| |
 |
|
|
Science Forum Index » Space - History Forum » Commercial Ares I?!
Page 3 of 4 Goto page Previous 1, 2, 3, 4 Next
|
| Author |
Message |
| Derek Lyons |
 Posted: Sun Apr 20, 2008 4:42 pm |
|
|
|
Guest
|
Brian Thorn <bthorn64@suddenlink.net> wrote:
Quote: On Sun, 20 Apr 2008 05:55:39 GMT, fairwater@gmail.com (Derek Lyons)
wrote:
We can now make a guess as to why the decision to develop a new booster
was made:
No need to guess - we have, in black-and-white, Congress specifically
directing NASA to reuse existing hardware and to preserve existing
jobs.
Shhh! Its a lot more fun and poltiically-correct to blame Bush/Cheney!
<slaps self on forehead> Shit! I apologize Brian, I was actually
attempting to discuss facts! What came over me!
D.
--
Touch-twice life. Eat. Drink. Laugh.
http://derekl1963.livejournal.com/
-Resolved: To be more temperate in my postings.
Oct 5th, 2004 JDL |
|
|
| Back to top |
|
| Pat Flannery |
| Posted: Sun Apr 20, 2008 11:40 pm |
|
|
|
Guest
|
Alan Erskine wrote:
Quote: I suspect that what Pat doesn't understand about orbital mechanics
(and rocketry in general), simple or otherwise, would fill a large
library.
I don't understand orbital mechanics either. All I know is it's more a
matter of how long the launch vehicle would take to assemble and the SRB's
(and therefore their derivatives) ain't quick; none of the shuttle major
assemblies is a quick-build.
You' need to have it pre-assembled and on the pad to get real
fast-launch capability.
Still, that's supposed to be one of the selling points for the concept
in the original article.
As I pointed out, two possible missions for it are suborbital: a
unmanned transatmospheric attack bomber launcher, and the Marine's "Hot
Eagle" troop lander. In the first case, you just need to get it ready to
head toward the target by programing its guidance system...far easier
here than a SLBM, as you know your exact point of liftoff, and exact
distance to the intended target, so no updates via SINS or GPS are needed.
In the second case, all you need to decide is what time of the day you
want the leathernecks to arrive at their target at.
In these cases, orbital mechanics have nothing to do with its launch time.
Quote: Also, the USAF paid for the development of the Atlas V and Delta IV for
their orbital needs, so it's doubtful they would be interested in another LV
to do the same job. Unless of course, they're still 'punishing' Boeing for
the 'spying' incident a couple of years ago; Lockheed seem to have forgiven
them, but maybe not the AF. Wasn't that the reason why the number of D-IV
launchers for the AF was reduced and the difference taken up by the Atlas V?
They might want a fast-launch reconsat capability if all hell breaks
loose someday.
Something where you've got to get the payload up ASAP.
As far as vibration during ascent goes, Titan and its derivatives were
real testicle-shakers: http://www.engineeringatboeing.com/articles/pogo.htm
And as the cockpit videos show, the Shuttle shakes a fair amount during
ascent while the SRBs are firing, but that didn't result in the DOD
considering it unworkable as a launch system for their classified
satellites back in the early days of its operations.
Pat |
|
|
| Back to top |
|
| Pat Flannery |
| Posted: Mon Apr 21, 2008 1:21 am |
|
|
|
Guest
|
Brian Thorn wrote:
Quote:
A solid upper stage won't work, they just don't have the burn times
and the iSp that are needed to reach orbit after the 2 minute boost on
an Ares I SRB. You'd need two or three solid upper stages or one
really humongous upper stage, like the size of a Minuteman or MX.
Those are both small compared to the size of the SRB derived Ares first
stage.
I was thinking of a one or two-segment SRB derivative with a high
altitude optimized nozzle of smaller diameter, so that it aft exterior
diameter matches the diameter of the Ares I first stage.
Burn time would be extended via changes to the central bore design or
fuel combustion rate.
If you do this right, you can have a large all-solid two stage booster,
with the possibly of a third stage solid motor on the payload itself.
It wouldn't have the orbital payload capability of Ares I by any means,
but it would have a very rapid reaction time if it was stacked and on
the pad 24/7.
Quote: In
any event, this vehicle is no longer an Ares I.
First stage is, and that's around 2/3rds of the whole vehicle by mass.
Quote: So if it is just the
big solid first stage that the Air Force wants, why wouldn't they just
use the big solid booster from Atlas 5, which they already have
control over (more than NASA's SRB, anyway.)
Simple - as they are redesigning the SRB for Ares I with the added
segment, they can make the SRB-derived second stage at comparatively
knock-down price.
Quote: Even using storable propellants, you could get it tanked up for launch
if a crises arose and still get it airborne in a matter of a few
minutes.
Yeah, right! Pump the UDMH boys, we gotta get this spysat launched!
No, don't worry about safety, that stuff won't hurt you if a little
leaks!
Worked for Titan II for around two decades as they sat in their giant silos.
Still works for a lot of Russian ICBMs.
That's why I said keep a eye on any sort of big holes being dug.
To protect it from weather long-term, any such system would probably be
in a silo, or above-ground protective enclosure of some sort
Quote: Pat, I like your style. You're usually a pretty good participant in
sci.space, but in this case, your hatred and paranoia of Bush/Cheney
has so clouded your thinking that you are truly embarrassing yourself.
After all the things the Bush/Cheney White House has done in the past 7
years, the concept of "paranoia" in regards to their actions is entirely
meaningless.
Read the latest little revelation that came out yesterday?:
http://www.nytimes.com/2008/04/20/washington/20generals.html?em&ex=1208923200&en=a4ee1c89d3b31d22&ei=5087%0A
Even the people involved with this are saying it was wrong, and they
were badly used for political ends:
“It was them saying, ‘We need to stick our hands up your back and move
your mouth for you,’ ” Robert S. Bevelacqua, a retired Green Beret and
former Fox News analyst, said."
At least it's good to see there's some honor left in our military, if
not in the office of their Commander-and-Chief.
We saw the same crap in regards to Vietnam, all those years ago.
The difference this time is that it's not the Pentagon and Eisenhower's
"Military-Industrial Complex" big boys that are bad guys; it's all the
private contractors like Blackwater, KBR, and Halliburton that have a
vested interest in keeping this war going...as to them, war is all about
their corporate bottom line.
No "Merchants Of Death" here; more like "Government Contractors Of Death".
Hell, they'll torture people, and get the contract to do it by
submitting the lowest bid to perform that service, while staying neatly
outside the Uniform Code Of Military Justice by not being members of a
military service, and avoiding any aspect of the Geneva Conventions by
being in a "war" that has never had a Declaration Of War in regards to
it passed by the US Congress.
A long time from now (or maybe tomorrow, who knows?) as my last day
dawns, I'm going to have the advantage of knowing that I really did
stand firm by the oath I took when I joined the Air Force; I did indeed
strive to "Support And Defend The Constitution Of The United States
Against All Enemies; Foreign And Domestic."
You, on the other hand (if luck is with this nation), are going to have
to explain to both yourself and others in the years to come why exactly
you stood with a presidential administration that's every action
betrayed the Bill Of Rights, enriched its friends via gross corruption
at all levels, lied on a daily basis with as little concern as if it
were swatting a fly, sought to replace a spirit of hope, tolerance, and
possibilities in its citizenry with a spirit of fear, intolerance, and
blind hate toward anything or anyone that is not like "they" are
(including their fellow citizens), and strove to instill a concept of
war in them where they were not only very enthused to watch a war on
television in the spirit of a football game - where "our" side and
"their" side are in some sort of a sporting event, but also where and
all the dead and maimed on both sides have as little real existence as
characters in a video game.
Benjamin Franklin stated on the signing of the Constitution: "You have a
democracy; if you can keep it."
As of right now, that carved sun on the horizon that was on the back of
the chair ahead of his in Constitutional Hall, and that he contemplated
day-by-day as the debates continued over the future government of our
nation, looks a lot more like it's setting than rising.
Pat |
|
|
| Back to top |
|
| Pat Flannery |
| Posted: Tue Apr 22, 2008 1:30 am |
|
|
|
Guest
|
Andre Lieven wrote:
Quote: Plus, Pat can be funny; The PfaNAM types wouldn't know funny if a
767 flew it into them...
Bush's crew can be unintentionally quite funny; remember Ashcroft
putting the drapes over the naked statues at the Department of Justice? 
Today, CBS News had a interesting report on veterans attempting to
commit suicide:
http://cbs11tv.com/national/VA.suicide.risk.2.705269.html
Pat |
|
|
| Back to top |
|
| Pat Flannery |
| Posted: Tue Apr 22, 2008 2:00 am |
|
|
|
Guest
|
Andre Lieven wrote:
Quote: ''This is why he dispenses with people who confront him with
inconvenient
facts,'' Bartlett went on to say. ''He truly believes he's on a
mission from
God.
He _is_ on a mission from God... God has chosen for him to completely
annihilate the Republican Neoconservative movement, and he's doing it
brilliantly.
The fact that he doesn't know that's what his holy mission is makes it
pretty amusing, like King David sending Uriah to Joab carrying orders
for Joab to get him killed ASAP.
I still like when Bush looked a Putin (you know, "Poot-Poot") and saw
his soul. He may have wondered why that soul was wearing a white
uniform, had a mustache, and was smoking a pipe, but anyway.... :-D
Pat |
|
|
| Back to top |
|
| Dave Michelson |
| Posted: Tue Apr 22, 2008 2:36 am |
|
|
|
Guest
|
Andre Lieven wrote:
Quote:
The more likely option is that Bush & Cheney are among the most
arrogant and most ignorant/incompetent human beings ever.
I suppose they're part of your misandrous conspiracy, too.
--
Dave Michelson
davem@ece.ubc.ca |
|
|
| Back to top |
|
| Andre Lieven |
| Posted: Tue Apr 22, 2008 10:33 am |
|
|
|
Guest
|
On Apr 22, 2:30 am, Pat Flannery <flan...@daktel.com> wrote:
Quote: Andre Lieven wrote:
The below quoted line was written by Brian Thorn, not by myself.
Quote: Plus, Pat can be funny; The PfaNAM types wouldn't know funny if a
767 flew it into them...
Bush's crew can be unintentionally quite funny; remember Ashcroft
putting the drapes over the naked statues at the Department of Justice?
Today, CBS News had a interesting report on veterans attempting to
commit suicide:http://cbs11tv.com/national/VA.suicide.risk.2.705269.html
One could not have imagined a more absurd administration with which
to create much satire over, thus increasing the viewership of The
Daily
Show and The Colbert Report...
Does Bush, Cheney, et al, own shares in Comedy Central ? :-)
Andre |
|
|
| Back to top |
|
| Andre Lieven |
| Posted: Tue Apr 22, 2008 10:38 am |
|
|
|
Guest
|
On Apr 22, 3:36 am, Dave Michelson <da...@ece.ubc.ca> wrote:
Quote: Andre Lieven wrote:
The more likely option is that Bush & Cheney are among the most
arrogant and most ignorant/incompetent human beings ever.
I suppose they're part of your misandrous conspiracy, too.
Silly people seek conspiracies where confluence of interests form
far more reasonable explanations. Note that a Republican majority
House & Senate re-authorised VAWA.
That we, in most of the 1st World, live in a feminised society is not
a debatable point. The mounds of evidence for that fact are serious.
Read Dr. Warren Farrell's The Myth of Male Power. If you have not,
then you do not possess any informed views on this point. If you
wish to read on the Web, Glenn Sacks' site contains hundreds of
on topic articles and lots of data.
I could also offer a book reading list on the topic that well exceeds
two dozen.
Knowledge; its a Good Thing.
Andre |
|
|
| Back to top |
|
| Andre Lieven |
| Posted: Tue Apr 22, 2008 2:51 pm |
|
|
|
Guest
|
On Apr 22, 6:42 pm, Pat Flannery <flan...@daktel.com> wrote:
Quote: Andre Lieven wrote:
On Apr 22, 2:30 am, Pat Flannery <flan...@daktel.com> wrote:
Andre Lieven wrote:
The below quoted line was written by Brian Thorn, not by myself.
Whoops, sorry... I thought the brackets would show it wasn't your line.
The only name that came through was mine, and the only text that
came through was Mr. Thorn's... I just wanted to be clear about that.
Quote: One could not have imagined a more absurd administration with which
to create much satire over, thus increasing the viewership of The
Daily Show and The Colbert Report...
Does Bush, Cheney, et al, own shares in Comedy Central ? :-)
The low point has to be the "Lil' Bush" animated series. 
I've seen commercials, but no episodes. How about getting the
Presidential candidates, once the D's have a candidate, to do their
shtick on Lewis Black's The Root Of All Evil ? <g>
Andre |
|
|
| Back to top |
|
| Pat Flannery |
| Posted: Tue Apr 22, 2008 5:42 pm |
|
|
|
Guest
|
Andre Lieven wrote:
Quote: On Apr 22, 2:30 am, Pat Flannery <flan...@daktel.com> wrote:
Andre Lieven wrote:
The below quoted line was written by Brian Thorn, not by myself.
Whoops, sorry... I thought the brackets would show it wasn't your line.
Quote: One could not have imagined a more absurd administration with which
to create much satire over, thus increasing the viewership of The
Daily
Show and The Colbert Report...
Does Bush, Cheney, et al, own shares in Comedy Central ? :-)
The low point has to be the "Lil' Bush" animated series. :-)
Pat |
|
|
| Back to top |
|
| Pat Flannery |
| Posted: Wed Apr 23, 2008 7:24 am |
|
|
|
Guest
|
Andre Lieven wrote:
Quote: I've seen commercials, but no episodes. How about getting the
Presidential candidates, once the D's have a candidate, to do their
shtick on Lewis Black's The Root Of All Evil ? <g
Comedy Central used to have a great Wednesday night line-up, with South
Park, Reno 911, The Daily Show, and The Colbert Report running back-to-back.
Rather than show reruns of Reno 911, they stuck Lewis Black in
there...and he's like a skunk showing up at a picnic.
The show is one of the loudest, most pea-brained, and downright annoying
things since the days of The Gong Show.
Pat |
|
|
| Back to top |
|
| Michael Gallagher |
| Posted: Sun Apr 27, 2008 11:40 am |
|
|
|
Guest
|
On Mon, 21 Apr 2008 13:59:34 -0400, "Jeff Findley"
<jeff.findley@ugs.nojunk.com> wrote:
Quote:
Atlas V and Delta IV were developed with some commercial investment as well
as government funding. Ares will be developed entirely using government
funding.
Which has what to do with how it's used? If ATK and Boeing market
commercial launches on it, so what?
Quote: When were Saturn's used for military and commercial missions?
I think one Saturn 1B was once used for a non-Apollo launch. I don't
know the details. But I thought the name was a hommage because both
come from Greek mythology. No conspiracy theory required.
----== Posted via Newsfeeds.Com - Unlimited-Unrestricted-Secure Usenet News==----
http://www.newsfeeds.com The #1 Newsgroup Service in the World! 120,000+ Newsgroups
----= East and West-Coast Server Farms - Total Privacy via Encryption =---- |
|
|
| Back to top |
|
| Dale Carlson |
| Posted: Sun Apr 27, 2008 11:59 am |
|
|
|
Guest
|
On Sun, 27 Apr 2008 12:40:46 -0400, Michael Gallagher wrote:
Quote: On Mon, 21 Apr 2008 13:59:34 -0400, "Jeff Findley" wrote:
When were Saturn's used for military and commercial missions?
I think one Saturn 1B was once used for a non-Apollo launch. I don't
know the details.
AS-203 was launched without a CSM- it was used to test the
Saturn-IVB stage. Of the remaining 8 launches, 5 carried crews
(Apollo 7, 3 Skylab missions and ASTP) and the other 3 carried
CSMs on test flights. No "military and commercial" missions, and
nothing I'd consider "non-Apollo".
Dale |
|
|
| Back to top |
|
| Dale Carlson |
| Posted: Sun Apr 27, 2008 12:13 pm |
|
|
|
Guest
|
One correction- AS-204 (AKA "Apollo 5" carried a
LM, not a CSM. But still an "Apollo" flight, as the
designation "AS" of all these launches would imply :)
Dale |
|
|
| Back to top |
|
| Rand Simberg |
| Posted: Sun Apr 27, 2008 1:18 pm |
|
|
|
Guest
|
On Sun, 27 Apr 2008 12:40:46 -0400, in a place far, far away, Michael
Gallagher <mikejoe7g@yahoo.com> made the phosphor on my monitor glow
in such a way as to indicate that:
Quote: On Mon, 21 Apr 2008 13:59:34 -0400, "Jeff Findley"
jeff.findley@ugs.nojunk.com> wrote:
Atlas V and Delta IV were developed with some commercial investment as well
as government funding. Ares will be developed entirely using government
funding.
Which has what to do with how it's used? If ATK and Boeing market
commercial launches on it, so what?
So it's awful, awful policy, which discourages private investment into
launch systems that may be truly cheaper, because they have to
unfairly compete with government-funded systems, paid for with their
tax dollars. This was one of the reasons that commercial space took
so long to develop, as a result of competition with the Shuttle. |
|
|
| Back to top |
|
| |
Page 3 of 4 Goto page Previous 1, 2, 3, 4 Next
All times are GMT - 5 Hours
The time now is Sat Aug 30, 2008 1:38 am
|
|