Originally posted by: 91TTZ
Originally posted by: So
Originally posted by: 5to1baby1in5
Originally posted by: dakels
What So said is pretty much what my engineer friend at NASA told me. It's a 40 year old platform that is terribly inefficient and overly complicated. Cost per pound for deliverable payload is what is important and the shuttle's is extremely high. The next gen STS is supposedly drastically going to reduce cost per pound to space and require much less support crew.
http://www.nasa.gov/mission_pa.../ares/aresl/index.html
Where are the wings?
Left on the ground, as all unnecessary heavy components should be. You get me a scramjet going and show me a vehicle that's capable of SSTO, and we'll talk.
But you said "next gen STS". The STS is the space shuttle.
Originally posted by: So
Originally posted by: 91TTZ
Originally posted by: So
Originally posted by: 5to1baby1in5
Originally posted by: dakels
What So said is pretty much what my engineer friend at NASA told me. It's a 40 year old platform that is terribly inefficient and overly complicated. Cost per pound for deliverable payload is what is important and the shuttle's is extremely high. The next gen STS is supposedly drastically going to reduce cost per pound to space and require much less support crew.
http://www.nasa.gov/mission_pa.../ares/aresl/index.html
Where are the wings?
Left on the ground, as all unnecessary heavy components should be. You get me a scramjet going and show me a vehicle that's capable of SSTO, and we'll talk.
But you said "next gen STS". The STS is the space shuttle.
STS = Space Transportation System.
Originally posted by: CaptnKirk
Originally posted by: sao123
Direct 2.0 is a much cheaper and safer alternative to the Aries I / Aries V system. I hope someone at NASA finally pulls their collective heads out of their asses.
Aries isnt even fully designed and it already has problems.
Direct 2 would be a conversion of the present ET tank, but no real advance in technology.
It cannot be modified enough to make it more than a minimal lift to ISS service carrier.
We can't reinforce the tank structure without overly costly redesign to even strap on motor sets, and even then you
still have to add a second stage and a capsule, service module, and LAS to make it
semi-functional.
It would take longer to mod all those parts then to build from a clean sheet paper, and even then it woulld cost more.
The stack-up to make it work would be too tall for early flight directional stability, and the resultant payload wouldn't cut it.
Aries has a long way to go, but it would beat any derivative EELV concept into space.
Originally posted by: sao123
Originally posted by: mjuszczak
I just don't understand. yes, they are poorly built, but they are re-usable, and can do almost anything except land on a planet, right? So why are they retiring them entirely? Aren't they incredibly efficient for bringing things to and from earth to the ISS, for instance? Why not keep one or two around?
when dealing with machines, the following rule holds true... even for the shuttle.
Large complex multirole machines, are inefficient, have high failure rates, and are more costly than a combination of multiple simple single purpose machines.
Originally posted by: 91TTZ
Originally posted by: So
Originally posted by: 91TTZ
Originally posted by: So
Originally posted by: 5to1baby1in5
Originally posted by: dakels
What So said is pretty much what my engineer friend at NASA told me. It's a 40 year old platform that is terribly inefficient and overly complicated. Cost per pound for deliverable payload is what is important and the shuttle's is extremely high. The next gen STS is supposedly drastically going to reduce cost per pound to space and require much less support crew.
http://www.nasa.gov/mission_pa.../ares/aresl/index.html
Where are the wings?
Left on the ground, as all unnecessary heavy components should be. You get me a scramjet going and show me a vehicle that's capable of SSTO, and we'll talk.
But you said "next gen STS". The STS is the space shuttle.
STS = Space Transportation System.
No other launch system was called STS. That's uniquely the Space Shuttle's name.
Originally posted by: sao123
Originally posted by: CaptnKirk
Originally posted by: sao123
Direct 2.0 is a much cheaper and safer alternative to the Aries I / Aries V system. I hope someone at NASA finally pulls their collective heads out of their asses.
Aries isnt even fully designed and it already has problems.
Direct 2 would be a conversion of the present ET tank, but no real advance in technology.
It cannot be modified enough to make it more than a minimal lift to ISS service carrier.
We can't reinforce the tank structure without overly costly redesign to even strap on motor sets, and even then you
still have to add a second stage and a capsule, service module, and LAS to make it
semi-functional.
It would take longer to mod all those parts then to build from a clean sheet paper, and even then it woulld cost more.
The stack-up to make it work would be too tall for early flight directional stability, and the resultant payload wouldn't cut it.
Aries has a long way to go, but it would beat any derivative EELV concept into space.
you've got to be kidding me???
the aries V has to have the SAME modifications (actually even more) to the ET as the the Jupiter. (Consider that the aries V has 5 engines on the bottom of the ET, and the Jupiter 232 only has 3) The Jupiter 232 has even less stress on the ET than the Aries V.
The Jupiter saves in that it is modular and instead of designing 2 seperate rockets, you only have to design 1, Also consider if you dont run 2 seperate types of rockets, less modifications have to be made to existing structures (launch pads, VAB, crawlers, etc)...
The distinguishing part of the jupiter is you can mix and match the number and size of the upper stages depending on what you are carrying and how far you are going. This wouldnt require NEW technology, since the same thing has been going on in the Delta series of rockets since their conception. AND its what the aries V was planned for anyways. The aries V rocket is sound (which is what the jupiter is derived from), but its the Aries I which will ultimately be the failure... The jupiter 120/232 is a sound logical replacement for the aries I/V system.
Originally posted by: CaptnKirk
Originally posted by: sao123
Originally posted by: CaptnKirk
Originally posted by: sao123
Direct 2.0 is a much cheaper and safer alternative to the Aries I / Aries V system. I hope someone at NASA finally pulls their collective heads out of their asses.
Aries isnt even fully designed and it already has problems.
Direct 2 would be a conversion of the present ET tank, but no real advance in technology.
It cannot be modified enough to make it more than a minimal lift to ISS service carrier.
We can't reinforce the tank structure without overly costly redesign to even strap on motor sets, and even then you
still have to add a second stage and a capsule, service module, and LAS to make it
semi-functional.
It would take longer to mod all those parts then to build from a clean sheet paper, and even then it woulld cost more.
The stack-up to make it work would be too tall for early flight directional stability, and the resultant payload wouldn't cut it.
Aries has a long way to go, but it would beat any derivative EELV concept into space.
you've got to be kidding me???
the aries V has to have the SAME modifications (actually even more) to the ET as the the Jupiter. (Consider that the aries V has 5 engines on the bottom of the ET, and the Jupiter 232 only has 3) The Jupiter 232 has even less stress on the ET than the Aries V.
The Jupiter saves in that it is modular and instead of designing 2 seperate rockets, you only have to design 1, Also consider if you dont run 2 seperate types of rockets, less modifications have to be made to existing structures (launch pads, VAB, crawlers, etc)...
The distinguishing part of the jupiter is you can mix and match the number and size of the upper stages depending on what you are carrying and how far you are going. This wouldnt require NEW technology, since the same thing has been going on in the Delta series of rockets since their conception. AND its what the aries V was planned for anyways. The aries V rocket is sound (which is what the jupiter is derived from), but its the Aries I which will ultimately be the failure... The jupiter 120/232 is a sound logical replacement for the aries I/V system.
The Aries V doesn't have to have ANY modifications - considering that it's a new machine, incorporating 50+ years of technological advancements.
The ET - where do you get all those 'Extra' parts? They aren't just laying around waiting to be put together into an assembly, you know.
Logistics - Utilization of any spares, still leaves you short of a deliverable unit.
Pipeline - restarting contractors to revive the production of a part that was last made in the late 1990's isn't reasonable,
as it would take longer to restart than it would take the technoligaly advanced Aries to mature into integrated operational vehicle.
Increase of tank ullage to 33 Ft. diameter allows the used of larger motors to provide thrust, and use of stretched SRB's
allows heavier loads without a third stage, allowing a second stage only to finish the orbital insertion or homing trajectory.
The Saturn V was 33 Ft. diameter, but they were last made in the 60's into early 70's so there is no chance of bringing those back,
too many of those companies from thirty years ago are gone, eitheer out of business, or absorbed aand disolved in a corporate deal.
How do you restart that?
The 'EELV' (Expendable Evloved Launch Vehicle)has been kicked around for decades - using the ET tank with propulsion adaptave motors to eliminate the orbiter itself,
but boost a cargo carrying space pod to a parking orbit for conversion into an orbital rendezvous station for crew and equipmnet transfer.
L=We throw away the ET when it is nearly at orbital velocity,]http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Image:Space_Shuttle_fueltank_freefall.jpg[/l] and there is enough residual fuel in the tanks to feed a single motor in order to park the entire tank for modification, conversion, or salvage at some future time.
We should have done that from the beginning, we would have over 100 ET Structures, 2 pressure chambers each,
that could be combined into an orbiting platform comprised of a ring of 6 tanks linked noes to tail all the way around,
and joined top to bottom as a tripod unit, one above the axial ring, and another below.
Mate and entry/egress are performed at the apexes of the tripod junction.
Each tank structure is 154 Ft. long and 27 1/2 Ft. in diameter.
As tall as an eighteen story building . . . laying on it's side it's still 3 stories, like in the size of an apartment complex.
You could have done a lot with the right modifications.
But those parts are gone, disintegrating during rentry, a distant puff on the horizon.
Launch Pads are undergoing work right now - one had a higher degree of damage than had been anticipated, matter of fact . . it fell apart.
They have to be both functional and loaded with a STS on each when we get to the Hubble Mission, last shuttle visit.
Thats right ar the otter limits of the shuttles functionality and capability to return safely, you have to haave a back-up ready to go.
It also has to return to the VAB for reprocessing for another mission if it doesn't have to fly a rescue.
Back to the Jupiters. If they are ET derivatives, as the EELV was supposed to be, again, where are the parts?
They are not made anymore, and start-up would be 5 years down the road, redesign, fabrication, test and deployment adds another 5 tears.
Aires I has a 3 year head start, and preliminary design on Aries V, and Constellation Program support and derivative is underway.
Why stop that and return to a technological past tense.
We don't need to suffer from arrested development on our exploration of space.
Aries I carries crew, not cargo, in a 16 foot diameter module with the capacity to house and shelter 6 astronauts,
provide them with logistical support & life support, and is the return vehicle from any near earth orbit, or orbital transfer manuver.
Aries V is a technoligical derivative of the Saturn V vehicle, with 40 years of advances designed in, and utilized.
It is a heavy lifter, and by NOT going the wat of the Jupiter derivative, it can have a single second stage, and be assembles on a
launch stack of less that 425 Ft. - still a stability risk with something longer than a football
field and a half again.
In this comparison, beside the logistical problem of getting parts to make a Jupiter, it would have to be a 3 stage vehicle
in order to make orbit with equivalent payload and adding the stage would increase the stack height to over 450 Ft. another risk factor.
Aries V launches position cargo equipment and supplies in low earth orbits, or along the journey at way-station rendezvous points
for positioning food and water supplies, landing craft, and modular elements for deployment to extraterrestial surfaces
for use as laboratories, living quarters, and habitable shelters.
Aries I uses a five segment SRB stack, same as Shuttle SRB, just one more segment case than ET, and a single stack at that.
Aries V uses the same five segment stack as Aries I does, but it does use them in a pair to provide boost to the heavy lifters capacity.
It cannot even lift off without the SRB's to lift the weight of the fuel.
Still don't know where you are going to get all those parts to make a JUpiter, when the parts went out of manufacturing cycle way back when.
Originally posted by: sao123
Originally posted by: CaptnKirk
Originally posted by: sao123
Originally posted by: CaptnKirk
Originally posted by: sao123
Direct 2.0 is a much cheaper and safer alternative to the Aries I / Aries V system. I hope someone at NASA finally pulls their collective heads out of their asses.
Aries isnt even fully designed and it already has problems.
Direct 2 would be a conversion of the present ET tank, but no real advance in technology.
It cannot be modified enough to make it more than a minimal lift to ISS service carrier.
We can't reinforce the tank structure without overly costly redesign to even strap on motor sets, and even then you
still have to add a second stage and a capsule, service module, and LAS to make it
semi-functional.
It would take longer to mod all those parts then to build from a clean sheet paper, and even then it woulld cost more.
The stack-up to make it work would be too tall for early flight directional stability, and the resultant payload wouldn't cut it.
Aries has a long way to go, but it would beat any derivative EELV concept into space.
you've got to be kidding me???
the aries V has to have the SAME modifications (actually even more) to the ET as the the Jupiter. (Consider that the aries V has 5 engines on the bottom of the ET, and the Jupiter 232 only has 3) The Jupiter 232 has even less stress on the ET than the Aries V.
The Jupiter saves in that it is modular and instead of designing 2 seperate rockets, you only have to design 1, Also consider if you dont run 2 seperate types of rockets, less modifications have to be made to existing structures (launch pads, VAB, crawlers, etc)...
The distinguishing part of the jupiter is you can mix and match the number and size of the upper stages depending on what you are carrying and how far you are going. This wouldnt require NEW technology, since the same thing has been going on in the Delta series of rockets since their conception. AND its what the aries V was planned for anyways. The aries V rocket is sound (which is what the jupiter is derived from), but its the Aries I which will ultimately be the failure... The jupiter 120/232 is a sound logical replacement for the aries I/V system.
The Aries V doesn't have to have ANY modifications - considering that it's a new machine, incorporating 50+ years of technological advancements.
The ET - where do you get all those 'Extra' parts? They aren't just laying around waiting to be put together into an assembly, you know.
Logistics - Utilization of any spares, still leaves you short of a deliverable unit.
Pipeline - restarting contractors to revive the production of a part that was last made in the late 1990's isn't reasonable,
as it would take longer to restart than it would take the technoligaly advanced Aries to mature into integrated operational vehicle.
Increase of tank ullage to 33 Ft. diameter allows the used of larger motors to provide thrust, and use of stretched SRB's
allows heavier loads without a third stage, allowing a second stage only to finish the orbital insertion or homing trajectory.
The Saturn V was 33 Ft. diameter, but they were last made in the 60's into early 70's so there is no chance of bringing those back,
too many of those companies from thirty years ago are gone, eitheer out of business, or absorbed aand disolved in a corporate deal.
How do you restart that?
The 'EELV' (Expendable Evloved Launch Vehicle)has been kicked around for decades - using the ET tank with propulsion adaptave motors to eliminate the orbiter itself,
but boost a cargo carrying space pod to a parking orbit for conversion into an orbital rendezvous station for crew and equipmnet transfer.
L=We throw away the ET when it is nearly at orbital velocity,]http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Image:Space_Shuttle_fueltank_freefall.jpg[/l] and there is enough residual fuel in the tanks to feed a single motor in order to park the entire tank for modification, conversion, or salvage at some future time.
We should have done that from the beginning, we would have over 100 ET Structures, 2 pressure chambers each,
that could be combined into an orbiting platform comprised of a ring of 6 tanks linked noes to tail all the way around,
and joined top to bottom as a tripod unit, one above the axial ring, and another below.
Mate and entry/egress are performed at the apexes of the tripod junction.
Each tank structure is 154 Ft. long and 27 1/2 Ft. in diameter.
As tall as an eighteen story building . . . laying on it's side it's still 3 stories, like in the size of an apartment complex.
You could have done a lot with the right modifications.
But those parts are gone, disintegrating during rentry, a distant puff on the horizon.
Launch Pads are undergoing work right now - one had a higher degree of damage than had been anticipated, matter of fact . . it fell apart.
They have to be both functional and loaded with a STS on each when we get to the Hubble Mission, last shuttle visit.
Thats right ar the otter limits of the shuttles functionality and capability to return safely, you have to haave a back-up ready to go.
It also has to return to the VAB for reprocessing for another mission if it doesn't have to fly a rescue.
Back to the Jupiters. If they are ET derivatives, as the EELV was supposed to be, again, where are the parts?
They are not made anymore, and start-up would be 5 years down the road, redesign, fabrication, test and deployment adds another 5 tears.
Aires I has a 3 year head start, and preliminary design on Aries V, and Constellation Program support and derivative is underway.
Why stop that and return to a technological past tense.
We don't need to suffer from arrested development on our exploration of space.
Aries I carries crew, not cargo, in a 16 foot diameter module with the capacity to house and shelter 6 astronauts,
provide them with logistical support & life support, and is the return vehicle from any near earth orbit, or orbital transfer manuver.
Aries V is a technoligical derivative of the Saturn V vehicle, with 40 years of advances designed in, and utilized.
It is a heavy lifter, and by NOT going the wat of the Jupiter derivative, it can have a single second stage, and be assembles on a
launch stack of less that 425 Ft. - still a stability risk with something longer than a football
field and a half again.
In this comparison, beside the logistical problem of getting parts to make a Jupiter, it would have to be a 3 stage vehicle
in order to make orbit with equivalent payload and adding the stage would increase the stack height to over 450 Ft. another risk factor.
Aries V launches position cargo equipment and supplies in low earth orbits, or along the journey at way-station rendezvous points
for positioning food and water supplies, landing craft, and modular elements for deployment to extraterrestial surfaces
for use as laboratories, living quarters, and habitable shelters.
Aries I uses a five segment SRB stack, same as Shuttle SRB, just one more segment case than ET, and a single stack at that.
Aries V uses the same five segment stack as Aries I does, but it does use them in a pair to provide boost to the heavy lifters capacity.
It cannot even lift off without the SRB's to lift the weight of the fuel.
Still don't know where you are going to get all those parts to make a JUpiter, when the parts went out of manufacturing cycle way back when.
All great knowledge, and yet none of it relevent.
The facilities for the ET tanks are still in place, and they are still manufaturing tanks as we speak. All these modifications STILL being made (post columbia) to the tank design are being done at the manufacturing plants. We still need 10 more tanks for 10 more flights, and their design continues to be changed & improved. Theres nothing to restart.
Again, with the boosters, each booster segment is only rated to be flown for 25-30 flights and then it must be replaced. And every booster segment is refurbished after each flight. If there werent any booster manufacturing still in place, then using 5 segment boosters instead of 4 for the aries program wouldnt make much sense would it? (youd run out of booster segments even faster, than with the direct plan) The manufacturing facilites for the boosters are still in place and working.
The ONLY manufacturing plants and parts that have been shut down are those for the orbiter because of the 12 originally planned to purchase, only 5 ever came into existance, and the 6th was built out of the remaining spare parts, after challenger blew up.
Something you dont seem to understand are, converting the 4 booster segment into a 5 booster segment isnt just as simple as adding a new segment. The 5 booster segment has to be man rated again and approved for flight before it can be used. The man rating is a vigorous testing process which can take years. The jupiter booster doesnt have to undergo this testing, because they are already using the man rated 4 segment booster. Its already tested and approved under the shuttle program, thus saving costs and money.
Apparently you didnt read the document, or you would know that the jupiter can get to orbit or the ISS on 2 stages (booster+ upper). The jupiter 120 is a heavy lift vehicle like the Aries V. You dont have to go to the 232 configuration with 3+ stages until you are ready to go to the moon. Again, since the upper stages will be taken directly from the Delta IV, we already have the manufacturing in place to make these stages.
Since the jupiter reuses everything we have currently have available for space travel, it can be ready years earlier and billions cheaper.
Originally posted by: sao123
The facilities for the ET tanks are still in place, and they are still manufaturing tanks as we speak. All these modifications STILL being made (post columbia) to the tank design are being done at the manufacturing plants. We still need 10 more tanks for 10 more flights, and their design continues to be changed & improved. Theres nothing to restart
Originally posted by: astroidea
Yup, I was surprised when I heard that the new replacements for the shuttles will probably end up being cheap one time launch rockets.
Originally posted by: dmcowen674
Originally posted by: mjuszczak
Topic Title: Why are the shuttles being retired?
Because U.S. has no business being in space anymore.
Third World Countries don't fly.
Originally posted by: Mr Pickles
Originally posted by: 0roo0roo
meh, if obama gets elected it'll really turn to sh*t, he wants to cut nasa funding.
I think it was either Chris Rock or Chapelle that pointed out the simple fact that black people don't do stupid things that might kill themselves like scuba dive or go up in rockets and shit.
Originally posted by: dartworth
Some pics from building 50 @ NASA...working on the Ares
http://pics.bbzzdd.com/users/d...orth/03-05-07_1104.jpg
http://pics.bbzzdd.com/users/d...orth/02-28-07_1034.jpg
http://pics.bbzzdd.com/users/d...orth/02-28-07_1010.jpg
http://pics.bbzzdd.com/users/d...orth/02-28-07_1011.jpg
http://pics.bbzzdd.com/users/d...orth/03-01-07_0847.jpg
http://pics.bbzzdd.com/users/d...orth/03-05-07_1103.jpg
The second pic is of a bunch of people from 60 minutes and NASA's offices. 60 minutes was doing a story on the project. I'm not sure if it ever aired...
Originally posted by: mjuszczak
Still so cool...
http://youtube.com/watch?v=zGNryrsT7OI&feature=related