|
Chatroom |
|
| If this is your first visit, be sure to check out the FAQ by clicking the link above. You may have to register before you can post: click the register link above to proceed. To start viewing messages, select the forum that you want to visit from the selection below. |
|
|||||||
| Register | FAQ | Members List | Calendar | Mark Forums Read |
 |
|
|
LinkBack | Thread Tools | Search this Thread | Display Modes |
30-June-2006, 03:45 PM
|
||||
|
||||
Why NASA still waits to adopt the ready available Ariane5 to launch the CEV capsule?
.
I don't like capsules for LEO launches (I prefer a new, little and safer Shuttle) and I think that a single-launch architecture is better than an 1.5-launch architecture for moon missions, but, since NASA insists to want the CLV and the 1.5 architecture, why they follow the worst way that needs too much money and many years to have the first orbital CEV launch only in 2014-up !!! Why they don't use the Ariane5 of their European allieds and friends? I think there are MANY advantages in the "Ariane5 solution" for the CLV: 1. Ariane5 is READY AVAILABLE NOW and FLY while the CLV will have its first unmanned test launches only in 2012-up. 2. The core stage of the Ariane5 has the same 5mt. diameter of the lunar CEV/SM. 3. The last evolution of the Ariane5 is able to launch up to 21 mT in LEO (like the ATV) that is the new weight of the resized 5mt. lunar CEV/SM (the total weight of the original 5.5mt. lunar CEV/SM was around 23 mT) 4. Ariane5 needs only to be man-rated and that may be done in two years and with less than $500M (since the Ariane5 was ALREADY designed to launch manned vehicles like Hermes) 5. With the Ariane5 the first orbital CEV launch may happen in 2010 (the year of Shuttle reirement) instead of 2014 (last official date) + further delays and the first moon mission may happen in 2016 instead of 2020 (last official date) + further delays. 6. Each Ariane5 launch costs about $200M instead of the unknown (but, I think, very high) cost of a CLV launch in 2014... 7. NASA don't needs to spend $7 billion of R&D costs (a figure that many think will grow to $10B+ within 2014...) and, with the money saved, NASA can buy fron 35 to 50 Ariane5 (!!!!!!!!!) ...in other words... only with the R&D saved, NASA can buy ALL the rockets they need for ALL orbital missions and ALL moon missions in the next 30 years after 2010 !!!!!!!!!!!!!! 8. Despite the cost of an Ariane5 is very low, NASA may have them FREEEEEEEEE by simply offer to ESA to send on the moon ONE European astronaut every two moon missions! ...ESA will give ALL rockets FREE and NASA will give some moon-seats FREE !!! 9. If NASA will use the Ariane5 will build its own Cape Canaveral launch pad, but, if they need another pad, may use the Kourou spaceport. 10. If NASA don't receive the giant funds to develop the CLV or the plan will be too slow, they risk the entire plan to be DELETED while, using the ready available Ariane5, they can accomplish the first CEV mission in less time and less money! 11. The CLV don't exist now and its design will be completely different from to-day's rockets... it may be better and works... but may have problems about stability, acceleration, aerodynamic, reliability, delays, etc. etc. etc... then, if the REAL rocket will be not good like "on paper" it will never fly (or never fly manned) and NASA must restart form ZERO with another design! ...while Ariane5 (like other EELVs) already fly! 12. And, if NASA will share with ESA the CEV/SM research and test work, maybe, also the CEV will borns one-two years before than planned. I'm sure that we can found MANY other good reasons to adopt (NOW) the Ariane5 instead of the (future and uncertain) CLV but I give you ONE REASON that is BETTER than all the 12 already listed here... LOOK AT THE IMAGE IN THIS POST... DO YOU WANT (AN LIKE) TO SEE THAT IMAGE TO BECOME REAL IN A FEW YEARS... OR WANT TO SEE THE CLV IN 2014-UP ...OR NEVER IF IT DON'T WORKS OR NASA DON'T RECEIVE THE FUNDS ??? . 
|
|
30-June-2006, 04:15 PM
|
||||
|
||||
Quote:
After all Gemini and Mercury programs were big bucks, and they had proven high production volume launch boosters. Other than that, using an existing technology would be advantagious and I would agree, but I don't think we have heard enough about the details of the program yet to be upset about them. Isn't the proposed lifting stage a derivitive of existing vehicles now?
|
|
30-June-2006, 04:26 PM
|
||||
|
||||
|
Quote:
early NASA claims was: $5B of R&D costs for the CEV/SM and $5B of R&D costs for the CLV after SRB's problems the NASA claim for R&D costs is $7B only for the CLV of course, with the Ariane5 NASA will save the CLV R&D costs but not the CEV/SM R&D costs .
|
|
30-June-2006, 04:33 PM
|
|||
|
|||
|
The Euros might need to persuade the former Soviets to give them a Zarya type capsule for Ariane 5.
http://www.astronautix.com/craft/zarya.htm It would be a better fit than what you have here: http://www.russianspaceweb.com/kliper_lunar.html
|
|
30-June-2006, 04:40 PM
|
||||
|
||||
|
Quote:
the main purpose of my proposal is to SAVE time and money joining the ready available Ariane5 with the CEV (that NASA can develop and build in about 5 years) if we add two "paper spacecrafts" that needs 10+ years each to born (with funds that don't exist!) we lose all the advantages of the CEV/Ariane5 soution! .
|
|
30-June-2006, 05:05 PM
|
||||
|
||||
|
Quote:
Based on these 2 links: NASA/CEV ESA/ARIANE NASA: A second, heavy-lift system uses a pair of the longer solid rocket boosters and five core stage engines to put up to 125 metric tons in orbit -- about one and a half times the weight of a shuttle orbiter. ESA: The chart shows 21 tonnes for ATV and that's the model with the biggest capacity. I would say that pretty much wipes out Ariane as an alternative. I was also in search of a more detailed cost analysis to answer these questions: - How much of your $5B statement is in man-rating? - How early and for what were the estimates being stated? (Early estimates seem to never reflect reality for NASA) - What are current estimates? - What is the breakdown between the Lift booster and the Crew booster?
|
|
30-June-2006, 05:33 PM
|
||||
|
||||
|
Furthermore, while Ariane5 was designed with man rating in mind (remember Hermes), as far as I'm aware it is not man rated at the moment. I can imagine it wouldn't take too much to do that though, as it was designed to be man rated.
__________________
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.
|
|
30-June-2006, 08:11 PM
|
||||
|
||||
|
Quote:
.
|
|
30-June-2006, 08:30 PM
|
||||
|
||||
|
Quote:
Quote:
about "early estimates"... the early figures already grow of billions a few months after ESAS plan (like the +2B for the SRB) I don't know the "current estimates" but you can be sure it will double or more in the next years... (like with Shuttles, ISS, etc.) .
|
|
30-June-2006, 08:40 PM
|
||||
|
||||
|
Quote:
Anyway. The bottom line, most likely true, reasonable from the viewpoint of inhaling the stink out of Washington daily, reason for not using the Arianne is that NASA wants a home grown system for official use. Might be shortsighted from the viewpoint of a speed to operational standpoint, but given the national security issues, financing issues, re-election issues (Think job creation and government money that goes into districts where these things will be built and all the trickle down to the subcontractors. Voting with their paychecks, so to speak), licensing issues, treaty issues, and quite frankly, pride issues, they really would rather have an American booster lofting American capsules. A piece of machinery they have nitpick-level oversight from forging to launching, as well as something they can trot out with some public relations weight.
__________________
I'm not completely heartless, the doctor who removed it told me he'd never be able to get it all.
|
|
30-June-2006, 09:46 PM
|
|||
|
|||
|
Provided there isn't some detail that I'm unaware of, using a currently existing rocket should be a lot cheaper and faster than trying to build one from scratch, even if you do have a good idea of what you're doing. The only real objections I can think of would be political. Personally I think it would be a good investment to overcome the political objections and defend the taxpayers interests, otherwise meddeling might cause problems as bad as those exerienced in the development of the shuttle.
|
|
30-June-2006, 09:58 PM
|
||||
|
||||
|
Quote:
they don't want to come back to the moon to explore, science, etc. etc. etc. they only want to build another "Spruce Goose" ...no matter if it never fly to the moon...  .
|
|
01-July-2006, 06:28 AM
|
||||
|
||||
|
Ares I & V
NASA announced on Friday the names of the next generation of launch vehicles that will return humans to the moon and later take them to Mars and other destinations. The crew launch vehicle will be called Ares I, and the cargo launch vehicle will be known as Ares V.
"It's appropriate that we named these vehicles Ares, which is a pseudonym for Mars. We honour the past with the number designations and salute the future with a name that resonates with NASA's exploration mission" said Scott Horowitz, associate administrator for NASA's Exploration Systems Mission Directorate, Washington. The "I and V" designations pay homage to the Apollo program's Saturn I and Saturn V rockets, the first large U.S. space vehicles conceived and developed specifically for human spaceflight. The crew exploration vehicle, which will succeed the space shuttle as NASA's spacecraft for human space exploration, will be named later. This vehicle will be carried into space by Ares I, which uses a single five-segment solid rocket booster, a derivative of the space shuttle's solid rocket booster, for the first stage. A liquid oxygen/liquid hydrogen J-2X engine derived from the J-2 engine used on Apollo's second stage will power the crew exploration vehicle's second stage. The Ares I can lift more than 25,000 kilograms to low Earth orbit. Ares V, a heavy lift launch vehicle, will use five RS-68 liquid oxygen/liquid hydrogen engines mounted below a larger version of the space shuttle's external tank, and two five-segment solid propellant rocket boosters for the first stage. The upper stage will use the same J-2X engine as the Ares I. The Ares V can lift more than 130,000 kilograms to low Earth orbit and stands approximately 110 metres tall. This versatile system will be used to carry cargo and the components into orbit needed to go to the moon and later to Mars. Source nasa
__________________
`Irony` actually does mean `metal like`...
|
|
01-July-2006, 09:28 AM
|
||||
|
||||
|
Quote:
From an aircraft engineering point of view, a nice plane that nicely adapted boat building techniques to aircraft building techniques that still are used nowadays.
__________________
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.
|
|
01-July-2006, 12:52 PM
|
||||
|
||||
|
Quote:
Spruce Goose's expected altitude of flight: 6000 mt. Spruce Goose's REAL max altitude of flight: 6 mt. Difference between expected and real: 960 times ---------- CEV's expected altitude of flight: 384,400 km. (moon) CEV's REAL max altitude of flight: 400 km. (ISS) Difference between expected and real: 960 times .
|
