An aborted Ares-1 launch may KILL dozens persons!

gaetanomarano · 2008-01-25 01:10:59

.

sorry, but, I (don't only) think that the Ares-1 is a bad designed rocket (that can't fly) but (also) that it could become VERY dangerous if a manned or test launch abort occurs

that since and SRB-5, without the ejected Orion and the broken 2nd stage, it could reach (and fall on) the cities around KSC, as explained in this ghostNASA article:

http://www.ghostnasa.com/posts/021chillinglaunch.html

.

cIclops · 2008-01-25 03:04:52

If Ares I is so badly designed it can't fly, then there is no danger that it will crash. NASA need to make an extremely strong launch pad to withstand the explosions. Perhaps they should build it underground?

gaetanomarano · 2008-01-25 04:31:49

Ares I is so badly designed it can't fly

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

.

cIclops · 2008-01-25 12:45:01

Ares I is so badly designed it can't fly

The first word and following words are missing from that quote, and they change the meaning. The correct quote is:

If Ares I is so badly designed it can't fly ...

Please do not misquote!

According to the reports from EMSD, Ares I has a 20% reserve. As recently as 12 Jan 2008 Griffin said that Ares I will be "coming online by early 2015".

gaetanomarano · 2008-01-25 13:02:57

If Ares I is so badly designed it can't fly ...

I can't add the word "IF" since the article reflects my opinion, and my opinion is that the current designed Ares-1 can't fly

about the Griffin's claim, it (simply) could be the final hope of the Ares-1 development ("IF" more thrust than weight will be added to the SRB-5)

.

cIclops · 2008-01-25 14:43:55

I can't add the word "IF" since the article reflects my opinion, and my opinion is that the current designed Ares-1 can't fly
about the Griffin's claim, it (simply) could be the final hope of the Ares-1 development ("IF" more thrust than weight will be added to the SRB-5)
.

Then don't misquote, and especially don't misquote to change the meaning.

Total mass is 923 MT and the first stage thrust is 1592 MT, that's a T/W ratio of 1.72 ... she'll leap off the pad! The RSRB burns propellant really fast, all 626 MT of solid fuel are gone after about 150 secs.

gaetanomarano · 2008-01-25 17:16:06

the first stage thrust is 1592 MT

just ten seconds, ten second after lift-off

.

cIclops · 2008-01-26 05:51:17

the first stage thrust is 1592 MT
just ten seconds, ten second after lift-off
.

And what is the stack mass after 10 seconds, and what is the thrust?

gaetanomarano · 2008-01-26 07:12:31

And what is the stack mass after 10 seconds, and what is the thrust?

you should read again my "Ares-1 can't fly" article

I've said that a 4-seg.SRB CLV "could" fly (also since its specs matches the Shuttle SRB specs) while the 5-seg.SRB can't since its 5th segment adds (+25%) more weight than thrust (+7%)

of course, if the NASA and ATK engineers will be able to increase the 5-seg.SRB thrust by +25%, also the Ares-1 "could" (probably) be able to fly

.

cIclops · 2008-01-26 09:12:02

5 segment RSRB has a liftoff thrust of 1592 MTf, that's exactly 25% more than the 4 segment RSRB with 1270 MTf

gaetanomarano · 2008-01-26 11:00:54

5 segment RSRB has a liftoff thrust of 1592 MTf, that's exactly 25% more than the 4 segment RSRB with 1270 MTf

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

.

cIclops · 2008-01-26 11:51:24

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.

What is the peak thrust of the 5 segment? In any case the thrust is far higher than the mass of the vehicle (T/W 1.72) ... if it's too high the vehicle has excessive loads, too low and it needs too much fuel. Balancing these and many other parameters is what launcher design is about. It's rocket science.

gaetanomarano · 2008-01-26 13:23:50

What is the peak thrust of the 5 segment?

the only REAL figure comes from the ATK test ... no better figure yet

.

RedStreak · 2008-01-26 13:46:41

If Ares I is so badly designed it can't fly ...
I can't add the word "IF" since the article reflects my opinion, and my opinion is that the current designed Ares-1 can't fly

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.

gaetanomarano · 2008-01-26 19:27:12

...gramar errors...

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

...your multicolored rants as spam...

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)

.

Terraformer · 2008-01-27 07:20:05

Misqoting again .

maybe people wouldn't regard your multicolored rants as spam.

People REGARD your posts as spam. You can say they aren't spam, but that doesn't mean people won't regard them as spam. And people regard your posts as spam because you don't listen to people. The people at NASA are clever idiots, not idiot idiots. That is, they know how to buil;d rockets and such like, they just pick the worst design. How are you going to react if/when the Ares-1 has a successful launch?

gaetanomarano · 2008-01-27 09:13:19

spam

ultimately, "spam" are all emails or posts to sell Viagra, etc. NOT the posts with arguments you don't like

they just pick the worst design

that's exactly what I'm saying

How are you going to react if/when the Ares-1 has a successful launch?

that day, I'll just say they have solved the Ares-1 problems adding more power to both stages

.

cIclops · 2008-01-27 12:22:26

The people at NASA are clever idiots, not idiot idiots. That is, they know how to buil;d rockets and such like, they just pick the worst design.

There are far worse designs than Ares I, NASA could surely have picked one of those.

Terraformer · 2008-01-27 12:30:30

Well, obviusly not always, but most of the time they seem to. For example, THE SHUTTLE.

cIclops · 2008-01-27 14:54:02

OK let's take the Shuttle. Besides being unreliable, expensive and unsafe what's wrong with it? It's the most capable human launch system ever built.

gaetanomarano · 2008-01-27 17:50:06

...the Shuttle...

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

.

cIclops · 2008-01-27 18:21:46

Yes it's ridiculous. The Shuttle has an manipulator arm with an OBSS extension that's about 30m long. NASA forgot that it won't fit inside Orion! It will need to be broken into six 5m pieces and assembled on orbit, that's SIX Ares I l/Orion launches just to put a Shuttle arm in LEO. That's $6 billion! NOW that's a mistake!

(just joking about folks)

gaetanomarano · 2008-01-27 20:36:15

(just joking about folks)

your jokes can't hide the reality and the reality is that in 2010 will be retired a wonderful vehicle that has accomplished MANY wonderful missions in Space, to be replaced in 2016 (or later) with a very very expensive "Space Suppository" launched one-two times per year (if NASA will have enough money) with 3 astronauts (the SAME work the old soviet Soyuz does from '60s at a small FRACTION of the price)

.

cIclops · 2008-01-28 04:19:04

Orion and the Ares launchers are not designed as a replacement for Shuttle. They are designed for lunar exploration and beyond, including Mars.

Orion can also be used for servicing ISS until a COTS or other commercial vehicle is ready. BTW Orion will carry 6 crew to and from LEO/ISS and it will do so more cheaply than Shuttle. Ares V will deliver 130 MT of cargo to LEO for less cost than one Shuttle flight that can only lift about 23 MT.

gaetanomarano · 2008-01-28 04:44:44

Orion and the Ares launchers are not designed as a replacement for Shuttle.

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

They are designed for lunar exploration and beyond, including Mars.

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...

...a COTS or other commercial vehicle...

IF will works, of course

...Ares V will deliver 130 MT of cargo to LEO for less cost than one Shuttle flight...

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

.

New Mars Forums

Announcement

#1 2008-01-25 01:10:59

Re: An aborted Ares-1 launch may KILL dozens persons!

#2 2008-01-25 03:04:52

Re: An aborted Ares-1 launch may KILL dozens persons!

#3 2008-01-25 04:31:49

Re: An aborted Ares-1 launch may KILL dozens persons!

#4 2008-01-25 12:45:01

Re: An aborted Ares-1 launch may KILL dozens persons!

#5 2008-01-25 13:02:57

Re: An aborted Ares-1 launch may KILL dozens persons!

#6 2008-01-25 14:43:55

Re: An aborted Ares-1 launch may KILL dozens persons!

#7 2008-01-25 17:16:06

Re: An aborted Ares-1 launch may KILL dozens persons!

#8 2008-01-26 05:51:17

Re: An aborted Ares-1 launch may KILL dozens persons!

#9 2008-01-26 07:12:31

Re: An aborted Ares-1 launch may KILL dozens persons!

#10 2008-01-26 09:12:02

Re: An aborted Ares-1 launch may KILL dozens persons!

#11 2008-01-26 11:00:54

Re: An aborted Ares-1 launch may KILL dozens persons!

#12 2008-01-26 11:51:24

Re: An aborted Ares-1 launch may KILL dozens persons!

#13 2008-01-26 13:23:50

Re: An aborted Ares-1 launch may KILL dozens persons!

#14 2008-01-26 13:46:41

Re: An aborted Ares-1 launch may KILL dozens persons!

#15 2008-01-26 19:27:12

Re: An aborted Ares-1 launch may KILL dozens persons!

#16 2008-01-27 07:20:05

Re: An aborted Ares-1 launch may KILL dozens persons!

#17 2008-01-27 09:13:19

Re: An aborted Ares-1 launch may KILL dozens persons!

#18 2008-01-27 12:22:26

Re: An aborted Ares-1 launch may KILL dozens persons!

#19 2008-01-27 12:30:30

Re: An aborted Ares-1 launch may KILL dozens persons!

#20 2008-01-27 14:54:02

Re: An aborted Ares-1 launch may KILL dozens persons!

#21 2008-01-27 17:50:06

Re: An aborted Ares-1 launch may KILL dozens persons!

#22 2008-01-27 18:21:46

Re: An aborted Ares-1 launch may KILL dozens persons!

#23 2008-01-27 20:36:15

Re: An aborted Ares-1 launch may KILL dozens persons!

#24 2008-01-28 04:19:04

Re: An aborted Ares-1 launch may KILL dozens persons!

#25 2008-01-28 04:44:44

Re: An aborted Ares-1 launch may KILL dozens persons!

Board footer