaper, simpler, lighter, shorter Ares-1 design: http://www.ghostnasa.com/posts/026ares1a.html sadly nasa must have decided the optimum pork for everyone is ares.......... the agency in whle cares about nothing else |
#3
|
|||
|
|||
gaetanomarano is delusional, he thinks he can design rockets withjust photoshop
On Mar 23, 6:13 am, gaetanomarano wrote:
a better, safer, smarter, cheaper, simpler, lighter, shorter Ares-1 design: http://www.ghostnasa.com/posts/026ares1a.html You purpose a worse, more dangerous,dumber, costly, more complex, heavier and lastly non viable vehicle. Just stop polluting the internet with your garbage |
#4
|
|||
|
|||
gaetanomarano is delusional, he thinks he can design rockets with just photoshop
wrote in message
... On Mar 23, 6:13 am, gaetanomarano wrote: a better, safer, smarter, cheaper, simpler, lighter, shorter Ares-1 design: http://www.ghostnasa.com/posts/026ares1a.html You purpose a worse, more dangerous,dumber, costly, more complex, heavier and lastly non viable vehicle. None of the ideas (Ares 1 or this guy's ideas) are better than the Delta IV Heavy which is already in production; has been launched and is proven reliable. Ares 1 (NASA version) will be substatially more expensive than the Delta IV Heavy. There's really no reason at all to use the Ares 1. |
#5
|
|||
|
|||
better, safer, smarter, cheaper, simpler, lighter, shorterAres-1 design for the Shuttles' replacement (Orion) and (maybe) also fora (future) NEW (smaller) Shuttle
gaetanomarano wrote:
a better, safer, smarter, cheaper, simpler, lighter, shorter Ares-1 design: http://www.ghostnasa.com/posts/026ares1a.html Congratulations, you've actually come up with a worse idea than Ares. You show a system where you're supposedly sticking existing pieces together to form a working system. In fact, almost every existing component in your system would require extensive redesign, in many cases to the point of being a complete "do over". Just a few points from your proposed SLV: 1.) There's no way in hell you're going to stack a large vehicle on top of a shuttle external tank without significant reenforcement, it simply was not designed to carry large loads up on the nose. In fact, you would almost certainly have to completely re-design the external tank. 2.) Likewise, you are not going to attach a set of SSMEs to the bottom of a shuttle ET. It likewise was not designed to have all the force applied at that one locate. Again, complete re-design of ET. 3.) You damn sure better be recovering that SSME cluster. Didn't read enough to say if that's your plan but a SSME is designed to be reused many, many times and is therefore quite expensive for the specific impulse/lift capability. SSMEs were designed to be reused, but were not designed to be dunked in the ocean between uses. You would need to show a convincing plan to get that SSME cluster back to the ground without significant damage (and without spending several hours bobing around in the ocean). I frankly don't see that happening from what you've shown. 4.) There seems to be a lot of hand waving on everything forward of the shuttle ET. Assuming that part is less that 110~125 tons it's still only in LEO. All of that is new work. I would be tempted to say you've managed to preserve all of the shuttle's worse attributes while offering little improvement but that would be an overstatement. By getting rid of the tandem shuttle/ET stacking you have removed the worse flaw of the shuttle system. Good for you. However, while removing the worse flaw in the shuttle system you have managed to retain almost all of the most expensive components that have made the shuttle system so cost prohibitive to fly. In fact, I don't see any way your proposed system flys for *less* than the current cost to launch a shuttle. In fact, given that almost everything forward of the ET ends up either burning up in the atmosphere or in the ocean it will certainly cost *more* per launch than the current shuttle (and that's assuming that you *are* reusing the SSMEs, if not it will cost *much* more per launch). You have a good motive in wanting to use existing hardware as much as possible, however IMHO I think you have picked the wrong (i.e. most expensive) system to start from. I think starting from something like a Delta IV and man-rating the components would give you a much cheaper to launch system much quicker than either your idea or the Ares concept. |
#6
|
|||
|
|||
gaetanomarano is delusional, he thinks he can design rockets withjust photoshop
On 23 Mar, 17:55, wrote:
a *worse, more dangerous,dumber, costly, more complex, heavier and lastly non viable vehicle. just bad words... not only MY design, but, ALL rockets with the SRB-4 (instead of the SRB-5) are (at least) cheaper and faster to develop and build . |
#7
|
|||
|
|||
gaetanomarano is delusional, he thinks he can design rockets withjust photoshop
On 23 Mar, 18:28, "Alan Erskine" wrote:
None of the ideas (Ares 1 or this guy's ideas) are better than the Delta IV Heavy which is already in production; has been launched and is proven reliable. *Ares 1 (NASA version) will be substatially more expensive than the Delta IV Heavy. *There's really no reason at all to use the Ares 1. the Delta IV Heavy already exists and costs less than develop any kind of Ares-1 but has flown just two times (IIRC) is not man-rated and can't lift the (8 mT propellents) lunar Orion but only the (2/4 mT propellents) orbital Orion (that, however, could be better than nothing... . |
#8
|
|||
|
|||
better, safer, smarter, cheaper, simpler, lighter, shorterAres-1 design for the Shuttles' replacement (Orion) and (maybe) also for a(future) NEW (smaller) Shuttle
On 23 Mar, 18:52, Leopold Stotch wrote:
You show a system where you're supposedly sticking existing pieces together to form a working system. *In fact, almost every existing component in your system would require extensive redesign, in many cases to the point of being a complete "do over". yes, it needs some design and has costs, but LESS than the SRB-5 Ares-1 There's no way in hell you're going to stack a large vehicle on top of a shuttle external tank without significant reenforcement that's true (and I've already said that at the end of my FAST-SLV article) Likewise, you are not going to attach a set of SSMEs to the bottom of a shuttle ET. It likewise was not designed to have all the force applied at that one locate. *Again, complete re-design of ET. true, it's only a concept, not a ready-to-fly rocket, however, the ET changes (urely) need LESS time and mone than develop TWO brand new rockets You damn sure better be recovering that SSME cluster. *Didn't read enough to say if that's your plan but a SSME is designed to be reused many, many times and is therefore quite expensive for the specific impulse/lift capability. *SSMEs were designed to be reused, but were not designed to be dunked in the ocean between uses. *You would need to show a convincing plan to get that SSME cluster back to the ground without significant damage (and without spending several hours bobing around in the ocean). *I frankly don't see that happening from what you've shown. I've NOT said in the article (nor elsewhere) that the SSMEs must be recovered and reused (despite the rocket drawing's "engines' basket" seems suggest that) There seems to be a lot of hand waving on everything forward of the shuttle ET. *Assuming that part is less that 110~125 tons it's still only in LEO. *All of that is new work. true, it's the LEO payload, that's why I suggest to "resize" the moon missions and its hardware for a crew of three (with one launch) OR use two FAST-SLV per mission for a very "hardware richer" moon mission I would be tempted to say you've managed to preserve all of the shuttle's worse attributes while offering little improvement but that would be an overstatement. *By getting rid of the tandem shuttle/ET stacking you have removed the worse flaw of the shuttle system. *Good for you. *However, while removing the worse flaw in the shuttle system you have managed to retain almost all of the most expensive components that have made the shuttle system so cost prohibitive to fly. *In fact, I don't see any way your proposed system flys for *less* than the current cost to launch a shuttle. *In fact, given that almost everything forward of the ET ends up either burning up in the atmosphere or in the ocean it will certainly cost *more* per launch than the current shuttle (and that's assuming that you *are* reusing the SSMEs, if not it will cost *much* more per launch). not true, if you scrap the Shuttle from the system, do a 100% expendable launcher and avoid to develop two new rockets, the time and money saved will be in the order of DOZENS billion$$$ (that's, also, why I've suggested to rearrange ONLY ready available space-hardware) You have a good motive in wanting to use existing hardware as much as possible, however IMHO I think you have picked the wrong (i.e. most expensive) system to start from. *I think starting from something like a Delta IV and man-rating the components would give you a much cheaper to launch system much quicker than either your idea or the Ares concept. smaller rockets like Delta, Atlas and Ariane can be used but they need DEEP changes in the ESAS hardware and lunar missions' architecture... these rockets can't be of much help with the planned missions' architecture . |
#9
|
|||
|
|||
better, safer, smarter, cheaper, simpler, lighter, shorterAres-1 design for the Shuttles' replacement (Orion) and (maybe) also for a(future) NEW (smaller) Shuttle
how many really believe bushes moon mars mission will survive his term
in office? It was DOA from the get go, and had as much chance of flying as the saturn 5 in the saturn center, cleaned and painted but never going anywhere.......... bush will go down in history as the worst president ever, and ares just one of a long list of failures truly the delta heavy was a far better choice but lacked the pork....... if a manned system survives at all its its best chance. |
#10
|
|||
|
|||
better, safer, smarter, cheaper, simpler, lighter, shorterAres-1 design for the Shuttles' replacement (Orion) and (maybe) also fora (future) NEW (smaller) Shuttle
gaetanomarano wrote:
On 23 Mar, 18:52, Leopold Stotch wrote: You damn sure better be recovering that SSME cluster. Didn't read enough to say if that's your plan but a SSME is designed to be reused many, many times and is therefore quite expensive for the specific impulse/lift capability. SSMEs were designed to be reused, but were not designed to be dunked in the ocean between uses. You would need to show a convincing plan to get that SSME cluster back to the ground without significant damage (and without spending several hours bobing around in the ocean). I frankly don't see that happening from what you've shown. I've NOT said in the article (nor elsewhere) that the SSMEs must be recovered and reused (despite the rocket drawing's "engines' basket" seems suggest that) Then you've missed my point entirely. The SSME is a *very* expensive engine. One of the major reasons that is it so expensive is that it is meant to be reused multiple times. You are chunking away a lot of money if you are using SSMEs as disposable engines. If you are going to do that, better to use an engine that was designed to be a one time use only engine. |
|
Thread Tools | |
Display Modes | |
|
|
Similar Threads | ||||
Thread | Thread Starter | Forum | Replies | Last Post |
NewSpace rockets __ EELVs __ Ares-I __ REVISED Orion/Ares-I __ FAST-SLV __ chances of success | gaetanomarano | Policy | 9 | June 16th 07 12:03 AM |
Lighter/simpler turbo pump | Pete Lynn | Policy | 11 | May 27th 06 10:27 AM |
NASCAR cars are safer than the NASA space shuttles! NASA needs to be hiring some of that NASCAR expertise in safety! | David Ball | Space Shuttle | 0 | February 22nd 06 01:40 PM |
Orion DualBeam Astro Flashlight Battery Replacement | John Nichols | Amateur Astronomy | 3 | September 5th 05 03:45 PM |
If we lost ISS would the shuttles be retired too? What of the future? | Hallerb | Space Shuttle | 17 | November 7th 03 01:42 PM |