Ares-1X

[CaptnKirk]

The Augistine Commission has finished it's report to the President, and we're awaiting the fallout from that evaluation.

'They' can do anything they want, look forward to a brave future among the stars, or gather like a conservative conclave from the bronze age.

Meanwhile, we get to check out the conceptual first flight article.


NASA Ares-1 X test flight

Options include man-rating both or either of the Atlas V's and/or Delta IV's.
That alone may cost more than focusing on the ConstellationProgram.

There seems to be a huge misconception about the 'Direct' - especially 'Side-Mount'.
Someone is assuming that there is a pile of these External Tanks just laying around somewhere to be picked off the tree and used.
They simply ain't there,, all that have been built are assigned to shuttle flights, with the very last tank a 'Backup' -
if a rescue flight has to be configured.

ET Tanks - they're gone, and the line closed a over a half a year ago.
They take 2 years to build.
Go figure.

 

[Schadenfroh]

I hope everything goes well.

I interned with Army R&D over at Redstone Arsenal this summer (Marshall Space Center is located inside that base). I stayed with my uncle, a petroleum engineer for a defense contractor working working on this. Exciting stuff and the Ares rockets seem like a top notch platform, hopefully development will continue.

:thumbsup: to NASA and contractors providing high tech jobs while continuing to further our knowledge of Earth and the universe.

 

[WhipperSnapper]

I wonder, how does the amount of space inside for the crew and the functionality of the crew's unit compare to that of the Space Shuttle?

 

[Kirby]

Originally posted by: Schadenfroh
I hope everything goes well.

I interned with Army R&D over at Redstone Arsenal this summer (Marshall Space Center is located inside that base). I stayed with my uncle, a petroleum engineer for a defense contractor working working on this. Exciting stuff and the Ares rockets seem like a top notch platform, hopefully development will continue.

:thumbsup: to NASA and contractors providing high tech jobs while continuing to further our knowledge of Earth and the universe.

What division did you work for?

 

[CaptnKirk]

And so after the 4:00 minute hold is released, they get to 3:17 or so . . .

and a cargo ship violates range safety boundries, and when they get it out of the zone

the weather is outside of the launch parameters for static and visability.

4 hour window from 8:00 AM to 12:00 Noon, it never met launch window for weather constraints.

we'll try agin tommorow, same bat time, same bat channel.

 

[Lemon law]

Yes I agree, the blastoff is put off for a day or two, given all the work and time invested in the program, a day or two or delay is nothing.

 

[sao123]

Originally posted by: CaptnKirk
The Augistine Commission has finished it's report to the President, and we're awaiting the fallout from that evaluation.

'They' can do anything they want, look forward to a brave future among the stars, or gather like a conservative conclave from the bronze age.

Meanwhile, we get to check out the conceptual first flight article.


NASA Ares-1 X test flight

Options include man-rating both or either of the Atlas V's and/or Delta IV's.
That alone may cost more than focusing on the ConstellationProgram.

There seems to be a huge misconception about the 'Direct' - especially 'Side-Mount'.
Someone is assuming that there is a pile of these External Tanks just laying around somewhere to be picked off the tree and used.
They simply ain't there,, all that have been built are assigned to shuttle flights, with the very last tank a 'Backup' -
if a rescue flight has to be configured.

ET Tanks - they're gone, and the line closed a over a half a year ago.
They take 2 years to build.
Go figure.

Direct and side mount are 2 very different competing SDLV - shuttle derived launch vehicles. No part of direct assumes anything about the ET, as it will have to be compltely redesigned and built for a lot more structureal integrity, just as it would be if Aries V would come to pass.

the direct approach is simple... why design 2 very different rockets, when 1 modular design will do for both purposes?
i suggest you do some furthe reading about direct before offering the same old already rebutted opinions...
http://www.launchcomplexmodels...s/DIRECT_ISDC_2009.pps


also...not sure who you think those someones are... but the team which are planning and advocating direct, are mostly "closet" nasa employees and contractors. They know whats available, and whats been shut down, what will have to be restarted, retooled, or completely done from scratch. Direct is actually an updated version of the NLS concept (a 1990s proposal as a cheaper alternative to the shuttle -- as requested by GWB)

Obviously someone thinks rather highly of the plan, as nasa administrator Charlie Bolden has directed a special commission to further evaluate the Direct Plan, far and above what the Augustine commission has done.

 

[CaptnKirk]

And it went well, no major glitches with the rocket itself, a pitot probe cover got stuck on adjacent structure after removal from the mast,
but the multiple delays were for errant ships in range safety corridor, and weather restrictions for first article flight parameters.

Burn-out was at 2 minutes with a 4 segment ET SRB stack as stage #1 and reached 28+ miles at stage separation.
It is designed to actually fly with a 5 segment stack, so that would have burned another 30 seconds and most likely doubled the velocity and altitute.

sao123
Direct and side mount are 2 very different competing SDLV - shuttle derived launch vehicles. No part of direct assumes anything about the ET, as it will have to be compltely redesigned and built for a lot more structureal integrity, just as it would be if Aries V would come to pass.

Everything about DIRECT assumes taking over the ET Tank structure, and converting it into a fuel sucking toad.
The ET System Derivative is based on the tank stack-up supplying fuel to an RS-24 engine set,
the same Space Shuttle Main Engines, and lifted with the assisted boost from a pair of ET SRB Boosters.
Only the Orbiter itself is not present.
Side-Mount or Top Mount - it doesn't matter.

The ET Tanks have no structural provision to attach RS-24 to anything on the aft dome of the oxygen tank,
and a mod like that would take 3 years, with lead times, just to make parts to install.
Then you've got that little problem of having to re-start the ET Tank line itself, which would not yield it's first tank assembly
ready to attempt modification adaption for two or more years.

There really isn't a pile of ET Tanks to pick from, a minimal amount of spare parts that they can group to re-start with,
and NASA sure as hell isn't going to just give all the tools and equipment - the only manufacturing facility in the world
that is large enough to handle the size of the tanks,
and the only Vertical Gem-Cor Auto-Riveting machine in existance to Elon Musk for his amusement,
without a big payment for everything it takes to make them on the NASA Facility.

Otherwise, he would have to design everything from scratch - the tank and the building to assemble it, produce engineering designs,
get parts into the pipeline - with 2 or more years of lead time, train mechanics, assemble those parts when they come in,
and prove that his modified assembly meets all the safety criteria for Man Rated Space Flight Systems.

Even concurrent development couldn't merge the first engine attach structure to the first in-process tank for at least two years,
then after structural completion you have to apply the Thermal Protective System (FOAM) and ultimately test fire the structure
with engines to prove the system will not collapse the aft structural mounts and dome.

So there is 4 years gone and you've still got a 35 old peice of technology clinging to it's heritage - that's not progress,
that concept was abandoned by NASA over 20 years ago - for a reason.

Neither of the Atlas V and Delta IV based systems are Man-Rated,
and they would have to be re-designed as well to bring them up to safety standards.
Each costs 350 Million a pop to fly now, so enhancing them would be 2 more years of design evaluation, structural mods,
and then building and flying the prototype, and each unit for flight would exceed 450 Million as a man rated system.
Either of them would just be a Stage 1 propulsion system - you still need at least a second stage rocket system,
and Centaur won't cut it.

Ares-1 when fully functional is projected to cost 100 Million per launch when ready for LEO manned flight.
Boeing is builllding the Ares-1 Stage 2 booster now, early, but underway.

The entire game is to fund the project - you can nickle and dime it to death, and over-run the costs,
or do it right - not cheap, but correctly.

These are REAL rockets, not models and toys.

 

[sao123]

Originally posted by: CaptnKirk


ET Tanks - they're gone, and the line closed a over a half a year ago.
They take 2 years to build.
Go figure.

The line is not completely shut down, since even the last 4 tanks are not even complete yet.

http://blogs.nasa.gov/cm/blog/...ost_1255467906936.html

Here's the status of the remaining external tanks:

ET-133/STS-129 is poised to launch from KSC in November
ET-134/STS-130 is en route to KSC with Pegasus
ET-135/STS-131 is in assembly at MAF
ET-136/STS-132 is in assembly at MAF
ET-137/STS-134 is in assembly at MAF
ET-138/STS-133 is in assembly at MAF

indeed, even the shuttle extension plan president obama is/has considering recognizes that ET manufacturing would need to and could continue for future extension missions.
http://www.floridatoday.com/co...ace/finalstsextend.pdf

 

[CaptnKirk]

Senate Restores NASA Budget
http://nasawatch.com/archives/2009/11/senate-votes-to.html
So there is a glimmer of hope that we may continue with Space exploration,
or if it does get cut, we go back into the cave and ignore Fire and the Bronze Age.

About the Shuttle Tanks - so the last few are completing in MAF, and so what?
Those being prepped and foamed left the line last Christmas, and the line STOPPED
that's like . . . not building anything . . . empty tools . . . sitting . . . vacant . . . rusting.

Those that are completing are assigned flights extending to October.
Only 6 left, 7 if they fix Hanger Queen 22.

Exactly where does that leave Directv3.0
http://www.directlauncher.com/

Sure looks like ET Tank adaption to me, with none 'Extra', where they getting it?

Build the tools ? . . . 4 years
Restart the line? . . . 2 years