3rd (possible) CLV problem: too much "G" for crew?

[gaetanomarano]

<br />In the early days of manned spaceflights this was a job for "brave-former-top-gun-a-little-crazy-guys" only<br /><br />too risky... too stress... too "G"<br /><br />the REAL and GIANT innovation of the Shuttle was NOT "wings" or "reusability" or "runway landing" but "LESS G"<br /><br />Shuttle was designed to control its max G force to give the opportunity to fly also to "good-health-well-trained" scientists, experts, missions' and experiments' specialists and engineers... and a 77 years old guy (JG)<br /><br />the Shuttles' mission was completely accomplished under this point of view since, of 600+ Shuttles' astronauts, many was not top-guns but common (well-trained) peoples <br /><br />now, with a little capsule and a (liquid or solid) rocket to launch it, the space will come again a job for a few hard-guys-only<br /><br />this may happen also with a liquid rocket... but, with an (uncontrollable) solid booster, the real "G" force in the first 150,000 feet of its flight may be MUCH MORE than a full liquid-engines' rocket<br /><br />of course, the CEV's super-astronauts will be able to survive to these forces (and to the 10G of a LAS ejection...) probably using inflatable spacesuits (like those used with military fighters) but NOT common peoples (and scientists)<br /><br />this problem is very serious for moon missions...<br /><br />when I've proposed rovers for moon exploration, many have said me that "human can do better science on the moon than rovers"<br /><br />this may be true or not... the problem is another... in next 20 years the manned moon exploration will be very poor... only 12 missions... only 48 astronauts (1/13th of Shuttle astronauts) and only 12-15 weeks of TOTAL moon exploration... very poor!<br /><br />of course, this is not a problem for CLV launches, but, thanks to high G of CEV/CLV launch, moon exploration will be much more poor!<br /><br />with the high G of launch (and the high risks of low-redundancy missions) NASA can't send on the moon scientists and expert

 

[tap_sa]

Hicup will make sure that the new CLV won't be too G.

 

[gaetanomarano]

<br />how they can do with an uncontrollable monster-thrust SRB 1st stage?<br /><br />they will (gently) ask it... "don go too fast... think to your family!" ???<br /><br /><br />and the problem of unexperienced moon exploration? ...it may be the same also with liquid-rockets (like past capsules)<br /><br />

 

[tap_sa]

<font color="yellow">"the will (gently) ask it... "don go too fast... think to your family!" ???"</font><br /><br />Yes. Upholding strong traditional family values decreases G factor to safe levels.

 

[spacefire]

lol...then JimGlenn and Crazy_Eddie will make the CEV their love boat. <div class="Discussion_UserSignature"> <p>http://asteroid-invasion.blogspot.com</p><p>http://www.solvengineer.com/asteroid-invasion.html </p><p> </p> </div>

 

[spacefire]

too much G will cause Brokeback Takeoff! <div class="Discussion_UserSignature"> <p>http://asteroid-invasion.blogspot.com</p><p>http://www.solvengineer.com/asteroid-invasion.html </p><p> </p> </div>

 

[silylene old]

g-forces considered 'safe' for humans:<br /><br /><font color="yellow">Time (min)......+Gx......-Gx......+Gz......-Gz <br />.01 (<1 sec)......35......28......18......8 <br />.03 (2 sec)..…...28......22......14......7 <br />.1.......…..………..20......17......11......5 <br />.3..........…..…….15......12......9......4.5 <br />1.....……….........11......9........7......3.3 <br />3...........…….…….9.......8.......6......2.5 <br />10...........…….…..6......5......4.5......2 <br />30..........…..…..4.5......4......3.5......1.8 </font><br /><br />From: Webb, Paul M. D. "Bioastronautics Data Book,", NASA SP-3006, 1964 <br />via http://yarchive.net/space/science/g_tolerance.html<br /><br />(thanks to Ophiolite on thescienceforum.com) <div class="Discussion_UserSignature"> <div class="Discussion_UserSignature" align="center"><em><font color="#0000ff">- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -</font></em> </div><div class="Discussion_UserSignature" align="center"><font color="#0000ff"><em>I really, really, really miss the "first unread post" function.</em></font> </div> </div>

 

[gaetanomarano]

<br />the real problem is not "high G"... top-guns with inflatable suits can survive... the main problem is that "high-G" mean top-guns-only crews for CEV... that mean human-robots-only (not experienced scientists) for moon explorations... only human-moonrovers...

 

[tap_sa]

The real problem is that you know jack sh*t about anything but don't let that stop you from spewing unsubstantiated cr*p.<br /><br />Lesser but existing problem is that TOS gives mods ammo to erase such trolls but opt not to do it <img src="/images/icons/rolleyes.gif" />

 

[drwayne]

What is the specific g-loading profile that you are concerned about? Do you have a reference for the expected figures?<br /><br />Wayne <div class="Discussion_UserSignature"> <p>"1) Give no quarter; 2) Take no prisoners; 3) Sink everything."  Admiral Jackie Fisher</p> </div>

 

[gaetanomarano]

<br />no one can know now how much the SRB's G will be higher than liquid-engines' rockets<br /><br />Shuttle can't give a comparison since its weight is very high compared with CEV<br /><br />the main problem remain also with liquid-engines... it is the return to the old story... "space for supermen"<br /><br />an high-thrust SRB can only INCREASE the problem (we will know "how much" when the "stick" will fly in 2015)<br /><br />the main point here is: how we can have a good moon exploration (better than with rovers) if we can't send on the moon the most experienced scientists, but only "high-G" top-guns?

 

[drwayne]

So you don't have any figures, you are just assuming that because the first state is a solid, the G loading will be high?<br /><br />Wayne <div class="Discussion_UserSignature"> <p>"1) Give no quarter; 2) Take no prisoners; 3) Sink everything."  Admiral Jackie Fisher</p> </div>

 

[gaetanomarano]

<br />yes, I've no figures... you perfectly know that no one have figures about it... in fact, the title of the thread is... "3rd <font color="yellow">(possible)</font>CLV problem"<br /><br />do you think that "no figures" is sufficient to avoid to talk of (possible) CLV problems?<br /><br />do you think that the main problem is a +0.5 or +2.7 G more than liquid-engines?<br /><br />at this point of CLV design (ZERO) we can have many different opinions... all may be true in real flights... my opinion or your opinion<br /><br />if you have read my first post here... you may discover that I talk of G only to talk of moon exploration<br /><br />as I've already explained... "G" may be NOT a problem by itself... if it will be VERY HIGH... astronauts will be trained to survive<br /><br />the REAL problem is: "how we can send experienced scientists on the moon with an "X"-G (liquid or solid) rocket to have an usefull exploration?"<br /><br />do you want to IGNORE this problem?<br /><br />well, despite I think that SRB-G may be much more than liquid-engines, I accept your critic... then, we may suppose (only) that CLV's "G" will be like all known rockets... "how we can send common peoples (and scientists) with it?"<br />

 

[strandedonearth]

Actually, it's easy to calculate the G loads, from the basic equation F=ma, where F=force(thrust), m=mass, and a=acceleration. Therefore a=F/m. Acceleration in m/s^2 divided by 9.8m/s^2 will give the G number.<br /><br />To suggest that NASA engineers don't/won't know the thrust and mass of their vehicles throughout the entire flight is ludicrous.

 

[carp]

SILENCE! Genius at work. http://img501.imageshack.us/img501/8446/forumtroll2my.jpg

 

[strandedonearth]

Most people in reasonable health can handle the 3G max of a Shuttle launch with no difficulties. If you want lower G's, you'll have to wait on a space elevator.

 

[gaetanomarano]

<br />don't forget that "high-G" top-guns (instead of scientists) is only PART of the problem of NEXT 20 YEARS moon exploration...<br /><br />two other (giant) problems are:<br /><br />- 48 (brave-but-non-scientists) "top-guns" ONLY in 2018-2025<br /><br />- less than 15 "weeks" of (TOTAL) "exploration" with ALL missions!

 

[gaetanomarano]

<br />or a new shuttle for earth-LEO-earth flights (and specialized vehicles for earth-moon-earth flights)

 

[tap_sa]

What people seem to dismiss is the important Gaetano's Great Law of Fat Scientists which states that all true scientists are fat bozos. Physically fit people cannot be scientist, that would rip space-time apart.

 

[gaetanomarano]

<br />no, the problems are...<br /><br />1. experience NEED time... the most experienced scientists are 50+ years old... they can fly with shuttle (if in good health) but not with high-G vehicles<br /><br />2. experience NEED specialization... a person may be a great pilot/astronauts OR a great geologist OR a great singer OR a great doctor<br /><br />I remember ONE Apollo moon's astronaut (not his name) that was, also, a scientist... but this was (and is) VERY RARE... great part of "high-G" astronauts will be former military pilots

 

[gaetanomarano]

<br />I've no doubt that rockets are much efficient than shuttles...<br /><br />but a GOOD scientific exploration need... BIG LOADS... or ...QUALITY PEOPLES?<br /><br />MORE SCIENCE... or ...MORE SCRAP-IRON in space?<br /><br />if they need to send BOTH... they can do 8 missions (instead of 12) with three launches per missions

 

[tap_sa]

<font color="yellow">" the most experienced scientists are 50+ years old... they can fly with shuttle (if in good health) but not with high-G vehicles "</font><br /><br />Greg Olsen, 60, begs to differ with you. Or is Soyuz a low-G vehicle?<br /><br /><font color="yellow">"experience NEED specialization... a person may be a great pilot/astronauts OR a great geologist OR a great singer OR a great doctor"</font><br /><br />So? All the greatest future experienced lunar geologist/singer/doctor has to do is some jogging to be sufficiently fit to travel. Oops, I forgot the Gaetano's Great Law of Fat Scientists, never mind.

 

[gaetanomarano]

<br />as I've posted... they are VERY RARE<br /><br />but... also if ALL moon astronauts will be scientists...<br /><br />the two other big problems of moon explorations are... 48-guys-only for 15-weeks-only<br /><br />I've seen a thread about "why go on the moon"... but the right question is...<br /><br />"in next 20 years... WHAT we can be do on the moon in 15 weeks (ONLY) with 24 scientists and 24 top-guns (ONLY)?" <br /><br /><br />15 weeks... 48 peoples... these are good figures for a summer holiday... not for a $150 billion space exploration!!!<br />

 

[simcosmos]

G control for CLV:<br /><br />- solid boosters do not have a constant thrust profile:like with STS, the SRB will NOT be at full thrust at CLV's 2nd stage separation, google for it. If extremely needed, the grain mixture / geometry ccould probably be slightly tuned but that does not seem to be the case.<br />- mass of upper stage + payload<br />- ascent profile<br /><br />António<br />http://simcosmos.planetaclix.pt

 

[propforce]

Please do not inject facts into this highly opinionated thread !! <img src="/images/icons/laugh.gif" /><br /><br /> <div class="Discussion_UserSignature"> </div>