New Mars Forums

assuming you're right on this claim... that means the Ares-1 must be entirely SCRAPPED from the plan (no matter its design) ...but, to do what? ..."Direct"... ? ...ok, DIRECT !!! (but just call it "FAST-SLV"... )

.

the weight saved cutting the interstage and adopting the underside-LAS allows the Orion to remain as it is now

that's true, it need some (small and low cost) changes... that, surely, don't need 4+ years and three billion$$$ ...also, all attitude controls are in the 2nd stage

this is the first "slice" of the SRB-5 R&D costs... NASA has already paid money in the past and will pay in future... NASA officials NOW admit that Ares-1 will cost $10 billion only for R&D (but GAO claims it will cost $14.4 billion)

the problem is simple... if only the SRB-5 has too much oscillations, it must be changed with the 4 segments version, while, if ALL kind of SRB has the same problem, then, BOTH must be changed with something different

that's true, but they can save very much money and, maybe, use part of these funds to develop the J-2X faster (if possible)

.

can I help you ?

maybe, you can start with the 4-segments SRB used in this "short Ares-1"

- it's powerful enough to lift a "right sized" Orion

- it's READY AVAILABLE NOW... I repeat... it's READY AVAILABLE NOW... I repeat... it's READY AVAILABLE NOW... I repeat... it's READY AVAILABLE NOW ...NOT in 2011 or 2012 or 201x... but NOW

- it cost $0.oo of R&D compared with the $3 billion of the 5-segments SRB

- each reusable SRB costs $40M compared with an unknown (but surely higher) SRB-5 price

- it's ALREADY man-rated... I repeat... it's ALREADY man-rated

- it will have NO "vibrations" problems (assuming the SRB-5 problems can be solved... someday) when used on the Ares-1 since it has had NO vibrations problems on the Shuttle

- it has been ALREADY TESTED in 240+ (successfull) MANNED flights (counting two per Shuttle flight) with just ONE "human" failure 20 years ago ...that compared with the ZERO manned (and, so far, also "unmanned") flights' tests of the SRB-5

do you need further help ?

or, do you want to talk about my (BETTER) rockets' concepts on my NewMars' "gaetanomarano' ghetto thread" ?

.

in the "Ares V Ascent Profile" table (published in the NASA .pdf document posted by cIclops in Ares V thread) you can read that the EDS' J-2X ignition happen at 122 km. of altitude (just 100 km. under the 120 nmi orbital insertion altitude) while, the Ares-1 J-2X starts burn around 60 km. of altitude (and the Shuttle SRBs are jettisoned at 45 km. of altitude) also, since NASA admits that the Ares-5 is underpowered (just read the AvWeek article linked in my blog) it's very likely they'll come back to the twin J-2X design for the final EDS

.

<OT material removed>

with the current design SM the fairing will be up to twice the dimension and the weight:

.

the tanks seen in the current version are not perfect sphere, also, two tanks needs a larger but unused structure ... it's better to have a larger SM with four smaller spherical tanks a lighter structure and a smaller faring

.

no, it's a disadvantage since needs a bigger fairing

.

personally, I believe that rumors are true since they match with my evaluations about the Ares-1 (but this is a personal opinion, of course)

.

yes (IF works) but an elliptic orbit that needs an SM engine burn to become circular

.

the "vibrations" issue is an official NASA claim, the same was the problem of flight stability (from press release) the doubt about the Ares-1 come from (good or bad) evaluations from several places, the Orion overweight was admitted (despite they say that have/will solve it)

at this point, that myths NEED a REAL flight to be debunked

PS - the color was a quote

.

I know that it's a "minimum requirements" concept, but, if they'll not change (both) the Altair and Ares-5 design, these "requirements" will always remain "minime" or become (very much) "smaller"

that's why I've pointed my attention mainly on the Ares-5 (rather than only the Altair) suggesting to build a BIGGER rocket

.