New Mars Forums

maybe, they will change it, but, now, comparing the images and the known Altair dimensions, the crew cabin actually IS sligtly larger than a phone-booth

.

.

HOW they can released so detailed plans, while, in the SAME time, one of their officials says in an interview that THIS Ares-5 is largely underpowered, so, it needs deep changes? (and new calculations of everything about it)

.

you're right, but the SRB-5 needs a propellents that burns FASTER to add more thrust (as expected) ... if the new shape adds no extra-thrust, there is not any reason to to change the current shape

.

sorry, but this is NOT the real 5-segments SRB but only the 4+1 segments test of which I talk here and in the August 12, 2006 update of my July 28, 2006 "Why the 5-segments SRB can't work" article:

http://www.gaetanomarano.it/articles/011srb5.html

and this is the link to the NASA article reporting the 4+1 segments SRB test:
http://www.nasa.gov/centers/marshall/ne … 3-186.html

this 4+1 SRB test was made with standard segments, then, WITHOUT any new propellent grain and/or shape

the faster burn time is SURE with the increase of the propellent's burning surface, while, the "new mix" should (or should not...) add THRUST and NOT more burning time, so, the SRB-5 thrust could be higher than the +9% of the 4+1 SRB test (but I doubt it will reach the +25% the new SRB needs to compensate its +25% increase of weight) but the burning time MUST/WILL be LOWER

also, that means a lower 1st stage separation altitude and a lower acceleration at this separation, then, the Ares-1, with the SRB-5, absolutely needs (more than past) an SSME-class 2nd stage engine or TWO J-2X (or my "J-2Y" superengine)

.

I do believe the ALL my discussions was/are/will be VERY serious

it's easier for you, since you accept everything space agencies and companies say and do without any critics hiding the fact that they do mistakes and often do changes in completely different ways than those they (and YOU) supported just a few days before...

yes, it's easy to say that now... but the problem is that I've said that months and YEARS after the changes (from 2005) with detailed articles and posts about what and where are the problems, and MY solutions to them ...that very often are ALSO teh same problems that NASA admits and the solutions that NASA has adopted always AFTER my suggestions...

it's clearly IMPOSSIBLE, since, you are the only "expert" of the universe...

so simplistic and obvious that no one have seen them before me... you included...

it's only your opinion, I think that spaces make it clear

you're right, then, please STOP post your useless comments here...

.

a space-spammer that always IS right...

just one example about the Ares-5

as reported by cIclops, the Loiter Time has been reduced from 14 to 4 days

that's possible since NASA has changed the order of launch from Ares-1 first to Ares-1 last to avoid the risk of a failures due to a "sum-of-delays":

http://www.ghostnasa.com/posts/016esaschanged.html

well, I've evidenced the problem TWO YEARS AGO in this article:

http://www.gaetanomarano.it/articles/004.html

and discussed in one of my first threads on the BAUT forum

then, maybe, the NASA engineers could have read my articles and posts since there was NO mention of this problem in the ESAS plan...

so, I hope that ALL "spammers" will write useful articles like me...

.

in my article I suggest Yahoo to buy NASA (or part of it) but the "first step" to "buy" it (or part of it) is that NASA (or part of it) would be "on sale", then, NOW seems that part of NASA will (really) be on sale (or rent) to privates...

however, you're right, since I've discussed more about the "privatization of NASA" in other non-free-chat forums and blogs (than here) like this:

http://groups.google.it/group/sci.space … ee89e08c81

and this:

http://groups.google.it/group/sci.space … 1dea?hl=it

.

.

If Microsoft will succeed to buy Yahoo, its founders should earn $4 billion cash, so, could they use that money to start (also) a New.Space company?

http://www.ghostnasa.com/posts/024yahoospace.html

.

its seems that composites ADD weights since the early LockMart specs was around 8.5 mT while, now, the Orion is over 10.5 mT...

also, the 5th segment of the SRB, the SM, the SM propellent, the 2nd stage dry mass, the 2nd stage propellent and the LAS can't be replaced with "composites"

that's true, but the Shuttle was designed to be REUSABLE several times per year and land on runway to save the (very expensive) retrieval costs of capsules (then it needs wings)

the fact that it has failed to reach is goal, is due to its high (and growing) MAINTENANCE cost, not to its wings

last, a "dead-weight" is everything launched WITHOUT a purpose (like the 5th and 6th seats in 99% of Orion missions) while, the Shuttle wings actually HAVE a purpose (you like it or not)

.

the Shuttles are old and dangerous but their price-per-launch is very low if compared with the cargo/crew they carry to LEO

I can't do more about this point now (just hope to learn a better english soon)

I hope I can use colors, etc. (at least) on MY blog, while, on Space forums and blogs I no more use colors

I support my ideas like everybody does with their ideas and, write them on the web, allows everyone to post the critics they want

.

I give no data of payload, etc. since (clearly) everything must be calculated and tested

the "pylon" is not so big like an Atlas-V and it's not the only possible solution (other can be simpler and lighter) ... however, 20 mT is not a so big weight compared with an SRB or an EAP

.