Quote from: Patchouli on 09/09/2011 04:11 amI did decide to calculate what would one F-1A lift using this rocket calculator.http://www.silverbirdastronautics.com/cgi-bin/LVPcalc.plAssuming the stage would be over all half the mass of a Jarvis 1 I got 23MT.Just barely enough to lift Orion.Though Orion can act as a third stage so this is probably not as bad as it seems.Still can the F-1A be made with a modern nozzle without messing things up too much?I guess for cheapness do the whole thing in channel wall as modern flight avionics probably would more then make up for the extra weight.I used an AVP2 style vehicle, double dry weight of the AIUS with about 120% more fuel mass due to the density. I got about 26 metric tons.
I did decide to calculate what would one F-1A lift using this rocket calculator.http://www.silverbirdastronautics.com/cgi-bin/LVPcalc.plAssuming the stage would be over all half the mass of a Jarvis 1 I got 23MT.Just barely enough to lift Orion.Though Orion can act as a third stage so this is probably not as bad as it seems.Still can the F-1A be made with a modern nozzle without messing things up too much?I guess for cheapness do the whole thing in channel wall as modern flight avionics probably would more then make up for the extra weight.
Quote from: Downix on 09/09/2011 05:25 amQuote from: Patchouli on 09/09/2011 04:11 amI did decide to calculate what would one F-1A lift using this rocket calculator.http://www.silverbirdastronautics.com/cgi-bin/LVPcalc.plAssuming the stage would be over all half the mass of a Jarvis 1 I got 23MT.Just barely enough to lift Orion.Though Orion can act as a third stage so this is probably not as bad as it seems.Still can the F-1A be made with a modern nozzle without messing things up too much?I guess for cheapness do the whole thing in channel wall as modern flight avionics probably would more then make up for the extra weight.I used an AVP2 style vehicle, double dry weight of the AIUS with about 120% more fuel mass due to the density. I got about 26 metric tons.Looking at that it may actually be a good investment to bring back the F-1A.
Quote from: luke strawwalker on 09/10/2011 06:07 amQuote from: Downix on 09/05/2011 04:46 amQuote from: Patchouli on 09/05/2011 03:39 amQuote from: Lars_J on 09/04/2011 11:50 pmSlavish devotion to "simple" is exactly what led down the Ares I path. And the end result was a whole system which was NOT simple.The pretty much sums it it up.The people running the project would not change the design when it became obvious it was the wrong direction.If the people doing Apollo had the same stubborn mindset we may have never landed on the moon and certianly would not have done so before the end of the decade.Apollo originally was going to use a direct landing LOR was the underdog at first.Kinda like Direct vs Ares.The 1961 vehicle was a cluster of Saturn C-3 first stages with super upper stages. Do you have a link to a study or paper showing that?? I'd LOVE to see it! Any information greatly appreciated! OL JR Found it in a book, actually:http://www.amazon.com/Saturn-F-1-Engine-Powering-Exploration/dp/0387096299Lots of good information on the engine, and the various uses they studied for it. Adding some artists renderings of this design.
Quote from: Downix on 09/05/2011 04:46 amQuote from: Patchouli on 09/05/2011 03:39 amQuote from: Lars_J on 09/04/2011 11:50 pmSlavish devotion to "simple" is exactly what led down the Ares I path. And the end result was a whole system which was NOT simple.The pretty much sums it it up.The people running the project would not change the design when it became obvious it was the wrong direction.If the people doing Apollo had the same stubborn mindset we may have never landed on the moon and certianly would not have done so before the end of the decade.Apollo originally was going to use a direct landing LOR was the underdog at first.Kinda like Direct vs Ares.The 1961 vehicle was a cluster of Saturn C-3 first stages with super upper stages. Do you have a link to a study or paper showing that?? I'd LOVE to see it! Any information greatly appreciated! OL JR
Quote from: Patchouli on 09/05/2011 03:39 amQuote from: Lars_J on 09/04/2011 11:50 pmSlavish devotion to "simple" is exactly what led down the Ares I path. And the end result was a whole system which was NOT simple.The pretty much sums it it up.The people running the project would not change the design when it became obvious it was the wrong direction.If the people doing Apollo had the same stubborn mindset we may have never landed on the moon and certianly would not have done so before the end of the decade.Apollo originally was going to use a direct landing LOR was the underdog at first.Kinda like Direct vs Ares.The 1961 vehicle was a cluster of Saturn C-3 first stages with super upper stages.
Quote from: Lars_J on 09/04/2011 11:50 pmSlavish devotion to "simple" is exactly what led down the Ares I path. And the end result was a whole system which was NOT simple.The pretty much sums it it up.The people running the project would not change the design when it became obvious it was the wrong direction.If the people doing Apollo had the same stubborn mindset we may have never landed on the moon and certianly would not have done so before the end of the decade.Apollo originally was going to use a direct landing LOR was the underdog at first.Kinda like Direct vs Ares.
Slavish devotion to "simple" is exactly what led down the Ares I path. And the end result was a whole system which was NOT simple.
Quote from: Downix on 09/10/2011 06:47 amQuote from: luke strawwalker on 09/10/2011 06:07 amQuote from: Downix on 09/05/2011 04:46 amQuote from: Patchouli on 09/05/2011 03:39 amQuote from: Lars_J on 09/04/2011 11:50 pmSlavish devotion to "simple" is exactly what led down the Ares I path. And the end result was a whole system which was NOT simple.The pretty much sums it it up.The people running the project would not change the design when it became obvious it was the wrong direction.If the people doing Apollo had the same stubborn mindset we may have never landed on the moon and certianly would not have done so before the end of the decade.Apollo originally was going to use a direct landing LOR was the underdog at first.Kinda like Direct vs Ares.The 1961 vehicle was a cluster of Saturn C-3 first stages with super upper stages. Do you have a link to a study or paper showing that?? I'd LOVE to see it! Any information greatly appreciated! OL JR Found it in a book, actually:http://www.amazon.com/Saturn-F-1-Engine-Powering-Exploration/dp/0387096299Lots of good information on the engine, and the various uses they studied for it. Adding some artists renderings of this design.Ah, ok, thanks... I appreciate it downix! I've seen those before... in some of the old studies that I've looked at. I think I have both those very graphics, at least I KNOW I have the second one! I just can't help thinking-- what if the 'common core booster' idea had come along in say 1960... What would a Saturn C-3 with a core and two identical core booster LRB's been capable of?? I've seen Saturn V upgrades that proposed adding a sixth F-1 to the first stage, by moving the outboard engines outward by 39 inches and mounting two F-1's in the center equidistant off the centerpoint. A three-body C-3 would have had six F-1's for liftoff. Four J-2's on the upper stage seems a bit small (since most of the Saturn V uprated versions were proposing switching to HG-3 (SSME predecessor) engines, uprated J-2 based aerospikes, or increasing J-2 count from 5 to 6 or even 7. Still, a 4 J-2 upperstage, topped by a J-2 powered third stage (S-IVB) would have been something else (my gut tells me that 4 J-2's aren't enough though for the second stage, especially if you're increasing the payload enough to make use of 6 F-1's at liftoff-- maybe a single F-1 second stage would work better?? Course that means developing an airstart vaccuum nozzle F-1 and STILL suffering the lower ISP...) At any rate, it's an interesting "what might have been". Blue sky thinking ala 1961... Another strange vision popped into my head... A Titan II with a pair of Titan II first stages on either side of the core vehicle... 6 LR-87's at liftoff, single LR-91 upper stage... maybe an Agena third stage... Bet that thing could move some mail! Better yet, swap the LR-91 upper stage for a DEC or Centaur G Prime... now we're cookin! OL JR
Quote from: luke strawwalker on 09/13/2011 04:35 amQuote from: Downix on 09/10/2011 06:47 amQuote from: luke strawwalker on 09/10/2011 06:07 amQuote from: Downix on 09/05/2011 04:46 amQuote from: Patchouli on 09/05/2011 03:39 amQuote from: Lars_J on 09/04/2011 11:50 pmSlavish devotion to "simple" is exactly what led down the Ares I path. And the end result was a whole system which was NOT simple.The pretty much sums it it up.The people running the project would not change the design when it became obvious it was the wrong direction.If the people doing Apollo had the same stubborn mindset we may have never landed on the moon and certianly would not have done so before the end of the decade.Apollo originally was going to use a direct landing LOR was the underdog at first.Kinda like Direct vs Ares.The 1961 vehicle was a cluster of Saturn C-3 first stages with super upper stages. Do you have a link to a study or paper showing that?? I'd LOVE to see it! Any information greatly appreciated! OL JR Found it in a book, actually:http://www.amazon.com/Saturn-F-1-Engine-Powering-Exploration/dp/0387096299Lots of good information on the engine, and the various uses they studied for it. Adding some artists renderings of this design.Ah, ok, thanks... I appreciate it downix! I've seen those before... in some of the old studies that I've looked at. I think I have both those very graphics, at least I KNOW I have the second one! I just can't help thinking-- what if the 'common core booster' idea had come along in say 1960... What would a Saturn C-3 with a core and two identical core booster LRB's been capable of?? I've seen Saturn V upgrades that proposed adding a sixth F-1 to the first stage, by moving the outboard engines outward by 39 inches and mounting two F-1's in the center equidistant off the centerpoint. A three-body C-3 would have had six F-1's for liftoff. Four J-2's on the upper stage seems a bit small (since most of the Saturn V uprated versions were proposing switching to HG-3 (SSME predecessor) engines, uprated J-2 based aerospikes, or increasing J-2 count from 5 to 6 or even 7. Still, a 4 J-2 upperstage, topped by a J-2 powered third stage (S-IVB) would have been something else (my gut tells me that 4 J-2's aren't enough though for the second stage, especially if you're increasing the payload enough to make use of 6 F-1's at liftoff-- maybe a single F-1 second stage would work better?? Course that means developing an airstart vaccuum nozzle F-1 and STILL suffering the lower ISP...) At any rate, it's an interesting "what might have been". Blue sky thinking ala 1961... Another strange vision popped into my head... A Titan II with a pair of Titan II first stages on either side of the core vehicle... 6 LR-87's at liftoff, single LR-91 upper stage... maybe an Agena third stage... Bet that thing could move some mail! Better yet, swap the LR-91 upper stage for a DEC or Centaur G Prime... now we're cookin! OL JR Two of the Titan IV cores w/ the dual LR-87's for boosters, kerolox, with the Titan II center kept hypergolic, and the Centaur for an upper stage.... mmmm
I would not even bother with Titan parts as the tooling was long gone by the time Constellation was announced and a hypergolic core stage would not be a non starter.The best move would have been to develop a kerolox first stage built with ET tooling and run two RS-84s or two TR-107s.The target payload 38,000kg.I always thought of Jarvis as an ideal CLV.
Quote from: Patchouli on 09/20/2011 07:17 pmI would not even bother with Titan parts as the tooling was long gone by the time Constellation was announced and a hypergolic core stage would not be a non starter.The best move would have been to develop a kerolox first stage built with ET tooling and run two RS-84s or two TR-107s.The target payload 38,000kg.I always thought of Jarvis as an ideal CLV.Well, yeah... I was referring more I guess to the "what if Apollo had continued" thread. Clearly Titan I wouldn't make much sense in the Cx era unless you wanted to use it as a basis for a new booster-- restart LR-87 production or something like that... lateR! OL JR
Reveals to me how many of the issues are inertia.
Ares 1 - even with the mass of thrust oscillation reduction equipment - might have come close to the promised L.E.O. payload performance if the first stage had been made expendable by deleting the not-insignificant mass of recovery systems and if the J-2X had been redesigned for much more thrust quite early on in its development phase.For example; getting P&W/R to bring the engine's thrust up to 350k from the 294k design goal.
Maybe if a third stage had been used, the second stage uprated, and the first stage liquid-fuelled...but then it would not be the Ares 1 anymore
Actually, it is true for today and 2005. There was never a need for Ares I. In 2005, CEV was going fly in EELV and should have flown already. The layoffs were inevitable.There could have been addition pads for Atlas and Delta and billions left over for payloads, both unmanned and for HSF.
Ares-I would not have worked.
Quote from: clongton on 12/30/2012 06:15 pmAres-I would not have worked.We're going to disagree on that one. There might be schedule or money reasons, but I don't see any technical reason why Ares I could not have worked. - Ed Kyle
Ironic really about the First Stage - assuming the Solid first stage were abandoned for Ares 1 and kept only for Ares V. Then using a 5-meter diameter first stage (Delta IV tooling) with either 2x RD-180 engines (shades of Atlas V Phase II) or 2x RS-68 (too close together for thermal stability?) along with the Ares 1 J-2X upper stage would have resulted in a fine launch vehicle, well able to lift a fully-featured Orion. 'Simple' upgrades could have included a cluster of GEM-60 solids to that first stage, or even 'ganging' three-in-a-row together just like Delta IV-H.But then that enters Heavy Lift territory - threatening to make Ares V redundant and erasing ATK Solids altogether. And we just couldn't have that now, could we?! I mean; just imagine - a modular family of launch vehicles, able to lift whatever payload you allocated to a custom-clustered configuration of stages. Heaven forbid NASA and the powers-that-be could ever be that logical!...As I'm typing this, suddenly I'm having a deja-vu flashback to the old Nasaspaceflight.com pages - like this were 2007 or something.Sigh...