An Ares V question

Status
Not open for further replies.
L

lampblack

Guest
This may be a nutty idea -- and if it is, I'm sure someone will be quick to let me know... <img src="/images/icons/wink.gif" /><br /><br />But once Ares V is up and running, why could not the liquid-fueled portion of the rocket -- essentially, the Ares V minus the solid rocket boosters -- be used for human transport?<br /><br />It certainly seems to this non-rocket scientist that a mechanism employing a modified external fuel tank and a cluster of RS-68 engines would be more cost-efficient than the stick.<br /><br />Maybe someone could tell me what I'm missing? <div class="Discussion_UserSignature"> <font color="#0000ff"><strong>Just tell the truth and let the chips fall...</strong></font> </div>
 
P

propforce

Guest
Yes it would work. But the NASA politics says go with the solids to keep the current ATK contractor workforce employeed. <div class="Discussion_UserSignature"> </div>
 
S

spacelifejunkie

Guest
Would the 5 RS-68's have enough thrust to get the tank, stage 2 and the CEV off the pad?
 
L

lampblack

Guest
Well... the heavy version of Boeing's EELV makes use of three RS-68s on the first stage... <div class="Discussion_UserSignature"> <font color="#0000ff"><strong>Just tell the truth and let the chips fall...</strong></font> </div>
 
L

lampblack

Guest
<font color="yellow">Yes it would work. But the NASA politics says go with the solids to keep the current ATK contractor workforce employeed.</font><br /><br />I believe I hear you saying that the notion makes too much sense to be workable. <img src="/images/icons/wink.gif" /> <div class="Discussion_UserSignature"> <font color="#0000ff"><strong>Just tell the truth and let the chips fall...</strong></font> </div>
 
J

jimfromnsf

Guest
1. It is not as reliable as the stick (according to the ESAS). it has too many engines<br /><br />2. And it would be too big<br /><br />3. The Core couldn't be quite the same since it doesn't a support or hold capability, which only exists thru the SRB's<br /><br />
 
N

no_way

Guest
<blockquote><font class="small">In reply to:</font><hr /><p>This may be a nutty idea<br />.....<br />But once Ares V is up and running<p><hr /></p></p></blockquote><br />Thats a nutty idea, alright.<br /><br />j/k
 
G

gunsandrockets

Guest
Aside from a CLV variant, as long as we are on the subject of Ares V variants...<br /><br />... I'm wondering what the sense is of the basic core liquid stage.<br /><br />I mean under the original ESAS design with 5 x SSME and a stretched ET tank it kind of made sense. But under the current configuration with an all original 10m diameter stage and 5 x RS-68, the Ares V is a clean-sheet design rather than a Shuttle derived design.<br /><br />So as long as NASA is going clean sheet, what's the sense of a liquid hydrogen 1st stage? Why not use an ET diameter core and multiple RD-180 engines instead? I bet performance would be equal or superior to the current Ares V design. Heck, maybe NASA could even get away with using existing 4 segment SRB instead of new 5 segment SRB! (Yes I know technically the current Ares V configuration without the EDS could deliver significant payload to LEO just using the SRB and core stage, but in practice that's not how the Ares V is going to be used.)<br />
 
C

cuddlyrocket

Guest
<blockquote><font class="small">In reply to:</font><hr /><p>Would the 5 RS-68's have enough thrust to get the tank, stage 2 and the CEV off the pad?<p><hr /></p></p></blockquote><br />Yes, if the tanks aren't full (which they don't need to be to get the CEV into LEO).<br /><br />Using such a cut down Ares V may be cheaper overall than using Ares I because of the better utilisation of the fixed costs of one launcher as opposed to two.
 
J

jimfromnsf

Guest
It wouldn't be the same launcher for the reasons I have listed.<br /><br />1. It would require a different core to allow it to be self supporting and have a hold down capability<br />2. The MLP would have to be different for the above reasons<br />3. LV's aren't launched with partially full tanks. Too many variables to analyzes. Too many conditions to design to.<br />4. Major overkill wrt to numbers of components- cost, <br />5. Not as safe, too many engines/components<br />6. too much performance for CEV<br />7. Doesn't keep ATK busy<br /><br />"better utilization of the fixed costs of one launcher as opposed to two."<br /><br />I am not a big Direct supporter but that is specifically what it is designed to do
 
V

vulture2

Guest
The Ares I already has so much momentum that NASA cannot change course on it. The Shuttle is dead, so the stick (shaft?) is needed as a replacement. The Ares V, however, is needed only for the moon flights, which are not firmly on the schedule. Don't hold your breath.<br /><br />If anyone was really interested in launching humans into space on a liquid-fueled expendable rocket they could much more easily use the (to quote Darth Vader) "fully armed and operational" Delta IV Heavy; like the original F-1 it is not only powerful but elegantly simple in its design.<br /><br />As to the LSAS, I have read it carefully. If anyone knows the authors, I hope you will invite them to this forum, not for a flame war but for a serious discussion of the study's methods and objectives.
 
P

publiusr

Guest
Delta IV does have black zones and disposal issues--it was never meant to fly depressed trajectory--its a milsat launcher--and that's how it should stay.
 
U

usn_skwerl

Guest
man, you love diggin up old posts, doncha? just how long IS the handle on your shovel? (no length or handle jokes, folks) lol <div class="Discussion_UserSignature"> </div>
 
Status
Not open for further replies.

ASK THE COMMUNITY

TRENDING THREADS