MKremer - 24/8/2007 10:09 AMQuoteclongton - 24/8/2007 9:46 AMComputer modeling and analysis is great. Like I said, I make my living doing it. But after you’ve gone as far as you can with the modeling, there is just no substitute for the acid test. The interstage is the weakest point in the structural design (which is what I do), and it needs to be tested in the real world.It's still called "Finite Modeling" for a reason. The worst thing NASA could do, IMO is build a battleship interstage for IX, and then find out 15 or 18 months later (depending on how well their current schedule holds up) that the *real* interstage results in LOV, shifting test flights and the first operational flight even further to the right.
clongton - 24/8/2007 9:46 AMComputer modeling and analysis is great. Like I said, I make my living doing it. But after you’ve gone as far as you can with the modeling, there is just no substitute for the acid test. The interstage is the weakest point in the structural design (which is what I do), and it needs to be tested in the real world.
Jim - 30/8/2007 1:30 AMQuotetnphysics - 29/8/2007 8:02 PMIn my opinion, Congress will cancel Ares I when the Falcon 9 Heavy comes along. NASA will be forced to buy F9 Heavies to launch the CEV.Ares V will not be canceled.Why? That is ridiculous. Why not the Atlas V or Delta IV? They already exist. Congress is not going to show favoritism to Spacex and "force" NASA.
tnphysics - 29/8/2007 8:02 PMIn my opinion, Congress will cancel Ares I when the Falcon 9 Heavy comes along. NASA will be forced to buy F9 Heavies to launch the CEV.Ares V will not be canceled.
Ares V doesn't exist without Ares I
The F9 doesn't have the performance for the CEV.Please think about the statement you made.
A_M_Swallow - 30/8/2007 1:28 PMThe Ares-I with Orion are a car. When it carries people to the ISS the Falcon 9 will be seen as a flying car.Ares-V can launch Orion so Ares-I is a luxury option.
A_M_Swallow - 30/8/2007 1:28 PMThe Falcon 9 Heavy price to LEO is $90 million.http://www.spacex.com/falcon9_heavy.phpAdd in Dragon and the price goes up to say $200 million a launch or $400 million a year for a manned space program to the International Space Station. NASA will have to produce a very good reason why it is charging more than $500 million a year for manned launch vehicles. Orion being bigger than Dragon as an excuse will not last more than 2 years.
Jim - 30/8/2007 6:40 PMFalcon will be flying cargo for many years before it is manned. And there is a lot of if's before it can even do thatAres V can't launch the Orion, LSAM and EDS on the same flight. Ares I required
A_M_Swallow - 30/8/2007 1:28 PMQuoteAres V doesn't exist without Ares IAres-V can launch Orion so Ares-I is a luxury option.
mars.is.wet - 30/8/2007 6:57 PMYou are quoting prices for a vehicle that has lots of development ahead of it, no knowledge of its flight rate, and after the demonstrator (if you will) vehicle for the company has not yet reached orbit.I offer that you should study the history of Kelley, Kistler, Rocketplane (pre Kistler), Rotary, Athena, Conestoga, Space Access, Vela, LMLV before investing. Future looking statements and all.
Marsman - 30/8/2007 1:59 PMNASA has been planning to man-rate Ares V from the start. Crew transfer to a lunar base or a NEO mission. I have a question of my own. If the J2 is going to be so expensive and is mostly new hardware anyway, why don't we just build an entirely new engine to the specs that we need?
A_M_Swallow - 30/8/2007 2:22 PMQuotemars.is.wet - 30/8/2007 6:57 PMYou are quoting prices for a vehicle that has lots of development ahead of it, no knowledge of its flight rate, and after the demonstrator (if you will) vehicle for the company has not yet reached orbit.I offer that you should study the history of Kelley, Kistler, Rocketplane (pre Kistler), Rotary, Athena, Conestoga, Space Access, Vela, LMLV before investing. Future looking statements and all.The Falcons have got off the ground which puts them a head of the Ares family.I was careful to double the price of the Falcon 9 Heavy. Even tripling the price only takes it to $600 million a year.In financial year 2010 NASA is already asking for $1,220.0 million for launch vehicle development.
A_M_Swallow - 30/8/2007 2:07 PMAres-I should also be making lots of flights before it is manned. People will notice their absence at the first accident.
clongton - 30/8/2007 2:12 PMQuoteA_M_Swallow - 30/8/2007 1:28 PMQuoteAres V doesn't exist without Ares IAres-V can launch Orion so Ares-I is a luxury option.That's like trying to ride a locmotive without first laying the rails.Ares-I = the railsAres-V = the locomotive.You don't get to have an Ares-V unless you build the Ares-I first.
vt_hokie - 30/8/2007 2:45 PMQuoteclongton - 30/8/2007 2:12 PMYou don't get to have an Ares-V unless you build the Ares-I first.I don't see why that is. What would prevent us skipping Ares I altogether and getting Ares V that much sooner?
clongton - 30/8/2007 2:12 PMYou don't get to have an Ares-V unless you build the Ares-I first.
clongton - 30/8/2007 1:35 PMLet's talk about engine options. What can we do?
bad_astra - 30/8/2007 2:57 PMQuoteclongton - 30/8/2007 1:35 PMLet's talk about engine options. What can we do?Widen the frustrum and have a twin J2s (not x) 2nd stage. It would require less development and be available sooner (and lower the height of Ares I) Yes, it would look funny, but the upper stage would turn an Ares IV varient into a real performer.
clongton - 30/8/2007 1:35 PMLet's fix the Ares-I.First stage is what it is. You just ain't gonna get no more from a solid.So fixing the Ares-I has to center on the second stage. We lost a LOT of performance when we lost the SSME for the U.S. engine.So how do we fix that? The J-2X (which may or may not ever *actually* work) would be a good engine, but it definetely is not "good enough" for this job. We simply must have more performance and margin. We need something more akin to the SSME if the Ares-I is going to seriously get back on track.Let's talk about engine options. What can we do?
edkyle99 - 30/8/2007 2:59 PMI'm having a hard time seeing how Ares I needs "fixed". As far as I can see, Ares I *is* "on track". NASA has a design that gets the job done. It has awarded all but the Instrument Unit contracts - and IU is coming at year's end. Some testing has already begun. Ground breaking has occurred for some of the facilities (O&C High Bay rebuild at KSC, Test Stand A3 at Stennis, etc.). Five segment booster testing will rev up in a few months, as will precursor J-2X testing. - Ed Kyle
marsavian - 30/8/2007 3:07 PMQuoteclongton - 30/8/2007 1:35 PMLet's fix the Ares-I.First stage is what it is. You just ain't gonna get no more from a solid.So fixing the Ares-I has to center on the second stage. We lost a LOT of performance when we lost the SSME for the U.S. engine.So how do we fix that? The J-2X (which may or may not ever *actually* work) would be a good engine, but it definetely is not "good enough" for this job. We simply must have more performance and margin. We need something more akin to the SSME if the Ares-I is going to seriously get back on track.Let's talk about engine options. What can we do?How about larger fuel tanks as there's weight to spare at lift-off with the SRB's thrust. Although there would be greater gravity losses after staging, with enough extra fuel it could make a difference although they must surely have optimised this already I would have thought.