Slashdot Mirror
Ares V Rocket Bigger and Stronger For Moon Mission
wooferhound writes "In a move to make the heavy-lift vehicle more robust (predicting an increased launch thrust requirement) to send four astronauts, a lunar lander plus supplies, NASA has announced the
Ares V rocket will be beefed up to cater for our future needs to get man back to the Moon. This huge vehicle is now designed to carry payloads of over 156,600 lb (71,000 kg), some 15,600 lb (or 10%) more than the original concept. Ares V was originally designed to be approximately the same length as the original Saturn V lunar rocket (361 feet or 110 metres long), but to accommodate an extra booster engine and extra payload volume, Ares V will be 381 feet (116 metres) long. This upgrade will be capable of sending far more instrumentation into space, an extra 15,600 lb (7,000 kg, or the equivalent mass of a male African elephant)."
Elephants have been rather underrepresented in space recently.
Bah. If it had been a gas-core nuclear rocket, we could put bases on the moon in a single shot.
I would have said Orion, but there's even less chance of getting that to the moon, even if you could get rid of the outer space WMD ban -- just imagine the environmentalists' reaction to something that uses nuclear bombs as propulsion.
When we produce a huge rocket, the news reports it as for space exploration. When China builds one, it's reported to be for threatening their neighbors.
It's about time. Ares V got finished too soon, and since CEV came in overweight they've been trying to drop bits and failing. They should've made their vehicle and made a rocket to put it where it needs to go, and I guess that's what's happening now.
And how much will the fuel cost?
NASA Engineer: "The extra weight it can carry is equivalent to a male elephant."
The Press: "Oh yeah, African or Indian?"
NASA Engineer: "Why African of course."
The Press: [wanders off trying to find someone to interview who will make them feel smarter]
If brevity is the soul of wit, then how does one explain Twitter?
Am I the only one? (I should have learned my lesson about asking at /. for video but I haven't.) I don't care *what* the video is made of really. I just really want video with my space stories. When something launches, when something crashes, when something oh, lands on Mars or something... I want video. I don't care if it is computer generated, you (and I) know that the NASA folks made a video to present to someone somewhere.
Maybe I grew up in the wrong era. I watched, while on detention (recess restriction really), Columbia before anyone else in my school other than the remainder of the kids. I'd watch, while in class, them launch everything. Back then we'd (I'm not THAT old) watch everything that took off, even if it was a public showing of a communication satellite.
Today the major networks don't even show the shuttle launches and usually don't even show clips on the news. Sometimes they blow up and we get some video coverage but, no... With the rover on Mars we got some nice computer generated or animated videos. The IIS gets no major media coverage, finding interesting video that I haven't watched online is difficult, and it is as if someone, somewhere, forgot the magic of moving images.
I'm surely more sad about this than I should be, at this moment in time, but I blame the wine which you can interpret as whine but I'll interpret it as the crappy boxed crap my wife made me buy but I'm gonna drink all of just to get rid of it and get really hammered but that's digressing beyond the scope of the post so ignore this last bit, eh?
"So long and thanks for all the fish."
If China manages to put a man on the moon, we'll put a goddamn elephant on the moon, because we're America!
African or European
How many chairs is that?
That's no moon...that's a male African elephant!
Tic-Tac-Toe, Global Thermonuclear War, and relationships all have the same winning move.
shudder...I've been on committees just like that.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Comparison_of_heavy_lift_launch_systems
From everything I've heard, NASA wasn't planning on using the CEV with the Ares V, just with the Ares I (and toying with the idea of an Ares IV). For certain, there have been performance shortfalls of the Ares I which are the primary driving factor in reducing the weight of the CEV. The driving factor for the Ares V would be the cargo weight requirements for moon missions.
Seems like the Moon is a dead end - not much water there, no atmosphere. Mars on the otherhand, has water, a slight atmosphere (to protect against radiation).
Obviously we haven't even really tried to place a person on Mars yet, and can not do so practically, as opposed to the moon. I guess the Moon could be a learning "tool", so that we can get Mars right.
I always thought that the excessive radiation present on the Moon would make any long term colonization impossible, due to the doses people would receive. Mars has a minimal atmosphere which does protect somewhat against harmful radiation, and has higher gravity 0.3 Mars vs 0.16 for the Moon. The higher Martian gravity may protect us better against low gravity osteoporosis (thin bones).
..........FULL STOP.
If Ares V can't do it, Arianne 5 will! If we don't explode while launching, that is... :p
"Sum Ergo Cogito"
Just not true
http://www.bbc.co.uk/radio4/worldonthemove/reports/mac-on-the-move-week-ten/
Recycle PCs and build a wireless community network www.hillsborough.org.nz
Your rockets are both strong and big, while Chinese rockets are big in nothing important in good elephant. Of course, if NASA screws up the calculations the front of the rocket will be a lemon avenue flying straightly but as they say, worry to lose is to lead to the evil augury, so you shouldn't worry about that too much. Just don't let the land kill the project to let it going to bed.
Anyhow, rock on NASA. The wish power are together with you.
USE HOT GRITS WITH STATUE OF NATALIE PORTMAN (NAKED AND PETRIFIED)
The Ares V is certainly cool from a "bigger, shinier" perspective, but not so good from the perspective of wanting to reduce our immense launch costs to something even marginally more manageable. A big part of the (somewhat shoddy) reasoning for going with a shuttle-derived system was that it would be able to make use of currently-existing facilities and infrastructure. It's now looking like the Ares V is getting to be too large to use those facilities, so NASA will have to revamp its facilities, raising the cost even more.
In general, it was pretty peculiar of NASA to not devise a launch system which would take advantage of what we've learned (the hard way) from the ISS and use in-orbit assembly, which would've allowed NASA to use the already-existing launchers available from the private sector. Instead, NASA decided to compete against the private sector and create a new family of Ares boosters, basically from scratch.
Here's some interesting commentary from a couple of knowledgeable folks within the aerospace industry:
http://chairforceengineer.blogspot.com/2008/06/directly-seeing-light.html
In a recent post, I discussed the weight issues associated with Ares V (probably to be renamed Ares VI if the extra RS-68 engine is slipped in.) The rocket is growing to address performance shortfalls, but it has become too heavy for the existing crawlers, too heavy for the existing launch pad, and too heavy for the hard stand on which the mobile launcher sits. I suggested that NASA should have initially determined weight and size limits on their rocket, based on the existing infrastructure, and limited the weight and size of Ares V to fit within those requirements. If that rocket were insufficient to meet the lift requirements for Project Constellation, use two heavy-lifters instead of one heavy-lifter and one crew launcher.
http://www.transterrestrial.com/archives/2008/03/out_takes.html
As noted, the vehicle has come a long way from the originally advertised "Shuttle-derived" system that was supposed to save us so much money and time, and utilize the existing Shuttle infrastructure (though the latter was always a politically-induced pork-driven bug, not a feature, if one wanted to actually lower launch costs). It (like Ares I) is now essentially a new vehicle, including components, though if Ares I ever comes to fruition, Ares V will probably be at least in part derived from it. ...
So, they're going to launch the Orion, with crew, on an Ares I, and hope that they can get a successful Ares V mission off within four days, because they can't afford the duration. They build this mondo grosso launch vehicle to avoid having to do multiple launches, and yet, they not only have dual launch, but it's one on a tight window. And if they can't get the launch off on time, the lunar mission is scrubbed, and the crew comes back home from LEO, having wasted the cost of an Ares I launch (and an Orion, if they end up not making it reusable).
This is an affordable, resilient, sustainable infrastructure?
http://www.transterrestrial.com/archives/2008/06/thoughts_on_the.html
The rationale for the heavy lifter has always been to avoid the complication of orbital assembly (apparently, the false lesson learned from our success with assembling ISS is that we should throw away all that experience, and take an entirely different approach for VSE). But it's already a "launch and half" mission, needing both Ares 1 and Ares 56, so they're not even avoiding it--they're only minimizing it. And even if the lunar mission doesn't outgrow the Ares 6, it won't be able to do a Mars mission in a single launch. So if we need to learn to do orbital assembly (and long-term
So, I agree. You agree. We should see more coverage and this should be partnered with more interest on the part of kids, teachers and parents.
Nice theory. Whatcha gonna do about it?
Personally, if the group I rent my space from, with their 26,000 square foot building and a big central space, can get a better video projector, I want to start doing free screenings of every frickin' episode of The Cape, the extended cut of Apollo 13, and any and everything else I can find to get folks into this and I intend to push to get local schoolkids to attend.
That's my plan. And I spent part of today getting AV equipment towards accomplishing it. What's yours?
It's all about the information. And what we do with it.
Yes. Launchpad.
And source of materials out of which to build larger vessels and simply bulk matter to provide more shielding for stuff in space. (If we're ever going to have real settlements at L5 we're going to need many tons of matter of whatever the frack is cheapest to protect them from radiation.
And, if we can mine it and refine it cheaply enough, even "sparklers", low Joule but cheap supplementary rockets.
And, if nothing else, a place to stop and "catch our breath". If you're planning to climb a mountain, it makes it easier if you have a place to stop a third of the way up to refuel, do repairs, etc. The moon provides that.
I just don't understand why we have to keep going over this again and again and again any time the idea of going back to the moon is raised. This is basic logistics, people. A base near the top of the gravity well makes it easier to reach anywhere beyond that gravity well. It's just that simple.
It's all about the information. And what we do with it.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/African_elephant
From wikipedia: Males stand 3.64 meters (12 feet) tall at the shoulder and weigh 5455 kg (12,000 lbs), while females stand 3 meters (10 feet) and weigh 3636 kg to 4545 kg (8,000 to 11,000 lbs).
Article should read: 7,000 kg, or roughly equivalent mass of two female african elephants.
What I do for a living: Build a GPS mobile game
Bah. If it had been a gas-core nuclear rocket, we could put bases on the moon in a single shot.
Which kind? The open-core, spewing radioactive gas into the atmosphere kind? Or, the closed-core, made of unobtainium that is transparent and physically stable at all temperatures even under the influence of heavy radiation.
I was excited by the prospects of closed-cycle gas core rockets myself for a while, but I'm just not sold on the engineering anymore.
I would have said Orion, but there's even less chance of getting that to the moon, even if you could get rid of the outer space WMD ban -- just imagine the environmentalists' reaction to something that uses nuclear bombs as propulsion.
All those "wacky" environmentalists not wanting to set off continuous chain of nukes in the atmosphere on a semi-regular basis. Never mind what the EMI would do to satellites and electronics as the craft started to get into the upper atmosphere.
If it's for-profit but free, you're not the customer -- you're the product (e.g., the Slashdot Beta's "audience").
We have Libraries of Congress for measuring data, furlongs and fortnights for distance and time, but mass was sorely lacking. Leave it to highly trained professionals to come up with a meaningful elephant analogy regarding weight!
The grass is always greener on the other side of the light cone.
First, dear NASA: Permitting whatever mission creep that has led to this embiggining of Ares V is a fatal mistake. Driving up the cost only provides a larger surface on which to paint a bullseye.
Ares V is a pipe dream. Learn why by reading this.
US citizens generally elect the young shiny guy in any given election. McJowls doesn't stand a chance against Obama by that criteria. That means Ares V will whither on the vine after it's defunded to pay off Obama's NEA campaign support (a.k.a 'education').
Yes, I know Obama's current (dramatically revised) position only threatens 'later stages' of the Constellation program. Ares V is the later stage, because no Moon and no Mars means no need for heavy lift. He'll let NASA build Ares I to replace some fraction of the Shuttle's capability and send the rest of the money off to whichever interest group will deliver the most votes in 2012.
Lurking at the bottom of the gravity well, getting old
Which kind?
The one with the quartz. If one's to use the open-cycle, it'd have to be in space - the velocity of the gas would bring it far away as long as the engine isn't pointed at the Earth. And if one's in space, perhaps the salt-water rocket would work better -- that is, if its particular neutron-absorbing (near?) unobtainium actually exists.
What are the main engineering problems with the closed-cycle GCNR? As far as I know, the continuous reaction will be outputting EM in a range to which the quartz is transparent. This leaves the material reaction on the inside of the vessel. I thought the ablation would be manageable - does it happen too rapidly?
yes its nasty. but i blame over-population.
as for the risk of death and raidation poisning from orion rockets....
the sat's that the worlds militaries put up (US military puts one up about once a month) tend to use super deadly mono/biniary propellents such as hydrazine... you know the sort of stuff that works great for instane on/off rocket boost but also makes used motor oil look like organic-euro-hippy-super-fruit's. so why don't people complaine about that? all it takes is one rocket to go off course and not self distruct and you've got alot of poisned dead life everywhere. just like the nuke rocket. so why are people complaining? is it because they are uneducated as to what goes on in the world? i say yes, ya know why? because i've got quite a few guns. and when something bad happens in the news all my friends want to borrow one to keep under there pillow.
bored? try this http://jadmadi.net/blog/2005/01/27/linux-wine-how-to-running-windows-viruses-with-wine/
First dogs and apes, now elephants? They are building a zoo up there!!
NB: The message above might reflect my opinion right now, but not necessarily tomorrow or next year.
Comment removed based on user account deletion
wat
even if you could get rid of the outer space WMD ban --
Honestly.. we're developing "rods from god", etc etc.. i'm sure china and russia both have satellites overhead with releasable warheads.
Who is going to enforce this? anti-satellite weaponry isn't exactly prolific or well proven through real-life exercises.
I suppose it would be a good thing for bush 3 (mccain) or bush for (our new pro-fisa obama) to use as an excuse.. "wmd's IN SPAACE"...
"The war in the vacuum above iraq is on it's 678th day"
VLC FOR MAC IS DYING! IF YOU DEVELOP, PLEASE SAVE IT!!
The Ares V is not being super-sized because it's the best way of getting back to the moon. This rocket is the result of NASA administrator Mike Griffin's desire to build the biggest mofo rocket ever built. It is so big, much of the Kennedy Space Center infrastructure will have to be rebuilt. This will cost billions more. The main fuel tank is much wider than the shuttle tank. This requires a new production line, transportation barge and infrastructure at the cape. The 'extended' solid boosters require extensive design work and are not cheap either.
,undersized. At every design review, it is struggling to meet the thrust requirements for getting the Orion capsule into orbit. The Orion itself is suffering as a result, having to be stripped back to the bones before safety systems are carefully added back in.
Meanwhile, the Ares I is
So, instead of designing two badly sized, expensive rockets that has almost no hardware re-used from the Shuttle, NASA could be building a direct evolution of that hardware. Luckily, such a design already exists. It's been proposed by NASA engineers twice in the past - after the fatal Shuttle accidents. The idea is simple: Retain the existing Shuttle tank and solids. Place engine on the bottom of the tank. Place a payload on top of the tank. This concept has been around for years, but today it's being promoted as DIRECT.
http://www.directlauncher.com/
lots of discussion here: http://forum.nasaspaceflight.com/index.php?topic=12379.0
This architecture will meet all the lifting requirements for getting back to the room whilst being: Cheaper (by many billions), and Sooner (the 'flight gap' after shuttle retirement is reduced from 6 years to 2. This retains all the technical staff that would otherwise be layed off. A similar brain drain after Apollo did massive damage to NASA and we don't want that to happen again
I could go on and on. It is obvious that DIRECT is the better option. They are actively lobbying congress and have plenty of support within NASA. In fact, an internal NASA study found that DIRECT was superior to Ares in every way, but this study was squashed by management. With DIRECT, the next president can have astronauts back in space in his administration. But only if his NASA administrator cancels Ares and Chooses DIRECT.
I have no
And exactly, which nation has the most sats that are 5-10x the size need to perform their stated job? Careful where you point the finger.
Now, with that said, yeah, China and Russia has similar sats in space. That is also why China and Russia have land-based lasers that are capable of hitting our sats. Also, why we are developing the ABL? You did note that the ABL has a nose mounted turrit that is capable of pointing straight up, yes? What is interesting about those 747's is that they are being modified to fly at 60K feet.The atmosphere is pretty darn thin there. In contrast, the ground based lasers have a LOT of atmosphere to get through. Of course, you can easily argue that it allows us the ability to shoot out a launch in the middle of any nation as long as we are on the periphery.
I prefer the "u" in honour as it seems to be missing these days.
Where have you seen any media (ignore fox news) reporting that Chinese ROCKETS is threatening its' neighbor? China is building up a massive military, but I do not think that I have seen their rockets being associated with a threat (other than theft of Russian and America goods).
I prefer the "u" in honour as it seems to be missing these days.
Well I for one welcome our new Space Elephant Overlords!
Going to the moon is not that bad of an idea.
I prefer the "u" in honour as it seems to be missing these days.
Since the combination of Ares I a Ares V is so expensive that they are never to be built, a better alternative is needed:
http://www.directlauncher.com/
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/DIRECT
You have noticed that the dems are the ones pushing the upped funding of NASA. yes?
The general dems are NOT going to allow funding to be cut to NASA. Overall, this is about where we want to see ourselves in another 20 years. And I think that most dems have decent enough vision to build the ARES V.
I prefer the "u" in honour as it seems to be missing these days.
DO NOT WANT !
The main problem: quartz is FRAGILE. There's no way we can make it safe.
These ppl can not even design a decent web site. It was soo bad that google dropped them. If they are incapable of doing something that easy, how can you trust them to design a rocket. Even NASA has said so.
I prefer the "u" in honour as it seems to be missing these days.
Via Korean, Russian then - because I like the muppets... Swedish
Your rocket is both powerful and big, big Chinese rocket in it is also important for a good elephant. Of course, when calculated on the front of the rocket, NASA flight for NASA lemon Avenue in a straight line, but as people say, the devil is a precursor to worry about losing the link, so you should worry too much not to speak. Please do not kill only the countries of the project to just go to bed.
Anyway, NASA cancer. Power, along with your wishes.
Orationem pulchram non habens, scribo ista linea in lingua Latina
...the space agency of Soviet Russia, where male African elephants measure YOU!
“Wait for Hurd if you want something real” –Linus
That was before they started giving them space rockets.
Eric Baird
I want video of the elephant wearing a spacesuit.
Eric Baird
That's because it's easier to train the spaceborne male African elephant to carry out difficult satellite retrieval tasks. It has the longer trunk.
Eric Baird
I, for one, welcome our elephant lifting overlords!
There's at least one alternative that's at the same time highly efficient, being able to be throttled in a wide range of power, has all the radioactive material contained, and needs no exotic materials. It was called the "DUmbo" project (a rather dumb name, IMHO), a top-secret development started in 1958.
A Google search gave me this document, the best description I could find online, but the December 1975 Analog magazine has a good article by Donald Kingsbury called "Atomic Rockets" (page 38) with an excellent description of the basic principles involved, with simple but good calculations of the thermodynamic effects involved.
NASA is designing new rockets for Mars mission. It can be launched two times that weigh what on that moon rocket. And NASA needs few of those to get all the stuff to mars. It was bretty amazing to watch those documents of Mars mission planning.
Let's face reality, spacenerds. Ares V will NEVER be used to hoist anything to the moon. In fact there will be NO manned missions to the moon. Instead, Ares V will be used to hoist ever larger weapons into orbit. With the end of the Shuttle program, the DoD needs a reliable domestic tool to loft Shuttle sized (and larger) 'packages' into orbit around the earth.
How said that they are WASTING all this money to build something that probably will blow up, when they already have (had) the best rocket design out there. The Saturn V was the ONLY rocket launched that had a 100% record. All they would have to do is build it with modern materials, modern electronics and they would be good to go. Oh wait...engineers didn't think of that, so we can't use that idea can we?
Building and deploying a Saturn V equivalent bafore they get ambitious. Bacause NASA has long lost even this capability.
I for one welcome our new moon elephant overlords.
http://www.dieblinkenlights.com
The payload capacity of the space shuttle was determined by Air Force requirements. I'm sure the payload capacity of Ares V is determined by Air Force requirements.
more cowbell
GEO is where we build the Solar Power stations to beam the FREE solar energy to the ground stations, situated on the grid where the old fossil fuel plants are.
Once we have a ready supply of cheap, affordable energy *AND* proven heavy lift systems, then we work on going to interesting places.
Technology -- No Place For Wimps! Grateful Dead and Jerry Garcia Chatroom -- http://www.wemissjerry.org
Are astronauts fatasses now too?
Slashdot: Playing Favorites Since 1997
Why does a country that could cripple the US economy or vaporize Washington DC need to be able to zap things in space? The sensible thing for them to do is wait for provocation and then use trade disruption as a weapon. If push comes to shove, they have the same "game over" card all the other nuclear powers have. Demonstrating star wars capability instead of peacefully developing space is a propaganda error.
Is that a metric elephant or imperial?
Also, is it laden or unladen?
I work at Marshall Space Flight Center, and I can't get into too much detail about the specifics due to security reasons, but the ARES will fly and the design is coming along nicely. It's beyond naive to suggest that NASA does not want to use the best possible rocket.
You mention an internal study found DIRECT superior in every way? Can I ask, have you read this study? I have, and it does not say what you suggest that it says. Are you just spouting what you read from a newspaper, or do you have higher access than I do? Newspapers live on sensationalist reporting. Keep in mind that it takes a lot more effort to send a rocket to the moon that it does to send a rocket to orbit. Also, (and I am making up these percentages here but the trend is real) it takes a lot more effort to raise the safety rating from 85% to 95%. I would not sit on top of a DIRECT rocket.
Additionally, the quality of your opinion goes down further when you mention that almost no shuttle or previous equipment is being reused. That is simply not true. The J-2X engines are a direct evolution from the J-2. The RS-68 is a direct evolution from the Delta IV. The solid rocket boosters and recovery system are also improvements. Not a single solid rocket booster was ever lost on the space shuttle (they are all re-used) and the design for the ARES is almost identical.
The local newspaper here, The Huntsville Times, ran an article from the Orlando Sentinel that basically says exactly what you posted. The next day they printed a response from a higher up NASA executive. Keep in mind the importance of safety and reliability when humans are on board.
"NASA has an excellent plan in place for its future space fleet
The Huntsville Times reprinted an Orlando Sentinel story on June 23 that suggested NASA, now hard at work on the Ares I rocket that will return human explorers to the moon in the next decade, passed too hastily on "Direct 2.0," an alternative next-generation rocket concept some say is worthy of further consideration.
That decision was not hasty. Nor was it the only alternate concept considered - literally thousands of options were set aside for one compelling reason or another in the run-up to Ares development. Why?
Because the Ares family is the right set of rockets for the mission.
It's the best possible solution to our 21st century spacefaring challenges: flying humans routinely to space, supporting groundbreaking research on the International Space Station and sending explorers to the moon and worlds beyond.
To reach this solution, NASA has embraced a multitude of opinions, as it always has done. We value open debate and rational dissent, and rely daily on the innovative minds and voices of gifted engineers and developers who think around corners and buck conventional wisdom. They have been heard, and their insight has helped set us on our chosen path - which began in earnest in 2005 when NASA announced its formal plan to develop the Constellation Program vehicles: the Ares I and Ares V rockets and the Orion crew capsule, and which have continued to mature ever since.
Designing any rocket - particularly a rocket intended to accomplish such bold, far-reaching exploration initiatives - is a tough proposition. It takes years of training and rigorous analysis. In getting to where we are today, the agency has been thorough and conscientious in its evaluation of thousands of possible options. On the Ares family alone, we have evaluated more than 1,700 concepts since 2005, using proven, validated launch vehicle design models and techniques.
Was each rejected option a drawing-board failure, flawed from the start? Not by any means. The prodigious talents of our engineers and developers across NASA and among its partner organizations is second to none.
But NASA works within its budget to accomplish three goals above all else: maximizing the safety of our crews during launch and spaceflight; ensuring the highest-value, most cost-effective mission operations possible; and increasing the boun
Stupid -5. You have no idea what you are talking about. This article headline was miswritten, so I'll forgive you that. The Saturn V could launch about 100 tonnes into low earth orbit. The original Ares V was designed to launch 130 tonnes into low earth orbit and 60 tonnes to the Moon. This new rocket will launch over 150 tonnes into low earth orbit and more than 70 tonnes to the Moon. It will have about twice the capacity of the Energia rocket.
What are the main engineering problems with the closed-cycle GCNR? As far as I know, the continuous reaction will be outputting EM in a range to which the quartz is transparent.
Two main problems with quartz:
1) I have never been able to find what happens to quartz (or fused silica's) absorption spectrum under heavy irradiation. Many materials undergo changes in absorption spectra, atomic structure, etc. under neutron bombardment. No one proposing this idea has been able to show research on whether these materials do not become useless under operating conditions. AFAIK, we just haven't tested the materials under the proper conditions. (Also, what happens to the chemical byproducts of fusing uranium hexafluoride? Considering that hydrofluoric acid is best known for being able to etch glass, this might be a major concern.)
2) The temperatures of the reacting gas are much hotter than the melting point of the material (25,000 C vs. 1650 C). The way this is compensated for is by pouring the super-cooled propellant over the containment to be heated and sent out. What does this do to the stability of material? Just how fragile is the unit likely to be (under heavy vibration, eddy currents in the propellant, etc.)?
The nuclear lightbulb design is a really neat idea, but it needs some hard testing before we can declare it practical.
If it's for-profit but free, you're not the customer -- you're the product (e.g., the Slashdot Beta's "audience").
Dumbo is a solid-core design. It has "a hydrogen moderated metallic core" and passes the propellant gas through insulated tubes designed to keep allow the plastic moderator regions to remain cool. The reaction material is solid uranium -- thus, not a gas-core reactor.
If it's for-profit but free, you're not the customer -- you're the product (e.g., the Slashdot Beta's "audience").
Perhaps NASA won't forget how to build the Ares V this time around!
Ruby Neural Evolution of Augmenting Topologies
And I think that most dems have decent enough vision to build the ARES V.
How's that Superconducting Supercollider coming along?
Don't people ever learn from history? Let engineers, not politicians redesign stuff.
The US Navy R38 (airship) had to carry more than the German version by political decree, so an extra hydrogen cell was added. This caused it to break in two, killing 44.
The USS Shenandoah's original design was also found to be politically "insufficient" and its consequential re-design probably lead to its eventual breakup during a storm (killing 14).
The space shuttle underwent a political redesign to add more payload. Thus resulted in the SRBs becoming necessary which eventually caused the death of all 7 aboard the Challenger.
How many are going to die because of this politically motivated re-design?
Atlas V already launches as much as the Ares I theoretically ever will.
My apologies, Atlas V launches less frequently than I recalled. For 2002-2006, it launched about 3 times every two years. In 2007, it launched 4 times. In 2008, it has launched twice and plans are to launch 5 more times this year. That probably means 5-6 times this year unless a significant accident postpones things. Delta IV has launched less frequently with 1 launch every year from 2002-2006. In 2004, they test launched the first Delta IV Heavy which was a partial success (it had a significant problem but was able to successfully deploy the more forgiving part of its payload). That rocket is a near direct competitor to the Ares I. All it needs is "man-rating" to become a direct competitor.
"Not a single solid rocket booster was ever lost on the space shuttle (they are all re-used) and the design for the ARES is almost identical."
I'll say it in one word...Challenger.
From what I recall the loss of the orbiter was caused by the failure of the solid rocket booster. Subsequent to the explosion of the shuttle both solid boosters were ordered to self-destruct. By my count that is two that were lost during flight.
Now being really nit-picky, if we count any flight related damage that results in a SRB segment being unusable before it's rated lifetime expires as a partial loss, I am sure the numbers will start to add up. During the course of the Rodgers Commission investigation information indicating that other shuttle flights had SRB joints that experienced burn through of the O-rings. On one flight the burn through was about 33% the radius of the O-ring. These segments were sent back to Morton-Thiokol for refurbishing. But that does not mean they actually flew again, they could have been too damaged to refurbish. We do not know. I doubt anyone at NASA really knows. To me, that would be the loss of a segment. If you add up the SRB segments that could not be refurbished, for whatever reason, I am sure you would get the equivalent of several more SRBs that were lost due to flight activities.
While you make several good points, simple errors like this ruin your credibility.
SELECT * FROM User WHERE Clue > 0
0 rows returned
And, if nothing else, a place to stop and "catch our breath". If you're planning to climb a mountain, it makes it easier if you have a place to stop a third of the way up to refuel, do repairs, etc.
AKA "A second gravity well to escape."
If we're going to keep to your analogy, you don't climb a mountain by jumping down a huge shaft to rest a third of the way to the top. The moon is only useful as a place to refuel, do repairs, etc. after we've spent FAR more money on a lunar industrial base than we would save on a trip to Mars. You would have to have regular traffic between Earth and Mars for it to make financial sense.
I support a Moon base for its own sake as a resource for Earth related science and industry or to help us get our legs under us on base design, but trying to talk it up as a refuel and manufacturing resource for an exploratory mission to Mars is fiscal and logistical madness.
If it's for-profit but free, you're not the customer -- you're the product (e.g., the Slashdot Beta's "audience").
Well I can draw a rocket with 8 engines & 4 boosters. Take that, NASA.
There, fixed that for you. Ares V still needs at least 4t more payload to meet NASA's requirements for TLI.
Fly EELV instead, stage in LEO and L1, go everywhere.
gigantino.tv - Heavy but weighs nothing.
Frankly, I'm glad to see a separation of the human element and the cargo element in this ARES design.
Look at all the economic and political pressure to get "payload" to the international space station with the space shuttle. And every flight we risk lives.
If this were separated we would not risk lives for cargo.
The human rating and safety concerns can really focus on one of the rockets. The tonnage to orbit can focus on the other rocket.
The station can still be used for an assembly point. The station is not useless. Complex construction can occur there. A good cargo lifter can compliment that.
NASA is going the right direction. I applaud their efforts. Its a flexible design.
Does it have oil?
But then we're talking about an agency that flew Space Shuttles for 40 years.
The first Space Shuttle flight was a test of Enterprise in August 1977. The first actual mission was in April 1981 with Columbia . Unless I've dropped through some kind of freaky weird timewarp, it's only been 31 years.
Jimmy James? is that you?
Super Karate Monkey Death Car
... also, I can kill you with my brain.
No-one is going to launch more weapons into orbit than China.
Very good points. This is exactly why we need to have a Plan-B, and move forward with the old Shuttle-C concepts as described by Dennis Wingo and others.
What to do when ESAS & the VSE Fail
Why this hasn't been addressed floors me as a logically thinking person, and enrages me as a tax payer. You won't need to change the VAB, the Launchpads, the crawler, etc. You're taking advantage of previous case studies. You're maintain the Orbiter capability for rare occasions such as future Hubble or other servicing missions. However, given that most of the comments to this article revolve around the stupid elephant, I can see how NASA and our gov't gets away with what it is.
Otoh, as a possible "slingshot" point, well, frankly my calculus classes are long behind me and I'm not in the mood to take the problem on.
But that's not what I had in mind in the first place so I see no need to defend it. What I, and many other people are speaking of on this front is the logistics of being able to, for example, boost metals or other materials from the Moon up to a point where it could be used to build a vehicle going elsewhere. And a place where people working on such projects could have a base that isn't quite as subject to the ravages of space (radiation, zero-g, shortages of everydamnthing) as a base up at an L5 point or some such.
One point that I think is worth bringing up again is that not only would the same kinds of "spinning ring" approaches to simulated gravity work on the Moon (though obviously at a bit of a slant and with less spin needed), they would work better. I don't know about you, but if I have to design a multi-ton structure that is supposed to be subject to constant centrifugal forces, I would far rather be in a position to embed that sucker within hundreds of tons of reinforcing rock rather than needing to build the whole fershluginah beastie supported by some vastly expensive structural framework that I will expect to constantly keep from flying apart, taking the people and facilities within with it if it ever breaks.
Fundamentally, whether we're talking about missions to Mars or other planets, or even Earth orbit, whatever we can build on the Moon will get where it's going cheaper from a lunar starting point than it would from a starting point way down here. Same goes for repairing things, expanding them, etc. Maybe a base camp partway up the slope of a mountain isn't the right comparison; how about thinking of the Moon as an oasis? A place less costly to reach than our starting point where one can resupply, rest, and repair.
But we won't be able to use it until we settle it. Until we have places for humans to stay and facilities that are refining moon rock into fuel, metal, and whatever else that's useful there. And solar panels. And all sorts of other things.
It would make everything else easier. But we have to go back and build it first.
It's all about the information. And what we do with it.
Again I say, please respond to what I actually said, not to things you think I said based on just sloppily scanning for your kneejerk-releasing keywords.
R.T.F.P.
That is all.
It's all about the information. And what we do with it.
sending 4 douchebags up there to kick at the dirt is a complete utter waste of time and money. wait until the big one.
So... they're building a giant, orange penis that can lift an elephant...
"National Pride" takes a whole new meaning... I wonder what phallic-like response the russians and chinese will put up to boast their national pride...
You know what, on second thought, paint it blue and offset some of the costs to advertising....
I agree that friction would be an issue on the moon except that it seems to me like superconducting suspension would work mighty well up there. It's sure cold enough and we're getting much better at things like current densities.
As for your other concerns:
- I don't understand why your first point would be lunar-specific.
- I don't understand your second point at all. Obviously we need cheaper access to space. Part of my point is that a lunar base would make doing many things cheaper.
- Again, what's your point? How does this relate to what I wrote?
- Legal problems? Of course. Are you willing to forgo an entire massive body rather than pay a few hundred lawyers? And, more relevantly, are you under the impression that other kinds of space enterprise wouldn't have legal concerns?
- As for health concerns, I agree. But, as I pointed out in my initial post, while those exist, as far as we know, the moon would be far safer and less different than being in space. Radiation concerns in particular worry the bejabber out of me and the prospect of an off-earth base being under several feet of nice solid rock seems to me like a mighty good idea. You're making my point for me.
Are you just expressing more concerns about space settlement in general and not responding to my points? I am confused.
It's all about the information. And what we do with it.
Well, if you won't do it, I guess that I should.
- DUST. Moondust is looking to be a bitch and a half. It gets in everything and we failed pretty badly in the Apollo missions at addressing it in any long-term way. Duct taped maps on the bumpers is not a "solution". As anybody who has spent time at the beach, let alone in the desert can confirm, once sharp little granules start getting into stuff, everything gets harder. Equipment breaks, joints jam, optics get scratched, you can't trust a surface when you put load on it, a cloud of crap obscures things every time you move along it. We're only now getting serious about addressing this and nothing I'm seeing looks good.
- You can't control your orientation to the sun or earth anywhere near as cheaply. This is both a bug and a feature. The good side is that vibration should be much less and much more dampable. The bad side, is, um, the side. A structure in space can do things like shed heat by rotating so as to alternate which surfaces are in sunlight. If you're built in on the moon what you get is what you get, for better or worse. Same for orienting antennae, etc.
- Low gravity can make things more dangerous. While zero G is obviously "different", which should continue to keep people more vigilant, every kind of safety study I've ever read says that the worst mistakes come when people get lazy or miscalculate because they have some degree of a needed property, but not as much as they are used to. At the least we're talking about broken ankles and overshoots on movement. At worst? Damned if I know but I would sure have that factor flagged.
- We don't know if we can trust the lunar rock.
Again, sometimes it's better to have nothing and know it than to have something and not be sure what it is. Anything built in space will be flat out synthetic while on the moon we'll be doing things like placing load-bearing struts over rock that may have an unanticipated weak spot. Do I need to explain how this could go bad?
I don't doubt that I'm missing some serious shortcomings to Lunar settlement and I would be delighted to see somebody bring them up. But with all of these underwhelming "criticisms" being posted, I just couldn't resist bringing up a couple of the massive concerns that none of you guys remembered.
It's all about the information. And what we do with it.