If needed, first stage recovery can be deleted to provide a substantial payload improvement. The first stage could go from steel to composite casings, providing a vast performance improvement, if needed.
Quote from: edkyle99 on 12/12/2008 09:01 pm If needed, first stage recovery can be deleted to provide a substantial payload improvement. The first stage could go from steel to composite casings, providing a vast performance improvement, if needed. Negates the prime reason for selecting the SRB as a first stage over EELV'sI would call that bait and switch.
Good article. Don't expect to be hearing much from the EELV folks on this thread.
Quote from: Tim S on 12/09/2008 01:54 pmGood article. Don't expect to be hearing much from the EELV folks on this thread.agreed, they came to terms that this thing is actually going to fly
Quote from: gospacex on 12/12/2008 06:10 pmMaybe Ares I can lift Orion into ISS orbit, but at the max of its capabilities. There is zero growth potential."Von Braun's" Saturn IB could only lift 18.6 tonnes to LEO. Apollo outgrew that rocket, despite all of that knowledgeable Marshall engineering. Early plans had called for circumlunar missions and launches with CSM and LM launched together. There is going to be growth potential in a 910 tonne GLOW launch vehicle. J-2X specific impulse can be tweaked, for example. A lot of dry mass reduction will be available after Ares I has flown several times, providing structural data. It should also be possible to reduce residual propellant with flight experience, providing quite a bit of extra payload capacity. Guidance and flight control can be fine-tuned with flight experience, etc. If needed, first stage recovery can be deleted to provide a substantial payload improvement. The first stage could go from steel to composite casings, providing a vast performance improvement, if needed. And so on.Ares I can lift Orion with margin to spare. That margin will likely be used, eventually. - Ed Kyle
Maybe Ares I can lift Orion into ISS orbit, but at the max of its capabilities. There is zero growth potential.
Meta-post: I find it more than a bit suspicious that all this new "Hey, guess what! It's not as bad as we thought!" data starts being leaked out, YEARS after the design architecture was ID'd and this problem was mentioned as a potential show-stopper, right before a new Administration (predicated and elected on the nebulous concept of "Change") is about to take over. I find the timing of this new information especially troubling given how much friction has apparently developed between Dr. Griffin's people and the new Administration's transition team.But maybe I'm just turning into a cynic.In any case, clearly NASA has shown they can "Rube Goldberg" this so-called "shuttle derived" launch vehicle into some semblance of functionality, but the cost in time, effort and money has been absurd. It's been YEARS and we're still how many years away from any kind of real Ares I launch. Meanwhile, we as a nation have unused EELV production and launch capability, not to mention much better REAL shuttle-derived options too. But maybe that's why I'm turning into a cynic.
oooookkkkkkaayyyyy.....I guess we know where your vote is on that one jarmumd...lol.I would like to see a completely unbiased, honest, and accurate detailling of the entire Ares architecture. I have yet to see it. I try and take everything with a grain of salt. The numbers on Ares-I might be improving, but until she flies, we are still only half way there.
Your right, Griffin himself must have called down to the engineers working on this analysis and told them that they would lose their jobs if this wasn't fixed.... I mean he must have - it couldn't possibly be that this is a detailed analysis with immature data. It couldn't possibly be an that an early analysis gave bad answers. It couldn't possibly be that different Orion models (FROM THE SAME LOAD CYCLE) have over a 10% difference in overall axial frequency? Surely it was a bag of lies when I saw the axial frequency response plots of the last load cycle finite element model, versus the most recent model's whose frequency response around the TO frequency is much much less... I mean where is Darth Vader? Let's kill him so Luke can build an EELV or DIRECT....Sorry for the rant, but Ares has some real problems, and some that are no longer issues due to the maturity of the analysis and models... But I suppose if you just don't want to believe that the answers change with new data - well I suppose you have every right to do that...
Quote from: jarmumd on 12/14/2008 02:35 amYour right, Griffin himself must have called down to the engineers working on this analysis and told them that they would lose their jobs if this wasn't fixed.... I mean he must have - it couldn't possibly be that this is a detailed analysis with immature data. It couldn't possibly be an that an early analysis gave bad answers. It couldn't possibly be that different Orion models (FROM THE SAME LOAD CYCLE) have over a 10% difference in overall axial frequency? Surely it was a bag of lies when I saw the axial frequency response plots of the last load cycle finite element model, versus the most recent model's whose frequency response around the TO frequency is much much less... I mean where is Darth Vader? Let's kill him so Luke can build an EELV or DIRECT....Sorry for the rant, but Ares has some real problems, and some that are no longer issues due to the maturity of the analysis and models... But I suppose if you just don't want to believe that the answers change with new data - well I suppose you have every right to do that...Given every single comment and report about Dr. Griffin's "I'm smarter than everyone else in the room" management style, I don't doubt that there has been an awful lot of "top down" management in this program since Day One.As I said in my previous post, I also doubt the timing and veracity of these new reports and will continue to do so until Dr. Griffin is replaced as NASA Administrator.
I doubt the veracity of ESAS and the Direct rebuttal...
Oh you can't just say that jarmumd and go offline...that's just cruel!!! lolFrom your tone, you are suggesting that the latest analyses point towards a mitigatable solution? How many dB are we talking here, 12 dB reduction??? Roughly?Too many teases on here today. 'Tis the season of giving, after all...lol.
Quote from: jarmumd on 12/14/2008 08:38 pmI doubt the veracity of ESAS and the Direct rebuttal...I guess that to have already formed such an opinion about our Rebuttal, you must have already read it.Would you mind sending me a copy please? A finished copy of our Rebuttal would sure save me an awful lot of time writing it over the next few days Please, can everyone just wait and read it before deciding anything about it. We need critical thinking at this time. Critical thinking is the only thing that's going to get us out of the current mess the program is in.Ross.
You may not like the Ares design but that doesn't mean there isn't a lot of brilliant minds working on it, and certainly doesn't mean it won't fly.
Quote from: jarmumd on 12/14/2008 02:35 amYou may not like the Ares design but that doesn't mean there isn't a lot of brilliant minds working on it, and certainly doesn't mean it won't fly.The Spruce Goose flew and had great minds working on it too, but that didn't make it either either practical or economically viable. Far from it.
