Ares: Modular Rockets

[no_way]

<blockquote><font class="small">In reply to:</font><hr /><p>the fact is you can't build a rocket in your garage <p><hr /></p></p></blockquote><br />Where do you get these <b />facts</b> ? That fact would surprise a lot of people, doing pretty much that in their garages.<br /><br /><blockquote><font class="small">In reply to:</font><hr /><p>nymore than Columbus could have sailed across the Atlantic without the financial support of the Spanish crown. <p><hr /></p></p></blockquote><br />Are you aware of the fact that not Columbus, nor Spanish crown built the ships for that voyage ? They used what was commercially available at the time.<br /><br /><blockquote><font class="small">In reply to:</font><hr /><p>Was their expidtion a useless "one-off" mission becaus there original mules and boats didn't make it back? <p><hr /></p></p></blockquote><br />Are you aware of the fact that L&C didnt breed their own mules ? And the boats that they DID build were completely regular boats, available for anyone to build.<br />The transportation budget for that expedition was minuscule, compared to the overall budget.<br /><br /><blockquote><font class="small">In reply to:</font><hr /><p>VSE is a program of EXPLORATION. <p><hr /></p></p></blockquote><br />Exactly, and thats what is should be. But NASA tries to turn it into another space trucking and engineers welfare exercise.<br />Look at the budget charts, and see how much money goes into building the Ares system, and how much is planned for actual exploration activities.

 

[tomnackid]

"My motivation comes from this: for the development cost of ARES I, you can buy 100-300 Soyuz seats. (at $50M/6months) I wish their was a commercial US solution instead, but it is commercially available today. "<br /><br />------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------<br /><br />I don't see how putting 100-300 more people into LEO for a couple of days will advance space travel. How are they going to get to the moon or mars, walk? A human pyramid? To do big jobs you need big tools. Just look at construction here on earth. Its much more efficient and cheaper (and safer) in the long run to build a dump truck that is 10 times bigger than to use ten smaller ones. <br /><br />Ah, links to "NASA Watch". Now I see. The site that publishes more stories beginning with "insiders who can't give their names say" then a supermarket gossip rag. <br /><br />We both want the same thing. A robust space infrastructure and the exploitation of space resources. Its not NASAs job to provide that, only to provide the tools and knowledge to do it. Complain to congress to change laws to give more incentive for space exploitation. Compalining to NASA that private industry has not stepped up to the plate with manned space travel is like complaining to a Boeing engineer that airline food is bad. Luckily we are entering an age where personal wealth and knowledge is great enough that entrepreneurs with a thing for space travel can indulge their passion without going through conservative, short sighted stock holders and board of directors.<br /><br />Keep up the enthusiasm and at least read Zubrin's "Mars Direct" thesis for more on the pros and cons of orbital assembly vs. larger launch vehicles. Looking up info on Sea Dragon is instructive also--not to try and change you mind, but just for you information. It is important for space enthusiasts to know this stuff I think.

 

[j05h]

<i>> I don't see how putting 100-300 more people into LEO for a couple of days will advance space travel.... To do big jobs you need big tools.</i><br /><br />The Soyuz figure is based on a 6 month stay in orbit, not a few days. It's a handy metric for the proposed 6 month moon missions. <br /><br />For big jobs you need the right tools. Again, the cost of your dump truck should figure into your plans - if the one that's 1/2 the size is less than half the cost, it should at least be considered.<br /><br /><i>> Ah, links to "NASA Watch". Now I see.</i><br /><br />Better than a Jeff Bell article! 8) NASAWatch has been reliable for 10 years. Not always accurate, but Keith does a pretty good job. <br /><br /><i>> We both want the same thing. A robust space infrastructure and the exploitation of space resources. Its not NASAs job to provide that, only to provide the tools and knowledge to do it. Complain to congress to change laws to give more incentive for space exploitation.</i><br /><br />Yes, we both want the same thing, I just want it to happen in my lifetime. I'm going to contact my Congressmen, about ARES, prop depots and "Zero Taxes for Zero-G". It's not NASA's job to implement the VSE, only the ESAS. I disagree with how they are pursuing their part of the mandate.<br /><br /><i>> Keep up the enthusiasm and at least read Zubrin's "Mars Direct" thesis for more on the pros and cons of orbital assembly vs. larger launch vehicles. Looking up info on Sea Dragon is instructive also--not to try and change you mind, but just for you information. It is important for space enthusiasts to know this stuff I think.</i><br /><br />I have 2 copies of Case for Mars, including one autographed. Zubrin rules - he's like the pebble in your shoe that keeps you alert. Check out my ULV thread for thoughts on extreme lift. I don't discount the need for it, HLV/ULV could change the economics of spaceflight radically. ARES I/IV/V aren't part of that, because they won't be for sale and won't <div class="Discussion_UserSignature"> <div align="center"><em>We need a first generation of pioneers.</em><br /></div> </div>

 

[no_way]

<blockquote><font class="small">In reply to:</font><hr /><p>No amount of modularity or hideously expensive STS hardware<p><hr /></p></p></blockquote><br />Just a small, but significant correction. Its not the hardware that makes STS expensive ( although it could be cheaper too ), but the standing army on payroll.

 

[vulture2]

The army isn't standing; they're rebuilding the vehicle after each flight, and they'll have to build it before each flight for the Ares. The Shuttle was our first attempt at building a reusable launch vehicle. Using it for twenty years and then concluding that reusable spacecraft are impractical and going back to expendables is like flying nothing but the Wright "A" flyer until 1923 and then concluding that airplanes aren't practical and going back to balloons.

 

[vulture2]

>>>"the Vega ... could still out climb most jets in level flight today"<br /><br />How do you outclimb a plane that's in level flight?

 

[no_way]

<blockquote><font class="small">In reply to:</font><hr /><p>The army isn't standing; they're rebuilding the vehicle after each flight, and they'll have to build it before each flight for the Ares.<p><hr /></p></p></blockquote><br />True enough<br /><br />Wouldnt it be a win-win for everyone if this army of highly skilled and competent people did something more useful instead of building expendable launch vehicles ? We have several companies for doing that, why spend this valuable huge human resource on replicating the capabilities that we already have ?<br />Its not like the "to-do" list for other items related to VSE is short or anything.

 

[vulture2]

>>>But by 1928, technology had improved to where Lockheed could take the old-looking M-S design and turn it into the Vega, a passenger ship that could outrun most fighters of 1930, set every endurance distance record, and could STILL out climb most jets in level flight today.<br /><br />Yes, and do you know why? It was because of NASA!!!! <br /><br />NASA's first major technological advance, the NACA No. 10 cowling, demonstrated in 1928, reduced the drag of radial engines by a factor of THREE and increased the speed of existing aircraft by over 20 miles per hour! And note the number 10. It was preceded by many designs that didn't work. But NACA did not give up. By systematically trying a range of alternatives they arrived at a design that was practical and efficient. In fact, virtually everything NASA did in its first 40 years (1917-57) was intended to advance the technology of flight and to be of practical value to aviation. <br /><br />Here's a link to the excellent book "Engineer in Charge", available free online. Anyone who wants to understand NASA's mission should read it: http://history.nasa.gov/SP-4305/ch5.htm

 

[radarredux]

> <i><font color="yellow">The army isn't standing; they're rebuilding the vehicle after each flight, and they'll have to build it before each flight for the Ares.</font>/i><br /><br />I suspect it is both. STS is a complex system that requires a large number of people to literally tear much of the system apart and rebuild it between each flight. That is, there is a lot of work to do, so there is an army of people NOT standing around.<br /><br />On the other hand, when there is a problem in the chain and delays develop, the whole system backs up and people are used in non-optimized ways. That is, they are essentially standing around. This is why STS costs pretty much the same whether it is flying 6 missions a year or 0 missions a year.<br /><br />Ares is designed to be simpler, so there are fewer people who need to assemble it. Griffin has been very explicit on several occasions that the Ares design will need to have a much smaller army to support it.<br /><br /> /> <i><font color="yellow">Using it for twenty years and then concluding that reusable spacecraft are impractical ...</font>/i><br /><br />I think the point is a good one. The community doesn't have enough data points to draw a reasonable conclusion.</i></i>

 

[no_way]

You are thoroughly confusing two different four letter acronyms. NASA and NACA. Very different animals.<br />In fact, once the Apollo program wound down, NASA should have been renamed because once again, it changed its agenda, purpose and goals thoroughly.