Re: Ares vs DIRECT

On Dec 4, 4:03 pm, Ross B Tierney <krai...@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
Jeff Findley wrote:
"Michael Gallagher" <mikejo...@xxxxxxxxx> wrote in message
news:1sutk39gm6n2lfhu05d91lrej0lh8pc53o@xxxxxxxxxx
One of the udnerlying ideas behind Ares is to separate the cargo and
crewed vehicles instead of doing it all in one. So having separate
launchers makes sense.

The very idea that separating crew from cargo for ISS missions is silly to
me. If your launcher is big enough, you stick the cargo under Orion and fly
the thing. If your launcher isn't big enough, then separate flights are
appropriate.

Jeff & Michael,
The Challenger and Columbia accident reports both criticized the
combining of crew and cargo - but they didn't think the issue through fully.

It isn't that it is dangerous to fly the two on the same launcher, it is
dangerous to put large cargo's in the same *spacecraft* as the crew.
All that extra weight and complexity greatly limits the crew abort
options and increases the chance of things going wrong.

There is a massive difference between including a payload bay inside
your spacecraft and flying a payload below your spacecraft on a separate
adapter. As long as you have a small crew module with a Launch Abort
System, then if you have to abort it makes no difference at all whether
there is another payload or not. Also, you haven't compromised the
crew spacecraft's complexity because it never has to support, maintain
and protect the other payload. The crew spacecraft remains 100%
dedicated to the task of keeping the crew alive.

But a launcher with Jupiter's capability can save you a lot of money by
launching 20 ton payloads, essentially, for free with every crew flight.

Ross.

Hello, to a know litle like me...this sounds like a good idea. After
all you are launching the thing aniway. I suspect that a rocket can´t
quite pull what airliners frequently do when they are flying with less
than full payload, i.e. they fly with less fuel. I suspect that they
will be flying with full tanks wether they are with maximum payload or
not. Correct me if I am wrong.

So, essentially, as it looks to me, the separate payload module, will
essentially be flying free. I wonder, would it be possible to launch
satellites and fly a mission to the ISS at the same time? Just a
thought.

Cheers, Einar
.

Relevant Pages

  • Re: Ares vs DIRECT
    ... The very idea that separating crew from cargo for ISS missions is silly to ... If your launcher is big enough, you stick the cargo under Orion and fly ... combining of crew and cargo - but they didn't think the issue through fully. ... There is a massive difference between including a payload bay inside ...
    (sci.space.policy)
  • Re: Ares vs DIRECT
    ... If your launcher is big enough, you stick the cargo under Orion and fly the thing. ... If your launcher isn't big enough, then separate flights are appropriate. ... The Challenger and Columbia accident reports both criticized the combining of crew and cargo - but they didn't think the issue through fully. ... There is a massive difference between including a payload bay inside your spacecraft and flying a payload below your spacecraft on a separate adapter. ...
    (sci.space.policy)
  • the "Spencer Launcher"
    ... A launcher with such a noble name :-) ought to be thought out from scratch, ... light tank, with a fairly large diameter, with production tooling already ... ring's mass. ... On top is 100t of payload. ...
    (sci.space.policy)
  • Re: Modest Proposal - Common Interplanetary Booster
    ... Isp improvements on orbit translate to larger launcher sizes. ... To kick a payload from LEO to GEO requires adding 2.47 km/sec to the ... Start with 2 million pounds at GEO and look at two different ...
    (sci.space.policy)
  • Re: question on hyrdogen launchers
    ... > the best size for a launcher to get an orbital ore ... Maybe in the 2-300kg payload range, ... program involving many generations of prototypes in quick succession ... developing initial orbital refinery and manufacturing technology at ...
    (sci.space.policy)
Loading