in my opinion both Ares-I and Ares-V could NEVER fly once!!!

gaetanomarano · 2008-03-31 07:48:38

...except that you seem to think that the 4 Segment SRBoosters exhaust is made of sunshine...

it's easy to understand (just reading my articles and posts) ... I'm against every too expensive and too long to develop space-hardware, while, I'm in favor of ready (or soon) available and (relatively) cheap things

pete · 2008-04-05 05:09:41

it's easy to understand (just reading my articles and posts) ... I'm against every too expensive and too long to develop space-hardware, while, I'm in favor of ready (or soon) available and (relatively) cheap things

Well, in that case you can fly to the moon with off-the-shelf technology, but still at incredible costs, but you will never really open up the space frontier. Griffin has often criticised abandoning the Apollo hardware in favor of the shuttle an refocusing NASA on LEO operations only.

While he might have a point in his criticism of the shuttle, the original intention that was behind the shuttle concept was right. It's the old battle between destination-driven and technology-driven concepts. I think it would be good if NASA focused on Earth-to-LEO transportation first. Our ultimate priority should be to lower launch costs to LEO. It's all about raising productivity. Using Apollo technology will not help us open up the space frontier. If we continue down this path, in 50 years time space will just as inaccsessible as it is today.

If we had all the return-to-the-moon funding and could devote it to the development of a new efficient RLV, that is orders of magnitudes more efficient than currently available ELVs, that would be real progress. The main obstacle, it seems to me, is that politicians will have to spend an awful lot of money first, the risk of failure is high, and when they are done, they will have no capability beyond LEO to show for it. Seeing astronauts playing golf on the moon, has a much greater PR value than even the most efficient RLV could ever have. And as the failure of the Venture Star program will tell, there is a tremendous risk of failure. But still it's the right approach.

louis · 2008-04-05 05:25:45

Gaetanomarano -

Absolutely right in my view. I think Space X will crack it. No space programme has ever been successful without initial failures, so the fact that they had some control problems does not detract from the speed with which they have worked and the fact that the rockets got so far.

It's interesting (a) that Elon Musk has said publicly that his goal is Mars colonisation (b) that he appears to have retained the facility at a Pacific island which is an independent nation, so as to reduce interference from the big powers, should that be necessary.

I think he has going to knock the spots off NASA. We shall see!

gaetanomarano · 2008-04-05 13:10:54

...the fact that they had some control problems...

the first launch failed due to a propellents leak in the 1st stage engine, the second launch failed due to the 2nd stage engine damaged by interstage at separation... both problems was/are easy to fix, so, the Falcon-1 already IS enough reliable to fly (that surprised me since SpaceX reached this result without flights' tests!) but Musk must invest MORE if he wants to see his biggest programs come true... another problem is that he must work MORE on cutting costs, since his rockets' prices (per kg. carried to LEO) are just a few hundreds dollars cheaper than other rockets

.

gaetanomarano · 2008-04-05 20:21:47

I think it would be good if NASA focused on Earth-to-LEO transportation first.

yes, I agree 100% ...it's my #1 point from my early space forums' posts! ... there is no difference between LEO and lunar vehicles since BOTH must reach the earth orbit first... the real difference is the PRICE to do that, and, unfortunately, that price is not changed so much in latest decades... the #1 effort and the #1 goal of all old.space and new.space companies MUST be: TRY to CUT the PRICE to launch something to LEO (no matter if using RLV or expendable vehicles) ... when this goal will be reached, EVERYTHING will be simple!

.

louis · 2008-04-05 21:11:20

gaetanomarano -

I think Musk's economics rely on him cornering the commercial satellite market which he might be able to do even if the price differential is only a few hundred dollars. He needs to get the market before he can get the costs down. At the moment he is having to spend on all the development costs.

pete · 2008-04-06 13:25:26

I think we just don't know whether SpaceX will be successful or whether they will just go broke. We have a few statements from them that seem to put a positive spin on their recent misfortunes. This may be sincere, but we have no way to tell. So let's stay tuned and lets wait till they got some real success to show to world. I wish them the best of luck especially for Falcon 9 and COTS. If they are successful they have the potential to be a real game-changer, but "it's hard to predict, especially the future" (Nils Bohr).

SpaceNut · 2008-04-10 10:21:28

Well the Ares I and V will fly and ATK is promoting even more uses for the SRB....ATK Plans Commercial Ares I

"Ares I can deliver humans, can deliver payload to low Earth orbit; it can deliver payload to geosynchronous Earth orbit and beyond - planetary missions - it's got that much capability," Dittemore said at the 24th National Space Symposium here. "And what's unique is that since we're designing this vehicle with human reliability, proven demonstrated systems, high-value payload customers may see a real attractiveness to putting either DOD or NRO payloads on this launch system."
Possible concepts Dittemore presented include an Ares I with a payload shroud for launching big geosynchronous communications satellites, and a version with a Centaur stage mounted atop the NASA-designed, Boeing-built Ares I cryogenic upper stage for planetary missions.
As configured to launch NASA's Orion crew exploration vehicle, the Ares I is being designed to lift 56,500 pounds to low Earth orbit. But ATK also is studying upgrades that could add another 9,910 pounds to that capability. Those include higher operating pressure in the motor, an increased throat diameter, a shift to HTBP propellant from the PBAN used on the NASA systems, and a graphite composite case.

RedStreak · 2008-04-10 12:50:09

Well the Ares I and V will fly and ATK is promoting even more uses for the SRB....ATK Plans Commercial Ares I
"Ares I can deliver humans, can deliver payload to low Earth orbit; it can deliver payload to geosynchronous Earth orbit and beyond - planetary missions - it's got that much capability," Dittemore said at the 24th National Space Symposium here. "And what's unique is that since we're designing this vehicle with human reliability, proven demonstrated systems, high-value payload customers may see a real attractiveness to putting either DOD or NRO payloads on this launch system."

Wow I wonder how much capacity.

Assuming they just use the two Ares stages w/o the added Centaur how much can an Ares I launch into interplanetary space? I am going to assume something like Cassini or Galileo would need a Centaur but could a smaller mission ala Pathfinder or the various Mars orbiters be possible?

New Mars Forums

Announcement

#26 2008-03-31 07:48:38

Re: in my opinion both Ares-I and Ares-V could NEVER fly once!!!

#27 2008-04-05 05:09:41

Re: in my opinion both Ares-I and Ares-V could NEVER fly once!!!

#28 2008-04-05 05:25:45

Re: in my opinion both Ares-I and Ares-V could NEVER fly once!!!

#29 2008-04-05 13:10:54

Re: in my opinion both Ares-I and Ares-V could NEVER fly once!!!

#30 2008-04-05 20:21:47

Re: in my opinion both Ares-I and Ares-V could NEVER fly once!!!

#31 2008-04-05 21:11:20

Re: in my opinion both Ares-I and Ares-V could NEVER fly once!!!

#32 2008-04-06 13:25:26

Re: in my opinion both Ares-I and Ares-V could NEVER fly once!!!

#33 2008-04-10 10:21:28

Re: in my opinion both Ares-I and Ares-V could NEVER fly once!!!

#34 2008-04-10 12:50:09

Re: in my opinion both Ares-I and Ares-V could NEVER fly once!!!

Board footer