Ares I (CLV) - status

gaetanomarano · 2006-07-23 15:45:27

...the Ariane V have a bad launch record...

how can you be sure (now) that Ares-I will have a better launch record?

.

GCNRevenger · 2006-07-23 16:46:34

We're not getting into this again, gaetano. We are sure because most of the parts exsist or are modifications thereof and are proven safe.

Shuttle solid rocket booster
J-2 upper stage engine
Shuttle external tank based upper stage tank/structure
Shuttle OMS-derived SM engine
Stardust/Genesis or Apollo proven heat shield material
Apollo proven aerodynamics
Commercial airliner based computer flight control
Proven parachute technology, etc etc

Nothing is really new with CLV/CEV, all of it proven effective. The main engine on the Ariane-V on the other hand, the reason why its not a very safe rocket, isn't.

And how do you know that the CEV has suddenly lost 6,500lbs of mass? That is a huge number, where is your reference?

gaetanomarano · 2006-07-23 17:21:19

...all of it proven effective...where is your reference?

the REAL success rate of the Ares-I can be known ONLY when it will FLY

the source of the news about the Orion resizing is the NASA Design Analysis Cycle Review (DAC-2)

.

GCNRevenger · 2006-07-23 17:43:37

We already know the "real" flight reliability of Ariane-V, and it isn't good enough. Don't you remember the mission blowing up when the main engine nozzle burned through?

I digress... we don't know the "real" flight realiability of the Ares-I or a hypothetical modified man-rated Ariane-V, but we can estimate it with good reliability. The sum of all possible risks is the "real" risk, and engineers are skilled enough to identify, calculate, and mitigate all of them with good sucess. Particularly with the simplicity of the vehicles, especially the Ares-I, the number of possible risks is small and they are readily identifiable. Risk assesment is half the business of aerospace engineers, I fully trust them to make a safe rocket; is there a risk they will miss something? Sure, but I doubt its signifigant.

Engineers do this kind of thing all the time whenever they build something that people entrust their lives to, everthing from towers to airplanes to submarines. None of them "know" how reliable their design will be, but they are built and they do work.

Speaking of safe however, Ariane-V having double the engines of Ares-I, will be somewhat less safe I believe, and will certainly be more difficult to build or use an escape system for it.

Edit: Your argument is identical to the one that environmentalists love to employ rhetorically against nuclear power plants, and it is equally irrational, illogical, and without merit.

gaetanomarano · 2006-07-23 18:08:45

.

sorry, but, since we have seen too much "exact" evaluations of "experts" (of ALL industries and products!) about timelines, costs, technologies, reliability, etc. I prefer to SEE (with MY eyes) the REAL rocket that flies

e.g. the first ESAS plan ("1st" since, after so many changes, we already are in the "2nd") was made by "engineers" and "scientist" that evaluated "all" before write it... but now we know it was full of giant mistakes and miscalculations...

the main advantage of the Ariane5 is that it exists NOW while the Ares-I needs 9+ years to fly

.

GCNRevenger · 2006-07-23 18:19:48

I prefer to SEE (with MY eyes) the REAL rocket that flies

Then you have taken a giant step backwards, back into the days of witch burnings, superstition as law, and even cave-man-like fear of technology. Irrational. Anti-scientific. Foolish.

Ariane-V is NOT available now in a form that you could put the CEV on top of. It would require modification at least for the escape mechanism trigger sensors, avionics hookups, software overhaul, perhaps a new engine nozzle design, and of course actual flight testing of all of the above.

This would be a little faster than Ares-I, but not as much as you think.

Edit: Oh, and you didn't provide any link to any document that backs up your claim about the mass change, only referencing a study done that doesn't come up on Google in the first page.

gaetanomarano · 2006-07-24 02:25:09

.

Ariane-V is NOT available now in a form... true, but it needs a few years to be and may be ready BEFORE the CEV

mass change, only referencing a study done that doesn't come up on Google in the first page... the study was released two days ago, is not available on the web and Google needs weeks recognize a new page (if not submitted)

.

GCNRevenger · 2006-07-24 07:30:42

Why is it so important that it be ready sooner? We have had several multi-year gaps before (cancelation of Apollo, Challenger RTF, Columbia RTF), surely this is not worth it.

If its "not available on the web" then where did you get it? If you can't produce this magic document which suddenly makes CEV a perfect fit for your silly scheme, then nobody ought to believe you.

gaetanomarano · 2006-07-24 07:41:46

Why is it so important that it be ready sooner? We have had several multi-year gaps before (cancelation of Apollo, Challenger RTF, Columbia RTF), surely this is not worth it.
If its "not available on the web" then where did you get it? If you can't produce this magic document which suddenly makes CEV a perfect fit for your silly scheme, then nobody ought to believe you.

"be ready sooner" (or later) is a political decision ...in other words... if USA wants to launch the american astronauts with a CEV in 2010 (just after Shuttles' retirements) OR wants to buy Soyuz and Progress in the next 10+ years

about DAC-2, I've not a link to the full 127 page document but only the abstract here: www.nasaspaceflight.com/content/?cid=4659

don't forget that this is the final weight of the LUNAR version with 4 astronauts, their equipments, 14 days life support and the propellant for TEI... the ISS version (I suggest to launch with Ariane5) may weigh less than 18 mT with 3 astronauts, less equipment, one week life support and half propellant

.

GCNRevenger · 2006-07-24 13:52:22

We're already going to be buying Soyuz anyway, since the US is obligated to provide emergency escape for the ISS crew today, so whats another year or two of capsules? Its just not worth sending one of the two centerpiece VSE components overseas.

Ah ha, so the document is not available yet, and you are only going by the "summary" from NASASpaceflight and their assertion that the CEV is "too heavy." Anyway, the numbers may be a little different, but its still only about 10% of the total mass. The large reduction in volume is undoubtably because of the switch from liquid Methane/Oxygen to Hypergolics, which are far denser.

Remember, the design of the CEV and other VSE components are by no means hard and fast, and are in continual flux at the moment, especially the manned vehicles. Simply because a change is made is not a sign of failure or doom of the plan, but rather a refinement as NASA marches closer to actually cutting metal.

gaetanomarano · 2006-07-24 15:06:24

We're already going to be buying Soyuz anyway

ok, Soyuz!

just a little detail... the first (official) CEV launch is september 2014... add 1/2 of further delays... maybe... the first launch will be around 2016... if the Ares-I will (really) be more reliable than Ariane5, of course...

.

GCNRevenger · 2006-07-24 17:53:46

A 50% development time creep is unfounded supposition. We will have the engines soon, the tank should be easy to build, and the structures of the CEV shouldn't take long at all.

gaetanomarano · 2006-07-25 05:03:02

A 50% development time creep is unfounded supposition

all complex space programs I've seen so far have had a 50%+ increase of time and a 100%+ increase of costs... maybe this time they will be lucky...

.

GCNRevenger · 2006-07-25 06:14:20

All of them huh? Really? Thats BS, no they haven't.

gaetanomarano · 2006-07-25 06:47:24

All of them huh? Really? Thats BS, no they haven't.

surely all big plans... Shuttle, ISS, etc.... and the VSE (by itself) is a "delayed plan" since it needs TWICE the time of Apollo to land on the moon... and a 20% increase of the planned (evaluated) funds (from $104B to $125B) in the first SIX months... just imagine the REAL costs at the end of the plan!

.

Rxke · 2006-07-27 02:11:32

People, please....

This thread is supposed to be about the STATUS of the Ares I, there are other threads to discuss its merits or un-merits.

Please keep the channels open.

gaetanomarano · 2006-07-27 10:04:09

...there are other threads to discuss its merits or un-merits...

which thread?

or, maybe, a NEW Ariane5/Ares-I thread?

in the mean time I add this post:

probably they (NASA) have not read my June 30 article... www.gaetanomarano.it/articles/010arianecev.html ...nor this thread (and my posts in other forums) but (now) NASA appears to have a "stick" alternative that looks very close to Ariane5... www.nasaspaceflight.com/content/?cid=4670

however, since there are NO official NASA claims so far, the new Ares-I may be only a NASAspaceflight drawing to sell more L2 subscriptions....

.

RedStreak · 2006-07-29 19:10:19

probably they (NASA) have not read my June 30 article... www.gaetanomarano.it/articles/010arianecev.html ...nor this thread (and my posts in other forums) but (now) NASA appears to have a "stick" alternative that looks very close to Ariane5... www.nasaspaceflight.com/content/?cid=4670

I wouldn't call it an Ariane 5 but that looks like a very intruiging concept.

It looks like a near-twin of the STS SRV/ET combo with the CEV plunked square on top. If there's any complaints on the Ares I configuration this version would have my full support. The only possibly difference I can visually discern would be stubbier 3 segment SRVs, and the article does mention J-2X engines being used.

This could be a good back-up alright. Personally I'd go with using two 5-segmented boosters so they can be interchanged with the CaCLV, but if there's worries about 5-segments being recovered surely 3-segments are easier since we've been using 4 for years.

This is a good article gaetanomarano; I have to tip my hat off to you at least this once for some credit.

gaetanomarano · 2006-07-30 02:40:55

This is a good article gaetanomarano

Thank You RedStreak

about the Ares... I think the new design is the better solution possible... like I've suggested it three months ago... www.gaetanomarano.it/articles/005_SLVnow.html

however, I think that the new 5-segments SRB planned for the Ares-I and Ares-V can't work because it can't give more burning time nor more thrust (or a little more than a 4-segments version) but only more internal pressure and up to 140 mT of extra dry mass!

I explain in detail the reasons of my opinion in this new article: www.gaetanomarano.it/articles/011srb5.html

Not "the better" but the ONLY choice for the Ares-I and Ares-V is the (standard) 4-segments SRB with (also) the great advantage that it is ready available NOW!

.

gaetanomarano · 2006-07-30 02:51:36

.

to moderators or webmaster

from yesterday I've problems to access newmars

if I try to access from the URL in the browser or from a link in my articles' page or from the topic reply notification, the website don't appear and the browser is redirected to Network Solutions that offers newmars.com as expired domains

if you give a mail address I can send to you the image of the redirected page

your website appears again ONLY using the anonymouse.org service

I don't know if that problem happens only to me or to all italian users

.

Rxke · 2006-07-30 04:12:32

It was global. NMars subscription ran out. Now it is up again, but probably your browser's cache still holds the placeholder page.

You probably use Internet Explorer, I don't know how to clear the case for that browser, but it should be somewhere in the menus.... Or, If I recall correctly: press control and the 'refresh' button simultaneously...

gaetanomarano · 2006-07-30 04:49:38

It was global. NMars subscription ran out. Now it is up again, but probably your browser's cache still holds the placeholder page.
You probably use Internet Explorer, I don't know how to clear the case for that browser, but it should be somewhere in the menus.... Or, If I recall correctly: press control and the 'refresh' button simultaneously...

I've cleared all internet history, URL, cache, etc. from the browser and with a clean software, I've used Avant Browser, Mozilla and Opera, but the problem still remains

it appears like your website blocks my IP or all italian IP or all IPs with some numbers

.

Rxke · 2006-07-30 08:22:44

Weird, but maybe it is a local cache thing that will go away the next hours... Depending on your national serviceprovider etc... it's not about blocking I.P.s, I'm sure...

I was unable to access NMars until this morning, too, but now everything is normal again :?

GCNRevenger · 2006-08-01 11:12:29

...there are other threads to discuss its merits or un-merits...
which thread?
or, maybe, a NEW Ariane5/Ares-I thread?
in the mean time I add this post:
probably they (NASA) have not read my June 30 article... www.gaetanomarano.it/articles/010arianecev.html ...nor this thread (and my posts in other forums) but (now) NASA appears to have a "stick" alternative that looks very close to Ariane5... www.nasaspaceflight.com/content/?cid=4670
however, since there are NO official NASA claims so far, the new Ares-I may be only a NASAspaceflight drawing to sell more L2 subscriptions

This "backup" Ares-I plan has one really serious flaw, that it has a risk the same thing that Challenger did could happen here. Two three-segment SRBs would cost more than one five-segment booster too, plus the extra J-2 engine cost. I doubt that this plan will happen.

cIclops · 2006-08-01 19:02:46

This "backup" Ares-I plan has one really serious flaw, that it has a risk the same thing that Challenger did could happen here. Two three-segment SRBs would cost more than one five-segment booster too, plus the extra J-2 engine cost. I doubt that this plan will happen.

Yes it doubles the LOC risk due to SRB failure and the second J-2X would similarly double the LOM risk. As safety and reliability are the primary drivers of the Ares 1 design, this plan has little chance of flying.

New Mars Forums

Announcement

#76 2006-07-23 15:45:27

Re: Ares I (CLV) - status

#77 2006-07-23 16:46:34

Re: Ares I (CLV) - status

#78 2006-07-23 17:21:19

Re: Ares I (CLV) - status

#79 2006-07-23 17:43:37

Re: Ares I (CLV) - status

#80 2006-07-23 18:08:45

Re: Ares I (CLV) - status

#81 2006-07-23 18:19:48

Re: Ares I (CLV) - status

#82 2006-07-24 02:25:09

Re: Ares I (CLV) - status

#83 2006-07-24 07:30:42

Re: Ares I (CLV) - status

#84 2006-07-24 07:41:46

Re: Ares I (CLV) - status

#85 2006-07-24 13:52:22

Re: Ares I (CLV) - status

#86 2006-07-24 15:06:24

Re: Ares I (CLV) - status

#87 2006-07-24 17:53:46

Re: Ares I (CLV) - status

#88 2006-07-25 05:03:02

Re: Ares I (CLV) - status

#89 2006-07-25 06:14:20

Re: Ares I (CLV) - status

#90 2006-07-25 06:47:24

Re: Ares I (CLV) - status

#91 2006-07-27 02:11:32

Re: Ares I (CLV) - status

#92 2006-07-27 10:04:09

Re: Ares I (CLV) - status

#93 2006-07-29 19:10:19

Re: Ares I (CLV) - status

#94 2006-07-30 02:40:55

Re: Ares I (CLV) - status

#95 2006-07-30 02:51:36

Re: Ares I (CLV) - status

#96 2006-07-30 04:12:32

Re: Ares I (CLV) - status

#97 2006-07-30 04:49:38

Re: Ares I (CLV) - status

#98 2006-07-30 08:22:44

Re: Ares I (CLV) - status

#99 2006-08-01 11:12:29

Re: Ares I (CLV) - status

#100 2006-08-01 19:02:46

Re: Ares I (CLV) - status

Board footer