| |
 |
|
|
Science Forum Index » Space - Shuttle Forum » Why will Orion be landing at Edwards?
Page 4 of 4 Goto page Previous 1, 2, 3, 4
|
| Author |
Message |
| Alan Erskine |
 Posted: Thu Apr 17, 2008 11:24 am |
|
|
|
Guest
|
"Jeff Findley" <jeff.findley@ugs.nojunk.com> wrote in message
news:2d33e$4807679e$927a2cda$13234@FUSE.NET...
I'll read it, but I think any talk of a 40-year-old launch vehicle is
pointless (however, I think you're just making a point of a particular
design's built-in payload capacity flexibility). If Direct is 'done', it
would still have vibration problems; though not as severe as Ares 1.
There's another reason for getting rid of Ares 1 and Ares V - pollution. If
(when?) the dems win the presidential race, they might use any means
possible to cancel both Ares 1 and V (I've also heard of an Ares IV, but
it's not such a great deal). The SRB's aren't anywhere near as
'environmentally friendly' as an LV that uses LO2/LH2 and even LO2/RP1;
that's another selling point in favour of the Delta/RS-68 combination (Delta
IV Heavy for the ISS resupply and the RS-68 for my Delta V idea to replace
Ares V).
I've no doubt that Ares 1's a bad idea; I've thought that since it was
suggested.
Also, don't forget that production rates for the Delta IV components will be
increased by using it for Orion and Delta V; that'll require more people
with high skill levels like the ATK workers in Utah. Then there's the
second/third (depending on the 'zero-stage idea) stage of Delta V - it'll
have to be built somewhere, so why not Utah? <retorical question>.
Also, the Delta V does lead to increased flexibility of the Delta IV
components and its associated workforce, so where's the loss of employment
that people keep mentioning?
For a Delta V, all that needs to be designed from scratch is the structure
for the New Core Stage (2x RS-6 and the structure for the second/third
stage - even the engine for that is 'in the works' - the MB-60; Mitsubishi
still has that on its website and it would be much better, and less
expensive than the J-2X (afterall, 'X' means either 'unknown quantity' or
'experimental' - not an operational system) - the MB-xx would be available
sooner and for much less than developing the J-2X and it would be more
'user-friendly' for other payloads - replacing two RL-10's for instance. |
|
|
| Back to top |
|
| Jeff Findley |
| Posted: Thu Apr 17, 2008 12:15 pm |
|
|
|
Guest
|
"Alan Erskine" <alan.erskine@bigpond.com> wrote in message
news:LQKNj.2617$ko5.459@news-server.bigpond.net.au...
Quote: "Jeff Findley" <jeff.findley@ugs.nojunk.com> wrote in message
news:2d33e$4807679e$927a2cda$13234@FUSE.NET...
There is also a great PDF on the web which contains the results of a
study
of Saturn derived launch vehicles.
http://www.astronautix.com/data/satvint.pdf
I'll read it, but I think any talk of a 40-year-old launch vehicle is
pointless (however, I think you're just making a point of a particular
design's built-in payload capacity flexibility).
I found it interesting since the approach taken with vehicles like INT-21 is
similar to what the Direct proposal does with the Jupiter launch vehicles.
Quote: If Direct is 'done', it
would still have vibration problems; though not as severe as Ares 1.
True. The vibrations caused by the Jupiter launch vehicle (in the Direct
proposal) ought to be the same order of magnitude that the shuttle
experiences. At least NASA has a lot of experience dealing with that level
of vibration when designing payloads. The big tank in the middle of shuttle
and Jupiter does a lot to damp vibrations. Ares I's inline design doesn't
help much with vibrations without sacraficing payload to address the
problem.
Jeff
--
A clever person solves a problem.
A wise person avoids it. -- Einstein |
|
|
| Back to top |
|
| snidely |
| Posted: Thu Apr 17, 2008 1:41 pm |
|
|
|
Guest
|
On Apr 17, 2:50 pm, "Jeff Findley" <jeff.find...@ugs.nojunk.com>
wrote:
Quote: Seriously though, you're right. It is a *very* common oversight of many
people when they are touting the environmentally friendly aspects of
hydrogen powered vehicles (like cars). If you're going to use hydrocarbons
to produce LH2, why not burn *that* in your engine in the first place?
And that's why there is reasearch like that discussed here: <http://
www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2008/04/080409170347.htm> or <http://
tinyurl.com/3veg5r>
<quote>
The process involves combining plant sugars, water, and a cocktail of
powerful enzymes to produce hydrogen and carbon dioxide under mild
reaction conditions. They reported on the system, described as the
world's most efficient method for producing hydrogen, at the 235th
national meeting of the American Chemical Society.
</quote>
Dunno if you want sugar-powered rockets, though.
/dps |
|
|
| Back to top |
|
| Jeff Findley |
| Posted: Thu Apr 17, 2008 4:50 pm |
|
|
|
Guest
|
<charliexmurphy@yahoo.com> wrote in message
news:833c5f20-8f94-44f2-a053-1d455d7b40c9@8g2000hsu.googlegroups.com...
Quote: On Apr 17, 12:24 pm, "Alan Erskine" <alan.ersk...@bigpond.com> wrote:
There's another reason for getting rid of Ares 1 and Ares V - pollution.
If
(when?) the dems win the presidential race, they might use any means
possible to cancel both Ares 1 and V (I've also heard of an Ares IV, but
it's not such a great deal). The SRB's aren't anywhere near as
'environmentally friendly' as an LV that uses LO2/LH2 and even LO2/RP1;
that's another selling point in favour of the Delta/RS-68 combination
(Delta
IV Heavy for the ISS resupply and the RS-68 for my Delta V idea to
replace
Ares V).
That is a compete fallacy. LO2/LH2 isn't ecofriendly. Hydrocarbons
are used to produce LH2.
Don't confuse the boy with facts!?!
Seriously though, you're right. It is a *very* common oversight of many
people when they are touting the environmentally friendly aspects of
hydrogen powered vehicles (like cars). If you're going to use hydrocarbons
to produce LH2, why not burn *that* in your engine in the first place?
For a first stage engine, LOX/kerosene makes a lot of sense. Kerosene is
extremely dense when compared with LH2 and you avoid some of the cryogenic
handling problems as well.
Jeff
--
A clever person solves a problem.
A wise person avoids it. -- Einstein |
|
|
| Back to top |
|
| Derek Lyons |
| Posted: Thu Apr 17, 2008 6:30 pm |
|
|
|
Guest
|
"Jeff Findley" <jeff.findley@ugs.nojunk.com> wrote:
Quote: Seriously though, you're right. It is a *very* common oversight of many
people when they are touting the environmentally friendly aspects of
hydrogen powered vehicles (like cars). If you're going to use hydrocarbons
to produce LH2, why not burn *that* in your engine in the first place?
Because it's a hell of a lot easier to scrub the exhaust of a single
continuously tuned and extremely well maintained burner system than it
to do so across a couple of million burners.
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 |
|
| Jeff Findley |
| Posted: Fri Apr 18, 2008 3:19 pm |
|
|
|
Guest
|
"Derek Lyons" <fairwater@gmail.com> wrote in message
news:4808dd32.618001218@news.supernews.com...
Quote: "Jeff Findley" <jeff.findley@ugs.nojunk.com> wrote:
Seriously though, you're right. It is a *very* common oversight of many
people when they are touting the environmentally friendly aspects of
hydrogen powered vehicles (like cars). If you're going to use
hydrocarbons
to produce LH2, why not burn *that* in your engine in the first place?
Because it's a hell of a lot easier to scrub the exhaust of a single
continuously tuned and extremely well maintained burner system than it
to do so across a couple of million burners.
That helps reduce some of the emissions, but not all. NOx type emissions
are actually created by combining N2 and O2 at high temperatures, which you
don't eliminate by burning H2 instead of hydrocarbons. Fuel cells can
eliminate this problem for cars, but not for a launch vehicle.
But the bigger issue is that H2 is currently a renewable resource because
it's far cheaper to extract it from fossil fuels than to generate it by
renewable means (e.g. making it from water using electricity).
Jeff
--
A clever person solves a problem.
A wise person avoids it. -- Einstein |
|
|
| Back to top |
|
| |
Page 4 of 4 Goto page Previous 1, 2, 3, 4
All times are GMT - 5 Hours
The time now is Fri Jul 25, 2008 3:30 am
|
|
