Slashdot Mirror

← Back to Stories (view on slashdot.org)

NASA Engineers Work On Alternative Moon Rocket

Posted by timothy on from the doesn't-even-have-a-hybrid-engine dept.

Gibson writes "A team of 57 engineers at NASA's Marshall Spaceflight center feel that the Ares rocket is not the best solution for launching the new CEV. They are currently working on their own time developing an alternative launch system known as Jupiter. The 131 page proposal, along with other information, is available on the project website. Proponents of the project say that it is 'simpler, safer, and sooner' than the Ares project, predicting the ability for a return to the moon in 2017, two years before the current goal. Ares management has so far dismissed the proposal as a 'napkin drawing.'"

8 of 340 comments (clear)

  1. Yes, because we all know.... by mlwmohawk · · Score: 5, Insightful

    That a "napkin drawing" by engineers never amount to anything.

    1. Re:Yes, because we all know.... by ari_j · · Score: 4, Insightful

      The problem is keeping all 131 napkins in order and intact.

  2. "A Napkin Drawing?" by Illbay · · Score: 5, Insightful

    How can anyone whose project is in the design stage, scoff at another that is in the conceptual stage? Neither of them EXIST yet!

    Where is Ares? Oh, it's in AUTOCAD! Well, that makes ALL the difference!

    Meanwhile, their brilliant project isn't expected to get anyone to the moon before, what, twenty years?

    Sheesh.

    --
    Any technology distinguishable from magic is insufficiently advanced.
    1. Re:"A Napkin Drawing?" by camperdave · · Score: 4, Insightful

      Though Challenger was arguably a booster failure, would it have been catastrophic without the center fuel tank explosion?

      A better question would be: would a center fuel tank explosion cause a catastrophic loss of the crew module if the module were at the top of the stack, rather than at the side (especially if the crew module has abort rocket that can pull it away from the stack)?

      --
      When our name is on the back of your car, we're behind you all the way!
  3. Engineers vs management by Fastfwd · · Score: 4, Insightful

    It's the old engineers vs management debate on who gets to make the decision. Seeing as both cost and speed are on the engineer's side I don't see why management would be against.

    oh wait I know

    Because it will make them look like they have been wasting time and money and they would rather waste even more money while looking like they are not.

    1. Re:Engineers vs management by DerekLyons · · Score: 4, Insightful

      It was engineers who did the ground work for Ares - it's not like management created the booster out of thin air and in secrecy and isolation.
       
      I often wonder how today's space fans would have reacted back in the 1960's - when the Saturn (V) initially ended up nearly a third larger than the Nova booster that was supposedly sufficient for a lunar landing mission... and then required a 20% performance increase on top of that in order to be barely able to conduct the mission.
       
      Everything is cheap and fast and easy - on paper. When you start getting off the page and bending real metal, they usually turn out not be fast, cheap, or easy.

  4. Re:It is all of those things, but by director_mr · · Score: 4, Insightful

    Solid fuel launches with the shuttle seem fine from a safety standpoint. The one danger that did in a shuttle (falling Ice) came from the liquid oxygen tank, no the solid fuel. The other failure was of an O-ring connecting the booster to the liquid fuel tank. That failure was addressed.

    The falling ice problem is addressed by putting the cargo above the boosters. The O-ring has already been addressed. So the new proposal seems even safer than the shuttle. I fail to see how solid fuel rockets are inherently more dangerous than liquid fuel ones.

    Solid fuel rockets can't stop, and they have to be carefully made so there isn't any open pockets of no fuel or they explode. But if you carefully make them (Nasa has) and engineer the launch system to take into account the thing won't turn off (Nasa has), it is a great system. Liquid Fuel can be throttled or turned off, but requires a very complex (read point of failure possibility) pump system to work properly. That has its drawbacks as well. In summary Liquid Fuel and Solid Fuel have different strengths and weaknesses, and when the vehicle is engineered to handle them, it shouldn't exclude either from being used the human passengers.

  5. One more.... by mlwmohawk · · Score: 5, Insightful

    After getting most prized "first post" position, I have one more...

    I would trust a set of napkin drawings from dedicated engineers more than I'd trust a polished proposal from a committee of military contractors and NASA administrators.

    Think of it this way, the latter said the O rings were safe, the former tried to warn everyone of the danger.