Ares I Launch, Under Water

[kyle_baron]

<p><BR/>Replying to:<BR/><DIV CLASS='Discussion_PostQuote'>Moving a large rocket from horizontal to vertical is a decidedly non-trivial undertaking.&nbsp; It was done with the MX missile.&nbsp; The first attempt was a spectacular failure, but fortunately was done with an inert missile, as it came crashing down and the simulated tanks for the fourth stage hypergolics went bouncing across the ground.&nbsp; And the MX was a LOT smaller than an Ares V.Posted by DrRocket</DIV></p><p>&nbsp;</p><p>Lessons can be learned, from past mistakes.<br /></p> <div class="Discussion_UserSignature"> <p><font size="4"><strong></strong></font></p> </div>

 

[kyle_baron]

<p><BR/>Replying to:<BR/><DIV CLASS='Discussion_PostQuote'>If the segments were housed in a single piece tube they could be rotated. <br />Posted by scottb50</DIV></p><p>&nbsp;</p><p>I agree.&nbsp; The tube could be a composite, located in the center of the SRB, to support the PBAN rubber from collapsing in the&nbsp; horizontal position, and then removed, when stacked vertically.</p> <div class="Discussion_UserSignature"> <p><font size="4"><strong></strong></font></p> </div>

 

[kyle_baron]

<p><BR/>Replying to:<BR/><DIV CLASS='Discussion_PostQuote'>That said, horizontal integration sometimes makes sense, and it is the preferred method in Russia.&nbsp; However, it imposes mass penalties on the rocket because you have to reinforce it to withstand the stresses of horizontal integration and erection to the vertical position.&nbsp; That was the entire reason the USAF switched from horizontal to vertical integration in the first place.&nbsp; It allowed them to make the rockets lighter.</DIV></p><p>&nbsp;</p><p>A type of removable exo-skeleton&nbsp;could be used.&nbsp;</p><p>Replying to:<BR/><DIV CLASS='Discussion_PostQuote'>Today, vertical integration of large rockets is very common.&nbsp; <br />Posted by CalliArcale</DIV></p><p>&nbsp;</p><p>But, it's at the end of it's capacity with Ares V.<br /></p> <div class="Discussion_UserSignature"> <p><font size="4"><strong></strong></font></p> </div>

 

[Cygnus_2112]

<p><BR/>Replying to:<BR/><DIV CLASS='Discussion_PostQuote'>&nbsp;I agree.&nbsp; The tube could be a composite, located in the center of the SRB, to support the PBAN rubber from collapsing in the&nbsp; horizontal position, and then removed, when stacked vertically. <br /> Posted by kyle_baron</DIV></p><p>&nbsp;Still doesn't solve the problem and is not viable .&nbsp; The whole motor is going to go out of round.&nbsp; And the core of an SRM is not cylindrical.&nbsp; The forward one has a star pattern and the others are individually tapered.&nbsp; Also, this doesnt' fix things, it just adds more complexity. </p><p>&nbsp;</p>

 

[kyle_baron]

<p><BR/>Replying to:<BR/><DIV CLASS='Discussion_PostQuote'>There is another reason for vertical assembly of solids.&nbsp; Solid rockets have the propellant bonded to the case (amazingly often called a case bond) with a central hole in the propellant, called a centerbore.&nbsp; That propellant is fairly heavy and sags a bit when horizontal.&nbsp; Now, the SRBs are segmented, and the segments have to be put together.&nbsp; To do that they must be round in cross-section to a relatively low tolerance.&nbsp; To to that the current metal case SRBs use some rounding fixtures help in the process.&nbsp; In a horizontal position the deformation would add considerably to the problem of rounding&nbsp;the cases and assembling them.&nbsp; Posted by DrRocket</DIV></p><p>&nbsp;</p><p>The cases are 1/2" thick STEEL.&nbsp; As stated before, a composite pipe could be placed in the "centerbore".&nbsp; All these issues, are not technologically impossible.&nbsp; Another exo-skeleton for the outside of the case.</p> <div class="Discussion_UserSignature"> <p><font size="4"><strong></strong></font></p> </div>

 

[Cygnus_2112]

<p><BR/>Replying to:<BR/><DIV CLASS='Discussion_PostQuote'>&nbsp;A type of removable exo-skeleton&nbsp;could be used.&nbsp;&nbsp;But, it's at the end of it's capacity with Ares V. <br /> Posted by kyle_baron</DIV></p><p>&nbsp;Again, this doesnt' fix things, it just adds more complexity, negating any advantages </p>

 

[Cygnus_2112]

<p><BR/>Replying to:<BR/><DIV CLASS='Discussion_PostQuote'>&nbsp;In the program "Mars Rising" on the Science Channel they've listed around 11 flights for Ares V.&nbsp; And the "Mars Rising" program does have Nasa personnel commentating.&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;Not in size, in mass.&nbsp; Posted by kyle_baron</DIV></p><p>&nbsp;</p><p>The ISS is much heavier than a Mars mission. &nbsp;&nbsp;</p>

 

[kyle_baron]

<p><BR/>Replying to:<BR/><DIV CLASS='Discussion_PostQuote'>&nbsp;Still doesn't solve the problem and is not viable .&nbsp; The whole motor is going to go out of round.&nbsp; And the core of an SRM is not cylindrical.&nbsp; The forward one has a star pattern and the others are individually tapered.&nbsp; Also, this doesnt' fix things, it just adds more complexity. &nbsp; <br />Posted by Cygnus_2112</DIV></p><p>&nbsp;</p><p>Ok, then a combination of horizontal stacking for the "core" of Ares V, and vertical stacking for the SRB's.&nbsp; Does that make you happy?<br /></p> <div class="Discussion_UserSignature"> <p><font size="4"><strong></strong></font></p> </div>

 

[DrRocket]

<p><BR/>Replying to:<BR/><DIV CLASS='Discussion_PostQuote'>&nbsp;Lessons can be learned, from past mistakes. <br />Posted by kyle_baron</DIV></p><p>Indeed they can.&nbsp; Try it.<br /></p> <div class="Discussion_UserSignature"> </div>

 

[Cygnus_2112]

<p><BR/>Replying to:<BR/><DIV CLASS='Discussion_PostQuote'>&nbsp;Ok, then a combination of horizontal stacking for the "core" of Ares V, and vertical stacking for the SRB's.&nbsp; Does that make you happy? <br /> Posted by kyle_baron</DIV></p><p>&nbsp;No, the core is supported by the SRB's.&nbsp; It only can be attached after the SRB's are built up. </p>

 

[Cygnus_2112]

<p><BR/>Replying to:<BR/><DIV CLASS='Discussion_PostQuote'></p><p> 1.&nbsp; The cases are 1/2" thick STEEL.&nbsp; </p><p>2. As stated before, a composite pipe could be placed in the "centerbore".&nbsp;</p><p>3. All these issues, are not technologically impossible.&nbsp; </p><p>4. Another exo-skeleton for the outside of the case. <br /> Posted by kyle_baron</DIV></p><p>&nbsp;</p><p>1.&nbsp; So what, that doesn't matter, they still go out of round and become oval sitting on their sides.</p><p>2.&nbsp; it is the "center bore" that is not cylindical.&nbsp; There is no way to insert a "tube" that would support the propellant and have the ability to be removed.</p><p>&nbsp;3.&nbsp; It has nothing to do with technology.&nbsp; Just simple round peg dont' fit in tapered hole</p><p>4.&nbsp; Why?&nbsp; What is the point?&nbsp; Just making thing more complicated.&nbsp; Stacking is easier than adding a bunch of kludged together hardware. &nbsp; Horiztonal process only works for small solids and empty liguid vehicles&nbsp;</p><p>&nbsp;</p>

 

[DrRocket]

<p><BR/>Replying to:<BR/><DIV CLASS='Discussion_PostQuote'>&nbsp;The cases are 1/2" thick STEEL.&nbsp; As stated before, a composite pipe could be placed in the "centerbore".&nbsp; All these issues, are not technologically impossible.&nbsp; Another exo-skeleton for the outside of the case. <br />Posted by kyle_baron</DIV></p><p>What is your pont, other that simply wanting to do things differently ?&nbsp; Making changes to improve performance, reduce cost, or improve reliability makes sense.&nbsp; Making changes that add complexity, increase cost, and increase risk is just plain stupid.&nbsp; Yes it can be done, by people with adequate technical competency.&nbsp; But those same people would not do such a thing, because there is no benefit.</p><p>And no, you cannot just put a composite pipe in the centerbore.&nbsp; First, that would not particularly help the situation, since a composite pipe is not all that strong or stiff in compression.&nbsp; Second it would add a foreign component and material in a sensitive part of the propellant grain, and removal would add a significant hazard -- removal of the original core tooling is a specialized and hazardous operation performed with tooling designed for that operation and also performed remotely for reasons of safety.&nbsp; Third, a composite in the centerbore, even if it could me made to the required tight tolerances (which could not be done practically) would stick to the propellant and create a whole new set of problems -- core tooling is teflon coated and composites cannot take the temperatures required for that process.&nbsp; And no, you could not use grease without damaging the propellant.&nbsp; And fourth, the centerbores are not just a simple hole through the middle of the various segments, and you could not get the pipes out once the segments are joined and the nozzle has been installed.</p><p>And despite your apparent intuition, 1/2 in thick steel is not all that stout, nor is it intended to be.&nbsp; Rocket motor cases are not designed to boiler code, and boilers don't fly.</p><p>Launch systems are relatively complex systems, and there is a very good reason why they are designed by teams of skilled professionals.&nbsp; </p> <div class="Discussion_UserSignature"> </div>

 

[kyle_baron]

<p><BR/>Replying to:<BR/><DIV CLASS='Discussion_PostQuote'>What is your pont, other that simply wanting to do things differently?&nbsp;<br />Posted by DrRocket</DIV></p><p>&nbsp;</p><p>The crawlerway is at the end of it's usable capacity for Ares V.&nbsp; Let me ask you this, what can be done (that Nasa hasn't already done) to increase it's capacity from 16.8 million lbs. to 18+ million lbs. needed for Ares V?&nbsp; At this point, the only other thing that I can think of, is a collapsable building around the launch pads!&nbsp; That would solve all these issues.<br /></p> <div class="Discussion_UserSignature"> <p><font size="4"><strong></strong></font></p> </div>

 

[Zipi]

<p><BR/>Replying to:<BR/><DIV CLASS='Discussion_PostQuote'>&nbsp;The crawlerway is at the end of it's usable capacity for Ares V.&nbsp; Let me ask you this, what can be done (that Nasa hasn't already done) to increase it's capacity from 16.8 million lbs. to 18+ million lbs. needed for Ares V?&nbsp; At this point, the only other thing that I can think of, is a collapsable building around the launch pads!&nbsp; That would solve all these issues. <br />Posted by kyle_baron</DIV><br /><br />Perhaps they can add more concrete or even make a steel surface to the crawler way... Much more easier than tweaking the booster itself to be transported differently. And what comes to the crawler itself, it shouldn't be too hard to reinforce it so that it can handle the increased weight or even build a new crawler with bigger/wider "wheels". (sorry but I don't know the word for those sliding things which tanks as well are using to move - /> language barrier)&nbsp;More surface to distribute the weight to the ground would mean less reinforcement to the crawlerway.</p> <div class="Discussion_UserSignature"> </div>

 

[kyle_baron]

<p><BR/>Replying to:<BR/><DIV CLASS='Discussion_PostQuote'>Perhaps they can add more concrete or even make a steel surface to the crawler way... Much more easier than tweaking the booster itself to be transported differently. And what comes to the crawler itself, it shouldn't be too hard to reinforce it so that it can handle the increased weight or even build a new crawler with bigger/wider "wheels". (sorry but I don't know the word for those sliding things which tanks as well are using to move - /> language barrier)&nbsp;More surface to distribute the weight to the ground would mean less reinforcement to the crawlerway. <br />Posted by Zipi</DIV></p><p>&nbsp;</p><p>The crawlerway is constructed of large and small chunks of stone.&nbsp; Concrete would crack and sink, unless it was a block 10-20 ft thick (or so) 2-3 miles long.&nbsp; "Bigger and wider wheels" are the tank tracks or treads you were thinking of.&nbsp; Wider tracks will require more horsepower to move the structure because of friction on the stone.<br /></p> <div class="Discussion_UserSignature"> <p><font size="4"><strong></strong></font></p> </div>

 

[Cygnus_2112]

<p><BR/>Replying to:<BR/><DIV CLASS='Discussion_PostQuote'>&nbsp;The crawlerway is at the end of it's usable capacity for Ares V.&nbsp; Let me ask you this, what can be done (that Nasa hasn't already done) to increase it's capacity from 16.8 million lbs. to 18+ million lbs. needed for Ares V?&nbsp; At this point, the only other thing that I can think of, is a collapsable building around the launch pads!&nbsp; That would solve all these issues. <br /> Posted by kyle_baron</DIV></p><p>This is all a non issue.&nbsp;</p><p>The crawlerway isn't a problem.&nbsp; Ares V will have new crawlers that will have 12 tracks vs the 8 on the current ones.&nbsp; This will distribute the load.&nbsp; If you are still talking the future, the crawlerway can be upgraded or the future launch vehicles don't have to use solids and would be lighter for transport since they get fueled at the pad </p><p>collapsible building around the launch pads?&nbsp; nonsense</p><p>1.&nbsp; see above, it isn't needed</p><p>2.&nbsp; it would be like the MST's on Delta and Atlas pads</p><p>&nbsp;</p><p>&nbsp;</p>

 

[Zipi]

<p><BR/>Replying to:<BR/><DIV CLASS='Discussion_PostQuote'>&nbsp;The crawlerway is constructed of large and small chunks of stone.&nbsp; Concrete would crack and sink, unless it was a block 10-20 ft thick (or so) 2-3 miles long.&nbsp; "Bigger and wider wheels" are the tank tracks or treads you were thinking of.&nbsp; Wider tracks will require more horsepower to move the structure because of friction on the stone. <br />Posted by kyle_baron</DIV><br /><br />Horsepowers are pretty cheap to compared to the other things represented at this thread... And it is only one time cost to modify the current crawler or build a new one. Other things represented will mostly increase running/operational costs or would be a much bigger one time cost. Of course this is my humble opinion and you can disagree with it. <img src="http://sitelife.space.com/ver1.0/content/scripts/tinymce/plugins/emotions/images/smiley-smile.gif" border="0" alt="Smile" title="Smile" /></p><p>I don't think the concrete would sink if you put it on the current crawlerway.... And as I suggested, you can always use steel instead of concrete, but still I guess 30-50cm heavily steel enforced concrete would do the trick and distribute the weight of the crawler to a large enough area to make the crawlerway strong enough.</p> <div class="Discussion_UserSignature"> </div>

 

[kyle_baron]

<p><BR/>Replying to:<BR/><DIV CLASS='Discussion_PostQuote'>This is all a non issue.&nbsp;The crawlerway isn't a problem.&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp; <br />Posted by Cygnus_2112</DIV></p><p>&nbsp;</p><p>Not according to this report, it's a BIG issue:</p><p>&nbsp;</p><p>http://www.geocities.com/launchreport/ares5.html</p><p>&nbsp;</p><p><font face="Arial" size="2"><em>The bigger Ares V would require the rebuilding of the existing Launch Complex 39 crawlerway.&nbsp; All-new crawler transporters and mobile launch platforms would also be needed.&nbsp; A new launch pad might even be necessary.</em>&nbsp; </font></p> <div class="Discussion_UserSignature"> <p><font size="4"><strong></strong></font></p> </div>

 

[Cygnus_2112]

<p><BR/>Replying to:<BR/><DIV CLASS='Discussion_PostQuote'>&nbsp;Not according to this report, it's a BIG issue:&nbsp;http://www.geocities.com/launchreport/ares5.htmlThe bigger Ares V would require the rebuilding of the existing Launch Complex 39 crawlerway.&nbsp; All-new crawler transporters and mobile launch platforms would also be needed.&nbsp; A new launch pad might even be necessary.&nbsp; <br /> Posted by kyle_baron</DIV></p><p>&nbsp;</p><p>That is not by any means an official website and not a "report".&nbsp; it is just the opinion of a former worker, who worked spacelab</p><p>&nbsp;The All-new crawler transporters and mobile launch platforms is a given.&nbsp; </p>

 

[DrRocket]

<p><BR/>Replying to:<BR/><DIV CLASS='Discussion_PostQuote'>&nbsp;The crawlerway is constructed of large and small chunks of stone.&nbsp; Concrete would crack and sink, unless it was a block 10-20 ft thick (or so) 2-3 miles long.&nbsp; "Bigger and wider wheels" are the tank tracks or treads you were thinking of.&nbsp; Wider tracks will require more horsepower to move the structure because of friction on the stone. <br />Posted by kyle_baron</DIV></p><p>Apparently, and not surprisiingly a new crawler is part of the plan.&nbsp; And wider tracks do not necessarily require more horsepower.&nbsp; They may require more torque, but torque and horsepower are not the same thing.&nbsp; Further, both torque and horsepower are readily available, just ask Caterpillar.</p><p>For those who need a little help with physics, torque is what provides "push" and horsepower is what provides speed under load.&nbsp; Tractors typically&nbsp; have a lot of torque but not a great deal of horsepower.&nbsp; Even large construction machinery has moderate horsepower, but lots and lots of torque.&nbsp; Torque can come from either the engine or from a gear box, or both.&nbsp; My friend's D9 Caterpillar tractor has only a bit more horsepower than my pickyup truck, but it has a LOT more torque.&nbsp; He can push a very heavy load, but not very fast compared with highway speeds.<br /></p> <div class="Discussion_UserSignature"> </div>

 

[CalliArcale]

<p>Frankly, it's probably time to replace the CTs anyway -- they've been plugging along for forty years now, and there is new technology available.&nbsp; There are now crawling mining machines that *dwarf* the CTs -- not something that was true back then -- and that means NASA could benefit from the technological improvements that have gone into them.</p><p>One point for kyle_baron....</p><p>Yes, it could be done.&nbsp; How to integrate solids on their sides, and how to launch from underwater -- these are simply engineering problems.&nbsp; They are not impossible.&nbsp; The question really isn't whether or not it can be done, though.&nbsp; The question is whether or not it *should* be done.&nbsp; There are many ways to skin this particular cat, so to speak.&nbsp; NASA can only pick one of them, and it would be wisest if they pick the one which is most practical and which has the best bang for the buck than to pick the one which has the flashiest engineering.</p><p>There are dangers in trying to be clever and innovative.&nbsp; The N-1 is a great example.&nbsp; It was a fabulously inventive concept,&nbsp; brilliantly simple, and astoundingly ambitious.&nbsp; Too ambitious, unfortunately.&nbsp; They tried to come up with a new way of steering the rocket (five groups of strategically canted engines, whose thurst levels would be controlled by computer to alter the rocket's trajectory) to replace the traditional method of gimballed engine nozzles.&nbsp; By the fourth launch, they had finally gotten all of the bugs worked out of the first stage -- only to lose the rocket to a failure in the second stage.&nbsp; It's impossible to say for sure, since the N-1's main competitor, UR-500 (now known as Proton), wasn't faring very well in early testing either, but perhaps if they had been able to do more ground testing (they lacked the facilities for an all-up first stage test fire), or if they had not attempted to do something with such narrow margins for success and critically dependent on so many novel technologies, perhaps N-1 might have been a success, and perhaps they might even have beaten us to the Moon.&nbsp; It's not entirely a cautionary tale -- the grandeur and ambition of N-1 is still awe-inspiring.&nbsp; But it's ultimate failure should be noted.</p> <div class="Discussion_UserSignature"> <p> </p><p><font color="#666699"><em>"People assume that time is a strict progression of cause to effect, but actually from a non-linear, non-subjective viewpoint it's more like a big ball of wibbly wobbly . . . timey wimey . . . stuff."</em>  -- The Tenth Doctor, "Blink"</font></p> </div>