Author Topic: 5.5 Segment Ares I  (Read 57140 times)

Offline A_M_Swallow

  • Elite Veteran
  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 8906
  • South coast of England
  • Liked: 500
  • Likes Given: 223
Re: 5.5 Segment Ares I
« Reply #80 on: 06/28/2008 05:00 pm »

Please save all your rhetoric and simply point me to the Constellation Program requirement for LON.

Try the high level requirement to minimise the Loss of Crew.

A rescue mission prevents a LOM event becoming a LOC event.
See for some risk definitions.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hazard_analysis

Offline MrTim

  • Full Member
  • ****
  • Posts: 731
  • Liked: 21
  • Likes Given: 0
Re: 5.5 Segment Ares I
« Reply #81 on: 06/28/2008 08:05 pm »
this is called "setting a precedent"
BZZZZT! Wrong !!!!
Which not applicable to the CEV and future missions. 
The CEV will be able to stay attached the ISS for 6 months.  No need to scramble for an LON. 
LON is not applicable to lunar missions. 
Sorry Jim, forgot you were here. Of course you are correct that Orion and Ares are perfect, there will never be a failure... and if there is, the vehicle will safely make it to ISS (but no rescue mission would even be mounted then because that would be a LON mission which you indicate would never be needed). I am also sure you are correct that if we launch an Ares I to LEO at the start of a lunar mission and there is some critical failure NASA will simply allow the crew to die rather than trying a rescue and you are probably correct that the public will not care. The LON requirement might not be written down in the formal program specs, but for those parts of a mission where it could save a crew, it is part of the basic requirements of the Cx program.... which has as its premise: Thou shalt not kill a crew Some things (like "remember to breathe several times per minute") do not need to be written down; reasonably smart persons are expected to figure them out.

NASA has proven your roll-the-dice-on-crew-survival model wrong already by planning a Skylab rescue mission and by planning STS rescue missions. They seem to appreciate more than you do that some things are simply unacceptable to the public who are after-all the ones providing the funding. Your love of disposable rockets seems to have morphed into an acceptance of disposable crews.

Offline MrTim

  • Full Member
  • ****
  • Posts: 731
  • Liked: 21
  • Likes Given: 0
Re: 5.5 Segment Ares I
« Reply #82 on: 06/28/2008 08:10 pm »
Since LON is off topic for the thread title and there has been more than 3 replies I have created a new topic in the General Discussions section called "Space Rescue Missions and Vehicles".
http://forum.nasaspaceflight.com/index.php?topic=13604.0
A good idea, except that replies to messages belong in the same threads as the original messages (and those messages are here). Any way to selectively move the earlier messages and replies over there? Maybe Chris has a way?

Offline Jorge

  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 6404
  • Liked: 529
  • Likes Given: 67
Re: 5.5 Segment Ares I
« Reply #83 on: 06/28/2008 09:41 pm »
this is called "setting a precedent"
BZZZZT! Wrong !!!!
Which not applicable to the CEV and future missions. 
The CEV will be able to stay attached the ISS for 6 months.  No need to scramble for an LON. 
LON is not applicable to lunar missions. 
Sorry Jim, forgot you were here. Of course you are correct that Orion and Ares are perfect, there will never be a failure... and if there is, the vehicle will safely make it to ISS (but no rescue mission would even be mounted then because that would be a LON mission which you indicate would never be needed). I am also sure you are correct that if we launch an Ares I to LEO at the start of a lunar mission and there is some critical failure NASA will simply allow the crew to die rather than trying a rescue and you are probably correct that the public will not care. The LON requirement might not be written down in the formal program specs, but for those parts of a mission where it could save a crew, it is part of the basic requirements of the Cx program.... which has as its premise: Thou shalt not kill a crew Some things (like "remember to breathe several times per minute") do not need to be written down; reasonably smart persons are expected to figure them out.

If the United States really has become that risk-averse, then there are two and only two possible outcomes:

1) If LON becomes a program requirement, Constellation will become too expensive and will be cancelled sooner or later.

2) If LON is not implemented and a crew is killed, the program gets cancelled.

Either way the conclusion is inescapable: If we've really become that risk-averse, then the program has zero chance of survival in the long term and the United States does not deserve to have a space program. Period, full stop, end of story. In that case, we should cancel the whole farce now before we waste a lot of money on it, and let those who are willing to shoulder the risk reap the reward.

Quote
NASA has proven your roll-the-dice-on-crew-survival model wrong already by planning a Skylab rescue mission and by planning STS rescue missions. They seem to appreciate more than you do that some things are simply unacceptable to the public who are after-all the ones providing the funding. Your love of disposable rockets seems to have morphed into an acceptance of disposable crews.

As has your love of over-the-top and over-the-line rhetoric.
JRF

Offline Jim

  • Night Gator
  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 37440
  • Cape Canaveral Spaceport
  • Liked: 21451
  • Likes Given: 428
Re: 5.5 Segment Ares I
« Reply #84 on: 06/28/2008 09:44 pm »

1. Sorry Jim, forgot you were here. Of course you are correct that Orion and Ares are perfect,

2,  I am also sure you are correct that if we launch an Ares I to LEO at the start of a lunar mission and there is some critical failure NASA will simply allow the crew to die rather than trying a rescue 

3. The LON requirement might not be written down in the formal program specs, but for those parts of a mission where it could save a crew, it is part of the basic requirements of the Cx program....

4.  NASA has proven your roll-the-dice-on-crew-survival model wrong already by planning a Skylab rescue mission and by planning STS rescue missions.

Still wrong

1.  Never said they were.

2.  The architecture doesn't support an LON for lunar mission.  Both pads will be launching vehicles for the mission.  One VAB cell is only going to support Ares I. 

3.  It has to be in the basic requirements or it doesn't exist.  No work will be authorized without the requirement.  No changes to hardware, software, ground systems, etc will be done.

4.  Shuttle LON's exist because the vehicle is not safe.  Skylab used rescue missions and not an "LON" mission. Big difference.  The next vehicle in line was to be used for as a rescue vehicle.  Just as I stated for ISS, they just wait for the next Orion launch or use the Soyuz.  If the Orion is not at the ISS and can't reach it, it will be SOL

LON is define as having hardware  in some sort of readiness state.

Offline kfsorensen

  • aerospace and nuclear engineer
  • Full Member
  • ****
  • Posts: 1568
  • Huntsville, AL
    • Flibe Energy
  • Liked: 150
  • Likes Given: 0
Re: 5.5 Segment Ares I
« Reply #85 on: 06/28/2008 10:44 pm »
Either way the conclusion is inescapable: If we've really become that risk-averse, then the program has zero chance of survival in the long term and the United States does not deserve to have a space program. Period, full stop, end of story. In that case, we should cancel the whole farce now before we waste a lot of money on it, and let those who are willing to shoulder the risk reap the reward.

Thank you Jorge, I had wanted to say similar things but had been reticent in this very pro-human-spaceflight forum.  Plus you said them much better than I would have.

Anyone seen "WALL-E", the latest Pixar movie?  If you have, you'll know what I'm thinking of when I imagine (fearfully) what future manned spaceflight systems will look like if this corrosive approach to risk management continues to carry the day...

Offline jimvela

  • Member
  • Full Member
  • ****
  • Posts: 1662
  • Liked: 900
  • Likes Given: 71
Re: 5.5 Segment Ares I
« Reply #86 on: 06/28/2008 11:04 pm »
Either way the conclusion is inescapable: If we've really become that risk-averse, then the program has zero chance of survival in the long term and the United States does not deserve to have a space program. Period, full stop, end of story. In that case, we should cancel the whole farce now before we waste a lot of money on it, and let those who are willing to shoulder the risk reap the reward.

..
Thank you Jorge, I had wanted to say similar things but had been reticent in this very pro-human-spaceflight forum.  Plus you said them much better than I would have.

Agreed, very well said, and true, Jorge!!!


Offline bholt

  • Member
  • Member
  • Posts: 81
  • United States
  • Liked: 2
  • Likes Given: 0
Re: 5.5 Segment Ares I
« Reply #87 on: 06/28/2008 11:58 pm »
Risk is part of the game here. We all take risks every day. Over 40,000 people a year die in the U.S. because of car accidents. You cannot eliminate risk.
All NASA can do is reduce the risk as much as possible. I remember on Sep. 29, 1988 (STS-26R) the now late CNN reporter John Holliman saying "But NASA says people can and will make mistakes and some day in the future there will be another shuttle accident. Their job is to make sure that the next accident is as far in the future as they can make it." (Not an exact quote)
87 flights later Columbia was lost.
Like the shuttle, Orion will be far from perfect and will be subject to cost cutting and engineering shortcuts. If it flies long enough, a catastrophic failure will occur. That's just the way it is.
Many who strongly criticize NASA for the Challenger and Columbia accidents would have made the same decisions as NASA did that led to those accidents. (Remember the term "group think?) Humans are far from perfect and the things we build can't be either.

Brent
"We choose to go to the Moon! We choose to go to the Moon in this decade, and do the other things, not because they are easy, but because they are hard."
-JFK, September 1962

Offline Avron

  • Canadian Member
  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 4930
  • Liked: 156
  • Likes Given: 160
Re: 5.5 Segment Ares I
« Reply #88 on: 06/28/2008 11:59 pm »
Ga...


wow.. ok.. so what does this say.. its game over already? Or could it change back to the right stuff in time to save US manned spaceflight?

or is it just the case of analysis paralysis,, with study after study, for a price? If that is true is a 5.5 Seg LV just that, a study costing a fortune , providing nothing of value.. and not meeting the needs of the customer, Joe public? 

Offline gladiator1332

  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 2431
  • Fort Myers, FL
  • Liked: 7
  • Likes Given: 6
Re: 5.5 Segment Ares I
« Reply #89 on: 07/05/2008 02:27 am »
Here is a quick render of the 5.5 seg Ares I.

One the left is the current Ares I, on the right is the 5.5 monster

Offline Eerie

  • Member
  • Full Member
  • ****
  • Posts: 858
  • Liked: 208
  • Likes Given: 25
Re: 5.5 Segment Ares I
« Reply #90 on: 07/05/2008 10:07 am »
Here is a quick render of the 5.5 seg Ares I.

One the left is the current Ares I, on the right is the 5.5 monster

Why is it a monster compared to 5 segments?

Offline Eerie

  • Member
  • Full Member
  • ****
  • Posts: 858
  • Liked: 208
  • Likes Given: 25
Re: 5.5 Segment Ares I
« Reply #91 on: 07/05/2008 10:08 am »
wow.. ok.. so what does this say.. its game over already?

There was some game going on?

Offline gladiator1332

  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 2431
  • Fort Myers, FL
  • Liked: 7
  • Likes Given: 6
Re: 5.5 Segment Ares I
« Reply #92 on: 07/05/2008 02:50 pm »
Here is a quick render of the 5.5 seg Ares I.

One the left is the current Ares I, on the right is the 5.5 monster

Why is it a monster compared to 5 segments?

Just spicing things up a bit  ;)

manlymissileman

  • Guest
Re: 5.5 Segment Ares I
« Reply #93 on: 07/06/2008 03:33 am »
Is Ares I meeting its targets?  (safe, simple, soon)
"Safe Simple Soon" is a slogan... not Ares I "targets".


You are not suggesting the prime contractor ATK lied, are you?

Offline martian1

  • Member
  • Posts: 4
  • Derbyshire, UK
  • Liked: 0
  • Likes Given: 0
Re: 5.5 Segment Ares I
« Reply #94 on: 07/07/2008 08:22 pm »
Not a rocket engineer but,
on Ares 1 why not use 2 smaller side mounted SRBs, make the upper stage larger and light it on the ground.
Then use 4 of these smaller SRBs on Ares 5.
I know they won't be 'shuttle derived' anymore but who cares.

Offline nacnud

  • Extreme Veteran
  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 2691
  • Liked: 981
  • Likes Given: 347
Re: 5.5 Segment Ares I
« Reply #95 on: 07/07/2008 08:42 pm »
See the 'stumpy' thread and article.

http://www.nasaspaceflight.com/content/?cid=4670

Offline martian1

  • Member
  • Posts: 4
  • Derbyshire, UK
  • Liked: 0
  • Likes Given: 0
Re: 5.5 Segment Ares I
« Reply #96 on: 07/07/2008 08:55 pm »
Interesting article.
I was thinking of something a little sleeker, but NASA has thought of everything just in case by the looks of it!

Offline arachnitect

  • Member
  • Full Member
  • ****
  • Posts: 1553
  • Liked: 501
  • Likes Given: 759
Re: 5.5 Segment Ares I
« Reply #97 on: 07/09/2008 12:42 am »
Here is a quick render of the 5.5 seg Ares I.

One the left is the current Ares I, on the right is the 5.5 monster

Nice work, thanks for posting.

I think that it actually looks better than the 5 seg. version... "better proportioned."

Speaking aesthetics... I don't really mind how Ares 1 looks (which is not to say I have no concerns about how it performs). I think Ares 1 has a very contemporary post-modernist / industrial appearance. Flashy "space age looks" are seriously out of style these days. All Ares 1 needs is some open lattice structure to complete the look.

I'm going to get a lot of flak for that. Oh well.

 

Offline Avron

  • Canadian Member
  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 4930
  • Liked: 156
  • Likes Given: 160
Re: 5.5 Segment Ares I
« Reply #98 on: 07/09/2008 01:45 am »
wow.. ok.. so what does this say.. its game over already?

There was some game going on?

You'r joking .. right?

Offline gladiator1332

  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 2431
  • Fort Myers, FL
  • Liked: 7
  • Likes Given: 6
Re: 5.5 Segment Ares I
« Reply #99 on: 07/09/2008 02:53 am »
Here is a quick render of the 5.5 seg Ares I.

One the left is the current Ares I, on the right is the 5.5 monster

Nice work, thanks for posting.

I think that it actually looks better than the 5 seg. version... "better proportioned."

Speaking aesthetics... I don't really mind how Ares 1 looks (which is not to say I have no concerns about how it performs). I think Ares 1 has a very contemporary post-modernist / industrial appearance. Flashy "space age looks" are seriously out of style these days. All Ares 1 needs is some open lattice structure to complete the look.

I'm going to get a lot of flak for that. Oh well.

 

At one time it did have some open lattice structure:
http://forum.nasaspaceflight.com/index.php?topic=9205.0

That was shortly after ESAS.

All in all, I have to agree, the 5.5 seg does not look ridiculous and does not add too much height to the overall stack. With performance being an issue, it isn't too crazy to think that a 5.5 seg Ares I could be possible, especially with the added bonus of Ares V commonality.


Tags:
 

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