A Space & astronomy forum. SpaceBanter.com

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

NASA/DARPA Super Mars Rocket



 
 
Thread Tools Display Modes
  #1  
Old October 29th 10, 11:38 AM posted to sci.space.history,sci.space.policy
Ian Parker
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 2,554
Default NASA/DARPA Super Mars Rocket

On 28 Oct, 21:26, Pat Flannery wrote:
On 10/28/2010 2:26 AM, Ian Parker wrote:

The cost of Ariane 5 is $120M per launch, but Ariane 5 has an 18,000Kg
LEO payload. Neither, as I understand it, is human space flight
qualified, although there is the possibility that Ariane


Ariane 5 was design to be man-rated, as originally one of its payloads
was to be the Hermes mini-shuttle; but the French decided that if they
optimized it to carry the Hermes it would be less economical as a
commercial launcher, and that was the main purpose it was developed for:http://www.astronautix.com/craft/hermes.htm

Energia is 88,000Kg. A real heavyweight.


http://www.astronautix.com/lvs/energia.htm


http://www.friends-partners.org/part...vs/energia.htm


Yeah, but Energia is dead as a doornail despite Russian dreams of
somehow restarting the program. For starters, the four strap-on Zenit
boosters are made in Ukraine, not Russia, and Russia and Ukraine aren't
on very friendly terms...probably a result of Stalin starving between
seven and ten million Ukrainian farmers to death while exporting all the
wheat they grew to show the triumph of the Soviet collective farm concept.

Development cost was something over a billion roubles. Launch cost -
vague but probably comparable to Ariane 5.


This potted survey shows that if you want the lowest per Kg cost at
LEO you buy Russian. It is not as simple as that, there are political
questions and the cost may not be a true cost. The real comparison is
with Ariane 5.


This shows that Falcon, while an innovation is not so radically
different from other solutions. The real eye opener is Ariane 5. This
I think is because the Europeans, the French in particular had much
more consistent objectives than NASA. This analysis rubbishes Capitol
Hill but not necessarily NASA that has to live with the objectives
set.


The French were out to make a buck on commercial space launches; an idea
completely alien to NASA.

Certainly the quality of the scientific brains that produced this
proposal is not in question.


Ares I/Orion was supposed to be an easy-to-build system that could be
done quickly, and at low cost.
Then it began...Orion weighed too much, so the ground landing via
airbags or landing rockets and reusable heatshield got replaced by a sea
landing and non-reusable ablative heatshield.
But that was still too heavy to use a stock four-segment Shuttle SRB for
the first stage, so that had to be replaced with a five segment one.
Then it was found that the upper stage still wouldn't give sufficient
power to get the Orion into orbit unless it fired its service module
engine once separating from the second stage, cutting into its
propellant supply.
Whatever these scientific brains were good at, figuring out the math of
what their spacecraft was going to weigh vs. their planned booster's
lifting capabilities apparently wasn't one of their gifts.

Pat


Ares is a pup. there is little doubt about that. Linguistics - Ares
was the Greek god of war. Ares and Mars are therefore synonymous. Ares
was conceived of as taking humans there. There are a number of
problems, weight is only one of them, oscillation is another. This
should indeed have been dealt with with good basic engineering.

It would in fact have been better to have pulled Saturn 5 out of
retirement and fitted it with modern electronics. However the
overriding fact is that Humans on "Ares" are completely under
resourced. This is the root cause of the problem.

Don't do at all what you can't finish.


- Ian Parker
 




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
NASA/DARPA Super Mars Rocket Pat Flannery Policy 22 October 30th 10 06:54 PM
super agency merge RSA,ESA JSA , NASA, et al Lynndel K. Humphreys Space Shuttle 16 November 18th 05 02:15 PM
Russian Super Rocket Rod Stevenson Technology 21 February 5th 04 05:22 AM
Russian Super Rocket Rod Stevenson History 34 February 5th 04 05:22 AM
Russian super rocket? Rod Stevenson Technology 6 November 10th 03 10:37 AM


All times are GMT +1. The time now is 12:28 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.