Why not just have the ares V, who needs ares 1?

Status
Not open for further replies.
M

missionunknown

Guest
I've scoured the NET and can't see a valid reason for ares 1. Saturn V managed to lift all necessary lunar bound equipment out of earth orbit and from what i read the ares V is even more capable whereas the ares 1 seems to be a bit dodgy with shaking problems costing nasa billions to rectify. From one source i've read that the ares 1 and V were included in the constellation design because of safety fears for the crew onboard future missions, with nasa saying its safer for the astronaunts to be rocketed off in the smaller ares 1. I find this completely odd because at present the ares 1 is unsafe , whereas in the past saturn V was very safe especially compared to any other launch method (eg the shuttle).

So my question is why doesn't nasa just focus on using the ares V rocket, proven technology that works and which is cheaper to run on its own is it not?
 
S

Stewie_Griffin

Guest
Well the first reason is because ares V does not have the capability to launch the planned eds, lander, and crew module in a single launch.

The second reason is that its easier to make a smaller rocket safe enough for manned launch than a gargantuan rocket like ares V. You say that ares I is not safe? Thats bull****, Ares I will be safer by an order of magnitude than the shuttle was.

The third reason is that Ares I can be used solely for space station missions without needing to launch ares V.
 
M

missionunknown

Guest
Stewie_Griffin":3ma6z9eu said:
Well the first reason is because ares V does not have the capability to launch the planned eds, lander, and crew module in a single launch.

The second reason is that its easier to make a smaller rocket safe enough for manned launch than a gargantuan rocket like ares V. You say that ares I is not safe? Thats bull****, Ares I will be safer by an order of magnitude than the shuttle was.

The third reason is that Ares I can be used solely for space station missions without needing to launch ares V.
oh i know it will be safer the shuttle . But i read in a recent article that ares 1 at present is far from being safe and that ares V does have the capability to launch the whole 'sham-kaboodle'. I'm just trying to be logical and understand things better and save nasa money, which is the reason why america may choose not to continue its manned space ventures.

If the ares 1 can be used for space station missions, fair enough, seems reasonable to me.
 
S

SpeedRunner

Guest
Stewie_Griffin":k2x45eou said:
Well the first reason is because ares V does not have the capability to launch the planned eds, lander, and crew module in a single launch.

The second reason is that its easier to make a smaller rocket safe enough for manned launch than a gargantuan rocket like ares V. You say that ares I is not safe? Thats bull****, Ares I will be safer by an order of magnitude than the shuttle was.

The third reason is that Ares I can be used solely for space station missions without needing to launch ares V.
I agree with this right here. I like the idea of separate launchers.
 
C

CalliArcale

Guest
This is actually close to one of the concepts floated during the early days of Apollo planning -- Earth Orbit Rendezvous. Lunar Orbit Rendezvous turned out to be quicker to accomplish from scratch, but EOR gives you more flexibility.

You could compare Ares V to the Saturn V, and Ares 1 to the Saturn 1-B. The much smaller Saturn 1-B was used for the first Apollo test mission (Apollo 7) and also to boost Apollo spacecraft for the Skylab and ASTP programs.
 
S

shuttle_guy

Guest
Stewie_Griffin":18xnuleo said:
Well the first reason is because ares V does not have the capability to launch the planned eds, lander, and crew module in a single launch.

The second reason is that its easier to make a smaller rocket safe enough for manned launch than a gargantuan rocket like ares V. You say that ares I is not safe? Thats bull****, Ares I will be safer by an order of magnitude than the shuttle was.

The third reason is that Ares I can be used solely for space station missions without needing to launch ares V.

All good reasons. The 4th I would add is that post the Challenger accident the accident review board said all new vehicles developed shoul not launch cargo and humans on the same vehicle. NASA agreed to that reccomendation.
 
T

tomnackid

Guest
Would you like it if your only vehicle were a tractor trailer? it might make running to the store to buy a gallon of milk a little inconvenient and pricey! Beside launching the crew for a lunar mission more safely (only two engines to ignite from laucnh pad to orbit compared to what? 8, 9 for Ares V) the Ares I will be used for LEO only missions before, during and after the lunar return missions.
 
O

odiedb

Guest
Ares V would only be able to launch a smaller version of the Altair lander, with crew aboard.... If we want to land 4 astros on the Moon or Mars we will need a larger landing craft like Altairs..... The Altairs landers engine will also be used to slow the stack (Orion and Altairs) for Lunar orbit, unlike Apollo which used ithe command ships main engine for the burn! All of this adds up to a larger weight ratio for launch, if expansion on the Moon is to take place.... I think we should build a large telescope array and science base on the far side! A telescope on the far side of the Moon would open up the Universe to us much greater than Hubble ever has!
 
R

radarredux

Guest
This question has taken on greater importance in the last few weeks for a couple of reasons including.

(1) The air force is concerned that the predicted vibrations of Ares I might be so great that it could shake apart the auto destruct system. If this is true, the air force wouldn't want to launch Ares I from Florida.

(2) NASA is still struggling with vibration issues and just postponed another launch of the Ares I-X.

(3) Another analysis by the air force shows that if Ares I has to be destroyed there is very little chance the crew can survive.

(4) NASA has recently hinted that they may de-orbit ISS about the time Ares I is ready to fly, so as soon as it is ready it would be mothballed for 4-6 years.

I remember as soon as the Ares I and V architecture was unveiled, Zubrin (who thinks the moon is a distraction and wants to go to mars) thought it was an OK architecture but that NASA should plan to build the Ares V first! Then the Ares V (or a pair of Ares Vs with EOR) could be used to launch missions to Mars ASAP. Maybe he was right.
 
T

tanstaafl76

Guest
Stewie_Griffin":1cc32dlp said:
The second reason is that its easier to make a smaller rocket safe enough for manned launch than a gargantuan rocket like ares V. You say that ares I is not safe? Thats bull****, Ares I will be safer by an order of magnitude than the shuttle was.
I'm sure that's true, but I don't see anyone suggesting we continue to fly the shuttle so that comparison is rather moot. We already know flying the shuttle is russian roulette with impact damage, that alone would make it less safe than any stacked alternative. The real question is whether Ares I would be safer than a similarly-stacked rocket that used liquid boosters (assisted by smaller SRBs if needed) instead of one giant SRB? I don't know the answer, but it seems like that is the question that should be asked, not whether it is safer than the shuttle. SpaceX may help answer this question for us with the Falcon 9.

Stewie_Griffin":1cc32dlp said:
The third reason is that Ares I can be used solely for space station missions without needing to launch ares V.
By the time Ares I is ready to fill that roll, it will already have been filled for several years by a private contractor, and even more to the point, they will probably be ready to scrap the ISS by the time Ares I can bring it a crew. So I really don't see this as a reason.

I liked the original concept behind the Ares I: make a very straightforward, reliable rocket for putting crews into orbit and leave the heavy cargo lifting to the bigger rockets. But as Ares development has continued, it's becoming less straightforward, and the difficulty in aborting the burn of solid rocket boosters may not wind up being palatable from a survivability standpoint.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.

ASK THE COMMUNITY

TRENDING THREADS