The Ares-1 can't fly

I regret to haven't had a $1.oo per-insult-fee when talking of "disliked" arguments... it should be so much money to start a new.space company...

.

The talk here in between seems to be worth a general statement:

"Positive" facts:

1. gaetanomarano is doing calculations and tells the mathematics behind them.
2. gaetanomarano visualizes results by diagrams and graphs.
3. gaetanomarano refers to documents of his own as well as to others as far as I remember at the moment.
...

In so far gaetanomarano provides a basis for objective and logical talks and discussions.

"Negative" facts:

1. gaetanomarano tends to apply interpretations.
2. gaetanomarano tends to apply one or a few selected interpretations only.
3. gaetanomarano does not focus on the point that his data are results of - correct - calculations which are experiments merely (like mine in the Lunar Siyuz-thread in the Financial Barrier section for example)
4. gaetanomarano seems to not consider the possibility that he is applying a few details only where there may be much more details - environmental ones as well as internal ones - that mathematical may counteract his correct calculations.
5. gaetanomarano seems to be behaving emotionally.
...

In so far gaetanomarano doesn't sufficiently apply principles of science - like doubting, precision, difference between model, theory and reality, struggle for complete involvement of informations available, struggle for complete involvement of calculations and considerations possible, looking to premises involved perhaps unconsciously.

Most of the argumentation of the others is reasonable, correct and so on - but not of help regarding the positive or negatice facts listed above. After such improvements it still might turn out that gaetanomarano continues to find arguments speaking for his personal position - but then these arguments will be improved, fitting into the requirements for being taken seriously, interesting and really helpful and imrpoving the whole talk.

Hello, gaetanomarano,

the facts listed are no way meant personally - simply improve your doing according to principles and rules of science. The point is that what you are doing means that you openly list arguments assisting your position - which is positive in principle - but NOT NECESSARYLY assisting and working in favour of the vehicles or rockets being subject here - which is too risky.

You really seem to be interested to contribute to the success of ESAS, SRBs, Orion etc. and I would like to see you to maintain such a positive mind BUT please pay much more attention to what really and in fact is good and positive for ESAS, SRBs etc.

There are many ways to Rome as well as there are many ways in mathematics - and there are many ways to get a SRB flying. So NASA's engineers may have in mind other ways than those you seem to be talking about.

Hello, all others,

it might have very positive effects on the thread if you continue to go on as you do but focus or concentrate on mor fundamental and basic principles etc. than the concrete details argued by up to now.



Dipl.-Volkswirt (bdvb) Augustin (Political Economist)

I'm not entering any arguments, but have a question..

Given that the 5seg SRB allegedly burns for 5-7 seconds more than the old one, at what speed would the old SRB be going at burn out?

I calculated that if it was doing 15000mph, that extra 5 seconds would be another 30miles up. Which is a pretty long way.

Obviously the heavier 5seg would not be going as fast as the the 4seg, but that extra 5-7 secs wouold be very significent nevertheless.

Does that make sense?

James

Hello, James Hughes,

as far as I am informed the SRBs presently applied continue to go up after seperation from the Space Shuttle and reach a peak altitude of 60 km after burn-out.

In so far there seem to be reasonable chances that it makes sense.



Dipl.-Volkswirt (bdvb) Augustin (Political Economist)

the 5-seg.SRB should reach 56 km. of altitude and a peak speed of Mach 6.05

assuming the same speed and acceleration, 5 seconds less at mach 6 (mach 1 is 295 m/s at high altitude) should be about -9 km.

however, mach 6 is the peak speed of the 5-seg.SRB, so, the real separation altitude of the 4-seg.SRB (in a CLV configuration) should be around 50-52 km.




.

no, the Shuttle SRBs can reach 60 km. since, after separation (at 45 km.) they don't have ANY payload, while, with a payload, they can't

.

Heres another document suggesting that there are problems with Ares 1 launcher:

http://www.flightglobal.com/articles/20 ... ncher.html

The source is reputed to be a NASA internal memo, but I am not completely convinced as I have found that this website is not always the most accurate.

Anyway an interesting point mentioned is that due to the stresses NASA is looking at whether extra strengthening is needed for the SRB first stage. This will most probably add aditional weight and make matters worse.

Gaetanomarano

are you saying that the current SRB planned will not reach 60km? The Ascent Flight Profile you posted quotes 184,294 ft as 1st stage separation and 192,920 ft for j-2X engine start which I believe is about 56.2km and 58.8km respectively. This does not appear to be a huge difference when travelling at over Mach 6.

this is a POSITIVE point, since I write about different views, since I "interpret" facts and data rather than blind ACCEPT them



I apply ALL the details I have... the problem is that NASA don't give us ALL details they have... we don't know why NASA has adopted a 3.5 Mlbs. thrust SRB rather than a (sufficient) 2.2 Mlbs. thrust Delta-derived rocket... we don't know (and, probably, not even NASA knows) the true accelerations at each second of a standard SRB launched alone (since was never done) until the Ares 1-X will fly... we know the (easy to calculate) AVERAGE propellent usage but NOT the REAL amount at each second of the flight (that's vey complex, since the propellent shape is a star) etc.

on other words, we don't have ALL data, so, we must "guess" on some points... however, this is NOT the case of my "Ares-1 can't fly" article since it's based on a comparison of the (recent) new Ares-1 specs with the early CLV specs (both from original NASA documents!)



maybe, it could apper, since I always support my opinions and ideas, of course



no, I apply the data I have... if NASA will give us more data (it seems that will appen in december for the Ares-1) I'll apply the new data



please note that I don't post/write only critics but, always, suggest solutions and (possible) alternatives



yes, the right way is: go back to the 4-seg.SRB as 1st stage and resize the Orion



maybe, if they show us that, it should be better...

.

it (simply) CONFIRMS my (nov. 4) evaluations and calculations based on the latest Ares-1 specs (released a week ago)



yes, this is another problem I've remarked over one year ago on a space forum... the SRB is NOT born to have any "upperstages" since it flys side-mounted on the Shuttle... my question was (and still is) "can the SRB structure (and, especially, the RINGS' junctions) support up to 200 mT of upperstages' mass without any risks to crack due to the strong flight's sterss?"

unfortunately, will be no answer to this (very crucial) question/problem until the Ares 1-X will fly in 2009 (or later...)



the Ares-1 booster could fly to 70-80 km. after separation due to inertia and since it has not any payload atop

.

Not Always Scientifically Accurate

What's the worst that could happen? They could be forced to buy a COTS flight? That would be terrible.

.
.

I've added FOUR updates to my Ares-1 article with some NEW calculations that (clearly) show WHY the new Ares-1 can't fly:

http://www.ghostnasa.com/posts/012arescantfly.html

.
.

You fully remind me of these guys:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Z2HP25bKztE

"But NASA said it was 18 speed!"

"It can't be, look count the gears, 6 + 3. That's only nine speeds!"

"Oh no NASA ripped us off!!"

I just read most of his website and it's the funniest spoof I've seen since

http://www.shelleytherepublican.com/

It is a spoof, right?

.

I doubt your video & links could help the Ares-1 to fly...

.

Some of us view Nasa as competetion. So Ares 1 not making it off the pad would not be the end of the world, just the end of a lot of cushy careers.