New Mars Forums

.

from this NSF article:

http://www.nasaspaceflight.com/content/?cid=5394

"Interestingly, amid rumors of a configuration change in the offing, the first documented note of switching to a four segment Ares I with two J2-X upper stage engines gained a mention as a direct possibility of solving the TO problem."

then... this:

http://www.ghostnasa.com/posts/026ares1a.html

however, if they want to go back to a 4-segments SRB, they can (simply) develop an SSME-class J-2X, that I've called "J-2Y":

http://www.ghostnasa.com/posts/006superengine.html

that change is easy, since the J-2X is in its early steps and will be ready to fly within 6+ years

also, a more powerful 2nd stage engine, may help the underpowered Ares-5 to reach its (planned) 130 mT max payload goal

.

although the O.S. article doesn't report these exact words, it's the logical consequence of the problems listed

.

sorry for your deletion of my blog's links (but NOT or the commercial DIRECTspaceflight.lobby link...) especially since it seems that (every day more) MY blog ANTICIPATE the Ares-1 "status"...

.

despite my underside-LAS is (about) half the weight a tower-LAS and 1/4th the weight of a side-mounted-LAS (then it can reach the orbit without big payload cut) my suggestion is to jetttison it at the same point of the flight of a tower-LAS since the LAS motors can be put outside the SM fairing

.

over a year ago, when the early rumors about an "underpowered Ares-1" started running the web, a further rumor said that NASA was evaluating the option to use the LAS as "3rd stage" to reach the orbit (rather than just jettison it) ... the only problem is that, with ALL Orion's crew put under 10G before enter the orbit, we'll have more astronauts dead than flyes after spraying an insecticide...

.

links (and date) are very importants to support claims, that's why I put a date on every article and post their links on several forums and blogs including some that can't be edited by me

again, there is a BIG difference between the Griffin/CanadianArrow/Kliper SM/2ndstage/shuttle SIDE-mounded concepts and MY "underside-LAS" since ALL systems you quote (INCLUDING the Canadian Arrow that has TWO stages) need to DOUBLE the power and weight of the LAS (vs. the tower version) to lift (both) Orion and SM (Griffin/NASA) 2nd stage and crew cabin (Canadian Arrow) the full shuttle (Kliper) while MY concept may cut to HALF (or less) the weight of the LAS vs. the tower version (and SAFER)

I still say (and will say) that, and the reason is the (few months ago) MLAS concept, because...

if they have already evaluated (but rejected) a MLAS/underside-LAS concept, there is NO reason to talk NOW of a (known bad) LAS design... while...

if they have invented (years ago) the MLAS (and believe as a good alternative) there is NO reason to talk of it NOW rather than in the ESAS plan (or BEFORE it)

it only a matter of LOGIC ... the logic teachs us that NASA should talk of a good concept in the main VSE document (the ESAS plan) OR (if it's a bad concept) NEVER talk of it, NOT in the ESAS plan, NOT now, NOT in future!

assuming the Canadian Arrow escape system is born in the date you claim, it's clearly a Kliper derivative (and the Kliper is born years before it) that lifts (both) 2nd stage and crew cabin (then it's NOT efficient) while MY underside-LAS may CUT the LAS mass to HALF (if compared to a towerLAS) or to 1/4th (if compared with the newV2 and the Kliper)

the newV2 escape system is safe, but adds twice the weight, if uses fast solid motors, while it's not too heavy but UNSAFE if uses the 2nd stages engines that need too much time to start burn (and an exploding rocket doesn't give so much time, if you want to save the crew) that's why (both) Apollo and Orion (and Soyuz/Shenzhou too) have NOT used/will use the SM engine to escape from a 2nd stage explosion, or the 2nd stage to escape from a first stage explosion, etc.

the day a new.space company or a space agency will adopt MY (mass saving and SAFER) underside-LAS (both) you and NASA will discover that it's better than a tower-LAS...

remember that (despite it was only a concept) everybody knows the Kliper and it's escape system, but I've never said to NASA "please, adopt the Kliper LAS that's better and safer than your towerLAS" since the effort of my design was NOT to (simply) put the LAS in another position (like the Griffin/newV2/Kliper concepts) but SAVE as much mass as possible, and the result is MY undersideLAS that has many (but smaller and lighter) solid motors joined to the Orion's TPS "cover" (a thing NEVER made nor suggested before)

.

it's easy to understand (just reading my articles and posts) ... I'm against every too expensive and too long to develop space-hardware, while, I'm in favor of ready (or soon) available and (relatively) cheap things

first of all, the crew lander max payload was only 3.4 mT when the total mass landed was evaluated around 17 mT

after the cut to 14 mT total, this extra-payload is NOT reduced in proportion (then, down to 2.8 mT) but reduced to (nearly) ZERO (or just one mT) since, also in the 3 mT-resized Altair, you ALWAYS need to land the (already too small) ascent stage/crew cabin/ life support

second, if you use this (very small) payload for an inflatable module, yo can't land a rover, enough exploration hardware, etc.

third, assuming you can land (both) inflatable module and science hardware, you can't use none of them for months since the life support for a long stay of a crew of four has a weight of (at least) 0.5 mT per week

then, your choice for the extra payload is: "inflatable module" OR "science hardware" OR "long stay life support" NOT two or three of them

sorry, but, the ONLY solution is a bigger Ares-5 (as I always said everywhere in latest two years)

.

two weeks after my article ... it seems a first attempt to fix the Altair problems evidenced in the points "2.", "3." and "6." of my article

maybe, that doesn't means they have read my article (despite its page has received many important visits...) but (at least) this change evidences that I was right (again)

sadly to read that the max Altair payload (already cutted from 21 mT to 17 mT in two years) has gone down from 17 mT to 14 mT in two weeks...

.

the only waste of time and words I know (posting on space forums) is those I must lose every day to reply to insults and personal attacks rather than just talk of real things ... about my proposals, I believe it's better to suggest one or more alternatives and concepts rather than post only critics (like several users do on several space forums and blogs)

.

maybe you don't like me and my proposals, but I take them seriously, then, I hope Mods will delete soon the stupid poll added to my thread, thanks

.

my main work is on my sites and I can't close them to write everything on other sites, also, a linked article is PART of the place (or discussion) where the link is posted (THIS is the way internet works) and, post an image, may help the users to know the argument without actually read the article

.