ATK Plans Commercial Ares I

"Derek Lyons" wrote in message
...
"Jeff Findley" wrote:


wrote in message
...
See:


http://www.aviationweek.com/aw/gener...98.xml&show=us

I wonder how well that's going to work out.

My guess is, not well considering the vibration issues with Ares I.

I always wonder how this group would have reacted had it existed back
in the early 60's...

"It'll never fly, Mr Hughes".

"Derek Lyons" wrote in message
...
"Jeff Findley" wrote:
My guess is, not well considering the vibration issues with Ares I.

I always wonder how this group would have reacted had it existed back
in the early 60's...

In the early 60's every type of launch vehicle was pretty dangerous. But
times change. Over the history of the shuttle program, there have been zero
catastrophic SSME events in all those flights. But there was one, very
notable, catastrophic SRB event.

The vibration issue of Ares I may be solvable, but it's going to cost time,
money, and possibly more mass than Orion can give up.

And even if it is solvable to the satisfaction of commercial customers, that
still doesn't mean that commercial customers have much motivation to pick
Ares I over a Delta IV Heavy (or even an Atlas V Heavy). That is, unless
the government starts subsidizing Ares I launches like it did with the
shuttle.

Jeff
--
A clever person solves a problem.
A wise person avoids it. -- Einstein

"Alan Erskine" wrote in message
...
"It'll never fly, Mr Hughes".

It flew, but it's debatable whether or not it got high enough such that lift
from ground effect was negligible. But even if it never got out of ground
effect, it could still have been a viable transport. The Soviets actually
designed wing in ground effect aircraft like the Ekranoplan:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Image:E...n_of_1980s.jpg

Weird looking, isn't it?

Jeff
--
A clever person solves a problem.
A wise person avoids it. -- Einstein

"Rand Simberg" wrote in message
...
Further thoughts:

http://www.transterrestrial.com/arch...resh_hell.html

I hope that the space news websites print stories with similar criticisms.
Getting NASA out of the commercial launch vehicle business was one of the
few good things to emerge after Challenger was destroyed. I'd really hate
to see today's politicians and bureaucrats reverse that key decision.

Jeff
--
A clever person solves a problem.
A wise person avoids it. -- Einstein

Derek Lyons wrote:
Not to mention - where in hell are they going to assemble and launch
it? New assembly building and pads?

Well, um, how about Florida? :-)

But seriously, isn't the commercial launch business as a whole saturated?
Boeing stopped marketing DIV to anybody but the DOD years ago. The US
manufacturers are being undercut by cheap Russian launchers. How is ATK
planning to compete with them? Or is this about competing with ULA for US
Government (DOD) launches?

The Stick already requires a large 2nd stage to get it's payload to orbit;
what is ATK using for a 2nd stage? With the Stick's 2nd stage itself being
manufactured at MAF (a US government facility) could it even be made
available? I suppose another ATK motor, such as the Castor 120, could be used
for a 2nd stage, however if that would've worked for the Stick then why didn't
they use it?

Alternatively, (and this is really just an academic exercise) what size
payload could the 5 segment SRM loft into orbit as a SSTO?

But the part that really took the cake was paragraph six of the AvLeak
article:

But ATK also is studying upgrades that could add another 9,910 pounds
to that capability. Those include higher operating pressure in the
motor, an increased throat diameter, a shift to HTBP propellant from
the PBAN used on the NASA systems, and a graphite composite case.

If you change the propellant type, the case, increase the internal pressure,
change the nozzle... whats left from the old SRM? The nosecone?

Glen Overby

Jeff Findley wrote:
In the early 60's every type of launch vehicle was pretty dangerous.
But times change. Over the history of the shuttle program, there
have been zero catastrophic SSME events in all those flights. But
there was one, very notable, catastrophic SRB event.

Wouldn't that be more accurately described as SRB+ET event?

rick jones
--
web2.0 n, the dot.com reunion tour...
these opinions are mine, all mine; HP might not want them anyway...
feel free to post, OR email to rick.jones2 in hp.com but NOT BOTH...

"Rick Jones" wrote in message
...
Jeff Findley wrote:
In the early 60's every type of launch vehicle was pretty dangerous.
But times change. Over the history of the shuttle program, there
have been zero catastrophic SSME events in all those flights. But
there was one, very notable, catastrophic SRB event.

Wouldn't that be more accurately described as SRB+ET event?

No. SRB was the cause - the ET was just in the way of the plume.

Wouldn't that be more accurately described as SRB+ET event?
No. SRB was the cause - the ET was just in the way of the plume.

So the same thing would have happened if the plume had been going away
from the ET?

rick jones
--
Wisdom Teeth are impacted, people are affected by the effects of events.
these opinions are mine, all mine; HP might not want them anyway...
feel free to post, OR email to rick.jones2 in hp.com but NOT BOTH...

On Fri, 11 Apr 2008 00:53:45 +0000 (UTC), Rick Jones
wrote:

Wouldn't that be more accurately described as SRB+ET event?
No. SRB was the cause - the ET was just in the way of the plume.

So the same thing would have happened if the plume had been going away
from the ET?

Yep. The plume spread all the way around the circumference by the end.
Control authority and thrust imbalance would have become severe issues
in short order, as well. It just would have taken a little longer.

Brian

On Thu, 10 Apr 2008 15:56:00 GMT, h (Rand
Simberg) wrote:


Further thoughts:

http://www.transterrestrial.com/arch...resh_hell.html

a. The SRB's record is 1 failure in 244 launches. Really, what first
stage has a better track record? (I know, you're saying "it's not
about reliability", but try telling THAT to Congress... "Senator, we
are going with a Delta-based launcher... yes, we know its already had
one failure, but this isn't about reliability...")

b. The present SRB is not the same design that destroyed Challenger.
(You imply that it is.)

c. Ares's SRB will be neither design, but closer to the current one
than the Challenger one.

d. The SRB's one failure was a slow-onset failure affording plenty of
time for launch escape, had the data been monitored in real time (even
if not, it is possible Smith saw the disaster happening in time to
have pulled an abort handle, if he'd had one) and a launch escape
system been available.

Brian