PaperModelers.com

Go Back   PaperModelers.com > Card Models > Model Builds > PASA, Paper Aeronautical and Space Administration

Reply
 
Thread Tools Display Modes
  #1  
Old 02-09-2011, 10:41 AM
dhanners's Avatar
dhanners dhanners is offline
Member
 
Join Date: Jul 2007
Location: Manchester, UK
Posts: 2,599
Total Downloaded: 1.59 GB
A new rocket to scratchbuild....

Another scratchbuilding possibility, the newly unveiled proposal for Liberty, a crew launch vehicle rising from the ashes of Ares I: ATK and Astrium Unveil the Liberty? Launch Vehicle Initiative for NASA's CCDev-2 Competition - Feb 8, 2011

Just take a bit of an Ares I, a bit of an Ariane 5, scratchbuild the LAS, and you're there....
Reply With Quote
Google Adsense
  #2  
Old 02-09-2011, 11:45 AM
Paper Kosmonaut's Avatar
Paper Kosmonaut Paper Kosmonaut is offline
Member
 
Join Date: Jun 2010
Location: Grunn, NL
Posts: 3,227
Total Downloaded: 1.87 GB
Hmm. I just can't get enthusiastic with the usage of that SRB first stage. Somehow I feel it's a bad idea to launch crews with that.
__________________
PK's Blog - Dij t dut mout t waiten!
Reply With Quote
  #3  
Old 02-09-2011, 01:28 PM
Ironcladman's Avatar
Ironcladman Ironcladman is offline
Member
 
Join Date: Jan 2011
Location: On an Ironclad!
Posts: 345
Total Downloaded: 0
Talking It is About Dollars!

Hi,

Well, actually solid is the best solution for cost, performance, reliability, and safety, for a booster in reality,......but getting over the stigma of the loss of the shuttle by SRB failure, seems like we will never get over it. As long as you put the passengers above the booster, the safety is equal or greater than liquid. The history of rocket launches show solids to be more reliable.....as long as your design is not flawed, fully tested, and no undermined by greed and cost cutting. Once you have a solid design they work! Yes, a fully reusable non profit, open source booster would be better, but in a for profit civilization it will never happen....unless we change. Ooooooo what a slippery slope issue.....juz leads to all kinds of juicy discussion material!
__________________
I am Ironcladman

PS If you like ironclads checkout this site: http://www.theuniversalfoundation.com/ironclad.html
Reply With Quote
  #4  
Old 02-09-2011, 01:31 PM
dhanners's Avatar
dhanners dhanners is offline
Member
 
Join Date: Jul 2007
Location: Manchester, UK
Posts: 2,599
Total Downloaded: 1.59 GB
With the improvements made after the Challenger disaster, the RSRMs are now probably the single most reliable piece of STS hardware, and Americans have spent 30 years getting over their qualms about launching people with solid propellants. That said, the problem with using them in Ares I (and Liberty, I would think) is that there just isn't any growth potential.
Reply With Quote
  #5  
Old 02-09-2011, 05:29 PM
Retired_for_now's Avatar
Retired_for_now Retired_for_now is offline
Eternal Member
 
Join Date: Jun 2009
Location: NW Florida
Posts: 4,800
Total Downloaded: 112.72 MB
Interesting idea - all the pieces are there with a modification to the ARES I interstage. We're moving slowly to a production mentality (away from the everything's-an-experiment that has compromised the latest round of NASA programs). Love NASA's capability, but every time someone proposes an evolved launcher based on existing, proven hardware it disappears ... along with the investment and experience with the hardware.

Concur with SRM reliability - anytime you cut the parts count (tankage, pumps, etc.) it's an improvement. As far as growth, you just make a bundle of the sticks - see Delta heavy.

Yogi
Reply With Quote
Google Adsense
  #6  
Old 02-09-2011, 08:51 PM
mperdue's Avatar
mperdue mperdue is offline
Member
 
Join Date: Dec 2010
Location: McCordsville, Indiana
Posts: 283
Total Downloaded: 0
You can't use solid motors exclusively because they can't be throttled, stopped and restarted.

Other problems that I see with this design are 1) it looks too tall to fit in the Vehice Assembly Building and 2) the motors on the upper stage are designed to be ground started - air starting them may be doable but I wouldn't count on it.
__________________
X-ray-Delta-One, this is Mission Control, two-one-five-six, transmission concluded.
Reply With Quote
  #7  
Old 02-09-2011, 09:43 PM
Mechanic's Avatar
Mechanic Mechanic is offline
Member
 
Join Date: Aug 2007
Location: Midvale, Utah
Posts: 502
Total Downloaded: 747.08 MB
Quote:
Originally Posted by Ironcladman View Post
. . . of the loss of the shuttle by SRB failure,. . . the safety is equal or greater than liquid. . . juz leads to all kinds of juicy discussion material!
I don't think it's fair to simply state "SRB failure", the failure was more people related, the SRB was just the manifestation of poor decisions. Liquid fueled engines ARE really neat, but the are REALLY complicated too. Either way, I think it's important that we have a solid system to get us into orbit.
__________________
There is a single light of science, and to brighten it anywhere is to brighten it everywhere.

Isaac Asimov
Reply With Quote
  #8  
Old 02-09-2011, 09:47 PM
Mechanic's Avatar
Mechanic Mechanic is offline
Member
 
Join Date: Aug 2007
Location: Midvale, Utah
Posts: 502
Total Downloaded: 747.08 MB
Quote:
Originally Posted by Retired_for_now View Post
Interesting idea - all the pieces are there with a modification to the ARES I interstage. We're moving slowly to a production mentality (away from the everything's-an-experiment that has compromised the latest round of NASA programs). Love NASA's capability, but every time someone proposes an evolved launcher based on existing, proven hardware it disappears ... along with the investment and experience with the hardware.

Concur with SRM reliability - anytime you cut the parts count (tankage, pumps, etc.) it's an improvement. As far as growth, you just make a bundle of the sticks - see Delta heavy.

Yogi
A BIG thumbs up! I love engineering, but I'm also a hands on guy, and sometimes engineers like to make things just too complicated when simpler solutions are there.
__________________
There is a single light of science, and to brighten it anywhere is to brighten it everywhere.

Isaac Asimov
Reply With Quote
  #9  
Old 02-10-2011, 06:17 AM
dhanners's Avatar
dhanners dhanners is offline
Member
 
Join Date: Jul 2007
Location: Manchester, UK
Posts: 2,599
Total Downloaded: 1.59 GB
A 2009 Probabilistic Risk Assessment overview for the shuttle program put the chances of an RSRM-caused failure leading to the loss of crew and vehicle as 1 in 1,530. In the range of potential problems, there were some that were bigger (an MMOD strike of the Orbiter on orbit had a 1 in 320 chance of happening) and there were some that were much smaller. For example, a common cause failure of the APU system on entry had a 1 in 13,000 chance of happening.

A press release from ATK said the vehicle would be 330 feet tall, which puts it in the same range as Ares I and shorter than the Saturn V, so it'd still fit in the VAB.
Reply With Quote
  #10  
Old 02-10-2011, 06:33 AM
mperdue's Avatar
mperdue mperdue is offline
Member
 
Join Date: Dec 2010
Location: McCordsville, Indiana
Posts: 283
Total Downloaded: 0
330 feet would fit nicely in the VAB. I guess I need to get my eyeballs recalibrated.
__________________
X-ray-Delta-One, this is Mission Control, two-one-five-six, transmission concluded.
Reply With Quote
Google Adsense
Reply

Thread Tools
Display Modes

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

Forum Jump


All times are GMT -6. The time now is 12:03 AM.


Powered by vBulletin®
Copyright ©2000 - 2024, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.

Parts of this site powered by vBulletin Mods & Addons from DragonByte Technologies Ltd. (Details)
Copyright © 2007-2023, PaperModelers.com