Ares VII

gaetanomarano · 2007-01-28 11:05:08

...there is no evidence that Ares I is underpowered...

sorry, but, if NASA admits that (now) Orion is too heavy and the J-2x has less power than necessary, the Ares-I can't fly (now)
.

GCNRevenger · 2007-01-28 12:27:26

...there is no evidence that Ares I is underpowered...
sorry, but, if NASA admits that (now) Orion is too heavy and the J-2x has less power than necessary, the Ares-I can't fly (now)
.

What nonsense is this? NASA has said no such thing, and the final version of the J-2X will produce plenty of thrust, but this engine will take a while to build. In the mean time, to accelerate the ISS-only version of Ares-I, a less complex and powerful version of J-2X might be employed. The J-2X doesn't even exist in any form yet, and claiming that it can't meet the goal means you must have some secret insider knowledge. Or probably just rumors.

This is not "sorry but NASA," no no no. You are taking their statements out of context such that their meaning is totally distorted. This either makes you a manipulative idiot, or else you don't understand and are just a regular idiot.

Same with Orion, it is not overweight, thats just a rumor. Prove that its not, or be quiet.

gaetanomarano · 2007-01-28 12:39:16

...this engine will take a while to build...

IF the J-2x development will succeed the engine may have the power they need

Same with Orion, it is not overweight, thats just a rumor. Prove that its not, or be quiet.

just look at the august 2006 and january 2007 Orion's factheets... now Orion has 1 mT of extra weight (from 8.5 mT to 9.5 mT)
.

GCNRevenger · 2007-01-28 12:52:46

...this engine will take a while to build...
IF the J-2x development will succeed the engine may have the power they need
Same with Orion, it is not overweight, thats just a rumor. Prove that its not, or be quiet.
just look at the august 2006 and january 2007 Orion's factheets... now Orion has 1 mT of extra weight (from 8.5 mT to 9.5 mT)

Overweight is not the same thing as heavier, again you are lying with your distortions! The question is whether the Ares-I rocket lift Orion, and it still should be able to.

And what fact sheets are these? Are they from NASA? Are they up to date? Produce them!

gaetanomarano · 2007-01-28 14:44:39

...question is whether the Ares-I rocket lift Orion, and it still should be able to...

if the Ares-I was designed to lift an 8.5 mT Orion and now it is 9.5 mT, that means... a) Orion is oversized and needs to be resized to fly with an Ares-I, or... b) Ares-I is underpowered for an 1 mT heavier Orion and needs more power to fly it... (it's called "logic")

And what fact sheets are these?

the factsheet with the 9.5 mT (in lbs.) figure is linked on newmars by cIclops, the factheet with the 8.5 mT figure is the LM/NASA document of the aug. 31, 2006 Orion contract assignment press conference
.

GCNRevenger · 2007-01-29 07:06:03

Haven't you ever heard of something called "engineering margin"

NASA, is not stupid enough to build a rocket that has no excess payload capacity in the event said payload (Orion) turns out to be heavier than planned (they almost always do a little bit), which from the last NASA brief seems to be plenty to cover the increased mass of Orion. Overweight means more mass than the launch vehicle can carry, which you don't know.

August? You are linking to a fact sheet from August? Thats outdated, NASA has had an initial design review since then. The upper stage payload adapter has been modified to be lighter too by several hundred kilos if memory serves.

cIclops · 2007-01-29 08:56:16

It's probably just ignorance about the engineering process. Building rockets or any other high technology product is difficult due the complexity and the large number of unknown factors that occur during development. Ideally there are precise, fixed requirements that are refined systematically into a design via a specification, then that design is implemented as a system of hardware and software. Note the word ideally. In practice this gets very messy: requirements change or are undefined or are even wrong, specifications and designs likewise. The more advanced the technology the more likely unknown factors will appear, solutions that don't work, things that break or don't perform as required.

Ares I and Orion are still very much in the requirements/specification phases, it's perfectly normal that things change, after all that is partly the purpose of doing this work, to discover problems before metal and code are cut. The design of Ares I and Orion won't reach CDR (critical design review) until late 2009.

gaetanomarano · 2007-01-29 09:23:36

..."engineering margin"...

yes, and I hope they have it with the Ares-I

...had an initial design review since then...

I've only noticed the 1 mT difference between LM press conference and to-day's specs

...upper stage payload adapter has been modified to be lighter too by several hundred kilos...

I'll check your claim, but (IIRC) the interstage's weight is the only unchanged figure
.

gaetanomarano · 2007-01-29 09:29:53

...Ares I and Orion are still very much in the requirements/specification phases...

then, they can't be sure (now) that it really works (of course, I hope they will solve all problems, if any)
.

cIclops · 2007-01-29 10:09:45

...Ares I and Orion are still very much in the requirements/specification phases...
then, they can't be sure (now) that it really works (of course, I hope they will solve all problems, if any)
.

True in the sense that nothing is 100% sure, but NASA/ATK/P&W/LM are highly experienced in this type of work and the process they use is very systematic and explicit. Each step is reviewed intensively and tested as far as possible with simulations. One of the reasons NASA chose this technology (RSRB/J-2/ET tank) was to reduce risk and the unknowns, so they can be very sure that it will work.

GCNRevenger · 2007-01-29 10:16:15

...Ares I and Orion are still very much in the requirements/specification phases...
then, they can't be sure (now) that it really works (of course, I hope they will solve all problems, if any)
.

Nor can you say they won't work.

Since the parts for Ares-I/Orion are mostly evolutions of available hardware,

-SRB is derived from Shuttle
-5.5m upper stage tank is derived from Shuttle/Centaur
-J-2X is based on J-2/J-2S
-Orion capsule is based on Apollo aerodynamics
-Heat shield is based on Stardust and Shuttle
-Service Module engine based on Delta-II upper stage
-SRB roll control motors based on M-X/"Peacekeeper" missile RCS

Since many things are so similar, I think the chance that NASA knows what can be done better than they don't.

And certainly better than you

gaetanomarano · 2007-01-29 11:14:29

...in the sense that nothing is 100% sure, but NASA/ATK/P&W/LM are highly experienced in this type of work and the process they use is very systematic and explicit...

that's exactly the sense of my post
.

gaetanomarano · 2007-01-29 11:22:54

Nor can you say they won't work.

to be exact... their rockets MUST work (since they haven't any "plan-B")

...derived from Shuttle...

then... "OLD" like a Shuttle
-5.5m upper stage tank is derived from Shuttle/Centaur ...OLD
-J-2X is based on J-2/J-2S ...OLD
-Orion capsule is based on Apollo aerodynamics ...OLD
-Heat shield is based on Stardust and Shuttle ...OLD
-Service Module engine based on Delta-II upper stage ...NO, it will be a Shuttle' OMS-derived engine ...OLD

...certainly better than you...

big companies with giant funds and army of engineers and scientists have made TONS of mistakes and LOTS of bad designed vehicles!
.

Michael Bloxham · 2007-01-29 18:52:30

We'll give you that last point!

GCNRevenger · 2007-01-29 20:00:16

...in the sense that nothing is 100% sure, but NASA/ATK/P&W/LM are highly experienced in this type of work and the process they use is very systematic and explicit...
that's exactly the sense of my post

Liar. You said that NASA's rocket was underpowered and the capsule overweight. Now you admit that you don't know.

GCNRevenger · 2007-01-29 20:11:23

And whats wrong with not having a Plan-B if you are reasonably certain Plan-A will work? NASA didn't seriously consider any alternatives to Saturn-V for the Moon mission. In any event, NASA may have a backup plan in the form of Ares-IV anyway.

And whats wrong with using old technology? If it absolutely has to work or else people die, then proven tech is a good thing. One of the dirty secrets of space technology is that nothing has radically changed really since the height of the space race, Aluminum is still the material of choice for big fuel tanks, and rocket fuels haven't changed since solid fuels were introduced for ICBMs. Shuttle's fuel tank is actually made in the same factory that Saturn-V was built.

Not that NASA is resting on its laurels either though, J-2X will be a major overhaul of the old design, the phenolic Stardust shield is an improvement over Apollo's silicone shield, and composites used in the interstages.

And NASA is going to use a Delta-II engine for the SM, you are out of date.

Big companies with armies of engineers are the only people in the world that can pull VSE off. They have made mistakes, but not often so long as they weren't unduly constrained. Saturn/Apollo, Atlas/Titan/Delta, and Shuttle are all marvels and triumphs of engineering. You are fool and a liar if you think otherwise.

Michael Bloxham · 2007-01-29 21:23:37

I think Mars Direct originally called for a 130 tonnes to LEO booster, the same as the Saturn V, and the same as Ares V. With a higher-thrust upper stage, Ares V looks just like the original Ares.

I'm not sure if that assumption is correct. What were the specifics of the original Ares, and how do they compare with Ares V?

GCNRevenger · 2007-01-29 22:35:26

Bob Zubrin's Ares called for a pair of a whole different kind of booster considered for Shuttle called the ASRM. It also used 8.4m fuel tanks like Shuttle, with four SSME engines in a pod on the side of the rocket, so the launch table on Pad 39 and fuel lines wouldn't have to be changed. It (probably) would use a modified air-start SSME for the upper stage too.

Ares-V sticks with modified Shuttle boosters, bigger cheap fuel tanks paired with less efficient but much cheaper engines (RS-68) under the center of the tank, and a modernized version of the Apollo-era J-2 engine for the upper stage. Projected payload is ~5-10MT higher.

Ares-V will use boosters more like the present ones, cheaper engines, and will probably cost less per-unit to fly but will take longer to develop. The exact opposite of Bob Zubrin's requirements.

Michael Bloxham · 2007-01-29 22:46:55

But the payload capabilities are roughly similar?

GCNRevenger · 2007-01-29 22:54:31

Zubrin's Ares is advertised to lift around 120MT if memory serves.

I still suspect that the all-chemical version is a ruse, and Zubrin really intends the "real" Ares to have a nuclear powered upper stage, increasing lift to ~180MT. Either that or he really does believe his crazy advertised numbers.

gaetanomarano · 2007-01-30 04:59:58

You said that NASA's rocket was underpowered and the capsule overweight.

I'm not alone in that, many other reports about that problem and in my post I (only) say that NASA has enough experience and resources to try solving these problems (but it's not sure)
.

gaetanomarano · 2007-01-30 06:56:57

NASA didn't seriously consider any alternatives to Saturn-V for the Moon mission.

Apollo missions already was very very very expensive without any backup-plan nor rescue option, then, any "plan-B" was simply IMPOSSIBLE and NOT a "NASA choice"

...NASA may have a backup plan in the form of Ares-IV anyway...

it has a different purpose than Ares-I ...however... did you remember your tons of critics and insults against me and my SLV, FAST-SLV, SuperSLV, just a few months ago? ...now, the AresIV (that's exactly the SAME of my SLVs) is right, good, safe, reliable, ok... clearly, I was right and you was WRONG...

And whats wrong with using old technology?

I've simply remarked that fact

And NASA is going to use a Delta-II engine for the SM, you are out of date.

the Delta engine was an one year ago "rumor" ...the choice after the LM/NASA press conference was a Shuttle-OMS-derived engine... probably they have changed again... do you have a recent (official) source of that change?

Saturn/Apollo, Atlas/Titan/Delta, and Shuttle

both things/claims are true, "success" and "mistakes" ...and the NASA chief said many times that also two success (Shuttle and ISS) was "mistakes" ...do you want to send him a letter of insults?
.

GCNRevenger · 2007-01-30 10:48:47

You are not alone, but the people you stand with are anonymous rumor mongers, who have been caught lying about how bad Ares/Constellation is to aerospace news sites. "Anonymous sources" are an oxymoron unless they lead to uncovering of evidence to support their claim. So, you stand with liars and cowards who "may" be real, "may" be right, and "may" not be lying.

Their words mean nothing, so your words mean nothing if you parrot them too.

Your assertion that Apollo was too expensive to have a backup plan is bunk, the Gemini capsules were considered for the mission and later conceived as a backup with a lander stage on the back. NASA also had for intents and purposes a "blank check" and had plenty of money. But NASA didn't develop a backup plan, because "Plan A" would almost certainly work.

The Ares-IV concept and your cooked up rockets are totally, absolutely different: Ares-IV is just an Ares-V with a smaller upper stage. There is nothing similar about the rockets at all except their approximate payload.

You plainly wrote in bold, red letters that you thought NASA's use of old technology in a new rocket is bad. That is the purpose of using bold red lettering, and you can't weasel your way out of it by the "oh but I didn't mean" etc etc thing. Pathetic.

The NASA chief as not said "many times" that Shuttle/ISS are failures, thats another of your many lies. But I digress, Shuttle is a failure in that it doesn't do what it was advertised to do, but by any measure Shuttle is an engineering marvel in that it flies at all. It is the singular most complex machine in the world, bar none.

SpaceNut · 2007-01-30 11:13:55

Lets go at this another way...

The stated question has been is the Ares I under powered and from what aspect of its design gaetanomarano?

Is it the weight of the casing going from 4 to 5 segments plus reinforcement for new G impact?

Is it the higher thrust but not longer burn time for the 5 segment being used?

Is it that the isp drops as it burns towards the end that causes the under powering?

Do you have the answer to why with links please not just numbers or rhetoric?

gaetanomarano · 2007-01-30 19:16:14

...liars and cowards...

don't be so angry! ...we are talking only of "rockets"... it's not "the end of the world" if we express critics!
however, rumors about Ares-I and Orion may be credible since their designs and specs are changed very much in last year

...the Gemini capsules were considered for the mission and later conceived as a backup with a lander stage on the back...

...while, the third backup option, was Superman... and (just after two posts) you contradict yourself... your words: "NASA didn't seriously consider any alternatives to Saturn-V for the Moon mission."

...rockets are totally, absolutely different...

you're right! ..."my" rockets are better, cheaper and much more rational! ...not an(AresIV) concept quickly "cooked up" for the press and Ares/VSE critics...

...Ares-IV is just an Ares-V with a smaller upper stage...

true... it looks like one of dozens PhotoShop's rockets on the web... but it's a true NASA study...!

...NASA chief as not said "many times" that Shuttle/ISS are failures...

no... not "failures" ...his exact word was "mistakes"
.

New Mars Forums

Announcement

#76 2007-01-28 11:05:08

Re: Ares VII

#77 2007-01-28 12:27:26

Re: Ares VII

#78 2007-01-28 12:39:16

Re: Ares VII

#79 2007-01-28 12:52:46

Re: Ares VII

#80 2007-01-28 14:44:39

Re: Ares VII

#81 2007-01-29 07:06:03

Re: Ares VII

#82 2007-01-29 08:56:16

Re: Ares VII

#83 2007-01-29 09:23:36

Re: Ares VII

#84 2007-01-29 09:29:53

Re: Ares VII

#85 2007-01-29 10:09:45

Re: Ares VII

#86 2007-01-29 10:16:15

Re: Ares VII

#87 2007-01-29 11:14:29

Re: Ares VII

#88 2007-01-29 11:22:54

Re: Ares VII

#89 2007-01-29 18:52:30

Re: Ares VII

#90 2007-01-29 20:00:16

Re: Ares VII

#91 2007-01-29 20:11:23

Re: Ares VII

#92 2007-01-29 21:23:37

Re: Ares VII

#93 2007-01-29 22:35:26

Re: Ares VII

#94 2007-01-29 22:46:55

Re: Ares VII

#95 2007-01-29 22:54:31

Re: Ares VII

#96 2007-01-30 04:59:58

Re: Ares VII

#97 2007-01-30 06:56:57

Re: Ares VII

#98 2007-01-30 10:48:47

Re: Ares VII

#99 2007-01-30 11:13:55

Re: Ares VII

#100 2007-01-30 19:16:14

Re: Ares VII

Board footer