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)."
Little known fact, but the mass of a male African elephant is a common unit of measure used at NASA and other space agencies.
Which has led to a number of failures when some engineers counted in African elephants when others counted in Asian elephants. Those engineering units are difficult to master.
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.
Looking only at bound books, and ignoring manuscripts, newspapers, microfilm, et cetera, the Library of Congress contains 32 million volumes. According to Google Answers, the average tome weighs 12 ounces. Through simple multiplication, we find that all the book in the Library of Congress weigh approximately 24 million lbs. So, the cited 15,600 lb weight of a male African elephant works out to roughly 0.00065 Libraries of Congress, or 0.065%.
This is probably on the high side, since the figure for the ave
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.
What exactly would be the impact of the radioactive matter expelled by an Orion rocket on the atmosphere and the environment in general? Has there been a study? Do you know? Please enlighten me as you seem to be sure that this type of propulsion is not a problem.
Freeman Dyson, group leader on the project, estimated back in the '60s that with conventional nuclear weapons, that each launch would cause on average between 0.1 and 1 fatal cancers from the fallout.
A super-Orion might be more friendly (since it would use fusion bombs), but also might not be (since it would have to use larger bombs, and would need conventional atomic bombs for the first few "strokes" anyhow). In the worst case, one could use GCNR "nuclear lightbulb" (no radioactive release whatsoever) to assemble an Orion in orbit. But even with a GCNR, I'm pretty sure you would have heard "AAH! Hiroshima! Chernobyl!" all the way round the globe.
Freeman Dyson [wikipedia.org] estimated that launching a 6000 ton Orion would cause.1 to 1 fatal cancers, and it's been shown that efficiency increases with increasing size such that the amount of fissionables expended is almost constant on scales up to nearly 8 million tons.
The fallout from a launch would be similar to that of a ten-megaton nuke, of which the Soviets and the US detonated quite a few. Seriously, if you had the chance to put an eight million ton starship in orbit in exchange for one random death, would you say no? The chance to set up a self-sustaining moonbase in one move? To visit the entire solar system in short order?
We allow devices to be used that we absolutely KNOW will kill hundreds of thousands of random people every year. They're so dangerous that if you accidentally twitch your hand, it's entirely possible you will die and take other people with you. They're called cars.
Hell, using your BBQ slightly increases the risk of a random person getting lung cancer from the fumes.
Everything we do creates some amount of risk. Not to say we shouldn't work to minimize the risk, but it's absurd to worry about this level of statistical significance. Unfortunately, Mr. Dyson dramatically overestimates the public's understanding of risk and probability. He thought he was reassuring people, but most people have the same reaction as you, "OH NOOOOS, SOMEONE IS GOING TO DIE????"
eight million ton starship in orbit in exchange for one random death, would you say no?
I find that question so incredibly fucking hypocritical, it borders on insanity just to comprehend it.
Americans are the most unhealthy people on the planet. Shoving fast food, dioxins, heavy metals, high fructose corn syrup, and god knows what else in shitty prepared foods into their bodies every single day.
I tried to clean up my act and just ate Tuna as protein with fresh vegetables for 6 months. I now have mercury poi
Posit, for the sake of stimulating discussion (feel free to -1 troll me if it helps you to relax):
I assert that this entire thing is a waste of time money and cycles. A pound to a penny the supposed manned lunar landings are cancelled long before launch. I can believe the Ares-1 will fly, because without that there's no US manned launch capability so big political symbolism, but with the economy guaranteed to be in the toilet for the next five years and with oil permanently at least ten times more expensive than the historical average, "Apollo (slight reprise)" simply won't have enough domestic political support to avoid the axe. No doubt Dubya had something like that scenario in mind when he announced the ludicrous and engineeringly illiterate "first the Moon, then Mars" scheme but denied it the funding in the first place. And with the relative costs of fantastically amazing missions like MRO, MER and Phoenix compared to manned operations, then frankly I'm glad.
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 quar
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.
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 developmen
God bless them, they really do think of everything...
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]
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 restrict
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,
Take it easy Son. I had to walk 50 kilometers uphill in the snow to watch Neil Armstrong take that first step.
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.
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.
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:
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.
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?
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
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 [orlandosentinel.com].
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.
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.
Dear Topspin: It's not mission creep - it's the way of world. Paper projects are light and cheap, real world projects are neither. Let's take the Saturn V for example - it's paper version had four F1 engines. In the last revision before bending metal, they had to add a fifth F1 (a 20% increase in 1st stage thrust) and despite this Saturn V performance was still barely enough.
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.
Meanwhile, the Ares I is,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.
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.
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 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
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.
Ares I isn't even close to launching (2014 for first unmanned launches, ignoring demo launches like the one that might be next year). There's a surprising lack of momentum behind this project. And nothing aside from some J-2X development has been done on Ares V. Maybe Ares V will survive the two and a half presidential terms, but that's a huge gamble. Certainly the "ARES will fly" line is unrealistic.
Further, if NASA were interested in using "best possible rockets", they'd be going with EELVs over Ares I. M
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
"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 [nasa.gov]. 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
Fuel cost isn't really a frequently considered factor for research applications where the entire program's cost is measured in the billions of dollars.
The moon almost certainly has water at the poles. In addition, it has plenty of hydrogen/oxygen. So that is a none issue.
The radiation is a none issue. We will almost certainly bury outselves in the ground, wether at the moon or mars (really no choice for long-term living).
The moon has uranium. That provides us CHEAP power. In particular, it provides us power to go places, send big sats, go fast to mars, live on mars, etc.
On the moon, we can build a rail launcher. Since the moon is 1/6 our gravity, it should be relatively cheap and doable (of course that ignores our not having manufacturing there).
If we settle the moon first, then when we go to mars, we send a PERM team i.e. it is a one-way flight.
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 is stated US policy to completely control space, and deny access to it for anybody not friendly. China wants independent access to space, which is seen as unacceptable, so in order to be able to secure this access they need to be able to fight the US in space. If they can't blast American satellites to pieces they won't be able to have any serious space programme.
On a serious note, I don't see why an interplanetary mission can't be assembled from a bunch of ~20t pieces instead of putting it all up in one shot. There are a lot of working, proven 20t launchers (Ariane 5, Delta IV, Proton, Long March 5) so international cooperation would be relatively simple.
Thank god. (Score:5, Funny)
Re:Thank god. (Score:5, Funny)
Then again, in space no one can hear you trumpet.
Parent
Re:Thank god. (Score:5, Informative)
Elephants have been rather underrepresented in space recently.
I hope you are right. [wikipedia.org]
Parent
Re:Thank god. (Score:5, Funny)
for smaller masses the female Albanian shrew is the preferred unit.
Parent
Re:Thank god. (Score:5, Funny)
Is that a metric elephant or imperial?
Parent
Re:Thank god. (Score:5, Funny)
Little known fact, but the mass of a male African elephant is a common unit of measure used at NASA and other space agencies.
Which has led to a number of failures when some engineers counted in African elephants when others counted in Asian elephants.
Those engineering units are difficult to master.
Parent
Re:Except in... (Score:5, Funny)
Parent
Wrong mass... Re:Thank god. (Score:3, Informative)
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.
Re: (Score:3, Funny)
Re:Thank god. (Score:4, Insightful)
The more important question is: How much is that in libraries of congress?
Parent
Re: (Score:3, Funny)
This is probably on the high side, since the figure for the ave
Re:Thank god. (Score:5, Funny)
Parent
Bigger and stronger? (Score:2)
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.
Re:Bigger and stronger? (Score:4, Insightful)
What exactly would be the impact of the radioactive matter expelled by an Orion rocket on the atmosphere and the environment in general? Has there been a study? Do you know? Please enlighten me as you seem to be sure that this type of propulsion is not a problem.
LS
Parent
Re:Bigger and stronger? (Score:5, Informative)
Freeman Dyson, group leader on the project, estimated back in the '60s that with conventional nuclear weapons, that each launch would cause on average between 0.1 and 1 fatal cancers from the fallout.
A super-Orion might be more friendly (since it would use fusion bombs), but also might not be (since it would have to use larger bombs, and would need conventional atomic bombs for the first few "strokes" anyhow). In the worst case, one could use GCNR "nuclear lightbulb" (no radioactive release whatsoever) to assemble an Orion in orbit. But even with a GCNR, I'm pretty sure you would have heard "AAH! Hiroshima! Chernobyl!" all the way round the globe.
Parent
Re:Bigger and stronger? (Score:4, Interesting)
The fallout from a launch would be similar to that of a ten-megaton nuke, of which the Soviets and the US detonated quite a few. Seriously, if you had the chance to put an eight million ton starship in orbit in exchange for one random death, would you say no? The chance to set up a self-sustaining moonbase in one move? To visit the entire solar system in short order?
Parent
Re:Bigger and stronger? (Score:5, Insightful)
As long as it's not someone you care about that is.
Parent
Re:Bigger and stronger? (Score:5, Insightful)
We allow devices to be used that we absolutely KNOW will kill hundreds of thousands of random people every year. They're so dangerous that if you accidentally twitch your hand, it's entirely possible you will die and take other people with you. They're called cars.
Hell, using your BBQ slightly increases the risk of a random person getting lung cancer from the fumes.
Everything we do creates some amount of risk. Not to say we shouldn't work to minimize the risk, but it's absurd to worry about this level of statistical significance. Unfortunately, Mr. Dyson dramatically overestimates the public's understanding of risk and probability. He thought he was reassuring people, but most people have the same reaction as you, "OH NOOOOS, SOMEONE IS GOING TO DIE????"
Parent
Re: (Score:3, Interesting)
I find that question so incredibly fucking hypocritical, it borders on insanity just to comprehend it.
Americans are the most unhealthy people on the planet. Shoving fast food, dioxins, heavy metals, high fructose corn syrup, and god knows what else in shitty prepared foods into their bodies every single day.
I tried to clean up my act and just ate Tuna as protein with fresh vegetables for 6 months. I now have mercury poi
Re:Bigger and stronger? (Score:4, Interesting)
I assert that this entire thing is a waste of time money and cycles. A pound to a penny the supposed manned lunar landings are cancelled long before launch. I can believe the Ares-1 will fly, because without that there's no US manned launch capability so big political symbolism, but with the economy guaranteed to be in the toilet for the next five years and with oil permanently at least ten times more expensive than the historical average, "Apollo (slight reprise)" simply won't have enough domestic political support to avoid the axe. No doubt Dubya had something like that scenario in mind when he announced the ludicrous and engineeringly illiterate "first the Moon, then Mars" scheme but denied it the funding in the first place. And with the relative costs of fantastically amazing missions like MRO, MER and Phoenix compared to manned operations, then frankly I'm glad.
Parent
Re: (Score:3, Interesting)
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 quar
DUMBO would be the answer (Score:3, Informative)
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 developmen
NASA Engineers (Score:5, Funny)
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]
Re: (Score:3, Funny)
African elephants ARE migratory (Score:3, Informative)
Just not true
http://www.bbc.co.uk/radio4/worldonthemove/reports/mac-on-the-move-week-ten/ [bbc.co.uk]
Re:African elephants ARE migratory (Score:5, Funny)
Parent
Re: (Score:3, Funny)
its cuz they're wearing sneakers. Check the butter in your fridge for their footprints.
Re: (Score:3, Funny)
But do they carry coconuts in their migrations?
Video (Score:2)
Maybe I grew up in the wrong era. I watched, while on detention (recess restrict
Re: (Score:3, Funny)
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,
Take it easy Son. I had to walk 50 kilometers uphill in the snow to watch Neil Armstrong take that first step.
Re:Video (Score:5, Interesting)
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.
Here you go:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=5PMvS1hQKxM [youtube.com]
(Computer-generated video from last year of Ares V concept)
Parent
In the spirit of one-upmanship... (Score:5, Funny)
If China manages to put a man on the moon, we'll put a goddamn elephant on the moon, because we're America!
Oblig (Score:2)
wikipedia - heavy lift launch systems (Score:5, Informative)
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Comparison_of_heavy_lift_launch_systems [wikipedia.org]
See, that's why the USA have an edge in space... (Score:3, Funny)
Anyhow, rock on NASA. The wish power are together with you.
Cool, but not so good for access to space (Score:5, Interesting)
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 [blogspot.com]
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 [transterrestrial.com]
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 [transterrestrial.com]
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
Dreams (Score:3, Interesting)
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 [orlandosentinel.com].
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.
Re:Dreams (Score:5, Insightful)
Dear Topspin: It's not mission creep - it's the way of world. Paper projects are light and cheap, real world projects are neither. Let's take the Saturn V for example - it's paper version had four F1 engines. In the last revision before bending metal, they had to add a fifth F1 (a 20% increase in 1st stage thrust) and despite this Saturn V performance was still barely enough.
Parent
This architecture is flawed and will never fly (Score:5, Interesting)
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/ [directlauncher.com]
lots of discussion here: http://forum.nasaspaceflight.com/index.php?topic=12379.0 [nasaspaceflight.com]
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.
You are WRONG and here is why (Score:5, Informative)
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
Parent
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
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.
Ares I isn't even close to launching (2014 for first unmanned launches, ignoring demo launches like the one that might be next year). There's a surprising lack of momentum behind this project. And nothing aside from some J-2X development has been done on Ares V. Maybe Ares V will survive the two and a half presidential terms, but that's a huge gamble. Certainly the "ARES will fly" line is unrealistic.
Further, if NASA were interested in using "best possible rockets", they'd be going with EELVs over Ares I. M
correction (Score:3, Interesting)
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
How soon we forget.... (Score:3, Insightful)
"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 [nasa.gov]. 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
Sorry. Couldn't resist (Score:3, Funny)
I for one welcome our new moon elephant overlords.
Re:Fuel costs? (Score:4, Informative)
Parent
Re:Moon vs Mars - benefits... (Score:4, Informative)
Parent
Yeah, I use to think that same way (Score:5, Interesting)
Going to the moon is not that bad of an idea.
Parent
We should go to the moon because... (Score:5, Insightful)
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.
Parent
Re:Interesting dichotomy (Score:5, Interesting)
Parent
Re:ESA's Launcher Program (Score:4, Interesting)
Parent