US Spaceflight for the future [update] by Goshin - Page 5 - TribalWar Forums
Click Here to find great hosting deals from Branzone.com


Go Back   TribalWar Forums > TribalWar Community > General Discussion
Reload this Page US Spaceflight for the future [update]
Page 5 of 79
Thread Tools
Goshin
VeteranXV
Contributor
Old
81 - 01-26-2010, 03:31 PM
Reply With Quote
Quote:
Originally Posted by Golazo View Post
ares 1 has a black zone thats unfixable? sounds like you got that from a TV show
Death knell for NASA's Ares rockets? - Short Sharp Science - New Scientist
Quote:
Ares I's first stage is a derivative of the shuttle's Solid Rocket Booster (SRB). This was considered acceptable because of the SRB's supposedly-excellent safety record (it's only killed one crew...), and because the agency's future Orion crew capsule, unlike the shuttle orbiter, would have an escape system to pull it clear of a malfunctioning rocket.

Unfortunately, it turns out that if an abort occurs any time in a sizable part of Ares I's SRB burn, then even if the escape system works perfectly, the capsule will crash and the crew will die.
The Orion capsule uses an escape system quite like that of the Apollo spacecraft in the 1960s and 70s: an "escape tower" containing a solid-fuel rocket that will pull it up and away from Ares I in a pinch. It will then descend under its parachutes, as in a normal landing.

Using an SRB for the first stage does have its problems. Solid-fuel rockets can't easily be shut down on command. Moreover, they have quite high thrust, so Ares I accelerates quickly, reaching high speeds while still in dense air. The combination means that Orion's escape rocket has to be unusually powerful, because it has to pull the capsule away from a still-accelerating rocket, against a fierce wind blast.

Whether solid rockets are more or less likely to fail than liquid-fuel rockets is debatable. More serious, though, is that when they do fail, it's usually violent and spectacular. So an analysis had to be done: would an escaping Orion be hit by fragments of an exploding SRB?

If the accident occurred during the time of high wind blast – at least the period between 30 and 60 seconds after launch, maybe longer – an escaping Orion wouldn't be able to pull clear of the fragment cloud. Something similar happened in 1998, when a Titan IVA rocket exploded about 40 seconds after launch. It had two somewhat smaller SRBs, but the total load of solid fuel was only a little less than an Ares I SRB, and various other aspects were broadly similar. The debris cloud generated in that accident was half a kilometre across within about 3 seconds, and about 5 km across within about 20 seconds.

But that analysis discovered a much more serious problem, one that nobody had noticed. The big problem is that much of that debris is big chunks of flaming solid fuel, still burning at over 2000 °C. For an accident anywhere in that vulnerable period, Orion will be inside the blazing debris cloud for its whole descent. And its parachutes are nylon, which melts at about 200 °C. They will overheat and disintegrate, and the capsule will crash.

Past experience, on the shuttle and the Titan rockets, suggests that large multi-segment solid rockets have a probability of failure of 0.5 to 1 per cent. Since a failure would be unsurvivable during about a third of the SRB burn time, that puts the chance of losing a crew on each Ares I launch at 0.2 to 0.3 per cent. This is a far higher risk than NASA's modern rules permit.

This problem also affects various other shuttle-derived launch concepts, like the "Direct" scheme advocated by some NASA engineers.

In principle, a still more powerful escape rocket would solve the problem. In practice, the Orion escape rocket is already very powerful, making it very heavy and producing really brutal accelerations if it's activated in milder conditions. Beefing it up still further is probably impractical.
the rocket the DIRECT team was going to put Orion on, a Jupiter 140, or 130, depending on final configuration, would be able to put up significantly more mass than Ares I, and thus would allow the Orion capsule to add mass back in, to add in a bigger abort rocket to clear any wreckage, to add in capsule return by land rather than water, to add in a toilet.

ares I upmass is retardedly small, and it unfortunately has crippled the Orion capsule to a great degree

on ares i saftey:
Quote:
Orlando Sentinel - The Write Stuff ***8211; First flights of NASA***8217;s Ares rocket: less safe than space shuttle?

According to the 2005 Exploration Systems Architecture Study, known as ESAS, “Analysis has shown that early crewed CEV missions will be riskier than the shuttle.”

"It takes five flights, in addition to the two test flights, to surpass the Shuttle safety level of 1-in-100," it said, adding: "If there were no cargo flights beforehand, the risk of the first crewed flight after the two test flights would be approximately 1-in-40, or approximately [2.5 times the shuttle]."

“What at least some of our work suggests is that, yes, on the second launch the LOC [loss of crew] risk may be roughly on par with today’s mature shuttle risk. Other assessments are less rosy (a little riskier than a shuttle launch), so we are working right now to sort out a ‘best estimate,’’ Hanley wrote.
Jeff Hanley is the Constellation Program manager.
 
Goshin is offline
 
Sponsored Links
Golazo
VeteranX
Old
82 - 01-26-2010, 03:35 PM
Reply With Quote
SPACE.com -- NASA's New Rocket Escape System Questioned


oh i didnt even need to quote a dif article. it was in the 2nd article you posted where you mentioned Hanley the project manager, and you just conveniently left it out.

Quote:
Jeff Hanley, manager of the Constellation Program that includes Ares I and Orion, said that in the four years since the ESAS was first conducted, there have been advances in engineering risk assessments and that supercomputer analyses say that the ultimate risk of losing a crew aboard Ares I would be just 1-in-2,800.
==

you know goshin, i think its pretty obvious using the saturn/jupiter rockets were the cheapest/most practical solution. but were way past that now, and the gov't isnt some penny pinching grandma. it's the biggest bloated spending machine on the planet. canceling the ares to save a billion or two while 20 billion is suck into the ISS and god knows how much was sunk into random nasa projects of the 90's, not to mention all the jobs/industry involved, etc etc
 
Golazo is offline
 
Last edited by Golazo; 01-26-2010 at 03:41 PM.
Goshin
VeteranXV
Contributor
Old
83 - 01-26-2010, 03:47 PM
Reply With Quote
the link does say "first flights will be less safe" right in it

Hanley Changes His Story On Ares 1 Safety - Again - NASA Watch
Quote:
This is an internal version of that same chart that was prepared by Fragola's company Valador - but was not used. [click on image for larger version] Note that this unused chart has specific call outs as to Ares I, Ares V/Shuttle, and EELV safety ratings. Note that Ares I does not meet the "Target from Crew Memo" safety goals (red line) that the Constellation program set for itself. Why did Steve Cook not allow this chart to be used?


it's also been noted for a while now that once it was realized aresI wasn't too safe, NASA eased it's man rating requirements to make the new rockets appear very safe. It's more or less an arbitrary guide that they've created and modified when needed.
and then there's that black zone most of the prior post was dedicated to

it doesnt really matter, in any event.
Ares I won't be a rocket that we ever put people on.
 
Goshin is offline
 
Daemon
VeteranX
Contributor
Old
84 - 01-27-2010, 04:37 PM
Reply With Quote
reports now are that obamas new budget kills funding for constellation and ares ( like all of it )

lolbama wants NASA to concentrate on global warming

this makes me very angry. :x
 
Daemon is offline
 
Ianboo
Veteran4
Old
85 - 01-27-2010, 04:46 PM
Reply With Quote
I'm more interested in the future of private space exploration which seems to be gaining a lot of momentum recently.

Inflatable space hotels are surprisingly close to being ready to go.
 
Ianboo is offline
 
Goshin
VeteranXV
Contributor
Old
86 - 01-27-2010, 04:54 PM
Reply With Quote
actually, for Direct and Jupiter, or some other shuttled derived heavy lift vehicle, to proceed forward, and on a flexible path (or even any other program that is not direct to moon with a base in mind), congress would legally HAVE to defund and cancel Constellation. Ares is the rocket constellation is building, and Constellation has set markers like landing on moon, moon base, blah blah

obama is actually increasing funding marginally to NASA. A new heavy lift rocket is getting picked to be created. If for whatever reason a SDHLV is not created, then we still have EELVs and their evolutions to get us to space. Those rockets actually can evolve to heavy lift launchers if ever required. Would just take a bit. There's some pretty good reasonings to go with EELVs and commericial launchers only. However, political realities being what they are, the best middle ground we can get is propellant depots, an actual SDHLV like Jupiter, and allow commericial to flourish in LEO

In sum, if they pick the flexible path as a way to move forward, it would not be considered Constellation. So thats the biggest reason to why they are saying constellation is getting the axe. It is, but spaceflight and NASA are not getting thrown away
 
Goshin is offline
 
Daemon
VeteranX
Contributor
Old
87 - 01-27-2010, 05:04 PM
Reply With Quote
I just don't want NASA out measuring ****ing glaciers or w/e, unless it's on Europa.

I'm not particularly attached to any program by name, as long as what they do is work toward getting more people into space.
 
Daemon is offline
 
Goshin
VeteranXV
Contributor
Old
88 - 01-27-2010, 05:06 PM
Reply With Quote


let me dig up the flexible path, and what all it encompasses

Taking aim on Phobos ***8211; NASA outline Flexible Path precursor to man on Mars | NASASpaceFlight.com
Spoiler
 
Goshin is offline
 
Senty
VeteranXV
Old
89 - 01-27-2010, 05:08 PM
Reply With Quote
Review of U.S. Human Spaceflight Plans Committee Final Report

Good diagram of flexible path possible destinations at the top of page 40

Also a totally unrelated but interesting little chart at the bottom of page 19 from back in the Apollo days.
 
Senty is offline
 
Last edited by Senty; 01-27-2010 at 05:11 PM.
Swensonator
Veteran++
Old
90 - 01-27-2010, 06:06 PM
Reply With Quote
Here's a question:
Why not just build new shuttles? Gotta be cheaper than building an entirely new lift vehicle from scratch.

Obviously you cant take the shuttle to the moon or mars, but why is NASA considering a new cargo vehicle when we have one thats proven and has a near perfect track record? The fleet is old, but you can replace them cheaper than making an entire new program.
 
Swensonator is offline
 
Goshin
VeteranXV
Contributor
Old
91 - 01-28-2010, 07:26 AM
Reply With Quote
they dont want a LEO vehicle. Shuttle was not designed for, and can not go and come back from, the moon or beyond
They want a beyond earth orbit vehicle to get back to the business of exploration of the solar system

the shuttle has a lot of great hardware like the SSME, SRBs, tank, etc etc that can be reused in a different rocket. Basically, the shuttle hauls up cargo and the shuttle itself which weighs 70 tons or something. By removing the shuttle weight but keeping all the rocket components, you can clear that additional amount in cargo to space. So instead of a 20mt cargo hold, you now get 90mt

those are numbers are a bit off, but that's the idea
 
Goshin is offline
 
Goshin
VeteranXV
Contributor
Old
92 - 01-29-2010, 07:57 AM
Reply With Quote
India plans manned space mission in 2016 - CNN.com

Quote:
The cost of the proposed mission is estimated at $4.8 billion, said S. Satish, spokesman for the Indian Space Research Organization (ISRO).

Studies have begun on the design of the crew capsules that will be used to put a pair of astronauts 300 kilometers aloft for seven days, he said. The project budget has been sent for federal approval, he added.
this is great
the more players going to space, the better
more destinations that governments will set up, or more will from them to want to go to with us to wherever

of course, india has some other issues that 5 billion could probably be useful towards, like the crushing poverty and infrastructure problems they've got...but hey, their money, their country.

also interesting...
Quote:
In 2008, India launched its first unmanned mission -- Chandrayaan-1 -- to the moon that dropped a probe onto the lunar surface.

In 312 days, Chandrayaan-1, meaning moon craft, completed more than 3,400 orbits and met most of its scientific objectives before vanishing off the radars abruptly last year, according to the space agency.
wonder where the hell it went
 
Goshin is offline
 
Last edited by Goshin; 01-29-2010 at 08:03 AM.
max
VeteranXV
Old
93 - 01-29-2010, 08:06 AM
Reply With Quote
Moon worms.
 
max is offline
 
Mantua
Veteran++
Old
94 - 01-29-2010, 08:52 AM
Reply With Quote
Quote:
Originally Posted by 2bad4u View Post
Yeah, food vs. whatever we do in space. It's a fun idea, but a giant waste of money. Satellites were a solid idea, and can be used by businesses to make back the money it costs to put them there. But building your ares whatever to go exploring whatever that will result in nothing is a waste of money.
subsiding corn is a huge waste of money, and it's the reason the us can't sustain itself.

Quote:
Originally Posted by Ianboo View Post
Every moment we spend not colonizing other objects in space is another tick closer to humanity getting wiped out before we get a foothold in our galaxy. Maybe this is why we are not up to our ears in aliens, they too all argued about the cost and "worthlessness" of space exploration right up to the extinction level impact event that ended every trace of them existing.

If we manage to luck out and the next 50 years don't contain a surprise planet killer we might just live to see what humans can do with a few million years of technological advancement. If not... I guess there will be no one around to care so it won't be all bad...
there has not been a planet killer in the history of LIFE. there wont be one in the next 50 years, i can't imagine why you'd bring that up. iit's like saying "I'll be heading to work tomorrow, unless the sun goes supernova tonight"

we're not up to our ears in aliens because the universe is tremendous. if there is life in the next galaxy over, we will NEVER see it, because our closest galaxy is like 30k light years away.

that's 30,000 years traveling at the speed of light. which isn't actually possible.
ps i dont give a **** about negative mass or any of that bull**** so don't even mention it
 
Mantua is offline
 
Goshin
VeteranXV
Contributor
Old
95 - 01-29-2010, 09:11 AM
Reply With Quote


there can be life in our galaxy
theres tons and tons of stars in ours alone

i think i linked the article here...about supernova that set off radiation and mayhaps kill any intelligent life before we hear from them, which is why we never do

doesnt need to be planet ending, just big enough to destroy civilization through an ice age, killing off of tons of species etc etc

we might survive, but we would be significantly set back as a world
 
Goshin is offline
 
Mantua
Veteran++
Old
96 - 01-29-2010, 09:15 AM
Reply With Quote
oh, i thought planet killer meant... like planet killer we'd survive an ice age.

if there's life in our closest solar system we'll never see it
too far

mining in space, sure. discovering life, absolutely not
 
Mantua is offline
 
Goshin
VeteranXV
Contributor
Old
97 - 01-29-2010, 09:43 AM
Reply With Quote
not necessarily
there are designs for space telescopes that could peer into star systems a near by and deduce continents and weather patterns

just expensive and probably a few decades away

tsunami, impact area ****ed, huge amount of heat vaporizing lots of stuff in a big area, and then ash and plants die etc etc

it'd be really ****ing harsh. But ya, a few people would live
 
Goshin is offline
 
Funky
VeteranX
Old
98 - 01-29-2010, 11:15 AM
Reply With Quote
I like to think I'd be one of those few. Scavenging for pieces of rusted metal and shiny, sharp bits of glass, I would make weapons of war to conquer my neighbors. Those cavemen have never seen a glass shotgun before, but at least they will die while being dazzled.
 
Funky is offline
 
Error|550
VeteranX
Old
99 - 01-29-2010, 11:19 AM
Reply With Quote
Quote:
Originally Posted by Ztir View Post
hes trying to generate interest in an cool, important topic but needs help because tw is full of gigantic retards with no scientific curiosity
Does it have skiing?
 
Error|550 is offline
 
havax
VeteranX
Contributor
Old
100 - 01-29-2010, 11:29 AM
Reply With Quote
NASA should get started on this.

 
havax is offline
 
Page 5 of 79
Reply


Go Back   TribalWar Forums > TribalWar Community > General Discussion
Reload this Page US Spaceflight for the future [update]

Social Website Bullshit

Tags
alex dare levert , alex knapik-levert , ass mode , goshin , goshin fucks men , goshin is unhappy irl , infinity&beyond , nasa , shirtless fatty , very ugly goshin

Thread Tools

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

BB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off

AGENT: CCBot/2.0 (http://commoncrawl.org/faq/) / Y
All times are GMT -5. The time now is 12:13 AM.