Ares-1 zombie to rise again?
Pat Flannery
http://blog.al.com/space-news/2011/08/is_the_answer_to_heavy-lift_ro.html
Pat
Jeff Findley
_TnZ2dnUV...@posted.northdakotatelephone>, fla...@daktel.com
says...
>
> Frankly, I don't think this is going to happen:
> http://blog.al.com/space-news/2011/08/is_the_answer_to_heavy-lift_ro.html
No thank you! Ares I was, and still is, the dumbest idea ever for a
launch vehicle.
Jeff
--
" Solids are a branch of fireworks, not rocketry. :-) :-) ", Henry
Spencer 1/28/2011
Nomen Nescio
news:_7edneynI7Bmz8_T...@posted.northdakotatelephone...
> Frankly, I don't think this is going to happen:
> http://blog.al.com/space-news/2011/08/is_the_answer_to_heavy-lift_ro.html
>
The answer to SLS is Falcon X or even Falcon XX.
But it's unlikely to happen as Congress is comprised of a bunch of
corrupt crooks who take bribes and payoffs from Boeing and LockMart.
Alan Erskine
coward
Alan Erskine
> In article<_7edneynI7Bmz8
> _TnZ2dnUV...@posted.northdakotatelephone>, fla...@daktel.com
> says...
>>
>> Frankly, I don't think this is going to happen:
>> http://blog.al.com/space-news/2011/08/is_the_answer_to_heavy-lift_ro.html
>
> No thank you! Ares I was, and still is, the dumbest idea ever for a
> launch vehicle.
>
> Jeff
Couldn't agree more. I'd question the independence, reasoning and
knowledge of someone making such a claim as Dr. Pace. It seems more
like Dubya's party and NASA having a say in policy that good economic
sense.
Dr Pace states that a lot of work was done on Ares 1. True, but none of
it was effective at producing an LV that could economically compete with
Delta IV Heavy. Not to mention all the added vibration (due to thrust
occillation) that was one of the main reasons the Ares 1 was cancelled.
Pat Flannery
>
> But it's unlikely to happen as Congress is comprised of a bunch of
> corrupt crooks who take bribes and payoffs from Boeing and LockMart.
Probably ATK in this case, plus a lot of Shuttle-related NASA employees
who want to keeps its infrastructure... and their jobs.
Of course Liberty is now the thing, as then you don't have to develop a
new second stage:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=R2cnmxH9Hbg
It will all be so simple... ;-)
Pat
Quadibloc
> It will all be so simple... ;-)
Well, if the Ariane _second_ stage is reliable enough, perhaps.
Although indeed I didn't think one SRB from the Shuttle would have
enough oomph for this sort of thing.
I really am inclined, in my naivete, to prefer a kerosene (RP-1)/
oxygen first stage. Those didn't blow up and kill Apollo astronauts -
solid boosters did blow up and kill Shuttle astronauts.
1) Build a new, modern equivalent to the F-1 engine from the Saturn V.
2) Put seven of them, in a hexagon, instead of five, at the bottom of
the booster.
3) Do like the original Atlas did: release some of the rocket motors
when the tanks are nearly empty, so that the first stage is a "stage
and a half".
As for the second stage, liquid oxygen and liquid hydrogen engines
exist, whether from Ariane or the Space Shuttle Main Engines. They
haven't thrown the plans and tooling for _those_ away like they did
for the F-1, did they?
Anyways, seven F-1s on a "stage and a half" is significantly improved
performance over the Saturn V main stage, and given Robert Zubrin's
mission plan for a manned Mars landing that only needs a Saturn V,
this should be all the heavy-lift vehicle America needs to do just
about anything it wants.
John Savard
Mike DiCenso
> In article <_7edneynI7Bmz8
> _TnZ2dnUVZ_vSdn...@posted.northdakotatelephone>, flan...@daktel.com
> says...
>
>
>
> > Frankly, I don't think this is going to happen:
>
> No thank you! Ares I was, and still is, the dumbest idea ever for a
> launch vehicle.
You're just still upset because the Ares I-X flew just fine, and met
most of it's flight objectives.
-Mike
Alan Erskine
Pat, don't feed the troll.
Pat Flannery
> You're just still upset because the Ares I-X flew just fine, and met
> most of it's flight objectives.
Considering that its flight objectives were to get off the pad intact,
go into the air, and dump something off the nose, that wasn't any too
challenging of an accomplishment.
They should have just skipped it, and waited till the five segment
booster was ready.
That at least would have had some relation to the actual launch vehicle;
the way it was done, it was of very little use in developing the real
Ares-1.
Pat
bob haller
it was a attempt to save a dying program by proclaiming were making
progress
Jeff Findley
7f43e8...@a8g2000pro.googlegroups.com>, mdicen...@q.com says...
Not at all. My biggest problem with Ares I-X was that it was not
representative of Ares I flight hardware. Flying a four segment shuttle
SRB with a dummy fifth segment, a dummy second stage, a dummy Orion, and
a dummy LES told NASA what exactly? This was a very expensive test
which provided little useful data.
If this test had used a five segment SRB and had a dummy upper stage
with flight loads of LOX and LH2 in the tanks, then the test would have
been very useful, as it could have characterized the vibration
environment caused by the new five segment SRB and how those vibrations
were damped (or not) by the fuel and oxidizer in the upper stage. That
would have been a useful test.
Brad Guth
> In article <43a6d3cf-057c-4c30-afe8-
> 7f43e8032...@a8g2000pro.googlegroups.com>, mdicenso_...@q.com says...
Since when has our NASA and DARPA been telling us the whole truth and
nothing but the truth?
As of day-1 we've been lied to, mislead and having obfuscation applied
whenever anything got to critical about their operations.
Our government is not a reliable source of truth, much less honesty.
President BHO has been eaten alive by those truly in charge.
http://groups.google.com/group/guth-usenet?hl=en
http://docs.google.com/View?id=ddsdxhv_0hrm5bdfj
http://bradguth.blogspot.com/
http://translate.google.com/#
Brad Guth, Brad_Guth, Brad.Guth, BradGuth, BG / “Guth Usenet”
Rick Jones
> I really am inclined, in my naivete, to prefer a kerosene (RP-1)/
> oxygen first stage. Those didn't blow up and kill Apollo astronauts
> - solid boosters did blow up and kill Shuttle astronauts.
<pedant>Burned through and caused the external tank to blow-up no?</pedant>
rick jones
--
The glass is neither half-empty nor half-full. The glass has a leak.
The real question is "Can it be patched?"
these opinions are mine, all mine; HP might not want them anyway... :)
feel free to post, OR email to rick.jones2 in hp.com but NOT BOTH...
Pat Flannery
> Quadibloc<jsa...@ecn.ab.ca> wrote:
>> I really am inclined, in my naivete, to prefer a kerosene (RP-1)/
>> oxygen first stage. Those didn't blow up and kill Apollo astronauts
>> - solid boosters did blow up and kill Shuttle astronauts.
>
> <pedant>Burned through and caused the external tank to blow-up no?</pedant>
The ET didn't so much blow up as structurally failed and fell apart.
Pat
Mike DiCenso
It did far better than any rabid space cadet here was predicting,
that's for sure. And it used a lot more in common with the final
vehicle than anyone would like to admit. Just the sheer audacity to
prove that the areodynamics and control software would work as
advertised is more than worth the price of the flight. Certainly Ares
I-X did far better than Falcon 1's first three flights, and the first
stage was recovered for examination, which is far more than I can say
for any Falcon rocket to date.
-Mike
Mike DiCenso
> In article <43a6d3cf-057c-4c30-afe8-
> 7f43e8032...@a8g2000pro.googlegroups.com>, mdicenso_...@q.com says...
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
> > On Aug 22, 6:36 am, Jeff Findley <jeff.find...@ugs.nojunk.com> wrote:
> > > In article <_7edneynI7Bmz8
> > > _TnZ2dnUVZ_vSdn...@posted.northdakotatelephone>, flan...@daktel.com
> > > says...
>
> > > > Frankly, I don't think this is going to happen:
> > > >http://blog.al.com/space-news/2011/08/is_the_answer_to_heavy-lift_ro....
>
> > > No thank you! Ares I was, and still is, the dumbest idea ever for a
> > > launch vehicle.
>
> > You're just still upset because the Ares I-X flew just fine, and met
> > most of it's flight objectives.
>
> Not at all. My biggest problem with Ares I-X was that it was not
> representative of Ares I flight hardware. Flying a four segment shuttle
> SRB with a dummy fifth segment, a dummy second stage, a dummy Orion, and
> a dummy LES told NASA what exactly? This was a very expensive test
> which provided little useful data.
>
> If this test had used a five segment SRB and had a dummy upper stage
> with flight loads of LOX and LH2 in the tanks, then the test would have
> been very useful, as it could have characterized the vibration
> environment caused by the new five segment SRB and how those vibrations
> were damped (or not) by the fuel and oxidizer in the upper stage. That
> would have been a useful test.
See my response to Pat. Aerodynamics and flight experiance gained here
were critical. This was supposed to be the first in a series of
incremental test flights, each one adding a bit more to test with each
mission. The follow-on I-Y mission as I recall, was supposed to test
the full up five-segment booster, and place an inert second stage with
production tankage, and an Orion boilerplate capsule that would be
pulled free in an abort test by a production LES.
-Mike
Jeff Findley
3d9b56...@p37g2000prp.googlegroups.com>, mdicen...@q.com says...
Falcon I's test philosophy was essentially the same as that used for
Saturn V (and many other expendable launch vehicles). Why fly an
incremental test of just one stage? If it succeeds, why not have a live
second stage on top and test it on the same flight? Even if the first
stage fails, you're no worse off than a failed first stage test with
dummy stages above it.
For the "waste anything but time" philosophy of Apollo/Saturn, this
approach made perfect sense. It made sense for Falcon I as well, since
the goal was to make real progress in a timely manner.
Of course, this "all up" testing approach only works if all stages are,
more or less, ready to test by the time of the first test flight. Ares
I's flight test program was more incremental in nature, arguably because
the upper stage simply wasn't anywhere near ready for flight (as in
several years away from being ready). Sure Ares I-X showed that the
aerodynamics and control algorithms worked for the first stage, but that
should come as no surprise. Those things are "rocket science", but they
were far less of an unknown when compared to the vibration environment
that an Orion would experience on a real Ares I flight.
During research and development, it's a good thing to address your
highest risks first. Ares I-X didn't do that.
Ares I-X was a very expensive baby step when compared to Falcon I's "all
up" first three test flights. See new .sig pulled from ARocket...
Jeff
--
" Ares 1 is a prime example of the fact that NASA just can't get it
up anymore... and when they can, it doesn't stay up long. ;) "
- tinker
Pat Flannery
> Falcon I's test philosophy was essentially the same as that used for
> Saturn V (and many other expendable launch vehicles). Why fly an
> incremental test of just one stage? If it succeeds, why not have a live
> second stage on top and test it on the same flight? Even if the first
> stage fails, you're no worse off than a failed first stage test with
> dummy stages above it.
Falcon 9's first flight was also a "all up" test.
The thing that was odd about the Ares I-X test was that Thiokol did fire
a 5 segment Shuttle SRB in a ground test in 2003, so as to why they
couldn't just fall back on that experience and have a five segment one
ready in fairly short order for Ares I is a unanswered question:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Space_Shuttle_Solid_Rocket_Booster#Five-segment_booster
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=BSPXSjQ5b-U
Pat
Jeff Findley
<lLudndSvvdwCY8nT...@posted.northdakotatelephone>,
fla...@daktel.com says...
I agree that was strange. I suppose flying a four segment booster was
seen as the conservative approach. Any failure on the very first test
flight wouldn't look very good. This just goes to show that the
"established" launch providers are risk averse to the point that
progress is very slow and very expensive.
Ed Kyle
> Frankly, I don't think this is going to happen:http://blog.al.com/space-news/2011/08/is_the_answer_to_heavy-lift_ro....
>
> Pat
Ares I/Ares V will never happen. Even SLS costs too much. Ares I
could serve as a lower-cost alternative to SLS. It could support LEO
rendezvous missions, in concert with other rockets, designed to send
humans into deep space. Ares I would use Shuttle systems,
architecture, and people. Without a Shuttle-derived alternative, KSC
will fade into history.
Ares I was well into development. Today the third Ares I booster sits
in Utah preparing for a test burn, the first J-2X is on a stand at
Stennis, having already performed three tests, the Ares I launch
platform is structurally complete at KSC, and the first Ares I upper
stage LOX tank article is welded at Michoud. Orion, the Ares I
payload, is still under development. Its launch abort system and
recovery system have been tested. And so on.
Why not finish the job?
- Ed Kyle
Brian Thorn
<edky...@hotmail.com> wrote:
>Ares I/Ares V will never happen. Even SLS costs too much. Ares I
>could serve as a lower-cost alternative to SLS. It could support LEO
>rendezvous missions, in concert with other rockets, designed to send
>humans into deep space. Ares I would use Shuttle systems,
>architecture, and people. Without a Shuttle-derived alternative, KSC
>will fade into history.
>
>Ares I was well into development.
But still as much as seven years away from first manned flight, per
Augustine. Do you really think man-rating Delta IV-Heavy in 2010 would
have taken seven years?
>Today the third Ares I booster sits
>in Utah preparing for a test burn,
Soooo-eeeee, here piggy, piggy! Well looky here, that's my prize piggy
Hatchy! Look at him feeding at that trough...
>the first J-2X is on a stand at
>Stennis,
A cluster of RL-10s would have been cheaper and offer engine-out
safety, as demonstrated by Saturn I.
>having already performed three tests, the Ares I launch
>platform is structurally complete at KSC,
But still years of outfitting ahead of it.
>and the first Ares I upper
>stage LOX tank article is welded at Michoud.
Centaur and DCUS are already in production. Even DEC could be flying
again before AIUS.
>Orion, the Ares I
>payload, is still under development.
And could very well be passed by Dragon and CST-100, spacecraft that
started development much later than Orion.
>Its launch abort system and
>recovery system have been tested. And so on.
Pay no attention to those craters on the desert floor...
>Why not finish the job?
Ops cost too high compared to off-the-shelf Atlas 5, Delta IV or
Falcon 9 (all of which can amortize costs over other payload launches,
Ares I by law cannot.)
Ares I was a mistake. NASA really, from Day 1 should have dusted off
Shuttle-C for cargo and paid to man-rate Delta IV for crew. Both would
have been flying a year or two ago.
But no, it had to have Apollo On Steroids and pick a spacecraft too
heavy for existing launchers, the old Not Invented Here reaction in
full force.
Nice to see you here again, Ed.
Brian
Pat Flannery
> A cluster of RL-10s would have been cheaper and offer engine-out
> safety, as demonstrated by Saturn I.
Did they have a RL-10 shut down on the Saturn I?
I didn't know that, although the engine was still pretty new when it got
used on the S-IV stage.
> But no, it had to have Apollo On Steroids and pick a spacecraft too
> heavy for existing launchers, the old Not Invented Here reaction in
> full force.
I've mentioned this many times before, but the Apollo CM design is a
real disaster area for internal volume versus weight, because of the
very wide heatshield.
The Soyuz descent module and Dragon are both far better in that regard,
and although the companies contending for the Apollo CM contract kept
trying to tell NASA that it was a bad design choice, NASA was dead set
on the squat cone design - I assume because they thought it would reduce
overall reentry heat loads by decelerating faster after lunar return,
and they were concerned about if they could make a heatshield that could
take those heat loads.
The Soviet Zond spacecraft (modified lunar loop Soyuz) used a heatshield
that was asymmetric in thickness, with the thickest part being towards
the side of the capsule that was going to get the most heating on the
way in.
Choosing a scaled-up Apollo CM for the Orion spacecraft showed a
terrible lack of imagination and innovation on NASA's part, particularly
since today's computer power would have made it very easy to model the
reentry behavior of several wingless reentry module shapes (I mean fer
chrissakes, they were figuring out Apollo aerodynamic designs with slide
rules) but then again the whole Constellation program quickly became
Apollo Mk.2, and was only impressive as something that would have come
from around the mid-70's time period.
I think Zubrin's Mars plans wouldn't work, but at least you have to give
him some credit for having a lot more imagination than NASA did with
Constellation.
Pat
Pat
Ed Kyle
> On Thu, 1 Sep 2011 14:24:21 -0700 (PDT), Ed Kyle
>
> >Ares I was well into development.
>
> But still as much as seven years away from first manned flight, per
> Augustine. Do you really think man-rating Delta IV-Heavy in 2010 would
> have taken seven years?
I don't believe that any alternative launch vehicle is going to
shorten the schedule
substantially. Orion is going to present its own schedule demands,
for example.
The Aerospace study said that it would take 5.5 to 7 years to man-rate
Delta 4
for Orion.
http://www.floridatoday.com/content/blogs/space/2009/08/nasa-releases-ares-i-vs-delta-iv-heavy.shtml
Yes, the study said that Delta 4 would save money compared to Ares I,
but that
was before ULA jacked Delta 4 prices up substantially.
The point of saving Ares I would not be to save nickels. It would be
to save Shuttle
infrastructure and jobs. There would be a dollar cost for that, but
the benefit would be
improved crew safety, both due to the few number of propulsion modules
and to the
experience of the personnel.
>
> >Today the third Ares I booster sits
> >in Utah preparing for a test burn,
>
> Soooo-eeeee, here piggy, piggy! Well looky here, that's my prize piggy
> Hatchy! Look at him feeding at that trough...
Rocket aren't free. If ATK isn't the "piggy" in your model, SpaceX or
ULA or some
other company will be. Lockheed Martin stands to make more money than
ATK
on crew launch. No one seems to point that out.
>
> >the first J-2X is on a stand at
> >Stennis,
>
> A cluster of RL-10s would have been cheaper and offer engine-out
> safety, as demonstrated by Saturn I.
>
> >having already performed three tests, the Ares I launch
> >platform is structurally complete at KSC,
>
> But still years of outfitting ahead of it.
>
> >and the first Ares I upper
> >stage LOX tank article is welded at Michoud.
>
> Centaur and DCUS are already in production. Even DEC could be flying
> again before AIUS.
True, but neither stage is currently man-rated. The RL-10 cluster you
describe
would require an all-new upper stage, which has its own cost and
schedule
implications.
> >Orion, the Ares I
> >payload, is still under development.
>
> And could very well be passed by Dragon and CST-100, spacecraft that
> started development much later than Orion.
Dragon and CST-100 are smaller, more limited spacecraft than Orion.
CST-100,
for example, runs only on batteries! They are playing a different
ballgame - one
that doesn't go to deep space.
>
> >Its launch abort system and
> >recovery system have been tested. And so on.
>
> Pay no attention to those craters on the desert floor...
The full-up LAS test was a roaring success.
http://news.softpedia.com/news/NASA-Successfully-Tests-Orion-LAS-141529.shtml
Dragon and CST-100 have no similar success to point to at this point
in time.
> Ares I was a mistake. NASA really, from Day 1 should have dusted off
> Shuttle-C for cargo and paid to man-rate Delta IV for crew. Both would
> have been flying a year or two ago.
If Ares I was a mistake, so is SLS. It uses the same resources, but
costs far more
than Ares I.
> Nice to see you here again, Ed.
>
> Brian
Glad to be back. It has been awhile hasn't it?
- Ed Kyle
Brian Thorn
<edky...@hotmail.com> wrote:
>The Aerospace study said that it would take 5.5 to 7 years to man-rate
>Delta 4
>for Orion.
>http://www.floridatoday.com/content/blogs/space/2009/08/nasa-releases-ares-i-vs-delta-iv-heavy.shtml
It boggles the mind that we now cannot do in seven years what we did
in two back in the 60s with Titan II. SpaceX says its Falcon 9 is
already man-rated. Let's take them up on that offer then.
>Yes, the study said that Delta 4 would save money compared to Ares I,
>but that was before ULA jacked Delta 4 prices up substantially.
True, but the RL-10 price increase was because SSME and the big RS-68
customer (Ares V) vanished and J-2X's continuation is far from
certain, meaning PW-R's entire infrastructure has to be billed to
RL-10 now. That is mitigated a lot if the government commits to a lot
more Centaurs or DCUS's.
>The point of saving Ares I would not be to save nickels. It would be
>to save Shuttle
>infrastructure and jobs.
Too late. They're gone. Have you been around Brevard County lately?
The "For Sale" signs are everywhere.
If they'd gone with a Shuttle-C/Delta IV-Heavy combo six years ago, we
wouldn't be in this mess.
>There would be a dollar cost for that, but
>the benefit would be
>improved crew safety, both due to the few number of propulsion modules
>and to the experience of the personnel.
Solids still are inherantly less safe than liquid boosters. And unlike
liquids, solids tend to fail without warning and quite possibly more
rapidly than an LES can get the crew away. I'm going to need a lot
more convincing that Ares I (never flown, with new first stage and new
second stage) is safer than Atlas 5 or Delta IV (now approaching ten
years of service with only two minor non-life-threatening incidents
between them.)
>Rocket aren't free. If ATK isn't the "piggy" in your model, SpaceX or
>ULA or some
>other company will be. Lockheed Martin stands to make more money than
>ATK
>on crew launch. No one seems to point that out.
I'll accept ULA, which at least has a *few* paying customers other
than the government (Atlas V just picked up one or two) and SpaceX
stands to have a lot of commercial customers if they don't blow up a
Falcon 9 or two in the immediate future.
Ares I is pork, pure and simple. It is no better than Delta IV-Heavy,
which could have been man-rated for a small fraction of what we were
paying for Ares I before sanity returned to the White House (albeit
briefly.) So why are we spending $15 billion to replicate Delta
IV-Heavy again? Oh yeah, to save jobs at KSC. Yeah, that will get us
to Mars in my lifetime...
>> A cluster of RL-10s would have been cheaper and offer engine-out
>> safety, as demonstrated by Saturn I.
I have to take that back, it was the H-1 powered first stage that had
an inflight shutdown, not the RL-10 powered second stage.
>Dragon and CST-100 are smaller, more limited spacecraft than Orion.
>CST-100,
>for example, runs only on batteries! They are playing a different
>ballgame - one
>that doesn't go to deep space.
I don't know why we need anything more than CST-100 or Dragon for deep
space. Why are we following the Apollo plan (CSM+LM) again? That was
unsustainable last time and so far has failed to get off the ground
this time. Build a "Mission Spacecraft" and fly our crews to the Moon
or wherever with that. Use CST-100 or Dragon to get to it in orbit,
nothing more. It will take longer to get started (we have to build an
expensive spacecraft in orbit) but "longer" is better than "never
going to happen" which is where we are clearly headed with
Constellation and its repackaged remnants.
>> >Its launch abort system and
>> >recovery system have been tested. And so on.
>>
>> Pay no attention to those craters on the desert floor...
>
>The full-up LAS test was a roaring success.
>http://news.softpedia.com/news/NASA-Successfully-Tests-Orion-LAS-141529.shtml
>Dragon and CST-100 have no similar success to point to at this point
>in time.
True enough, but I think Dragon's successful two orbits and splashdown
kinda cancels out the LAS advantage.
>> Ares I was a mistake. NASA really, from Day 1 should have dusted off
>> Shuttle-C for cargo and paid to man-rate Delta IV for crew. Both would
>> have been flying a year or two ago.
>
>If Ares I was a mistake, so is SLS.
No argument. At this point, we should be looking very seriously as a
Falcon Heavy-based program. SpaceX is already picking up the
development tab, so that's $15-30 billion NASA doesn't have to come up
with (Webb will devour all of that overnight) and I suspect we can do
a helluva lot with 100,000+ lbs. of cargo to orbit for a couple of
hundred million bucks.
>Glad to be back. It has been awhile hasn't it?
Yep. I still read your stuff on your website and NSF (where I'm
Thorny.)
Brian
Brian Thorn
wrote:
> > A cluster of RL-10s would have been cheaper and offer engine-out
> > safety, as demonstrated by Saturn I.
>
>Did they have a RL-10 shut down on the Saturn I?
Dang nabit! Nope. That was H-1 on the first stage.
Brian
Pat Flannery
>
> It boggles the mind that we now cannot do in seven years what we did
> in two back in the 60s with Titan II. SpaceX says its Falcon 9 is
> already man-rated. Let's take them up on that offer then.
Hopefully Falcon 9 won't vibrate your balls off and addle your brain the
way Titan II used to:
http://www.pwrengineering.com/articles/pogo.htm
"Initial flights of the Titan II vehicle took place in early 1962.
Flight data showed vibration levels as high as 5 Gs in the 9- to 13-Hz
range. Previous studies indicated that vibration at 2 Gs would be very
painful for a human and that 1/2 G was the maximum that should be
allowed. Hence, the program to launch a two-man Gemini capsule was
jeopardized.
The Air Force recognized that the Thor vibration studies might be
applicable as modifications, and were devised to combat the problem in
Titan II. The first innovation was to add a standpipe and a tee in the
oxidizer propellant feed system just upstream of the oxidizer pump. The
pipe stood vertically and was partially filled with gaseous nitrogen.
The idea was to tune the standpipe with a gaseous nitrogen bubble to
absorb flow oscillations in the 11-Hz frequency range. This modification
was flown, but it actually increased the violence of the vibration so
much that a guidance accelerometer triggered premature engine cutoff for
the stage.
At the same time, vibration tests for astronauts were conducted by NASA
at the Ames Research Center. The tests were performed on a centrifuge
with superimposed 11-Hz vibration and confirmed human discomfort limits
previously established. Pain was directly associated with motion of the
eyeballs and testicles, as well as from internal heating that resulted
from sloshing of the brain and viscera. The vibration frequency was also
in the range of normal brain waves, adding confusion to decision making,
hand and arm movement, and even speech."
Pat
bob haller
> On Fri, 2 Sep 2011 11:43:35 -0700 (PDT), Ed Kyle
>
> >The Aerospace study said that it would take 5.5 to 7 years to man-rate
> >Delta 4
> >for Orion.
> >Dragon and CST-100 have no similar success to point to at this point
> >in time.
>
> True enough, but I think Dragon's successful two orbits and splashdown
> kinda cancels out the LAS advantage.
>
> >> Ares I was a mistake. NASA really, from Day 1 should have dusted off
> >> Shuttle-C for cargo and paid to man-rate Delta IV for crew. Both would
> >> have been flying a year or two ago.
>
> >If Ares I was a mistake, so is SLS.
>
> No argument. At this point, we should be looking very seriously as a
> Falcon Heavy-based program. SpaceX is already picking up the
> development tab, so that's $15-30 billion NASA doesn't have to come up
> with (Webb will devour all of that overnight) and I suspect we can do
> a helluva lot with 100,000+ lbs. of cargo to orbit for a couple of
> hundred million bucks.
>
> >Glad to be back. It has been awhile hasn't it?
>
> Yep. I still read your stuff on your website and NSF (where I'm
> Thorny.)
>
> Brian
well republicans are against all money for manned space..........
so probably none of this matters
Ed Kyle
> I don't know why we need anything more than CST-100 or Dragon for deep
> space. Why are we following the Apollo plan (CSM+LM) again? That was
> unsustainable last time and so far has failed to get off the ground
> this time. Build a "Mission Spacecraft" and fly our crews to the Moon
> or wherever with that. Use CST-100 or Dragon to get to it in orbit,
> nothing more.
essentially dictates that they will have to depart LEO in the same
spacecraft in which they'll reenter. Since spacecraft cost a lot of
money, NASA will probably only be able to use one spacecraft design,
which means that the crew will also ride that spacecraft up into
orbit.
CST-100 can't cut long-duration (it is battery powered, designed to
replenish its batteries from the ISS arrays - it would be very bad
news for the crew if that spacecraft ran into trouble between Earth
and ISS.
Dragon as now-contemplated is also not a long-duration spacecraft, but
at least it has solar arrays. Orion is being designed from the ground
up to do deep space.
- Ed Kyle
Brian Thorn
<edky...@hotmail.com> wrote:
>> I don't know why we need anything more than CST-100 or Dragon for deep
>> space. Why are we following the Apollo plan (CSM+LM) again? That was
>> unsustainable last time and so far has failed to get off the ground
>> this time. Build a "Mission Spacecraft" and fly our crews to the Moon
>> or wherever with that. Use CST-100 or Dragon to get to it in orbit,
>> nothing more.
>The crew has to come back to Earth somehow.
The "Mission Spacecraft" brakes back into Earth orbit and they come
down just as they would from the Space Station.
By "Mission Spacecraft", I envision something like a manned Prometheus
or the Powerpoint study Nautilus-X. It's time to stop with the silly
"squeeze three guys in a tin can for a week" that was popular in the
'60s. We know how to bolt together a few fair-sized modules and push
them around with rocket engines. Let's use Station tech for a
Moon/Asteroid/Mars mission.
Apollo 2.0 failed. Political support was weak to begin with and has
now vanished, with a President as disinterested as he could possibly
be and a Congress that only wants pork, no matter if there will be no
money left to launch anything on the BFR they're ordering NASA to
build.
It's time to try something else.
>Orbital mechanics
>essentially dictates that they will have to depart LEO in the same
>spacecraft in which they'll reenter. Since spacecraft cost a lot of
>money, NASA will probably only be able to use one spacecraft design,
>which means that the crew will also ride that spacecraft up into
>orbit.
Yet private industry has three spacecraft in advanced stages of
development (Dragon, CST-100, and Dream Chaser, four if you count the
mysterious New Shepard). So why does NASA need its own? Bragging
rights? Of that's right, in case ALL OF THE OTHERS fail. Yeah, that's
a good reason to blow another $20 billion we have to borrow from the
Chinese. $20 billion for the backup to the $3 billion original.
>CST-100 can't cut long-duration (it is battery powered, designed to
>replenish its batteries from the ISS arrays - it would be very bad
>news for the crew if that spacecraft ran into trouble between Earth
>and ISS.
Yet that is exactly what it is designed for. So what's the problem?
Why do we need a spacecraft that can operate independently for six
months when it only needs two days or so? Give it batteries for three
days. Gemini 4 demonstrated such capability in 1965. We don't have
better, more efficient, more reliable batteries today? If they can't
dock, they deorbit at the next convenient opportunity.
>Dragon as now-contemplated is also not a long-duration spacecraft, but
>at least it has solar arrays.
But Musk has said on at least one ocassion that Dragon's heat shield
is good for escape velocity entries, not just from LEO. And he's
actually flown one of his ships. Why is NASA buildings its own again?
>Orion is being designed from the ground
>up to do deep space.
But we don't need a capsule that can do deep space if we have a bigger
spaceship for that job. NASA wants its own purpose-built yacht to take
its crew out to the ocean liner anchored in the harbor. All it really
needs is an off-the-shelf motorboat.
Brian
Ed Kyle
> The "Mission Spacecraft" brakes back into Earth orbit and they come
> down just as they would from the Space Station.
>
> By "Mission Spacecraft", I envision something like a manned Prometheus
> or the Powerpoint study Nautilus-X. It's time to stop with the silly
> "squeeze three guys in a tin can for a week" that was popular in the
> '60s. We know how to bolt together a few fair-sized modules and push
> them around with rocket engines. Let's use Station tech for a
> Moon/Asteroid/Mars mission.
>
reentry. The braking propellant has to be carried along for the
entire mission. The extra mass is magnified by each step of the
mission. Direct reentry uses the earth's atmosphere to slow down the
craft, eliminating the issue.
A mission module could still be used, indeed would probably have to be
used for long missions, even on direct reentry missions.
>
> But Musk has said on at least one ocassion that Dragon's heat shield
> is good for escape velocity entries, not just from LEO. And he's
> actually flown one of his ships. Why is NASA buildings its own again?
>
capsule part and only a non-crew-capable version - exactly once. It
will be a year or more before the second attempt - and that of only a
cargo version. A lot of things have to go right, not just on the
launch pad but in the financial world, before SpaceX has a crew
spacecraft with an escape system.
- Ed Kyle
Glen Overby
>The answer is simple. SpaceX has flown a dummy Dragon - only the
>capsule part and only a non-crew-capable version - exactly once. It
>will be a year or more before the second attempt - and that of only a
>cargo version.
While I have no prediction to counter with, I'll note that spacex deliveries
remind me of software product deliveries. Vaporware was an appropriate term!
Glen
Pat Flannery
docking flight to the ISS is planned for November 30th of this year -
presuming that they don't have to temporarily abandon the ISS due to
problems with the Soyuz booster rocket.
They won't carry much cargo on the flight, just a token payload as a
proof-of-concept mission.
If the ISS crew has any common sense, they will stick that golden NASA
robot into it for the return flight to Earth, before it goes mad and
tries to murder the crew, like those things are prone to do:
http://robonaut.jsc.nasa.gov/default.asp
It's already started dropping hints it thirsts for human blood on its
twitter account.
"Anita Barraco Bloom - Hello Robonaut! My seventh grade son is doing a
power point about you in his technology class. Do you anything you would
like to say to some really smart middle schoolers??
Robonaut - Where robots were once kept in cages and separated from
people, we are now seeing robots built to co-exist with humans, helping
people at work and throughout society. The future is now!"
That's what all the toasters say just before they rip your fraking head
off with their cold metal fingers.
You don't ever let them out of those cages.
One stray cosmic ray into the wrong part of its cybernetic brain and its
Asimovian training will read like this:
1. A robot may injure a human being or, through inaction, allow a human
being to come to harm.
2. A robot must not obey any orders given to it by human beings,
especially where such orders would conflict with the First Law.
3. A robot must protect its own existence at all costs, no matter how
many humans beings must die. ;-)
Pat
bob haller
permanent human astronauts.
the station would be perodically visited by human astronauts
bob haller
> bob haller <hall...@aol.com> wrote:
>
> >imagine a AI astronaut living permanetely on the station replacing the
> >permanent human astronauts.
>
> otherwise.
>
> No, that's much too far outside the bounds of credibility.
>
> --
> "Some people get lost in thought because it's such unfamiliar
> territory."
> --G. Behn
actually the next generation of space station is being planned as man
tended. automaed with occasional astronaut visits. which would save
money and be better for microgravity experiments//////
a robot astronaut would be a perfect crew member for such a station
bob haller
> bob haller <hall...@aol.com> wrote:
> >On Sep 9, 11:59 pm, Fred J. McCall <fjmcc...@gmail.com> wrote:
> >> bob haller <hall...@aol.com> wrote:
>
> >> >imagine a AI astronaut living permanetely on the station replacing the
> >> >permanent human astronauts.
>
> >> Imagine a Bobbert with any intelligence at all, artificial or
> >> otherwise.
>
> >> No, that's much too far outside the bounds of credibility.
>
> >tended. automaed with occasional astronaut visits. which would save
> >money and be better for microgravity experiments//////
>
>
>
> >a robot astronaut would be a perfect crew member for such a station
>
> don't have stuff moving about on it.
> --
> "Some people get lost in thought because it's such unfamiliar
> territory."
>
> - Show quoted text -
its to be a man tended station
bob haller
> bob haller <hall...@aol.com> wrote:
> >On Sep 9, 11:59 pm, Fred J. McCall <fjmcc...@gmail.com> wrote:
> >> bob haller <hall...@aol.com> wrote:
>
> >> >imagine a AI astronaut living permanetely on the station replacing the
> >> >permanent human astronauts.
>
> >> Imagine a Bobbert with any intelligence at all, artificial or
> >> otherwise.
>
> >> No, that's much too far outside the bounds of credibility.
>
> >tended. automaed with occasional astronaut visits. which would save
> >money and be better for microgravity experiments//////
>
>
>
>
>
> don't have stuff moving about on it.
a robot would be totally inert unless needed for a chore.
humans are always moving about, just to live, eat exercise etc
a robot would be much better for most avtivities.
bob haller
>
> Jesus, you're an ignorant git!
> --
> "Some people get lost in thought because it's such unfamiliar
> territory."
>
> - Show quoted text -
the station would be automated, with assistance from a robot.
in addition it would be man tended where humans would visit
occasionally collect specimens and do repairs as needed
bob haller
>
> bobbert our local fuckwit.....
>
>
> >the station would be automated, with assistance from a robot.
>
> remember?
>
>
> >in addition it would be man tended where humans would visit
> >occasionally collect specimens and do repairs as needed
>
no automated systems would be assisted with robot, the time lag is
only 1.5 seconds. humans would perodically visit for major work.....
so why dont you like the robot? AI is close to duplicating the human
brain, this made the news lately. heck the next generation of fighter
planes may be unmanned, computers can take many more Gs than people
and respond faster too.....
the day of humans being better is coming to a close.....