Why is the addition of the skirt such a problem. Heck, it's not much and is short. I'd call it a mini-skirt myself. They're just making a safe, reliable launch system safer. Wouldn't you feel safer going up on an Atlas than any other rocket?
Quote from: rocx on 10/14/2016 01:52 pmQuote from: AncientU on 10/14/2016 12:55 pmIn the new configuration, the launch escape thrusters are inside of the skirt, it appears.How that is going to relieve over-pressure on the Centaur? Seems like it would amplify it.By the time the launch escape thrusters activate, you would have stopped caring about the performance or survival of the Centaur stage, because the survival of the crew is at stake.If you crush (detonate) the Centaur when the launch abort thrusters lite off, you could damage the thrusters, nozzles, or the heat shield (as discussed by a former head of engineering at ULA, moments before getting fired). Maybe escape would still be successful; their in-flight demo will confirm... oh wait, they aren't doing an in-flight demo.
Quote from: AncientU on 10/14/2016 12:55 pmIn the new configuration, the launch escape thrusters are inside of the skirt, it appears.How that is going to relieve over-pressure on the Centaur? Seems like it would amplify it.By the time the launch escape thrusters activate, you would have stopped caring about the performance or survival of the Centaur stage, because the survival of the crew is at stake.
In the new configuration, the launch escape thrusters are inside of the skirt, it appears.How that is going to relieve over-pressure on the Centaur? Seems like it would amplify it.
Quote from: vapour_nudge on 10/14/2016 03:15 pmWhy is the addition of the skirt such a problem. Heck, it's not much and is short. I'd call it a mini-skirt myself. They're just making a safe, reliable launch system safer. Wouldn't you feel safer going up on an Atlas than any other rocket? Sure, mini-skirts are a well established safety measure
Quote from: mfck on 10/14/2016 03:16 pmQuote from: vapour_nudge on 10/14/2016 03:15 pmWhy is the addition of the skirt such a problem. Heck, it's not much and is short. I'd call it a mini-skirt myself. They're just making a safe, reliable launch system safer. Wouldn't you feel safer going up on an Atlas than any other rocket? Sure, mini-skirts are a well established safety measureIt doesn't doesn't decrease the reliability or safety of the vehicle.
Quote from: Jim on 10/14/2016 04:20 pmQuote from: mfck on 10/14/2016 03:16 pmQuote from: vapour_nudge on 10/14/2016 03:15 pmWhy is the addition of the skirt such a problem. Heck, it's not much and is short. I'd call it a mini-skirt myself. They're just making a safe, reliable launch system safer. Wouldn't you feel safer going up on an Atlas than any other rocket? Sure, mini-skirts are a well established safety measureIt doesn't doesn't decrease the reliability or safety of the vehicle.It is installed to increase the vehicle safety to an acceptable level for crew flights.
That skirt somehow reminded me of the Delta II with the original 10 feet diameter fairing in the 1990s (ROSAT was launched on one of those). Certainly not elegant but I think that's not quite that ugly actually.
Quote from: AncientU on 10/14/2016 06:53 pmQuote from: Jim on 10/14/2016 04:20 pmQuote from: mfck on 10/14/2016 03:16 pmQuote from: vapour_nudge on 10/14/2016 03:15 pmWhy is the addition of the skirt such a problem. Heck, it's not much and is short. I'd call it a mini-skirt myself. They're just making a safe, reliable launch system safer. Wouldn't you feel safer going up on an Atlas than any other rocket? Sure, mini-skirts are a well established safety measureIt doesn't doesn't decrease the reliability or safety of the vehicle.It is installed to increase the vehicle safety to an acceptable level for crew flights.The point is that even if the skirt was not needed for aeroloads, it is benign and passive and doesn't detract the vehicle operation.
Quote from: Jim on 10/14/2016 08:12 pmQuote from: AncientU on 10/14/2016 06:53 pmQuote from: Jim on 10/14/2016 04:20 pmQuote from: mfck on 10/14/2016 03:16 pmQuote from: vapour_nudge on 10/14/2016 03:15 pmWhy is the addition of the skirt such a problem. Heck, it's not much and is short. I'd call it a mini-skirt myself. They're just making a safe, reliable launch system safer. Wouldn't you feel safer going up on an Atlas than any other rocket? Sure, mini-skirts are a well established safety measureIt doesn't doesn't decrease the reliability or safety of the vehicle.It is installed to increase the vehicle safety to an acceptable level for crew flights.The point is that even if the skirt was not needed for aeroloads, it is benign and passive and doesn't detract the vehicle operation.The point is that it is needed to allow the vehicle to meet minimum safety standards. It therefore is an active, safety-related component that the vehicle cannot fly without.It is not 'making a safe, reliable launch system safer.'
The point is that it is needed to allow the vehicle to meet minimum safety standards. It therefore is an active, safety-related component that the vehicle cannot fly without.It is not 'making a safe, reliable launch system safer.'
The point is, it does not improve safty, it restores it. Maybe.
I've gone on record elsewhere as being quite critical of this whole design, for a lot of reasons,
I think people here are overreacting, its just a simple answer to an engineering issue. No underlying technical issues,
Quote from: Jim on 10/14/2016 02:54 pmQuote from: muomega0 on 10/14/2016 02:23 pm1) Solids and non common configurations 2) economics "10 flights to achieve 100M/ea"3) multiple configurations and testing (expendable and why certify a LV (Atlas with Solids) that will be retired and the new LV with solids (Vulcan V0) will eventually replace the solids, but cannot be reused to reduce costs?)Just stop, this is not a place to preach your crusade. Those have nothing to do with the addition of the skirt.On the positive side, it's his shortest post ever.
Quote from: muomega0 on 10/14/2016 02:23 pm1) Solids and non common configurations 2) economics "10 flights to achieve 100M/ea"3) multiple configurations and testing (expendable and why certify a LV (Atlas with Solids) that will be retired and the new LV with solids (Vulcan V0) will eventually replace the solids, but cannot be reused to reduce costs?)Just stop, this is not a place to preach your crusade. Those have nothing to do with the addition of the skirt.
1) Solids and non common configurations 2) economics "10 flights to achieve 100M/ea"3) multiple configurations and testing (expendable and why certify a LV (Atlas with Solids) that will be retired and the new LV with solids (Vulcan V0) will eventually replace the solids, but cannot be reused to reduce costs?)
The Atlas V stack is and has been demonstrated to be one of the (if not the most) reliable and safe vehicle flying today.
I've gone on record elsewhere as being quite critical of this whole design, for a lot of reasons, but I'll keep it above-board and remain neutral for now.