We need CLV/CaLV why?

[docm]

LM proposal<br /><br />http://www.lockheedmartin.com/wms/findPage.do?dsp=fec&ci=17607&rsbci=14917&fti=0&ti=0&sc=400<br /><br />Up to 140 MT? <img src="/images/icons/tongue.gif" /> <div class="Discussion_UserSignature"> </div>

 

[john_316]

And cannot Boeing also deliver such a feat of engineering?<br /><br />LOL<br /><br /><br /><img src="/images/icons/smile.gif" />

 

[gawin]

I think LM should be forced to clean up thier toxic waste dumps in FL that are poluting ground water suplies of peoples homes before they are givin one more dime for any project.

 

[docm]

That's not the point. The point is that LM, Boeing etc have proven launchers that could likely be man-rated faster than NASA can mod the shuttle components into CLV/CaLV, if that's even possible given how stick is "progressing"...if you want to call it that. <br /><br />That whole scenario is starting to smell of "space truck", "re-usable" and all the other BS they used to justify the shuttle to start with tht didn't pan out <img src="/images/icons/tongue.gif" /> <div class="Discussion_UserSignature"> </div>

 

[qso1]

Strictly speaking...in answer to the thread question...we need CLV/CaLV because they have something in common with the heavy Atlas versions. Neither exist yet beyond computer graphic and paper studies. <div class="Discussion_UserSignature"> <p><strong>My borrowed quote for the time being:</strong></p><p><em>There are three kinds of people in life. Those who make it happen, those who watch it happen...and those who do not know what happened.</em></p> </div>

 

[gunsandrockets]

"Up to 140 MT?"<br /><br />The Atlas variation which can haul that much to LEO appears to have no advantages over the NASA Ares V, and some possible disadvantages. It requires new launch facilities like the Ares V, it hauls 140 tonnes to orbit while the Ares V hauls more than 130 tonnes, and it uses 13 booster engines and 5 booster stages while the Ares V only uses 7 booster engines and 3 booster stages.

 

[docm]

Sorry, but I have little to no faith in NASA's stick and less that they'll get Ares V off the ground. <br /><br />As for using more chambers being "bad"; have you looked at Russian Soyuz boosters? Try 20 large chambers, and they're darned good at getting things to LEO reliably. <br /><br />If 1 of 7 shuts down it's a bigger problem than 1 out of 13. <div class="Discussion_UserSignature"> </div>

 

[qso1]

Atlas V would still be a contract overseen by NASA so whats the difference?<br /><br />BTW, there was a Russian booster that used 30 engines called the N-1...it failed 4 out of 4 times so that don't prove anything either. The N-1 didn't work because it wasn't fully tested and rushed to first flight tests. The current Russian rockets are tested better. The CEV/CaLC launchers are shuttle derived rockets that are derived from rockets and ETs with a failure rate no worse than our best rockets...or 98%.<br /><br />Its not a question of faith in NASA for me. Its a question of what works. Right now, neither the CEV/CaLV or Atlas-V heavy booster derivatives are operational. But either one would work far as I'm concerned. Both were derived from proven systems. Just a question of which will cost more operationally. <div class="Discussion_UserSignature"> <p><strong>My borrowed quote for the time being:</strong></p><p><em>There are three kinds of people in life. Those who make it happen, those who watch it happen...and those who do not know what happened.</em></p> </div>

 

[docm]

At this point Ares I is more a matter of dream vs. reality. <div class="Discussion_UserSignature"> </div>

 

[JonClarke]

Ares I is dream is contracts to support it. The Boeing proposal is a dream without a contract to its name. <br /><br />Jon <div class="Discussion_UserSignature"> <p><em>Whether we become a multi-planet species with unlimited horizons, or are forever confined to Earth will be decided in the twenty-first century amid the vast plains, rugged canyons and lofty mountains of Mars</em>  Arthur Clarke</p> </div>

 

[qso1]

There all dreams until they get past the 2009 milestone of a new President and Administration which if democrat, may gut the Bush proposal because it is a Bush proposal and dems in recent years tow the old we can't afford human spaceflight line.<br /><br />And of course, the Bush VSE proposal is the whole reason to have the new or derived LVs. <div class="Discussion_UserSignature"> <p><strong>My borrowed quote for the time being:</strong></p><p><em>There are three kinds of people in life. Those who make it happen, those who watch it happen...and those who do not know what happened.</em></p> </div>

 

[josh_simonson]

Lets see if Lockheed develops the wide body centaur first - that'll be a useful improvement to their Atlas fleet with or without NASA buisness.<br /><br />There's a significant difference between 'engines' and 'thrust chambers'. Russia never got large hydrocarbon engines to work properly (like the F1) and kludged their engines by adding many medium sized chambers instead. Usually engine failures are not due to the to the chamber, but rather the turbomachinery or ECO sensors, ect.

 

[gunsandrockets]

"Lets see if Lockheed develops the wide body centaur first - that'll be a useful improvement to their Atlas fleet with or without NASA buisness. "<br /><br />There already is a widebody Centaur. It is the 5m diameter upper stage of the Delta IV rocket.

 

[qso1]

One of Russias problems with its clusters that occured with the N-1 was synchronizing the engines in such a way so as not to set up multiple resonant vibrations that would cause problems in other engines or structural load problems. They didn't overcome this problem and it was thought to have been the reason for at least one of the N-1 explosions. <div class="Discussion_UserSignature"> <p><strong>My borrowed quote for the time being:</strong></p><p><em>There are three kinds of people in life. Those who make it happen, those who watch it happen...and those who do not know what happened.</em></p> </div>