Opinions?

http://www.spaceflightnow.com/delta/...07preview.html

Dunno........ but that rocket looks so cool 8)

__________________
If this writing is blue you're going too fast!

Heavy lauch vehicle. And they use it.......

to launch 2 nanosats :roll: :roll:

(I KNOW, there's a heavy demonstrator sat going with them, it's the piggyback concept, and the University Opportunity concept, it was just an ironic remark)

__________________
To the regular visitor of internet bulletin boards it is clear that it's an excellent idea your parents get to choose your real name.

Manned moon shot? No chance:

Delta IV capacity to LEO -> 22 metric tonnes
Saturn V capacity to LEO -> 127 metric tonnes

Delta 4 heavy isn't a moon rocket, its basically NASAs competitor to the Ariane 5.

According to the news report, the Delta IV could send 22,000 pounds to the Moon. That would be enough for the command and service modules, so you could replicate the Apollo 8 mission, at least, and orbit the Moon.

__________________
Everything I need to know I learned through Googling.

According to wikipedia, the CSM weighs 66,871 pounds.

However, Apollo was a notoriously beefy capsule. A much better bet would be a Soyuz capsule. The 7K-L1 variant intended for soviet lunar missions weighed 12,000 pounds, well within the capacity of Delta 4. However, you probably wouldn't get away with a lander, which is what I had assumed was meant.

The other problem is, that you'ld see Satan in a snow plough before you'ld see the Americans launching a russian made spacecraft to the moon.

...which is the #1 hardest problem in spaceflight. We can design to cope with the Van Allen Belts, vacuum, G forces... We can work together, build together, but there seems to be an enormous problem when somebody else has got something you haven't!!!!!

At least US/Russia thinks of it this way mainly. ESA is a bit less stressed on this part: hiking on other manned craft without feeling bad about it, going to someone else's station while not having our own (well, 1 module maybe), lettingthe Russians launch at Kourou (so here Russia doesn't bother not owning the equator ).

If ESA ever felt the need to buy a soyuz capsule to go to the moon, I guess they would do it if it was the bst option. Maybe it's a matter of not having a choice, but it works. Maybe we have less pride, or we have less need to be proud.

__________________
To the regular visitor of internet bulletin boards it is clear that it's an excellent idea your parents get to choose your real name.

You're right - my source was giving the weight without propellant.

__________________
Everything I need to know I learned through Googling.

The ESA had plans for a shuttle to be launched on top of Ariane 5, but the UK government withdrew cash from the project and it folded Instead we stick to sending malfunctioning giant pocket watches to Mars.

Ariane 5 was tested with a dummy capsule in the late 90s, so it could be used for a manned system. I'm no rocket engineer, but surely all you'ld need to do is redesign the fairing to accomodate the soyuz capsule, and add an escape rocket for safety? In that configuration, the rocket could probably do a circumlunar mission, or a manned mission at the same time as a satellite.

The main thing that folded on that Shuttle project, was the launch configuration. The designers couldn't get the shuttle sit on top off the Ariane without making it too unstable or having the joint break. Sideways packing of the shuttle didn't work out either (stability again). The funding was stopped because there was no working design, and no working design was found because the funding stopped... I mentioned this project in the "new russian shuttle" thread too.

If you're talking about Beagle2, you may have heard of things like "Mars Express" and the lunar orbiter "SMART", 2 missions that are still running and already are giant successes... ESA has a lot of good missions, don't stay stuck withBeagle, that was just one mission that failed. The US and Russia too have failing missions.

__________________
To the regular visitor of internet bulletin boards it is clear that it's an excellent idea your parents get to choose your real name.

This is why accountants shouldn't design spacecraft.

Ariane-Soyuz is the way to go. Cheap and the hardwares already been tested individually.

I was refering to the British contribution to the ESA

I know we've got some pretty neat stuff out there, but it would be nice to have some astronauts too.

What is the diffference bewteen strapping a soyuz on our own Ariane, and just letting our astronnauts step aboard one on top of a russian rocket? that was exactly the problem I was talking about.


PS it isn't certain that it would be very easy to accomodate Soyuz to Ariane5, and there still is the safety aspect of Ariane5. A very good rocket, but not yet fully proven as "completely" reliable.

__________________
To the regular visitor of internet bulletin boards it is clear that it's an excellent idea your parents get to choose your real name.

double post

Ariane 5 has more thrust than a soyuz launcher. The capsule would have a very nice range and possibly be able to cut the cost of manned missions by carrying commercial payloads at the same time.

I believe both failures were systemic and have been resolved. Unless there have been more failures I am not aware of, its had a perfect record since.

I don't know exactly about one of the failures, but one of them was a rather stupid software fault (copy
-pasted Ariane4 path references, but Ariane4 was launched in a different path than Ariane5, so the programmed path and the path controller cuoldn't agree and the thing blew itself up because it went of course...of the Ariane4). The problem is, you don't know if there are problems untill they occur. And with the current number of successful launches, the Ariane can't be fully trusted just because all launches since the last accident (...) went perfect. It needs to continue this behaviour.

Ariane5 would be a stronger rocket than the soyuz launcher, but you were just talking about us having astronauts, right?

If you'd manage to launch a soyuz capsule on the Ariane5, there wouldn't be much space left for other payload (considering the size of satellites being launched with it). Some piggyback sats from universities or something, but they won't really cut the cost dramatically I think.

__________________
To the regular visitor of internet bulletin boards it is clear that it's an excellent idea your parents get to choose your real name.

Actually, later down in that article they mention this:

So they're basically treating it as a modular flight system. Need more lift? Strap more Common Booster Cores together...

Assuming that all works, there's more than enough potential lift capacity there...assuming it all works and scales right (which, at this point at least, is a might damned big assumption).

--Nergal

The Russian Proton rocket is still flying isn't it? I know it has never been used for a manned launch, but it has essentially the same lift capacity as the Ariane 5 and current Delta IV. It seems to me the the Russians already have an equivalent launch system.

The Russians have (potentially) an enormous amount of launcher classes, small to huge. Whether they can carry a soyzu capsule is another question, but they all can do it as good as an Ariane5 can do it for the moment (which is "not", until designed). the technological step forward would be for Europe, not for Russia. But why is there need for Europe to make a step forward if Russia already made that step and we are allowed to use it? If the engineering info (and engineers) would be completely shared, there would be no need for double work. Everyone could use all previous experience to make something new, and share development costs. Now all the nations have to take all (or many) steps in order to gain knowledge. What the German scientists did after WW2 could happen between all spacefairing nations in a peaceful environment too.

Maybe it's the military side of space technology that's the problem. Oh look there is the word "peaceful"...

__________________
To the regular visitor of internet bulletin boards it is clear that it's an excellent idea your parents get to choose your real name.

Lockheed/Martin has a nice concept of a simple capsule and service module combination that could be launched on an Atlas. It would use a centaur for TLI. Take a look:

http://www.lockheedmartin.com/data/assets/5565.pdf

The lander uses the same launcher and is sent ahead of the CM. The two rendevous in lunar orbit.

I think that if we really wanted to go to the moon, we could build this or something like it in three or four years.

If we ever make another moon lander, I would strongly suggest some concept that has the possibility of sending a second craft in a very short period of time after the first one. If you crash on the moon, you're dead period. Pitty but that happens. If you land on the moon but you can't return because something has gone wrong on your vehicle (during landing or when attempting relaunch) you're stuck, with little time left. Having some hero rescue crew (limited crew or even unmanned, there is need for empty seats) coming up to get you is quite handy. It would put a little less stress on the reliability of things. I think for astronauts, although they avoid it at all costs, dying is "part of the game" if you know what I mean. They know the risk. But there's a difference in dying instantaneously, and choosing yourself a boulder with a nice view to sit on and wait for it. Redundancy in the form of a second (unmanned in the flight to the moon?) is an option. Less redundancy in the vehicle itself means less weight and complexity. this doesn't mean we should make a crap vehicle "cause we can always send another one to pick them up"!!! It should be an EXTRA safety.

__________________
To the regular visitor of internet bulletin boards it is clear that it's an excellent idea your parents get to choose your real name.

Perhaps we should ask the Russians nicely and bring back the Energia. And I'm pretty sure that I've read someware that the Proton was onsidered as the booster for a lunar mission...

I am all nervous...

I designed some of the telemetry boards used in the Delta-IV. I have also performed alot of analyses on the command and control avionics.

Now, they have already launched the "Medium" version, so our design is basically proven, but still... I am like a nervous dad in the maternity waiting room.

__________________
http://boinc.mundayweb.com/one/stats...033/prj:6/.png

tlbs101, I know how you feel. I was about ready to jump out of my skin just before the Cassini launch back on October 15, 1997. Of course the TV coverage had to make it look like it blew up on ignition due to the close-up camera angle. What a relief when the whole stack appeared over the exhaust cloud and cleared the tower. Ditto when the solids separated. Good thing I don't bite my nails, I wouldn't have had any arms left.

Due to a windy weather forecast, you now have to wait until Saturday afternoon. Best of luck to you and the rest of the vehicle team!

__________________
A person's name, or a mark representing it, as signed personally or by deputy, as in subscribing a letter or other document.

Yeah ...

HERE HERE!

__________________
If you Ignore YOUR Rights, they Will go away.

Not in a professional way, I've had similar experiences:

calculating the need of 80 rivets in a satellite box when the rest of the team (9 persons) thinks 300, and still going ahead with my proposition. During the tensile destruction test (with the whole team standing around me) I felt like being torn apart myself. In the end it prooved I was right and our team won the cake . That's already some years ago.

__________________
To the regular visitor of internet bulletin boards it is clear that it's an excellent idea your parents get to choose your real name.

Hope it goes well 8)

Well, tlbs101, it appears all is go for this afternoon's launch. Best of luck to all the team members!

__________________
A person's name, or a mark representing it, as signed personally or by deputy, as in subscribing a letter or other document.

I have wondered in order to finsh the space science and with the focus on the return for shuttle, will NASA ask the Europeans or perhaps the Russians to help out more. How can you push the shuttle so much to perhaps go up and down and push the shuttle forward so much, perhaps 25 times for NASA's share of the huge up-cargo and down-cargo demands of the finished ISS ? Could the USA now go for the purchase of Soyuz flights, or maybe they need the Euros to help out some more. The Europeans have done well in joint projects before and ESA has some very good co-operative missions with NASA in the past and currently going like the IUE ultraviolet explorer, the Hubble and the Ulysses craft. Should NASA ask Europe to help some more, they could but up some ATV cargo flights from Europe ask ESA to put some of their trained or experienced astronauts on the nex flights and push the crew on the ISS to do some extra EVA work to finish the station. Yes the ISS ahs had its problems but what space staion hasn't plus the station is needed for many projects of the future. Remember their is much to do on the ISS it is menat to be a kind of launch pad for other missions, it is supposed to start measuring 356 feet ( 109 M ) by 291 feet ( 89 metres ) in lenght , science, physics and bio labs need to go up and without the spacesation many future missions will not go ahead. Can the Russian government and their scientists to more to help out ? The Europeans have been working on their latest rocket, Ariane-5 ECA going up from Europe's Spaceport in French Guiana in South America. If Europe were to consider manned flights again perhaps this would help out ? The launch window of ESAs misson opens on the evening of 11 February at 16:49 (20:49 CET) and will extend until 18:10, perhaps after this they should be looking to do more to help NASA which will be doing much manned work in the future ?