|
Post by JayUtah on Jan 24, 2008 13:35:36 GMT -4
The fact that a booster hasn't actually flown yet doesn't mean it's out of the running for missions to commence in about 2015. The Falcon is a young, malleable design; the Deltas and Atlases are proven, but less flexible design. That's where the sticky design tradeoffs come in. I'm somewhat partial to the Delta design, but that's just because of nostalgic associations with the Boeing Delta team. You want to see your friends' baby fly. (Well, not literal flying babies.)
|
|
|
Post by Hypersonic on Jan 24, 2008 13:42:30 GMT -4
I'm pretty sure the G's of launch wouldn't be good for babies, and I know I wouldn't want to change diapers in zero-gravity Did you see where there is a group planning to use the Falcon to launch a Mercury-type capsule? If they pull that off, SpaceX will be in good shape for launching crews. www.spaceref.com/news/viewpr.html?pid=24565
|
|
|
Post by JayUtah on Jan 24, 2008 13:48:20 GMT -4
I've been following SpaceX more closely in the past 6 months or so. I think they're a promising company.
|
|
|
Post by Czero 101 on Jan 24, 2008 13:53:59 GMT -4
I don't know offhand whether any of those vehicles will lift Orion. I was wondering about the possibility of using the Delta IV Heavy. Rated lifting capacity is around 56,000lbs to LEO which is on par with the Ares I. If they can't get the Ares SRB's to work properly, maybe they could adapt the Delta CBC's to replace them on the Ares V? They'd need more than two, but they do use the RS-68 engine so development / production time shouldn't be put too much out of whack... Cz
|
|
|
Post by Hypersonic on Jan 24, 2008 14:16:43 GMT -4
I don't know offhand whether any of those vehicles will lift Orion. I was wondering about the possibility of using the Delta IV Heavy. Rated lifting capacity is around 56,000lbs to LEO which is on par with the Ares I. Cz NASA looked at the Delta IV Heavy in it's ESAS report. The cost was similar. The safety was said to be less, and there was concern that an abort would pull too many G's. Still, it looks like ESAS went into that study knowing what they would recommend. Congress told NASA to use as much Shuttle equipment, infrastructure, and personnel as possible, so they did. Ares I may not be the best technical solution, but technical considerations weren't the only considerations.
|
|
|
Post by Bing Gordon on Jan 25, 2008 22:35:04 GMT -4
This might be a stupid question, but what`s wrong with the Saturn V? it has already been tested, used and been proved to work....
|
|
|
Post by JayUtah on Jan 25, 2008 22:53:26 GMT -4
It also hasn't been made for 30 years.
|
|
|
Post by Bing Gordon on Jan 25, 2008 23:01:41 GMT -4
But Jay, it could be manufactured 30 years ago and it worked superbly, with all the more modern technology available nothing has worked so well as the Saturns... Surely the simplest and most cost effective booster is a tried and tested design (which can perhaps even be improved upon through more modern manufacturing and design techniques).
|
|
|
Post by JayUtah on Jan 25, 2008 23:05:53 GMT -4
If you change the design through "modern manufacturing and design techniques," then you won't have the same tested booster. It's either the same or it's not.
|
|
|
Post by Bing Gordon on Jan 25, 2008 23:08:55 GMT -4
fair enough Jay, the Saturn (to my mind anyway) is the way to go, and I would gladly sell my home and all my worldly goods to see one of those beauties launch....
|
|
|
Post by Czero 101 on Jan 25, 2008 23:10:16 GMT -4
One of the main ideas behind the Ares program is to re-use as much Shuttle technology / hardware as possible. The Ares vehicles are based on technology that is currently being produced and has been flown over for the last 25 years. Switching over to a revamped Saturn V design would add years to the process due to the need to do current design modeling, redesigns and then setting up and retooling at the manufacturers.
Speaking of manufacturers, while Boeing (they built the S-IC first stage) is still around, North American (built the S-II second stage) went out of business in '96, and Douglas (built the S-IVB third stage) has merged with McDonnell to form McDonnell Douglas in 1967 and I don't believe they have a space launch division anymore.
Cz
|
|
|
Post by Bing Gordon on Jan 25, 2008 23:17:04 GMT -4
Czero, the companies may have changed ownership and names over the years but the blueprints must have survived somehow or somewhere... The design work and machining has already been paid for so use it to prevent the US taxpayer from paying for what is essentially the same thing twice.
|
|
|
Post by Ginnie on Jan 25, 2008 23:23:13 GMT -4
If you change the design through "modern manufacturing and design techniques," then you won't have the same tested booster. It's either the same or it's not. It wouldn't be the Saturn V anymore would it? Wasn't the success of the Saturn V due mainly to the F1 rocket?
|
|
|
Post by Czero 101 on Jan 25, 2008 23:23:28 GMT -4
Given that, as far as I know, not one component specific to the Saturn V has been built since the early 70's, to say that the US taxpayer wouldn't have to pay for the machining is not true at all.
True, the design blueprints do still exist, but even if they were to just take those 40+ year old designs and go straight to production, there would still have to be massive restructuring and retooling at the manufacturers before they could produce the first parts.
Also, based solely on design specifications, the Ares V outperforms the Saturn V in thrust and payload capabilities.
Cz
EDITED for typos...
|
|
|
Post by JayUtah on Jan 25, 2008 23:26:55 GMT -4
Don't get me wrong -- the Saturn V was a superb machine. But in terms of cost-effectiveness, resurrecting it isn't the way to go. By the time you get the 30-year-old design up to today's standards and methods, it's so different a booster that you can't use the Saturn V's perfect operational record as your insurance.
The operational record is a bit of a red herring anyway. The Saturn V flew so few operational missions that there's really not a statistical basis to compare it with other boosters that have longer operational records (and more failures). That's not to say its design wasn't qualitatively superior -- it was intended to be human-rated where others were not. I really like the Saturn V, but it's unfortunately a historical design and not a currently viable one.
|
|