New Mars Forums

the problem is not the dimensions of the cargo but it's payload's mass, that, a too little and underpowered Ares-5, limits to just 17 mT, no matter the shape of the cargo

.

only the SRB-5 (that is the biggest part in weight but the smallest in value) and it's not 100% they can use it on the Ares-5 since, official claims, say it's undepowered, so, probably three standard SRB will be used to add some extra-power to a flawed design (yes, the Ares-5 should use also the J-2X but in a completely different stage, then ZERO savings on R&D costs)

.

not exactly... the "moonrover PRIZE" idea... also, in my ghostNASA article I give enough EVIDENCES of my claims!
however, do you not feel strange that all them "invent" the same things I suggest MONTHS or YEARS after me, rather than, months or years BEFORE me? ...if they are so expert and smart, that should NEVER happen...

they've already put some big "patches" on several big "holes" of the early ESAS plan... like the change of the order of launch between Ares-1 and Ares-5 to avoid the risk of missions' fail due to a "sum of delays" (another problem I've evidenced in 2006 in my articles and posts, then they have "fixed" now)
of course, they can use the current architecture and hardware with no change, but going towards POOR missions and too much risk of failure

I agree that Ares-1 could fly (IF it can fly...) before a similar new.space rocket, but not at the same price, that, since, it's very high shared R&D costs ALREADY put it out of market, so, assuming it will fly first (around 2016 or so) it will be retired within two-three years in favor of a commercial rocket... the future will see many actors and more competition, then, NASA must adapt itself to the new scenario... these are the market's laws (that are STRONGER than physic's laws!) and not even NASA can change them

.

it seems that Orion and the new SRB should be ready around 2012-2013 and (probably) also the end of the J-2X R&D so, I suppose the delay that shifts the first manned launch to 2016 could be due to man-rate and mass produce the J-2X, test the full rocket, etc.

yes, but they started from ZERO experience, ZERO engineers, ZERO infrastructures, etc... just look at how private industries grow... they start slow, then, having enough funds and the right peoples, do better things in half or less time than government agencies, also, the first manned Orion launch will be in 2016 (+ further delays) so, they (not only SpaceX but all present and future new.space companies) have up to NINE years to reach their goal... last, the main new.space companies' goal isn't launch a manned capsule before NASA (despite, in nine years, they can) but launch it at a LOWER price, so, assuming the Orion will fly first in 2016, what NASA could/must/will do if one or more private companies will offer the SAME "service" in 2018 at (e.g.) 20% the price (including the, very high in NASA stndards, fixed yearly earth-support/assembly costs) of the Orion/Ares-1 duo? ...do you think they must still use their own capsule and launcher (paying FIVE times the price!) or that (both) the Congress and the US taxpayer will force NASA to pension (both) Orion and Ares-1 and use ONLY the 80% cheaper commercial hardware? I suppose that NASA don't build the computers they use since the commercial computers (nearly all of them "Made in China"...) are better and cheaper... well, I believe that, soon or later, that will happen also with rockets and capsules...

.

a flyback 1st stage or booster could be a good solution (that was under study at NASA for the Shuttle, at ESA for the Ariane5 and at a small space company founded by Buzz Aldrin) ONLY if cheaper than a traditional, unwunged and expendable rocket

unfortunately, this is only a concept now (with just a few experiments made at NASA, Australia and India) and the COTS companies have not enough funds and experience to do that... just look at the problem SpaceX has to be 100% successful in the first rocket launch

.

true, but they can just do some experiments in the early mission (to gather real data and experience for future projects) NOT base their life on ISRU oxygen from early days... a moon missions already is a BIG risk to add risks on risks

.

that's true, but they talk, write, calculate and publish them as things to build next week... if the lander is only in the phase of "concept" then, develop and publish only the various concepts... WHY do they develop and publish so detailed data about the Ares-5 and Altair, if they are aware that EVERYTHING will be changed soon?

.

a lunar mission is not a Junior Woodchucks' trip in the forest... ...everything MUST be planned in details years before a lift-off and (both) the lander and its launcher MUST have the capability to accomplish the full missions (including a large life support redundancy) and NOT hope to find oxigen, water and food on the moon...

.

I've seen the images of (both) sortie and outpost versions of the Altair, that (both) have the same crew cabin (with the sortie version that has the airlock module) that's also since they can't build two different versions, one of which with a larger crew cabin a bigger descent-stage, etc.

"emergency" may happen if (e.g.) the ascent stage won't work... with one-two month life support the astronauts can be saved sending a second, remote-controlled, rescue-Altair, while, with just a couple of days of life support "redundancy" the astronauts are DEAD

extra "margins" are those the astronauts can use for better and longer-than-7-days lunar missions, rather than just four times the exploration days of Apollo (2 astronauts x 3-4 days max)

.

done, but, measuring it with a pixel-ruler, the Altair crew cabin results no bigger than 1.8-2 m. in diameter by 2-2.5 m. in lenght... also, remember that these are the EXTERNAL dimensions inclusive of the LIDS docking port and the thick pressurization and protection structure... just add the spacesuits, the EVA support packs, the flights' control panels, four seats (if any) four beds (if any) the 7-days life support, a toilet (if any) etc... so, where is the space for the astronauts?

.

they look enough "detailed" for a rocket that must/will be COMPLETELY different...

.

sorry, but I've written a full article about this problem in 2006 (when the Loiter Time was planned to be 95 days!) and the risk of several missions' failures due to a "sum of delays", also, the reduced Loiter Time seems mainly due to avoid too much LOX and LH2 boil off with so big tanks

.