ESAS moon missions' architecture CHANGED !

.

21 MONTHS ago I've published the article "Great part of the VSE moon missions may fail":

http://www.gaetanomarano.it/articles/004.html

where I've explained in detail WHY the moon missions may fail with the 1.5 launch architecture

then, I've started some discussions about this problem, like this on the BAUT forum:

http://www.bautforum.com/space-explorat ... -fail.html

and now (21 months AFTER my article) NASA admits (but not acknowledge) that a problem exists

that's why they have changed the moon missions' architecture to launch the Ares-1 before the Ares-5:

http://www.flightglobal.com/articles/20 ... pt-of.html

it's a BIG CHANGE, a "180° turn" in the ESAS architecture!!! ...but they have lost 21 months to do that...

so, why they don't (simply) adopt my suggestions (since they READ my website) saving time and money?

the saving is not in the rockets but in the missions, with the past architecture a failed mission due to "sum of delays" of the second launch (Ares-1) means lose a very expensive Ares-5 and Altair, while, with the new architecture only a less expensive Ares-1 is lost, then, the moon missions' architecture change could save GIANT amounts of time and money

two further advantages could be if ALL moon missions will start from the 51.6' ISS orbit rather than from the 28.5' lunar orbit:

1. the ISS could be used as safe haven if something goes wrong (like with Shuttles)

2. the aborted lunar missions could be changed to an ISS crew rotation mission (saving lots of money)

.

.

the NASA efforts to increase (every day more) the Ares-5 dimensions and max payload adding even more engines (now six RS-68s) and segments (now 5.5 per SRB, but rumors say it could grow to 6 or 6.5) clearly show that I was right in my both claims about the "underpowered Ares-5" (said over two years ago...) and the fact that a good and efficient ESAS plan absolutely needs a bigger (maybe, 200+ mT payload) Ares-5 (said over one year ago...)

however, in my latest "Ares 33" concept, I suggest to design it in a different (better) way:

http://www.ghostnasa.com/posts/034ares33.html

.

.

despite they've deleted my forums' accounts from january 2006... (both) NSF.direct.lobby.com's and new-uplink.space forums' "self-styled experts" seems STILL look at my website and my blog for some good ideas...

the first was NSF with the (FAST-SLV-like but FOUR months LATER) "Direct" launcher... as explained (with new and strong evidences) in this article: http://www.ghostnasa.com/posts/033directstruestory.html

and now is the new-uplink.forum's time with "their" ARES-H concept:

http://www.space.com/common/community/f ... rentPage=0

the "ARES-H" concept and launch architecture looks pretty close my "AresX" rocket first published 15 months ago in this May 20, 2007 article: http://www.gaetanomarano.it/articles/029aresX.html

however, I apprecciate very much the effort the uplink.forum's "experts" made (at least) changing my "X" with an "H"... ...and, of course, the "ARES-H" (like the died-at-birth "Direct") is just a BAD copy of my idea!

my AresX concept was (mainly but not only) suggested to SAVE very much R&D time and money and hardware costs, developing just ONE rocket (the bigger AresX) to carry an entire (and bigger) lunar-convoy unmanned to LEO

then, the crew should be launched with a (very much cheaper) COTS manned capsule (like the SpaceX's Dragon or an human-rated Orbital's Cygnus) to fully delete the Ares-1 rocket and SAVE very much on R&D costs!

while, the new-uplink.forum's "experts" suggest to still develop and build a resized Ares-L111 and use TWO Ares-L111 per lunar mission!!! ...one to launch the Orion and half the propellents, the second to launch the SM and the further half amounts of propellents!!!

that means to (at least) double the costs (the bigger Ares-H + TWO Ares-L111 for each mission!!!) and increase by 50% the risks of failure (three rockets per mission that need to have a perfect and no-delays launch, rather than two ESAS launches)

particularly useless and absurd in the "ARES L111" (why that sounds pretty much like MY "Ares 33"???...) launch architecture is the SECOND Ares-L111 launch to just send a further 4 mT propellents' refuel to the Orion!

also, this twin-Ares-L111 launch architecture needs TWO Orion's SM main (Shuttles' OMS-derived) engines to work... one to move the Orion and another to move the SM while in orbit (that needs TWO orbital navigation systems, too...)

using an AresX-class (sorry... an "Ares-H"...) bigger-payload rocket, it's clearly simpler to carry that extra-propellents in small tanks put between the EDS and the Altair... like suggested in this ghostNASA article: http://www.ghostnasa.com/posts/011orbitalrefuel.html

of course, also the new-uplink.forum's guys (like happened on NSF's with the Direct-guys) think, believe and say that they're "experts" just because they add some "hobby-level" Delta-V calculations to "their" (original...) rockets concepts...

"calculations" and "experts" always debunked and demolished by NASA engineers... like happened with the Direct-concept/guys...

.

.

2.5 years ago, in May 12, 2006, I've FIRST published my idea of FAST-SLV shuttle derived "rocket-kit":

http://www.gaetanomarano.it/articles/005_SLVnow.html

in the same days, I've posted my idea on several Space forums and blogs and received LOTS of critics and insults from nearly all space "experts" that post on them

but... just FOUR months LATER, a FAST-SLV-like concept born on NSF (...) quickly become the (now famous) "Direct" concept, that, in latest two years, several forums and blogs (ran by Direct-guys) try to offer/sell/impose to NASA as an Ares-1/5 replacement...

http://www.ghostnasa.com/posts/033directstruestory.html

then, in my May 21, 2006 article I've proposed aMY 3xSRB "SuperSLV" concept:

http://www.gaetanomarano.it/articles/006_superSLV.html

while, in May 20, 2007, I've proposed MY "AresX" concept:

http://www.gaetanomarano.it/articles/029aresX.html

both times, the space forums "experts" said me that my proposals was unfeasible, unworkable, non viable, etc. and my articles' links called "spam"

but NOW my "unworkable" SuperSLV/AresX concepts (finally) CAN work... NOT since someone have changed something in MY concepts (just an "X" changed to "H"...) but (simply) since (now) MY idea is published (as today's someone else "new idea", of course...) on two "magical" Space fourms:

http://forum.nasaspaceflight.com/index. ... #msg307753

http://www.space.com/common/community/f ... rentPage=0

WHEN will MY AresX (now Ares-H...) become the ("original") Direct 3.0 concept???

.

.

it seems that Ares-1 has some new (BIG) problems:

http://www.orlandosentinel.com/news/spa ... 1055.story

http://blogs.orlandosentinel.com/news_s ... ok-fo.html

but, don't worry!

there are (at least) TWO cheap, simple and reliable ways to SOLVE the Ares-1 liftoff-drift issue, as explained in this ghostNASA article:

http://www.ghostnasa.com/posts/040aresdrift.html

.

Constellation has much bigger issues looming at this point.

However isn't it wonderful how many people have been employed so far developing the Ares-1?

From Orlando Article

[quote]The trouble, engineers say, is that solid fuel rockets doesn’t always burn evenly and completely; they can fizzle out and then suddenly accelerate as residual fuel ignites. It’s called “burping.â€