Author Topic: Liberty Launch Vehicle and the former Ares ML  (Read 11689 times)

Offline Jason1701

  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 2232
  • Liked: 70
  • Likes Given: 152
Liberty Launch Vehicle and the former Ares ML
« on: 11/02/2011 10:20 pm »
Split thread.

Reference:
http://www.nasaspaceflight.com/2011/11/sls-mobile-launcher-debut-trip-pad-39b-november/

http://forum.nasaspaceflight.com/index.php?topic=27203.0

I asked this in the mobile launcher thread, but I think it's more appropriate for this one.

Just how big a blow to Liberty is the allocation of the ML to SLS?
« Last Edit: 11/03/2011 06:45 pm by Chris Bergin »

Online sdsds

  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 7202
  • “With peace and hope for all mankind.”
  • Seattle
  • Liked: 2050
  • Likes Given: 1962
Liberty Launch Vehicle and the former Ares ML
« Reply #1 on: 11/02/2011 10:57 pm »
$129,834,000.  $263,735,000.  That was the cost to build the first one.  Although perhaps the contractor would build a second for ATK at a slightly lower price?

[EDIT:  Oops, sorry!  That might have been the price for two.  The press release said, "The contract includes an option for an additional Ares I mobile launcher. It is a firm fixed-price contract with a value of $263,735,000, if all options are exercised."  http://www.nasa.gov/home/hqnews/2008/may/HQ_C08025_Ares_MLP_contract.html]

[MORE:
Contract Award Date: May 8, 2008
Contract Award Number: NNK08EB10C
Contract Award Dollar Amount: 129834000
Contract Line Item Number: 0001 1st ML ]
« Last Edit: 11/03/2011 12:11 am by sdsds »
— 𝐬𝐝𝐒𝐝𝐬 —

Offline Downix

  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 7082
  • Liked: 22
  • Likes Given: 1
Liberty Launch Vehicle and the former Ares ML
« Reply #2 on: 11/02/2011 11:56 pm »
Of course if the SLS modifications are done properly, the same ML could be used for both vehicles, along with Atlas and Delta.
chuck - Toilet paper has no real value? Try living with 5 other adults for 6 months in a can with no toilet paper. Man oh man. Toilet paper would be worth it's weight in gold!

Offline Jim

  • Night Gator
  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 37441
  • Cape Canaveral Spaceport
  • Liked: 21451
  • Likes Given: 428
Liberty Launch Vehicle and the former Ares ML
« Reply #3 on: 11/03/2011 12:10 am »
Of course if the SLS modifications are done properly, the same ML could be used for both vehicles, along with Atlas and Delta.

Not possible without making a unweldy kludge that meets no ones requirements.

The clean pad concept uses vehicle unique MLP's on a common pad.  It isn't a common MLP.

Offline Jason1701

  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 2232
  • Liked: 70
  • Likes Given: 152
Liberty Launch Vehicle and the former Ares ML
« Reply #4 on: 11/03/2011 12:53 am »
$129,834,000.  $263,735,000.  That was the cost to build the first one.  Although perhaps the contractor would build a second for ATK at a slightly lower price?

[EDIT:  Oops, sorry!  That might have been the price for two.  The press release said, "The contract includes an option for an additional Ares I mobile launcher. It is a firm fixed-price contract with a value of $263,735,000, if all options are exercised."  http://www.nasa.gov/home/hqnews/2008/may/HQ_C08025_Ares_MLP_contract.html]

[MORE:
Contract Award Date: May 8, 2008
Contract Award Number: NNK08EB10C
Contract Award Dollar Amount: 129834000
Contract Line Item Number: 0001 1st ML ]

I thought it was $500 million.
http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/44601423/ns/technology_and_science-space/t/million-launch-platform-may-find-new-life/#.TrHz_7Jwi8A

Would Liberty survive having to build a new ML?

Offline Namechange User

  • Elite Veteran
  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 7301
  • Liked: 0
  • Likes Given: 0
Liberty Launch Vehicle and the former Ares ML
« Reply #5 on: 11/03/2011 01:14 am »
The clean pad concept uses vehicle unique MLP's on a common pad.  It isn't a common MLP.

That does not have to be the case.  In fact there are concepts and designs in work right now for otherwise. 
Enjoying viewing the forum a little better now by filtering certain users.

Offline Lars_J

  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 6160
  • California
  • Liked: 677
  • Likes Given: 195
Liberty Launch Vehicle and the former Ares ML
« Reply #6 on: 11/03/2011 02:54 am »
While it is theoretically possible to build a one-size-fits-all, it would seem to more cost effective to have custom built MLPs - which will also give you more operational flexibility.

Offline Namechange User

  • Elite Veteran
  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 7301
  • Liked: 0
  • Likes Given: 0
Liberty Launch Vehicle and the former Ares ML
« Reply #7 on: 11/03/2011 03:08 am »
While it is theoretically possible to build a one-size-fits-all, it would seem to more cost effective to have custom built MLPs - which will also give you more operational flexibility.

I have no idea where and how you arrive at that insight

http://www.unitedspacealliance.com/universal-launch-complex.cfm
Enjoying viewing the forum a little better now by filtering certain users.

Online sdsds

  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 7202
  • “With peace and hope for all mankind.”
  • Seattle
  • Liked: 2050
  • Likes Given: 1962
Liberty Launch Vehicle and the former Ares ML
« Reply #8 on: 11/03/2011 03:29 am »
$129,834,000.  $263,735,000.  That was the cost to build the first one.  [...]

Contract Award Date: May 8, 2008
Contract Award Number: NNK08EB10C
Contract Award Dollar Amount: 129834000
Contract Line Item Number: 0001 1st ML

I thought it was $500 million.
http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/44601423/ns/technology_and_science-space/t/million-launch-platform-may-find-new-life/#.TrHz_7Jwi8A

My source is https://www.fbo.gov/index?id=cae42c0363f7151e731fb86630dd2abc

That's for the ML structure, i.e. the thing that's complete.  According to NASA, "Ground support equipment, such as umbilicals, propellant and gases, instrumentation, controls and communications, necessary to support the Ares I rocket will be provided and installed under a separate contract or contracts." Maybe space.com/msnbc.com writer Mike Wall was reporting a price tag for the entire project?

Quote
Would Liberty survive having to build a new ML?

Of course it would.  Having survived everything it has faced so far, why would a paltry few hundred million dollars of added expense kill it?  :)
« Last Edit: 11/03/2011 03:30 am by sdsds »
— 𝐬𝐝𝐒𝐝𝐬 —

Offline Comga

  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 6466
  • Liked: 4572
  • Likes Given: 5136
Liberty Launch Vehicle and the former Ares ML
« Reply #9 on: 11/03/2011 03:32 am »
While it is theoretically possible to build a one-size-fits-all, it would seem to more cost effective to have custom built MLPs - which will also give you more operational flexibility.

I have no idea where and how you arrive at that insight

http://www.unitedspacealliance.com/universal-launch-complex.cfm

Fascinating

All the complexity of the Shuttle launch pad with the RSS, yet they are supposed to haul it out from the VAB to the "clean" pad for every launch, then recycle it for a different launch vehicle?

Wouldn't each of these vehicles be limited to a very low flight rate to avoid running into each others' schedules?  Wouldn't this defeat the idea of economically sharing the platform and launch pad?  If they need more than one for the launch rate, why not customize and do away with the adjustable platforms?  And does anyone expect SpaceX to make use of this?

edit:  I guess that's what Lars_J said.
« Last Edit: 11/03/2011 03:35 am by Comga »
What kind of wastrels would dump a perfectly good booster in the ocean after just one use?

Offline Lars_J

  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 6160
  • California
  • Liked: 677
  • Likes Given: 195
Liberty Launch Vehicle and the former Ares ML
« Reply #10 on: 11/03/2011 04:12 am »
While it is theoretically possible to build a one-size-fits-all, it would seem to more cost effective to have custom built MLPs - which will also give you more operational flexibility.

I have no idea where and how you arrive at that insight

http://www.unitedspacealliance.com/universal-launch-complex.cfm

Common sense 101?  ;) If you are happy with a LC-39 with a low flight rate, combined with cascading delays impacting all LC-39 users... Then go ahead and build that single kludge. If your answer is "build more than one"... Then you are just wasting $$$. Custom build MLPs for each launcher will again be cheaper.

All the complexity of the Shuttle launch pad with the RSS, yet they are supposed to haul it out from the VAB to the "clean" pad for every launch, then recycle it for a different launch vehicle?

Wouldn't each of these vehicles be limited to a very low flight rate to avoid running into each others' schedules?  Wouldn't this defeat the idea of economically sharing the platform and launch pad?  If they need more than one for the launch rate, why not customize and do away with the adjustable platforms?  And does anyone expect SpaceX to make use of this?

Indeed, you spelled it out much more clearly than I did.
« Last Edit: 11/03/2011 04:13 am by Lars_J »

Offline Jim

  • Night Gator
  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 37441
  • Cape Canaveral Spaceport
  • Liked: 21451
  • Likes Given: 428
Liberty Launch Vehicle and the former Ares ML
« Reply #11 on: 11/03/2011 12:13 pm »
Think how much time it would take to convert between launches of two different vehicles and my description holds true.

The existing Atlas MLP is very simple and does not rely on umbilical arms.
« Last Edit: 11/03/2011 06:47 pm by Chris Bergin »

Offline Ben the Space Brit

  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 7206
  • A spaceflight fan
  • London, UK
  • Liked: 806
  • Likes Given: 900
Liberty Launch Vehicle and the former Ares ML
« Reply #12 on: 11/03/2011 12:29 pm »
Whatever Jim. 

Think how much time it would take to convert between launches of two different vehicles and my description holds true.

The existing Atlas MLP is very simple and does not rely on umbilical arms.

I suppose one way to get around it would be to have a pad that supplied all fuel types (RP-1, LH2, LOX and various breeds of hypergol).  The supply lines would come up in the pad base and would normally be closed by inward-folding pressure caps.

The MLP for a specific launcher would have 'male' sockets only for the types of prop needed for that specific LV.  These would deploy downward to open the caps and connect to the supply ports in the pad base whilst the other ports, which didn't have nozzles, would remain closed by the pressure below the caps.
"Oops! I left the silly thing in reverse!" - Duck Dodgers

~*~*~*~

The Space Shuttle Program - 1981-2011

The time for words has passed; The time has come to put up or shut up!
DON'T PROPAGANDISE, FLY!!!

Offline ugordan

  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 8520
    • My mainly Cassini image gallery
  • Liked: 3543
  • Likes Given: 759
Liberty Launch Vehicle and the former Ares ML
« Reply #13 on: 11/03/2011 12:45 pm »
The MLP for a specific launcher would have 'male' sockets only for the types of prop needed for that specific LV.

So you're basically arguing for custom MLPs for each vehicle. NOT what is being proposed for this ULC. Notice that the launch mount itself would need to be switched every time a new vehicle type flew. This is a recipe for delays and low flight rate.

Offline Jim

  • Night Gator
  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 37441
  • Cape Canaveral Spaceport
  • Liked: 21451
  • Likes Given: 428
Liberty Launch Vehicle and the former Ares ML
« Reply #14 on: 11/03/2011 12:49 pm »
Propellents are not the only issue, there is electrical interfaces for power, data and commanding.  This varies greatly between vehicles in location and types.

Offline docmordrid

  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 6334
  • Michigan
  • Liked: 4207
  • Likes Given: 2
Liberty Launch Vehicle and the former Ares ML
« Reply #15 on: 11/03/2011 01:03 pm »
Propellents are not the only issue, there is electrical interfaces for power, data and commanding.  This varies greatly between vehicles in location and types.
Time for at least national, if not international, standards? It's been done in so many other spheres it's hard to believe it's not been done here.
« Last Edit: 11/03/2011 01:03 pm by docmordrid »
DM

Offline Comga

  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 6466
  • Liked: 4572
  • Likes Given: 5136
Liberty Launch Vehicle and the former Ares ML
« Reply #16 on: 11/03/2011 01:52 pm »
Propellents are not the only issue, there is electrical interfaces for power, data and commanding.  This varies greatly between vehicles in location and types.
Time for at least national, if not international, standards? It's been done in so many other spheres it's hard to believe it's not been done here.

To what end?  Which rocket builder is going to move their connections and modify their plumbing to "take advantage" of a hypothetical "Universal Launch Platform" that some other rocket might occupy while they fix their technical issues?  And "international standards"?  Give us a break.  Who? Why?  How? 

Compare this idea to the new Russian Soyuz launch pad in French Guiana. Did they standardize with Ariane? Not a bit.
What kind of wastrels would dump a perfectly good booster in the ocean after just one use?

Offline Jim

  • Night Gator
  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 37441
  • Cape Canaveral Spaceport
  • Liked: 21451
  • Likes Given: 428
Liberty Launch Vehicle and the former Ares ML
« Reply #17 on: 11/03/2011 01:53 pm »
Propellents are not the only issue, there is electrical interfaces for power, data and commanding.  This varies greatly between vehicles in location and types.
Time for at least national, if not international, standards? It's been done in so many other spheres it's hard to believe it's not been done here.

Why?  Still too early for it.  There is no driver for it and hence no benefit.  It is unique to each vehicle and its payloads. Each launch vehicle has a different avionics architecture and different data buses.

One launch vehicle may have its data and commanding on one umbilical and power on another and they may be 10's of feet apart and clocked many 10's of degrees apart.     Each stage may have different power.
Vehicles have instrumentation systems independent of the guidance systems.


Also, some of the umbilicals are for instrumentation for the liftoff environment.

Offline Namechange User

  • Elite Veteran
  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 7301
  • Liked: 0
  • Likes Given: 0
Liberty Launch Vehicle and the former Ares ML
« Reply #18 on: 11/03/2011 02:21 pm »
Propellents are not the only issue, there is electrical interfaces for power, data and commanding.  This varies greatly between vehicles in location and types.

Of course.  You don't think that has been considered?

It really is rather funny in my opinion how people go on about innovation and commercial and all these great idealistic things.  Then someone shows something that could help and it is immediately met with cries on how it won't work, it's a bad idea, recipe for disaster and low flight rate, etc just because it did not come from the internet "chosen ones". 
Enjoying viewing the forum a little better now by filtering certain users.

Offline woods170

  • IRAS fan
  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 12096
  • IRAS fan
  • The Netherlands
  • Liked: 18202
  • Likes Given: 12162
Liberty Launch Vehicle and the former Ares ML
« Reply #19 on: 11/03/2011 02:59 pm »
Propellents are not the only issue, there is electrical interfaces for power, data and commanding.  This varies greatly between vehicles in location and types.

Of course.  You don't think that has been considered?

It really is rather funny in my opinion how people go on about innovation and commercial and all these great idealistic things.  Then someone shows something that could help and it is immediately met with cries on how it won't work, it's a bad idea, recipe for disaster and low flight rate, etc just because it did not come from the internet "chosen ones". 

Speak for yourself please. Not a single person on this thread decried the ULA USA idea because it didn't come from the internet "chosen ones".
However...several people did decry the ULA USA idea for the unavoidable technical hurdles that will be associated with it. Several of those hurdles have already been discussed, some of them in detail. More will likely come. That's unavoidable.

Edit: UnitedSpaceAlliance (USA) instead of ULA.


« Last Edit: 11/03/2011 03:08 pm by woods170 »

Offline Robotbeat

  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 39270
  • Minnesota
  • Liked: 25240
  • Likes Given: 12115
Liberty Launch Vehicle and the former Ares ML
« Reply #20 on: 11/03/2011 03:02 pm »
Kludging Atlas V to be able to launch from LC-39 isn't originally an ULA idea.
Chris  Whoever loves correction loves knowledge, but he who hates reproof is stupid.

To the maximum extent practicable, the Federal Government shall plan missions to accommodate the space transportation services capabilities of United States commercial providers. US law http://goo.gl/YZYNt0

Offline woods170

  • IRAS fan
  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 12096
  • IRAS fan
  • The Netherlands
  • Liked: 18202
  • Likes Given: 12162
Liberty Launch Vehicle and the former Ares ML
« Reply #21 on: 11/03/2011 03:07 pm »
Oooops. USA instead of ULA. Sorry. Will fix it in my original post.

And I don't think Atlas V would be kludged. The USA ULC idea will have to be 'kludged' to support Atlas V. Adapt the tower and pad to the existing vehicle. Not the other way around.
« Last Edit: 11/03/2011 03:10 pm by woods170 »

Offline Jim

  • Night Gator
  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 37441
  • Cape Canaveral Spaceport
  • Liked: 21451
  • Likes Given: 428
Liberty Launch Vehicle and the former Ares ML
« Reply #22 on: 11/03/2011 03:19 pm »
Propellents are not the only issue, there is electrical interfaces for power, data and commanding.  This varies greatly between vehicles in location and types.

Of course.  You don't think that has been considered?

It really is rather funny in my opinion how people go on about innovation and commercial and all these great idealistic things.  Then someone shows something that could help and it is immediately met with cries on how it won't work, it's a bad idea, recipe for disaster and low flight rate, etc just because it did not come from the internet "chosen ones". 

No, I see a marketing pitch from a company trying to keep itself alive in an location where it is no longer relevant.  It is a better idea for them vs the users.

Offline Namechange User

  • Elite Veteran
  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 7301
  • Liked: 0
  • Likes Given: 0
Liberty Launch Vehicle and the former Ares ML
« Reply #23 on: 11/03/2011 03:22 pm »
Propellents are not the only issue, there is electrical interfaces for power, data and commanding.  This varies greatly between vehicles in location and types.

Of course.  You don't think that has been considered?

It really is rather funny in my opinion how people go on about innovation and commercial and all these great idealistic things.  Then someone shows something that could help and it is immediately met with cries on how it won't work, it's a bad idea, recipe for disaster and low flight rate, etc just because it did not come from the internet "chosen ones". 

Speak for yourself please. Not a single person on this thread decried the ULA idea because it didn't come from the internet "chosen ones".
However...several people did decry the ULA idea for the unavoidable technical hurdles that will be associated with it. Several of those hurdles have already been discussed, some of them in detail. More will likely come. That's unavoidable.




Yeah, sure.  Words like "unavoidable technical hurdles" seems to cast judgement right there.  So let's go back and look what I said:

1.  Regarding Jim's initial comment, I said it "does not have to be the case".  That is a true statement.

2.  I said, "there are concepts and designs in work now for otherwise".  That is a true statement.

3.  It was immediately called a "kludge" and dismissed by others declaring why it cannot happen.

Is it the ultimate solution?  I don't know.  There are a host of questions that need to be answered and concept of operations defined.  That however, does NOT mean a possible solution should be dismissed outright calling it a "kludge" and specifically saying it will not work because of reasons X, Y, Z. 
Enjoying viewing the forum a little better now by filtering certain users.

Offline Namechange User

  • Elite Veteran
  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 7301
  • Liked: 0
  • Likes Given: 0
Liberty Launch Vehicle and the former Ares ML
« Reply #24 on: 11/03/2011 03:27 pm »
Propellents are not the only issue, there is electrical interfaces for power, data and commanding.  This varies greatly between vehicles in location and types.

Of course.  You don't think that has been considered?

It really is rather funny in my opinion how people go on about innovation and commercial and all these great idealistic things.  Then someone shows something that could help and it is immediately met with cries on how it won't work, it's a bad idea, recipe for disaster and low flight rate, etc just because it did not come from the internet "chosen ones". 

No, I see a marketing pitch from a company trying to keep itself alive in an location where it is no longer relevant.  It is a better idea for them vs the users.

A "marketing pitch".  It is a concept from a company Jim.  No different than anything ULA or anyone else does.  It does not take away from the possibility so no reason for you to continue to be small and petty and pretend like you are the one with the ability to cast that final judgement. 
Enjoying viewing the forum a little better now by filtering certain users.

Offline spectre9

  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 2403
  • Australia
  • Liked: 42
  • Likes Given: 68
Liberty Launch Vehicle and the former Ares ML
« Reply #25 on: 11/03/2011 04:00 pm »
I thought there were other unused MLPs now shuttle is retired.

Offline Robotbeat

  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 39270
  • Minnesota
  • Liked: 25240
  • Likes Given: 12115
Liberty Launch Vehicle and the former Ares ML
« Reply #26 on: 11/03/2011 04:11 pm »
I thought there were other unused MLPs now shuttle is retired.
And recent experience suggest that it costs ~9 figures to convert them. There are only 3 total, at least 1 of which needs to be used for SLS (and likely two, if you're going to do dual-launch missions).
« Last Edit: 11/03/2011 04:57 pm by Robotbeat »
Chris  Whoever loves correction loves knowledge, but he who hates reproof is stupid.

To the maximum extent practicable, the Federal Government shall plan missions to accommodate the space transportation services capabilities of United States commercial providers. US law http://goo.gl/YZYNt0

Offline Chris Bergin

Liberty Launch Vehicle and the former Ares ML
« Reply #27 on: 11/03/2011 05:04 pm »
I'll splinter this thread later for the ML debate, as I can't merge it into the SLS ML article thread (given it's all about Liberty). Continue, I'll sort it out :)
Support NSF via L2 -- Help improve NSF -- Site Rules/Feedback/Updates
**Not a L2 member? Whitelist this forum in your adblocker to support the site and ensure full functionality.**

Offline Ben the Space Brit

  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 7206
  • A spaceflight fan
  • London, UK
  • Liked: 806
  • Likes Given: 900
Liberty Launch Vehicle and the former Ares ML
« Reply #28 on: 11/03/2011 05:57 pm »
Propellents are not the only issue, there is electrical interfaces for power, data and commanding.  This varies greatly between vehicles in location and types.

Surely this could be fixed by having a hardware on the MLP to convert the juice to the voltage, amperage, frequency, etc. required.
"Oops! I left the silly thing in reverse!" - Duck Dodgers

~*~*~*~

The Space Shuttle Program - 1981-2011

The time for words has passed; The time has come to put up or shut up!
DON'T PROPAGANDISE, FLY!!!

Offline Herb Schaltegger

Liberty Launch Vehicle and the former Ares ML
« Reply #29 on: 11/03/2011 06:21 pm »
Propellents are not the only issue, there is electrical interfaces for power, data and commanding.  This varies greatly between vehicles in location and types.

Surely this could be fixed by having a hardware on the MLP to convert the juice to the voltage, amperage, frequency, etc. required.

You're joking, right?  It's not a matter of plugging in a universal wall adapter or anything.  The physical interfaces are different: for electrical and data alone you have different physical geometry, different connector design, different pin counts and arrangements, different locations on the launch vehicles, different data formats and data rates . . . Now let's talk about physical interfaces for fuel/oxidizer, purge gases, coolants, etc. . . .

"Rockets are not Legos!"
« Last Edit: 11/03/2011 06:21 pm by Herb Schaltegger »
Ad astra per aspirin ...

Offline Namechange User

  • Elite Veteran
  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 7301
  • Liked: 0
  • Likes Given: 0
Liberty Launch Vehicle and the former Ares ML
« Reply #30 on: 11/03/2011 06:38 pm »
You're joking, right?  It's not a matter of plugging in a universal wall adapter or anything.  The physical interfaces are different: for electrical and data alone you have different physical geometry, different connector design, different pin counts and arrangements, different locations on the launch vehicles, different data formats and data rates . . . Now let's talk about physical interfaces for fuel/oxidizer, purge gases, coolants, etc. . . .

"Rockets are not Legos!"

You don't have to change the rocket interfaces and requirements. 
Enjoying viewing the forum a little better now by filtering certain users.

Offline Chris Bergin

Re: Liberty Launch Vehicle and the former Ares ML
« Reply #31 on: 11/03/2011 06:46 pm »
Split thread, leaving the Liberty specific update thread and allowing for this thread (I'm sure all the posts after the split were on the ML).
Support NSF via L2 -- Help improve NSF -- Site Rules/Feedback/Updates
**Not a L2 member? Whitelist this forum in your adblocker to support the site and ensure full functionality.**

Offline Ben the Space Brit

  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 7206
  • A spaceflight fan
  • London, UK
  • Liked: 806
  • Likes Given: 900
Re: Liberty Launch Vehicle and the former Ares ML
« Reply #32 on: 11/03/2011 08:26 pm »
I think that we are establishing that each different rocket at LC-39 would need its own MLP and its own umbilical system, which I think is the point here.  If the Ares I MLP is converted to operate SLS, ATK/EADS will need to fund a new MLP for Liberty.
"Oops! I left the silly thing in reverse!" - Duck Dodgers

~*~*~*~

The Space Shuttle Program - 1981-2011

The time for words has passed; The time has come to put up or shut up!
DON'T PROPAGANDISE, FLY!!!

Offline woods170

  • IRAS fan
  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 12096
  • IRAS fan
  • The Netherlands
  • Liked: 18202
  • Likes Given: 12162
Re: Liberty Launch Vehicle and the former Ares ML
« Reply #33 on: 11/04/2011 07:48 am »
Propellents are not the only issue, there is electrical interfaces for power, data and commanding.  This varies greatly between vehicles in location and types.

Of course.  You don't think that has been considered?

It really is rather funny in my opinion how people go on about innovation and commercial and all these great idealistic things.  Then someone shows something that could help and it is immediately met with cries on how it won't work, it's a bad idea, recipe for disaster and low flight rate, etc just because it did not come from the internet "chosen ones". 

Speak for yourself please. Not a single person on this thread decried the ULA idea because it didn't come from the internet "chosen ones".
However...several people did decry the ULA idea for the unavoidable technical hurdles that will be associated with it. Several of those hurdles have already been discussed, some of them in detail. More will likely come. That's unavoidable.




Yeah, sure.  Words like "unavoidable technical hurdles" seems to cast judgement right there.  So let's go back and look what I said:

1.  Regarding Jim's initial comment, I said it "does not have to be the case".  That is a true statement.

2.  I said, "there are concepts and designs in work now for otherwise".  That is a true statement.

3.  It was immediately called a "kludge" and dismissed by others declaring why it cannot happen.

Is it the ultimate solution?  I don't know.  There are a host of questions that need to be answered and concept of operations defined.  That however, does NOT mean a possible solution should be dismissed outright calling it a "kludge" and specifically saying it will not work because of reasons X, Y, Z. 
Regarding your points 1 and 2: no one here ever said you were lying. No one questioned the truth of your statements.So why do you find it necessary to point out you made two true statements? 

Regarding point 3:
The by-now infamous "kludge" statement came from Jim. He has a way of ticking people off. My advice: ignore the guy. Don't get worked-up over one of his one-liners or one-word-ers.

Also regarding your point 3:
No one said the ULC won't work. On the other hand: several people mentioned technical hurdles to be taken. "Unavoidable technical hurdles" must not be read as "it can't be done". That's not the case at all. "Unavoidable technical hurdles" must be read as "There will be technical challenges during development". There always are technical challenges. But that does not mean those technical challenges can't be tackled.

No one in this thread ever stated that it is impossible to bring the ULC into reality. But several people did say that the proposed ULC is probably a bad idea in terms of efficiency, practicality, cost, technical feasibility, etc.

So, please, stop reading "it can't be done" in the commentaries from other forum members. And, please, start thinking "hey, they might have a point here. So, how are we gonna over-come this hurdle?"
« Last Edit: 11/04/2011 11:41 am by woods170 »

Offline Lars_J

  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 6160
  • California
  • Liked: 677
  • Likes Given: 195
Re: Liberty Launch Vehicle and the former Ares ML
« Reply #34 on: 11/04/2011 03:33 pm »
Or condensing into one line: Just because it *can* be done, doesn't mean that it *should* be done.

Offline woods170

  • IRAS fan
  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 12096
  • IRAS fan
  • The Netherlands
  • Liked: 18202
  • Likes Given: 12162
Re: Liberty Launch Vehicle and the former Ares ML
« Reply #35 on: 11/05/2011 03:09 pm »
Or condensing into one line: Just because it *can* be done, doesn't mean that it *should* be done.

Yeah, that's basically what I'm getting at.

Tags:
 

Advertisement NovaTech
Advertisement Northrop Grumman
Advertisement
Advertisement Margaritaville Beach Resort South Padre Island
Advertisement Brady Kenniston
Advertisement NextSpaceflight
Advertisement Nathan Barker Photography
0