<p><BR/>Replying to:<BR/><DIV CLASS='Discussion_PostQuote'> Aren't the current launch pads starting to crumble just from shuttle launches?</DIV></p><p>Yep. </p><p>Replying to:<BR/><DIV CLASS='Discussion_PostQuote'> Are they really going to be able to withstand the huge thrust of an Ares V without being rebuilt? <br />Posted by tanstaafl76</DIV></p><p>Probably not for the next 40 yrs, as in this quote from NasaSpaceflight.com:</p><p><table border="0" cellspacing="0" cellpadding="5" width="100%" style="table-layout:fixed"><tbody><tr><td width="16%" valign="top" style=""><div id="msg_304866_extra_info" class="smalltext"><br /><br />Posts: 4899<br />Location: Cape Canaveral, FL<br /><br /><div style="width:100%"><img class="avatar" src="http://forum.nasaspaceflight.com/index.php?action=dlattach;attach=84449;type=avatar" border="0" alt="" /></div><br /><br /><font color="#324672">WWW</font> </div>
- Status
<p><BR/>Replying to:<BR/><DIV CLASS='Discussion_PostQuote'>Yep. Probably not for the next 40 yrs, as in this quote from NasaSpaceflight.com
osts: 4899Location: Cape Canaveral, FLWWW Re: New engine configuration under evaluation for Ares V « Reply #48 on: 08/06/2008 12:06 AM »Certainly better than an Ares-V, but I personally think it would be a very good idea to rebuild one of the Pads at some point in the next 10 years anyway (by FY2019) - and the other within 5 years of that (FY2024)That would be one way to be 100% assured that they will last the next 40 years.Jupiter-120 should be fine with the current pads for a good while to come. Jupiter-232 is probably "borderline". It can probably work fine initially, but I don't think we should take any big chances with the Pads.Just MHO, not based on any engineering studies - yet.Ross. <br />Posted by kyle_baron</DIV></p><p>The problem with this is you don't just "build a bigger 'pad'"! Launch infrastructure has to be designed for a specific launch vehicle family. True, you can later modify it, for longer upper stages, etc., but the basic design has to be done when the vehicle family is designed. This is called systems integration, and needs to be done by systems engineers who don't necessarily know all the answers, but do know the right questions and who to go to for the answers.</p><p>The idea of the DIRECT 2.0/Jupiter 120/232 is that you don't go for a one-shot or even a "one-and-a-half shot", you launch as many vehicles as necessary to assemble the exploration vehicle or whatever, and rendezvous in LEO to put it together. We've had practice...and such a vehicle would be far LESS complex than the ISS. Just dock and go!</p><p>Yes, Saturn V was able to do the job (barely) with a single vehicle/launch. When Howard Hughes designed the "Spruce Goose", he had in mind carrying IIRC, about 700 people in a single aircraft. The end of WWII eliminated the requirement for the "Goose". Until the Airbus A380, we haven't seen anything nearly that big. (And the logistical requirements for servicing such a monstrosity is going to strain the infrastructures of major airports.) Meantime, we've done quite well (until the fuel crunch), using 747's, etc. Bigger isn't always better...sometimes it's just bigger!</p><p>On the other hand, Ares I and V+ are like stuffing 10 lbs of "stuff" into a 5 lb (or kilogram...suit yourself) sack! Frankly, I'm having serious doubts that Ares V will ever leave the CAD file, or the drawing board, or whatever... And I'm hoping that Ares I WON'T! It's getting to be too much of a kludge! Reminds me of Vanguard...on steroids. But not much steroids!</p><p>Not being intimately familiar with the capabilities of Ares I vs Atlas V Heavy or Delta IV Heavy, I can't quote the comparisons. But if the only reason not to use either instead of Ares I is that the other two would have to be "man-rated", then go ahead and man-rate them! We did it with D-series Atlas I and Titan II. It IS rocket science, but what are engineers for???</p><p><br /><br /> </p>
osts: 4899Location: Cape Canaveral, FLWWW Re: New engine configuration under evaluation for Ares V « Reply #48 on: 08/06/2008 12:06 AM »Certainly better than an Ares-V, but I personally think it would be a very good idea to rebuild one of the Pads at some point in the next 10 years anyway (by FY2019) - and the other within 5 years of that (FY2024)That would be one way to be 100% assured that they will last the next 40 years.Jupiter-120 should be fine with the current pads for a good while to come. Jupiter-232 is probably "borderline". It can probably work fine initially, but I don't think we should take any big chances with the Pads.Just MHO, not based on any engineering studies - yet.Ross. <br />Posted by kyle_baron</DIV></p><p>The problem with this is you don't just "build a bigger 'pad'"! Launch infrastructure has to be designed for a specific launch vehicle family. True, you can later modify it, for longer upper stages, etc., but the basic design has to be done when the vehicle family is designed. This is called systems integration, and needs to be done by systems engineers who don't necessarily know all the answers, but do know the right questions and who to go to for the answers.</p><p>The idea of the DIRECT 2.0/Jupiter 120/232 is that you don't go for a one-shot or even a "one-and-a-half shot", you launch as many vehicles as necessary to assemble the exploration vehicle or whatever, and rendezvous in LEO to put it together. We've had practice...and such a vehicle would be far LESS complex than the ISS. Just dock and go!</p><p>Yes, Saturn V was able to do the job (barely) with a single vehicle/launch. When Howard Hughes designed the "Spruce Goose", he had in mind carrying IIRC, about 700 people in a single aircraft. The end of WWII eliminated the requirement for the "Goose". Until the Airbus A380, we haven't seen anything nearly that big. (And the logistical requirements for servicing such a monstrosity is going to strain the infrastructures of major airports.) Meantime, we've done quite well (until the fuel crunch), using 747's, etc. Bigger isn't always better...sometimes it's just bigger!</p><p>On the other hand, Ares I and V+ are like stuffing 10 lbs of "stuff" into a 5 lb (or kilogram...suit yourself) sack! Frankly, I'm having serious doubts that Ares V will ever leave the CAD file, or the drawing board, or whatever... And I'm hoping that Ares I WON'T! It's getting to be too much of a kludge! Reminds me of Vanguard...on steroids. But not much steroids!</p><p>Not being intimately familiar with the capabilities of Ares I vs Atlas V Heavy or Delta IV Heavy, I can't quote the comparisons. But if the only reason not to use either instead of Ares I is that the other two would have to be "man-rated", then go ahead and man-rate them! We did it with D-series Atlas I and Titan II. It IS rocket science, but what are engineers for???</p><p><br /><br /> </p><p><BR/>Replying to:<BR/><DIV CLASS='Discussion_PostQuote'>Yep. Probably not for the next 40 yrs, as in this quote from NasaSpaceflight.comosts: 4899Location: Cape Canaveral, FLWWW Re: New engine configuration under evaluation for Ares V « Reply #48 on: 08/06/2008 12:06 AM »Certainly better than an Ares-V, but I personally think it would be a very good idea to rebuild one of the Pads at some point in the next 10 years anyway (by FY2019) - and the other within 5 years of that (FY2024)That would be one way to be 100% assured that they will last the next 40 years.Jupiter-120 should be fine with the current pads for a good while to come. Jupiter-232 is probably "borderline". It can probably work fine initially, but I don't think we should take any big chances with the Pads.Just MHO, not based on any engineering studies - yet.Ross. <br /> Posted by kyle_baron</DIV></p><p> </p><p>That is just an opinion. The pads are NOT going to be rebuilt, just refurbished. </p>
osts: 4899Location: Cape Canaveral, FLWWW Re: New engine configuration under evaluation for Ares V « Reply #48 on: 08/06/2008 12:06 AM »Certainly better than an Ares-V, but I personally think it would be a very good idea to rebuild one of the Pads at some point in the next 10 years anyway (by FY2019) - and the other within 5 years of that (FY2024)That would be one way to be 100% assured that they will last the next 40 years.Jupiter-120 should be fine with the current pads for a good while to come. Jupiter-232 is probably "borderline". It can probably work fine initially, but I don't think we should take any big chances with the Pads.Just MHO, not based on any engineering studies - yet.Ross. <br /> Posted by kyle_baron</DIV></p><p> </p><p>That is just an opinion. The pads are NOT going to be rebuilt, just refurbished. </p><p><BR/>Replying to:<BR/><DIV CLASS='Discussion_PostQuote'> You are correct for the current Ares V, which comes up short in payload performance to the moon (by 8 metric tons, IIRC). However, Ares Max (also known as the bigger Ares V in the article) will be needed to make up this shortfall and will need the new structures </DIV></p><p> </p><p>My comments apply for all variations of the Ares V. It will be designed to use the existing infrastructure. Ares "Max" will use the existing infrastructure, that is a hard requirement. That is why it is called "Max", it is the maximum that the infrastructure can support. </p><p>The webpage you linked is not anything official or authoritative. </p>
<p>Bytor can you maybe explain how the current infrastructure will be reinforced or upgraded to withstand such a large rocket as the Ares V? I'm not trying to be argumentative, I honestly do not know, I am a layman and just trying to understand how such a large launch vehicle will be able to be launched from pads that seem to be deteriorating. I have tried to read up on these programs but haven't seen anything that explains how the huge weight increase of this launch vehicle will be accomodated safely.</p><p> </p> <div class="Discussion_UserSignature"> </div>
<br /> <img src="http://sitelife.space.com/ver1.0/Content/images/store/9/14/196e1a02-e439-4fa2-ae9f-5b91f37de0a8.Medium.jpg" alt="" /> <div class="Discussion_UserSignature"> </div>
<p><BR/>Replying to:<BR/><DIV CLASS='Discussion_PostQuote'> <br />Posted by docm</DIV></p><p>I know an Aires 1X when I see it !! <br /></p> <div class="Discussion_UserSignature"> </div>
- Status
Similar threads
TRENDING THREADS
-
Basic Error: The accelerating Universe conclusion - reason- Started by Gibsense
- Replies: 188
-
-
Definition of Universe requires clarification, to enable discussion
- Started by Catastrophe
- Replies: 21
-
-
Just a couple of questions please about just how far back we can model.- Started by Starstruck
- Replies: 6
-
US Space Force 5 years later: What has it accomplished so far, and where does it go from here?- Started by Admin
- Replies: 4
Facebook
Twitter
Instagram