Re: >>> better, safer, smarter, cheaper, simpler, lighter, shorter Ares-1 design for the Shuttles' replacement (Orion) and (maybe) also for a (future) NEW (smaller) Shuttle >>>

gaetanomarano wrote:
On 23 Mar, 18:52, Leopold Stotch <***...@xxxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
You show a system where you're supposedly sticking existing pieces
together to form a working system. In fact, almost every existing
component in your system would require extensive redesign, in many cases
to the point of being a complete "do over".

yes, it needs some design and has costs, but LESS than the SRB-5
Ares-1


There's no way in hell you're going to stack a large vehicle on top
of a shuttle external tank without significant reenforcement

that's true (and I've already said that at the end of my FAST-SLV
article)


Likewise, you are not going to attach a set of SSMEs to the bottom
of a shuttle ET. It likewise was not designed to have all the force
applied at that one locate. Again, complete re-design of ET.

true, it's only a concept, not a ready-to-fly rocket, however, the ET
changes (urely) need LESS time and mone than develop TWO brand new
rockets


You damn sure better be recovering that SSME cluster. Didn't read
enough to say if that's your plan but a SSME is designed to be reused
many, many times and is therefore quite expensive for the specific
impulse/lift capability. SSMEs were designed to be reused, but were not
designed to be dunked in the ocean between uses. You would need to show
a convincing plan to get that SSME cluster back to the ground without
significant damage (and without spending several hours bobing around in
the ocean). I frankly don't see that happening from what you've shown.

I've NOT said in the article (nor elsewhere) that the SSMEs must be
recovered and reused (despite the rocket drawing's "engines' basket"
seems suggest that)


There seems to be a lot of hand waving on everything forward of the
shuttle ET. Assuming that part is less that 110~125 tons it's still
only in LEO. All of that is new work.

true, it's the LEO payload, that's why I suggest to "resize" the moon
missions and its hardware for a crew of three (with one launch) OR use
two FAST-SLV per mission for a very "hardware richer" moon mission


I would be tempted to say you've managed to preserve all of the
shuttle's worse attributes while offering little improvement but that
would be an overstatement. By getting rid of the tandem shuttle/ET
stacking you have removed the worse flaw of the shuttle system. Good
for you. However, while removing the worse flaw in the shuttle system
you have managed to retain almost all of the most expensive components
that have made the shuttle system so cost prohibitive to fly. In fact,
I don't see any way your proposed system flys for *less* than the
current cost to launch a shuttle. In fact, given that almost everything
forward of the ET ends up either burning up in the atmosphere or in the
ocean it will certainly cost *more* per launch than the current shuttle
(and that's assuming that you *are* reusing the SSMEs, if not it will
cost *much* more per launch).

not true, if you scrap the Shuttle from the system, do a 100%
expendable launcher and avoid to develop two new rockets, the time and
money saved will be in the order of DOZENS billion$$$ (that's, also,
why I've suggested to rearrange ONLY ready available space-hardware)


You have a good motive in wanting to use existing hardware as much as
possible, however IMHO I think you have picked the wrong (i.e. most
expensive) system to start from. I think starting from something like a
Delta IV and man-rating the components would give you a much cheaper to
launch system much quicker than either your idea or the Ares concept.

smaller rockets like Delta, Atlas and Ariane can be used but they need
DEEP changes in the ESAS hardware and lunar missions' architecture...
these rockets can't be of much help with the planned missions'
architecture

.

A bit more on this subject. You could use a modified Delta IV to put an Orion class payload into LEO in a relatively short time frame by going through the design and making smart man rated upgrade. That coupled with a good Launch Abort System would very likely give you a safer system than what we have today with the Shuttle.

Once you get Orion to LEO you can run it through its paces and shake out the bugs by making trips to the ISS and maybe even doing some minor Hubble maintenance (although admittedly you will definitely loose the ability to swap out large modules the way the shuttle currently can. You might swap gyros and top off fuel/cryonics and maybe replace a bad control computer - maybe). In any case, you get to gain experience using the Orion system in much the same roles the Soyuz is used now.

While you are perfection the Orion in LEO, you have time to build your heavy lift capability. If this path had been taken when the CEV was kicked off I suspect you would have little to no window where the U.S. does not have a manned LEO capability (something that appears to be certain now. The only question is how big the window will be.)

The heavy lift vehicle could be based on the upgrade path that Boeing has lain out for the Delta system past the IV Heavy. It could be based on something entirely different, and in fact it might even look like what is envisioned for the Ares V. Since the Delta IV/Orion could serve as the interim manned LEO capability it would take a lot of pressure out of the schedule. I think a Delta IV+ might well be a good path to a Heavy Lift capability but I am open to other suggestions here.

One side benefit of going the Delta IV route is that some of the improvements needed to man rate the system will not actually cost that much and that subset of changes can get folded back into the non-manned program, improving the reliability of that system. It just makes sense to get as many launches (manned, non-manned, government, and commercial) on a few systems that have some reasonable commonality so you get many flight hours and experience that can feed back and forth. It would be great if you found problems on your commercial launches (which are going to fly at several times the rate of the manned launches) that prevented accidents on your manned launches. The problems are going to exist (no matter what system you pick), the only question is do you find and fix them before they kill someone.

.

Quantcast