New Mars Forums

your critic is wrong at its basis... on the web you can find 70% of space agencies' supporters-only and 30% of critics-only

peoples like me (that, do critics, but, also, suggest solutions and alternatives) are VERY RARE

also, I think that MY critics always are POSITIVE since, if (e.g.) I claim that the Ares-1 can't fly and it results TRUE, a giant amount of R&D money could be saved

you criticize the shuttle and the ISS

I've never posted just ONE word against the ISS since I think it's crazy to srap the ONLY manned thing we have in space (without mention its price)

about the Shuttle, I think its too old and dangerous but can still work if modified to be safer or fly crewless (as explained in my articles)

also, I support the idea of a new, better, safer and cheaper shuttle for LEO operations since its ways better than capsules (just see my visual shuttl-capsule comparison)

Ariane

about the Ariane, I've only suggested to use it to launch the orbital-Orion (that's lighter than its lunar version) and proposed a new ArianeX to EUROPE

Energia

NEVER suggested the (dead) Energia

shuttle-tech to develop a new STS

I agree that use the STS hardware is inevitable, but I've suggested to use it in a better way

I want you to make, without referencing to your private websites or your 'proposed' designs, a single positive post about Ares, Orion, or Altair.

I'm sorry but I think that a (new and cheaper) Shuttle is better for LEO operations and that the full ESAS architecture is wrong and should be changed

I've already said that several times and its seems NASA (by its own think, of course, not after reading my articles... ) has done some changes like the Ares-1/Ares-5 launch swap and the lunar outpost/sortie missions swap

however, the ESAS plan still need many many many changes to be better than Apollo

of course, I must admit that a capsule is the only choice for moon missions, and, again, critics ARE positive, since they can allow to design better vehicles!

you've taken the negative bit so much that you sound like a zealous politician

I've posted critics about the ESAS hardware, the Kliper, the european choices, the SS2, etc. since I think they are REALLY wrong designed/made, NOT because "I like" to be "negative"

might criticize the SRBs but might applaud positioning the crew capsule out of harm's way to avoid the fate of the shuttle orbiters

I've never said that since its obvious, like positive claims are... only talk about critics is useful and make sense, I can't lose time to just say that a Ferrari is a good car or a Rolex is a good watch

about the SRB, you can read LOTS of positive words in my articles and posts about the advantages of the ready available, cheap, reliable and already man-rated standard SRB vs. the new 5-seg. version

"spammage"

I can't transfer my entire website and blog on many space forums and blog to avoid to be accused of spam everytime I put a link to my articles

hyperlinks is the very essence of the web since they allow many other pages to be PART of the text you're reading

the entire web works this way, wikipedia has dozens link in every article that, clearly, are not "spam"

"spam" is when one put a link on a space, apple, car, etc. forums to sell Viagra or promote porn sites

.

time ago I've read a rumor about that but I don't know more, just hope they'll do it

.

you're right on that, but, it's also the reason why the airplanes are a widely accepted risk: they are VERY reliable ... while ALL rockets NEVER can be reliable like an airline jet

the reason is that all manned and unmanned rockets are launched in dozens to hundreds units, while the airlines' jets are "launched" millions times per year

ALL spacecrafts ALWAYS are/will be EXPERIMENTAL vehicles!

that's why an airline jet can fly 20,000 times without crash, while the Shuttles crashed TWO times in 130 flights

.

I'm not sure that my idea can work, however, I suggest to test it in a wind tunnel

at multi-sonic speed four small wings works like bigger wings at subsonic speed and its aerodynamic force could be enough to replace the stabilizing effects of the Shuttle+ET in the stardard SRB launch

.

that's true since (simply) it CAN'T

the new Moon missions date shift every day... 2020... 2022... just add a other delays and it will shift to 2025 when other countries will land with cheaper vehicles... about Orion and Mars... no comment...

IF will works, of course

the only problem is that the Shuttle EXIST while the Ares-5 will fly after 2020... also, the first dozen of Ares-5 will be used for Moon missions, so, without a big extra-budget, NO Ares-5 will be available for other purposes until 2025 or later

.

TOO easy to say NOW that it's a mistake!

now the Shuttles are old and dangerous, have had two accidents and the annual costs "seems" high... but in '70s it was a GREAT idea if compared with the costs of a SaturnV launch!

don't forget, that ALL SaturnV-Apollo launches was VERY VERY VERY EXPENSIVE and ENTIRELY EXPENDABLE with just a small "cooked" capsule bringed back

compared with Apollo, the Shuttle was 80% reusable in weight and 95% reusable in value

also, the Shuttle was able to carry up to 8 astronauts (vs. the 3 astronauts of Apollo) and up to 28 mT (reduced to 24 mT for safety reasons after the Challenger accident) of cargo (compared with a few rocks of Apollo) ...and just add the larger internal space, the toilet, the airlock, the canadarm, the assembly and repair ability, the landing on runways rather than ocean, etc.

last, I've said that a Shuttle launch "seems" (not "IS") expensive since it's NOT expensive if compared with an Orion launch

if we consider only to-day's evaluated costs (that will grow very much) each Orion/Ares-1 launch will cost over $1 billion (hardware + shared annual fixed costs + shared R&D costs) to carry ONLY 3-4 astronauts OR 3 mT of cargo (with the deleted cargo version)

the "price" of a Shuttle launch depends of the number of launches per year

with an annual budget around $3.2 billion, each Shuttle launch costs between $600M if launched 5 times per year to $1000M if launched 3 times per year

but, despite its price-per-launch is the same or lower than an Orion launch, ONE Shuttle launch is able to carry TWICE+ the astronauts (up to 8, but it was designed for 10) AND up to EIGHT times the cargo (24 mT max) of an Orion!!!

in other words, to carry the same crew and cargo of ONE Shuttle launch you'll need TEN+ Orion launches (2+ crew and 8 cargo) with a total cost in excess of $10 billion!!!

as already explained 20 months ago in this "spam" page: http://www.gaetanomarano.it/articles/008visual.html

.

I can't write in a better english until I'll have time to learn a better grammar

I've already said why my proposals and arguments NEVER are "spam"

about "multicolored" I don't put that colors here but ONLY on MY websites (where, I hope, I can do what I want)

.

just read the Ares-1 specs in my article (that are the same you've published here) ...the 1st stage has 3,510,791 lbf thrust that is a +7% more than the 4-seg.SRB 3,300,000 lbf peak thrust

or, if still have any doubt, just read the results of the ONLY REAL 4+1 segments SRB test (made in 2003 at the ATK facility) in this NASA article:

http://www.nasa.gov/centers/marshall/ne … 3-186.html

.

just ten seconds, ten second after lift-off

.

a 4-seg.SRB + SSME-class "J-2Y" + resized Orion Ares-1 version "could" fly

.

my proposal has several other advantages rather than just solve the "vibrations" problem (if any)

.

it will be very hard to develop a reusable liquid propellents' rocket (since it's much more fragile than an empty SRB) but, when someone will succeed in the effort, a reusable rocket will be not so heavy nor complex and will be very cheap... just imagine if the Falcon-1 1st stage (about a $5M value) will be 10+ times reusable... each Falcon 1 launch may cost $1.5M + $0.5M = $2M only

.