Re: Ares vs Delta or Atlas
- From: Fred J. McCall <fjmccall@xxxxxxxxx>
- Date: Wed, 31 Dec 2008 15:16:07 -0700
Ian Parker <ianparker2@xxxxxxxxx> wrote:
:On 31 Dec, 20:08, Fred J. McCall <fjmcc...@xxxxxxxxx> wrote:
:> Ian Parker <ianpark...@xxxxxxxxx> wrote:
:>
:> :On 31 Dec, 16:01, Frogwatch <ohara...@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
:> :> So, why not upgrade the Delta or Atlas instead of building Ares 1 or
:> :> 2. Are the solid boosters really more reliable and safe? Could an
:> :> upgraded Delta or Atlas launch Orion without huge changes to the
:> :> launch support facilities?
:> :>
:> :> Please, no replies from Kt Or Guth
:> :
:> :SATURN my friend if they havn't destroyed the blueprints.
:> :
:>
:> Blueprints are the least of your problems if you want to replicate
:> Saturn V. You have to build all new tooling, find or rebuild sources
:> for all those 1960's components, etc.
:>
:> Trying to just repeat the past is generally not a good approach. We
:> could build a much better Saturn V these days if a Saturn V is what is
:> wanted.
:>
:
:Futurologists have things called S curves.
:
'Futurologists' are generally loony.
:
:There is a concept called technological maturity.
:
Yes, I know. I probably know more about the concept than you do.
:
:The big expendible became "mature" round about
:the time of the Moon landings. The "mature" big expendible calls
:itself Saturn 5.
:
Except Saturn V was not a mature design. This indicates that the
preceding statement by Ian is wrong. Saturn V was, in a lot of ways,
a BFI design. That's not a sign of technological maturity.
:
:Ares is not really a leap. Ares, of course, uses modern electronics
:which BTW does not ensure stability against oscillations. Ares is a
:modern version of Saturn.
:
Ares is not "a modern version of Saturn". Ares is a FAMILY of
vehicles, none of which bear any relationship to Saturn V in either
heritage or capability.
A few hints for Ian:
1) Ares requires two launches to do what Saturn V could do in one.
2) Ares does something that was considered beyond the pale in the days
of Saturn V; it puts humans on big solid rockets.
3) Ares vehicles are two-stage. Only the second stages share any
heritage at all with the three-stage Saturn V.
That's three and you're out.
:
:It is better than Saturn but is it better
:enough to justify its price tag?
:
It is not better than Saturn and thus certainly not enough better to
justify its price tag.
However, let me toss in another hint:
4) Replicating Saturn V would probably cost more than Ares.
:
:It is NOT a different concept, like a
:nuclear rocket, an ion drive or even the use of AI to mine the Moon/
:Astreroids would be.
:
Yes, it is QUITE a 'different concept' from Saturn V. In this case
'different' doesn't necessarily mean 'better'.
A couple more hints for you:
5) Using multiple vehicles to mount a single Moon mission is a
'different concept' from the single vehicle 'direct' approach used by
Saturn V.
6) Building these large solids and putting people on them is a
'different concept' and is currently totally untested.
:
:You are of course absolutely right. It is generally unwise to go back
:to the past. It is also unwise to abandon an existing technology until
:the new one has proved itself.
:
Quite true, but that's not a justification for backing up half a
century.
--
"The reasonable man adapts himself to the world; the unreasonable
man persists in trying to adapt the world to himself. Therefore,
all progress depends on the unreasonable man."
--George Bernard Shaw
.
- Follow-Ups:
- Re: Ares vs Delta or Atlas
- From: Ian Parker
- Re: Ares vs Delta or Atlas
- Next by Date: Re: Ares vs Delta or Atlas
- Next by thread: Re: Ares vs Delta or Atlas
- Index(es):
Relevant Pages
|
