New Mars Forums

Most legit critics ALSO try to balance their criticisms so they don't look off balance - unless it's in regards directly to something on your spam-site you're always in the negative.  Save off on blabbing "The Ares-I can't fly"     until the Ares-I-Y test at least.  If the prototype rocket flies blatantly off course ONLY THEN do you have the right to dance about and shake your butt.

To haul this conversation closer to your original topic...the Ares-I is no more dangerous than the average rocket.  Has the Delta IV, Atlas V, or the old monolithic Saturn V ever endagered any civilian lives?  Even the Shuttle for all its flaws hasn't endangered a single human, the sad exception being the crews of Columbia and Challenger.  Out of the whole Constellation program, the Ares V is more dangerous than I soley because its larger and fully loaded with hydrogen fuel.  Even assuming the vibration issue on Ares-I will rattle that 'ill-fated' craft to bits...by the time the vibrations get to that point the rocket will be over the Atlantic...literally, since the launch pads are barely a few miles away from the actual shoreline.  Cape Canaveral is on a cape, and capes if you hadn't noticed in geography are shoreline features.

End of line...and this thread.

Always that damn I've that leads to more self-endorsements.  Start up your own aerospace company if you have soooooooooo many ideas!

The vibration problem, in the end, might prove to be less of a worry in time.  The article talking about it already stated a 5-stage actually would have a smaller occilation frequency than the 4-stage.

Thinking about it...although wings might not solve the problem...the solution might still lie in the interstage.  Since the worst of the problem occurs later in flight, the interstage could play the buffer one way or another.  Whatever they come up with to dampen the vibration they ought to optimize the dampening for the last minute or two before the 1st stage seperates.  Considering the interstage will be disposable its very structure could be designed to take the blow at its expense with no harm to the 2nd stage or Orion further up.

I bet if they didn't have to wear those contamination masks...they'd be too tempted to stick their tounges out when checking out the mirror. 

So later this year Kepler's off to orbit at last?

Ha!  Gateo always complains about 5-segments being 'too dangerous' - well this sticks one sword into that argument.

No doubt there's much to this issue but this is EARLY in the design phase.  All engineers are doing are pointing out what has to be dealt with so we can make a safe vehicle.  IGNORING the problem is the bad thing, NOT IDENTIFYING IT.

I think when the time comes for the Ares I-Y and X flights they'll have solid solutions they'll test on both systems.

  Gez...gramar errors.  IF you only had an English major maybe you could write out your arguments better...that and not constantly take every argument and claim YOUR way is better all the time like a 5-year-old know-it-all.  IF you actually just listened to both sides maybe people wouldn't regard your multicolored rants as spam.

Regarding both the Moon of Earth and the Moons of Mars, both are underestimated stepping stone into space.  The people writing these articles are slitting the wrists of the space community to put it utterly bluntly.  Instead of ranting I'll elaborate on the pros/cons of visitng Luna, Phobos, and Deimos...

Luna is a rare body; unlike Deimos or Phobos it is a massive world not a spec compared to its parental planet.  It is a 3-day journey away from Earth and far enough that we loose most of the protection Earth offered to LEO spacecraft except the fact that Earth is always close.  Launch windows to Luna open up monthly rather than once every few years and would be done more out of our convienience rather than a celestial happenstance.  When the time comes that strip mining on Earth proves unprofitable, unethical, and un-ecological it will not be Mars, nor the asteroids, but Luna that, while perhaps not as delta-v 'easy' as a NEO rendevous, will be relied upon.  NEOs are still too massive to move by any human means, except by a full out nuclear assult which'd be best reserved for averting a colliding one.  We have not mapped out NEO orbits, the compositions, or their orbital periods - any of which can provide problems.  Certainly visit any asteroid we can predict and rendevous with safely, but they are still largely a matter for our robotic emissaries to proscpect for us.  Luna, however, is even now being mapped by several foreign nations and been mapped by our own on several occassions.  It is a familiar body we understand, and given a choice between the familiar and unknown when chosing a place to live, we go with the known while we peak at the unknown.

Phobos and Deimos are vastly underestimated, and the Russians obviously know this.  Problem is their budget at best can do piddle otherwise they'd have sent numerous craft to both moons and Mars itself.  They are light bodies that may be tantalizing resources and in an optimal position near a planet that will retain our fascination for centuries to come!  Deimos I vote for because its orbit is slightly more accessible to an incoming spacecraft and it's near-syncronus orbit with Mars; if we ever practice modifying orbits Deimos could be lowered into a syncronus orbit around Mars.  I think, like Luna, Deimos and Phobos could be used as Martian testing grounds...and in turn staging points if they prove to have readily extractable resources.

The Vision is meant to apply to many things, not just the Moon.  However don't shoot a gift horse in the mouth like these article writers seem crazy enough to.

For starters there is no real-time operation, barring a human on Mars.  Second no one's willing to pay for a complete Martian communications network and likely won't until it seems certain humans will be arriving there within say 6 years (the proposal for a Mart Telecommunications Orbiter was scrapped a few years ago sadly).  Third, although they do great science...all landers operate with less power available than the average incandescent light bulb; that says they're efficent but it ALSO says they have EXTREMELY LITTLE POWER TO SPARE.  Give a two-pound rock to a full laboratory and they'll establish its geologic age, full mineral composition, and the structure of even microscopic crystals within.  What the landers/rovers do may be on site, but what they're forced to work with is meager for laboratory equiptment...i.e. a hand magnifying glass compared to either an angstrom or electron microscope.

I think we should continue sending science landers and put as much into them, but at least one sample return ought to be attempted.  I do agree there's been TOO MUCH hoope-la over making it happen.  Just send a simplified package to do a local core or sample, seal it up in a vaccum-packed insulated pod, synthesize the fuel on site, and blast off direct to Earth.  If we can get a comet sample ala Stardust we ought to be able to do the same with Mars.  I think it's just the biohazard worry coupled with too many scientists/engineers cramming their hands into the MSR cookie jar.

:!:    Most of those asteroids are in distant orbits, have never been photographed in detail, and would cost more in fuel and time to reach even with the Martian gravity well factored in.    :!:

Phobos and Deimos have been at least mapped - what we know about them compared to these asteroids is like comparing what we know about 'dwarf planet' Eris to our Moon.  :?

Wow the Critical Design Review is this year...definetely crunch time for the J2-X crew but sounds like they're trying to stay on par.

I might have one semi-worthwhile idea: blimps as launching platforms.

As I recall earlier in this discussion, the main problem with blimps and planes is they have a limit to how they can float.  After hearing that I thought "Ok...so obviously not much good for manned craft, and designers might still worry over the hydrogen ala Hindenburg which continues to haunt diregible-nauts to this day."

What about rockets like, say, Pegasus?  Here we have a rocket that already is lofted into space via airplane, is briefly dumped and fires into space while it's launch platform returns to Earth.  An unmanned hydrogen blimp cruises/floats up to its maximum altitude and does the same thing.  Assuming the blimp can reach an altitude above clouds and even jet streams would this altitude lift ease the pressure put on the rocket during its launch - I know that is a factor all rockets accomidate hence the nosecone shroud that's shed in space; lessening one burden always helps.

Before anyone criticizes outright, can I get some figures?  How high can a jet get and then how high could a helium/hydrogen blimp do?  For that matter, moving parts included, how does the complexity of a ramjet compare to a blimp?

Liquid hydrogen is annoying to contain, but gaseous at least no cryogenics required.  If you're worried about maneuvering the blimp in a low oxygen/low atmosphere condition consider either small rockets or better still air-jet thrusters (no combustion at all).[/b]