An aborted Ares-1 launch may KILL dozens persons!

RedStreak · 2008-01-28 11:42:23

Do you ever say anything positive? It's hard to tell what you're criticizing and what you're supporting...except those JPEGs you cobble together. It's cute to imagine...but it's getting borderline neurotic.

First you criticize the shuttle and the ISS, and then when both are going to be retired you rag about 'reinvigorating' them with a new module or a new booster. Right off the bat that is the same lingo shuttle-era managers used right up until Columbia shattered over the skies of Houston.

Second, you talked about using either Ariane, Energia, or shuttle-tech to develop a new STS (not shuttle, just something we can safely launch). Ares uses the propulsion elements of the shuttle (the 'old' STS), the few pieces of the system that weren't flawed - most of the flaws laid with the orbiter element itself. Add to that using the J2 engine, a flight-tested piece of hardware that was flown before and progressively modified even w/o a booster (i.e. the J2-S). The Energia is, or was, a good booster, but sadly Russia's space program is too broke to launch more than one a DECADE versus even the 'lax' two, three flights a year an Ares will make...so Energia sadly isn't an option (and no nation will willingly loan Russia billions to use or revamp it). You tear the Ares down before it's even prototyped...

I'm giving you a challenge gaetanomarano, a creative one as a fellow space enthusiast, which I will willingly admit you are:

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

Here's the leeway I'll give ya:

-You don't have to agree with the whole Vision for Space Exploration. You're perfectly entitled to your own opinion about it, but you've taken the negative bit so much that you sound like a zealous politician. Point out the one component in the system that sounds like the best idea out of it (i.e. someone who is worried about the '5-segement boosters' might criticize the SRBs but might applaud positioning the crew capsule out of harm's way to avoid the fate of the shuttle orbiters). You can make one criticism for each positive encouragement in the post, and considering all the criticism you've done already I suggest you don't just once.

...the post has to be a decent paragraph, I won't let you write a single sentance that says "I like it that it doesn't exist yet." and let that lame bit slide.

And if you want some decent incentive, if you make a post that is positive, isn't more "spammage" about your site, and cyclops or at least a few members agree with, in any future posts you make talking about some design concept you have I will point out something positive myself and not regard it as mere 'spam'.

I have a little challenge for you Saark... :twisted:

GCNRevenger · 2008-01-30 07:48:45

.
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

You must be a total hypocrite, otherwise you would go yelling and screaming to the nearest FAA office/website and suggest in the strongest of terms that air liners, which have similar capability to spread shrapnel across large areas and carry pressurized tanks of very flammable fuel - and all in a thin metal skin - immediately stop flying over populated areas.

Areas with millions of people
Every day of the week
Hundreds of times

The Ares-I, like all large boosters, will come equipped with a self destruct device in the event of such a situation. NASA invented the linear shaped charge explosive for just such purposes.

gaetanomarano · 2008-01-30 08:01:29

Areas with millions of people
Every day of the week
Hundreds of times

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

.

JoshNH4H · 2008-01-30 15:38:22

Do you ever say anything positive? It's hard to tell what you're criticizing and what you're supporting...except those JPEGs you cobble together. It's cute to imagine...but it's getting borderline neurotic.
And if you want some decent incentive, if you make a post that is positive, isn't more "spammage" about your site, and cyclops or at least a few members agree with, in any future posts you make talking about some design concept you have I will point out something positive myself and not regard it as mere 'spam'.

I have a little challenge for you Saark... :twisted:
ETC.

I agree completely. I think we should rename intelligent alien life the nut forum, and stick him and cyberenforcer there with all of the rest.

But honestly, ciclops could you merge ALL of the Ares I can't fly/ won't work etc. with each other?

Rxke · 2008-01-31 01:33:29

Yay! GCNRevenger is back!

SpaceNut · 2008-01-31 05:54:19

Same here Rxke as GCNRevenger has been missed....

RedStreak · 2008-01-31 13:45:32

gaetanomarano has yet to reply to my challenge...so he's officially a space hypocrite.

GCNRevenger · 2008-01-31 17:17:18

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

Oh Pul-Esse... thats actually a good argument that we shouldn't worry, because there are so few rocket flights that the chance of one crashing over a populated area is thus small.

Further if a rocket fails soon after liftoff, the debris would tend to stay near the launch site, because all large rockets are heavy at the nose (particularly with a big upper stage), causing them to tip over and point straight down without a working guidance system.

And if the rocket fails later after liftoff, the rockets' momentum will carry it out over the ocean, where it won't likely come back to cause any trouble.

And even if it did, there is always the self destruct explosive.

NASA and the USAF have launched many many rockets, some carrying scary stuff like the Titan and Atlas rockets full of nasty Hydrazine/DNTO fuels, for decades from the Cape' without significant incident.

John_Frazer · 2008-01-31 21:41:24

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.

"Besides being unreliable, expensive and unsafe"... let's see, if those points are ceded, it failed every one of its design criteria.
What's good about it? -besides it's the most expensive transportation scheme ever devised. That's good, if you're a politician or a NASA money manager.
It was good for graft and politics, and utterly useless for advancing us in space. Great for the NASA bureaucracy and the political machine that didn't care to do anything meaningful in space, but it spread as much tax dollars around as many congressional dstricts as possible, so at that, it was an unparalleled success.
They say an elephant is a mouse built to government specs. I'd say that the Shuttle as a NASA version is a diploducus, and it has to have 5 heads, and can't take any action unless at least 3 of them agree, so usually it starves.

The most capable launch system? All things considered, the R-7 blows it off the launch pad.

http://www.spaceref.com/news/viewnews.html?id=855
"Not Culture but Perhaps a Cult"
Op Ed on NASA and the Shuttle
by Homer Hickam
August 29, 2003
(snippet)
Much has been made over the report produced by the Columbia Accident Investigation Board (CAIB). I have since read newspaper articles that called the report "scathing." Hardly. Its polite recommendations probably had Shuttle managers who made poor decisions dancing down their office hallways with relief. Essentially, it gave them a pass by proclaiming "culture" made them do it...
I do not believe there is a NASA culture other than a willingness by its engineers to work their butts off to keep us in space. It might be said, however, that there is a Shuttle cult. It is practiced like a religion by space policy makers who simply cannot imagine an American space agency without the Shuttle. Well, I can and it is a space agency which can actually fly people and cargoes into orbit without everybody involved being terrified of imminent death and destruction every time the Shuttle lifts off the pad.
With some important reservations, the CAIB recommended to keep the Shuttles flying but with more inspections, more bureaucracy... and more money. But I think piling on more inspections and people and dollars won't make the Shuttle any safer...
The truth is no amount of arm-waving and worrying about "culture" can fix a flawed design. Every engineer knows a design that tries to bypass the realities of physics, chemistry, and strengths of materials by applying complexity will fail eventually no matter how much attention is given to it.
(cont'd)

cIclops · 2008-02-01 03:36:34

"Besides being unreliable, expensive and unsafe"... let's see, if those points are ceded, it failed every one of its design criteria.

Shuttle does have a few more design criteria than that. Namely, it transports seven crew to and from LEO together with 23 MT of cargo. It provides an orbit working environment (including robot arm and airlock) for about two weeks. Except for the external tank, it's fully reusable. It's a remarkable vehicle, there's no other vehicle in the world that has that capability.

The most capable launch system? All things considered, the R-7 blows it off the launch pad.

The Soyuz launcher is more reliable and cheaper, but it has only a small fraction of the capacity of Shuttle, and it's just as unsafe.

gaetanomarano · 2008-02-01 05:27:17

Do you ever say anything positive?

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

.

gaetanomarano · 2008-02-01 05:29:11

Shuttle does have a few more design criteria than that. Namely, it transports seven crew to and from LEO together with 23 MT of cargo. It provides an orbit working environment (including robot arm and airlock) for about two weeks. Except for the external tank, it's fully reusable. It's a remarkable vehicle, there's no other vehicle in the world that has that capability.

finally, you agree with me on something

.

gaetanomarano · 2008-02-01 05:32:33

the chance of one crashing over a populated area is thus small

yes, especially if you live in Alaska

.

JoshNH4H · 2008-02-01 20:33:24

This topic is complete nonsense, mostly off topic.

That said, I will put my 2 cents in.

Yes the shuttle is an amazing machine, the most complex thing humanity has ever built. it has many great successes, and important things going for it. But for every plus, there is a minus. The shuttle will keep us exactly where we are, and it won't take us more than a few feet farther, although at greater cost then now.

The Ares I is a progressive rocket, and will do exactly what it is made for. Bringing the crew for extrordinary missions to the unknown to their spaceships.

gaetanomarano · 2008-02-01 23:19:27

at greater cost then now

every "first of a series" costs too much... the first Shuttle, the first airplane, the first computer, etc. but it doesn't mean that ALL Shuttles MUST cost too much

future Shuttle may have manufacturing and fliying costs similar to an airline jet

The Ares I is a progressive rocket, and will do exactly what it is made for. Bringing the crew for extrordinary missions to the unknown to their spaceships.

the Ares-1 (itself) has (and offers) NOTHING more other rockets nor can allow "extrordinary [sci-fi] missions" but just launch a few mT more than a DIVH, Proton, Ariane5, etc. ... it will carry astronauts to LEO ...just LESS than a Shuttle and at higher price than EVERY other spacecraft, like a Soyuz and (also) the Shuttle

POOR and EXPENSIVE days the LEO operations will face when the Shuttles will be retired and the Orion will fly!

.

Terraformer · 2008-02-02 07:17:25

SpaceX/SpaceDev reusable manned flight, anyone?

SpaceDev need a launcher (and $100 million) for their Dream Chaser, HL-20 derived orbital vahicle. Maybe the Falcon 9 could work for it? Then we'd have a reusable launch vehicle for crew, and NASA could devote all their efforts into constructing a HLV.

Unless NASA doesn't do anything at all, and SpaceDev and Spacex keep spaceflight for america going post 2010.

RedStreak · 2008-02-02 10:57:35

Do you ever say anything positive?
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

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.

GCNRevenger · 2008-02-02 20:21:05

Absurd
Ab-surd adj:

1) Utterly or obviously senseless, illogical, or untrue; contrary to all reason or common sense; laughably foolish or false.
2) Supporting Shuttle as a cost effective operational vehicle.

Two of the main reasons people think that your posts are spam and your posts ought to be banned is that your writing is very hard to read gaetano. Making posts with colored text, lines with nothing but periods, and breaking up posts into many alternating lines is hard on the eyes (twenty on a previous post!). It shows that you are lazy and don't care if you annoy us.

The second reason is dishonesty, you push your points as if you know better than a small army of professional aerospace engineers (NASA), you make up crazy stuff about NASA's rockets (Ares-I risk to Florida, double-counting Ares-I&V development/operational cost) as facts to be disproven, and you try to disrupt discussions by demanding we give your ideas the benefit of the doubt beyond all reasonability while you deny the same to other ideas.

That not how people honestly discuss things, which is why your posts are spam.

SpaceNut · 2008-02-02 21:34:04

Back to Redstreak's challenge

I think the post needs to be specific to the way the parts are used as well since to use the 4 segment in a serial stacking still means as much developement cost as does the 5 segment. Sure the segments 2 and 3 may not change other than the way the propellant or shape of it is contained for those sections. Thrust vectoring for segment 1 is still needed whether this is t 4 or 5 segment unit. Segment 4 as well as 5 segment srb would still need the alteration to use it due to it not being the top of the rocket as its current design is a side mount application. This will mean that the parachute could not be deployed as it has to rid itself of the adapter flange in the structural stack up more time for developement and cost will be needed for the srb's reuse.

Now onto the next stage after the adapter you still need to develope an engine for that location as none are in production capable of the thrust to get the CEV to orbit. Part of this is due to how long that part must burn for time to get the needed speed to achieve orbit.

Now onto the CEV as alot depends on the scope of how you plan to use it, the duration of in flight useage and the crew count being deployed in it for each use to which this has an effect on the shape, volume and mass of the crews cabin.

Then to top it all off we still need the ability to escape if something is wrong anywhere within the rockets stackup as we try to make orbit. Last but not least as a result of anytime abort is the means to land either by land or water landings.

When you add it all up it costs alot more than we want but there is no choice if we want man to be able to fly once more as we have no other man rate rocket or capsule made in america for Nasa to use.

So next is the thought of combining the 1.5 archeture into a single use rocket as in the old saturn v reborn approach to using the pieces.
Yes we can use the 4 segments untouched as a side mount application but it was the SSME engine cost for single use that caused the issue of revisiting the RS68 not only to add a bit more power but to make it safer for use. Through testing one would sense that it would be given the man rated status once all is said and done for the first stage. There is still the need for the second stage engine work as before and so on until you reach the top as the issue is still no capsule made in the America for man use.

One would say for the Orion just go back to the good old Apollo plans but with the advances in materials and electronics lest we forget about the fact the equipment to make the pieces still would mean a great amount of time and money for redevelopement of what we need.

As in the above point to make the Altair we run into the same issues of time has forgotten the LM as well. Not to meantion the time on surface would be much greater than what we did way back when.

gaetanomarano · 2008-02-02 23:21:12

Supporting Shuttle as a cost effective operational vehicle.

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

your writing is very hard to read

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

colored text

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

if you know better than

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

.

Terraformer · 2008-02-03 06:14:10

Just wondering, do you have an Aerospace Degree gaetanomarano? If you do I might believe you. I wouldn't make claims unless I had a degree in that field, or at least had researched it thouroughly enough to present some decent arguments (stealing others does not count).

Dream Chaser = Manned Flight. Dream Chaser = Manned Flight. Dream Chaser = Manned Flight....

GCNRevenger · 2008-02-03 12:47:35

Supporting Shuttle as a cost effective operational vehicle.
the Shuttles are old and dangerous but their price-per-launch is very low if compared with the cargo/crew they carry to LEO
your writing is very hard to read
I can't do more about this point now (just hope to learn a better english soon)
colored text
I hope I can use colors, etc. (at least) on MY blog, while, on Space forums and blogs I no more use colors
if you know better than
I support my ideas like everybody does with their ideas and, write them on the web, allows everyone to post the critics they want
.

The problem of how hard it is to read your writing is how you format it gaetano, your english isn't that bad. For instance, you have about 100 words in your last post, but thirty lines, most of which are blank or only have a period! You should also not use the quote command more than once or twice in a post.

You are free to post whatever you want on your website, but thats not how it works here, this is a discussion board for rational discourse, and if you say crazy things (eg Shuttle is "cheap") then you have no right to expect us to accept silly arguments nor put up with attacks on ideas that aren't insane. Especially ideas from professional engineers like at NASA, which you are unqualified to simply disregard their credentials.

New Mars Forums

Announcement

#26 2008-01-28 11:42:23

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

#27 2008-01-30 07:48:45

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

#28 2008-01-30 08:01:29

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

#29 2008-01-30 15:38:22

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

#30 2008-01-31 01:33:29

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

#31 2008-01-31 05:54:19

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

#32 2008-01-31 13:45:32

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

#33 2008-01-31 17:17:18

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

#34 2008-01-31 21:41:24

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

#35 2008-02-01 03:36:34

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

#36 2008-02-01 05:27:17

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

#37 2008-02-01 05:29:11

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

#38 2008-02-01 05:32:33

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

#39 2008-02-01 20:33:24

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

#40 2008-02-01 23:19:27

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

#41 2008-02-02 07:17:25

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

#42 2008-02-02 10:57:35

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

#43 2008-02-02 20:21:05

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

#44 2008-02-02 21:34:04

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

#45 2008-02-02 23:21:12

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

#46 2008-02-03 06:14:10

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

#47 2008-02-03 12:47:35

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

Board footer