This is the
talk page for discussing improvements to the
Shuttle-derived vehicle article. This is not a forum for general discussion of the article's subject. |
Article policies
|
Find sources: Google ( books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL |
This article is rated C-class on Wikipedia's
content assessment scale. It is of interest to the following WikiProjects: | |||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
|
SDLV is not an actual vehicle but a concept, which has been around for a long time, sense the 80's. Shuttle-C should be merge because it was one of the original concepts. Ares on the other hand is a launch vehicle that uses shuttle derived hardware.
Suggested Structure for reorganisation of SDLV, Ares, Shuttle C, AND C.E.V.
Article:SDLV
Article:Shuttle-C
Article:Ares
MAJOR POINT: CEV DOES NOT BELONG ON THIS PAGE! -- aceslead 16:25, 2 September 2006 (UTC)
I removed this as 20 mins of googling revealed no supporting evidence to the claims made, and there was no supporting link. I will admit that the SRB exhaust is rather unpleasant and a liquid fuel system would be preferable (although using LH2 would not, as the structural penalties are to high)
Why do they want to use 5 ssme's instead of fewer more powerful Delta IV engines? Wouldn't they be better, since they are in series production and were designed for simplicity and robustness (low cost as a consequence)? Plus, fewer engines increase reliability and if they used four, the booster would be more powerful. Do they have a huge stockpile of ssme's? - Unsigned by 172.193.202.182
It says at the top of the article that "no official announcement has been made" but on NASA's webpage it looks like there's no question that they're going to persue the Shuttle Derived Launch Vehicles.
Is this sentence necessary in the article? The rocket looks like a lengthened space shuttle boost system, without the space shuttle attached (perhaps this is why it is called "shuttle derived"), is Robert Zubrin credited with that design?
-- Fxer 23:31, 25 October 2005 (UTC)
I'd suggest that it be reinserted, and here's why (I wrote the comment in question):
Apart from looking very similar, here are the specific links between Ares and SDLV. Bear in mind that the Ares concept is several yearss older than this SDLV version, and that NASA most definitely were at least aware of Zubrin's concept before SDLV was drafted:
1. They both use sidemounted shuttle-type SRB's for propulsion in both instances. 2. The main engines are SSME or SSME derivatives in both instances. 3. Ares and SDLV both use a specifically wider fairing at the top of the rocket for enhcnaced cargo capacity (though not shown in the wikipedia article illustration). 4. They both are in the same lifting-class. Why is this significant? A few years ago, we were talking about spending billions more developing a rocket called Magnum to do the job that the SDLV will now do. It had an inferior capacity (approx 80t) and was ultimately canned. The concept of Ares (and SDLV) is to do as much as you can with existing technology, which NASA and contractors seem to have taken onboard, but to take it to a useful level like 100t+ (i.e. Saturn, Energia, etc...). 5. Mars Direct underwent a thorough review by NASA in the late Clinton period, but was never adopted. They knew detailed conceptual ideas for Ares, but the government was never going to fund them...until now.
As an aside, one of the single biggest aspects of Mars Direct that has been adopted by NASA is methane fuelled engines for use on Mars. This was stressed over and over and over in Zubrin's 'The Case for Mars' where he lays out Mars Direct. A Sabatier reactor produces Methane from Carbon Dioxide. If such a crucial, crucial point is being effected by NASA, when it has previously done virtually nothing with metahne engines over the last 50 years is not a coincidence, then I think other elements of the design may well have been adopted too.
-- Themanwithnoname 17:56, 6th November 2005 (GMT)
Just to add my tenpenneth again - if the SDLV designation really is the Ares V when it is officially announced, this would be yet enother tip of the hat to Mars Direct and Robert Zubrin. Not sure I can chalk all this up to coincidence....-- Themanwithnoname 14:57, 1st April 2006 (GMT)
I would particularly like to add here that since the rocket family that is being developed for Project Constellation is now to be known as 'Ares' (same as Zubrin's Mars Direct', the similarities are getting silly........-- Themanwithnoname 20:51, 7th July 2006 (BST)
The criticism about the 5-segment booster ending up with its nozzles too deep underwater for OSHA regulations references a blog entry by "MJ" at chairforceengineer.blogspot.com. However, there is an update at that blog entry which reads, "It has come to my attention that a Wikipedia article is treating this post as an authoritative source regarding the five-segment SRB. I should warn the readership that my info comes from just one second-hand source. I can't vouch for the authenticity of this info because I haven't done the analysis, at least not yet...."
So I think the smart think for me to do on Wikipedia's behalf is to water down the claim in the Criticisms section a little bit. I will do this, and also move this entry lower down in the section, as a way of addressing "MJ"'s comments. I'm being bold, but if you wish to tweak my wording, go ahead.
I say we change the name of this article to Ares Rocket. LOL!
Supercool Dude 02:48, 1 July 2006 (UTC)
OPPOSE: SDLV is a concept, Ares rocket is a actual rocket. they shoud stay be seperated, the removal of the vast majoity of Ares reference, which should be on the Ares rocket article.-- aceslead 16:30, 2 September 2006 (UTC)
Is it just me or does the logic of a THIRD NEW launch vehicle (the previous two being the Atlas 5 and the Delta 4) just seem stupid. Why built a THIRD NEW launch vehicle, NASA said it would save money. Really???? It which imaginary universe would this actually happaned.
I propose a critism article questioning the wisdom of using SDLV technology for a NEW manned launch vehicle. Sense the EELV (delta 4 and Atlas 5) would have been man rated.
Further more it seem that NASA is "keeping" the the SRB for a man rated launch vehicle to please ATK Thiokol. Real smart NASA.-- aceslead 04:35, 16 August 2006 (UTC)
SDLV should not contain info on the CEV. That info belong on the CEV page.-- aceslead 00:41, 23 August 2006 (UTC)
Why is duplicate information from the Ares (rocket) on the SDLV? -- aceslead 01:06, 1 September 2006 (UTC)
Add "* Support" or "* Oppose" followed by an optional one-sentence explanation, then sign your opinion with ~~~~
Add any additional comments
The information in question is irrelevant for the SHUTTLE DERIVED LAUNCH VEHICLE concept. Information that belongs on the Ares rocket article is infested the SDLV article which ISN'T about the Ares rocket nor is the SDLV about the C.E.V. or Orion space capsule. For this article CEV & Orion & Ares shouldn't be on THIS article.-- aceslead 01:24, 8 November 2006 (UTC)
As mentioned in my edit summary where the {{ inuse}} tag was removed, this is the rationale for the major edit. My goals were to:
So there you go. Is there more room for improvement? Certainly, as no person or article is perfect. If you can improve it further, then by all means, be bold and do so. SchuminWeb ( Talk) 19:31, 7 December 2006 (UTC)
So. "Proponents of NASA's planned Ares and Orion vehicles claim that a primary benefit of the proposed Ares system would be a risk reduction of an estimated ten to one hundred times for Orion crews compared to the present Shuttle system."
Depending on who the 'proponents' are, either NASA is admitting that the Shuttle is unsafe, or groups within NASA are. That's how I read this section, anyway. Agreed? WikiReaderer 21:55, 8 August 2007 (UTC)
The article states that DIRECT bears a strong resemblance to Ares IV. I don't see why this is stated. Ares-IV uses 5-segment SRBs and a 10m core stage; DIRECT uses 4-segment SRBs and an 8.4m core stage. Thus, Ares-IV resembles Ares-V far more closely than it does DIRECT. In fact, it is just an Ares-V with the upper stage from Ares-1 put on top in place of the usual EDS. I will remove the comparison unless somebody can explain why it is there. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 88.108.36.5 ( talk • contribs)
Has there been any public discussion of this unusual choice of names? It seems somewhat surprising that NASA would choose to name the centerpiece of its space program after the Greek God of violence and war. It would be interesting to learn more about the thinking that, in this era of global cooperation, convinced NASA that it was appropriate to rebuild its space program around the mythos of this ancient God of War. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 192.17.164.213 ( talk) 21:09, 15 December 2008 (UTC)
Because Ares is also going to be used as an ICBM. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 166.56.100.129 ( talk) 20:14, 31 March 2009 (UTC)
I have created the Wikipedia entry for the Shuttle-Derived Heavy Lift Launch Vehicle, but it needs someone to read the two articles and watch the NASA video and then write a decent Wikipedia article. Can someone please step forward and do this? -- Radical Mallard ( talk · contribs) 23:52, 11 July 2009 (UTC)
Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just modified 3 external links on Shuttle-Derived Launch Vehicle. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:
When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.
This message was posted before February 2018.
After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than
regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors
have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the
RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{
source check}}
(last update: 5 June 2024).
Cheers.— InternetArchiveBot ( Report bug) 09:01, 11 November 2017 (UTC)
The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
Should the scope of the article be to the launch vehicles derived from the Space Shuttle (e.g. SLS, Ares I, etc.) or extended to the spacecraft derived from the Space Shuttle (e.g. Orion, Shuttle-C, etc.)? -- Soumyabrata ( talk • subpages) 05:13, 24 January 2020 (UTC)
This is the
talk page for discussing improvements to the
Shuttle-derived vehicle article. This is not a forum for general discussion of the article's subject. |
Article policies
|
Find sources: Google ( books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL |
This article is rated C-class on Wikipedia's
content assessment scale. It is of interest to the following WikiProjects: | |||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
|
SDLV is not an actual vehicle but a concept, which has been around for a long time, sense the 80's. Shuttle-C should be merge because it was one of the original concepts. Ares on the other hand is a launch vehicle that uses shuttle derived hardware.
Suggested Structure for reorganisation of SDLV, Ares, Shuttle C, AND C.E.V.
Article:SDLV
Article:Shuttle-C
Article:Ares
MAJOR POINT: CEV DOES NOT BELONG ON THIS PAGE! -- aceslead 16:25, 2 September 2006 (UTC)
I removed this as 20 mins of googling revealed no supporting evidence to the claims made, and there was no supporting link. I will admit that the SRB exhaust is rather unpleasant and a liquid fuel system would be preferable (although using LH2 would not, as the structural penalties are to high)
Why do they want to use 5 ssme's instead of fewer more powerful Delta IV engines? Wouldn't they be better, since they are in series production and were designed for simplicity and robustness (low cost as a consequence)? Plus, fewer engines increase reliability and if they used four, the booster would be more powerful. Do they have a huge stockpile of ssme's? - Unsigned by 172.193.202.182
It says at the top of the article that "no official announcement has been made" but on NASA's webpage it looks like there's no question that they're going to persue the Shuttle Derived Launch Vehicles.
Is this sentence necessary in the article? The rocket looks like a lengthened space shuttle boost system, without the space shuttle attached (perhaps this is why it is called "shuttle derived"), is Robert Zubrin credited with that design?
-- Fxer 23:31, 25 October 2005 (UTC)
I'd suggest that it be reinserted, and here's why (I wrote the comment in question):
Apart from looking very similar, here are the specific links between Ares and SDLV. Bear in mind that the Ares concept is several yearss older than this SDLV version, and that NASA most definitely were at least aware of Zubrin's concept before SDLV was drafted:
1. They both use sidemounted shuttle-type SRB's for propulsion in both instances. 2. The main engines are SSME or SSME derivatives in both instances. 3. Ares and SDLV both use a specifically wider fairing at the top of the rocket for enhcnaced cargo capacity (though not shown in the wikipedia article illustration). 4. They both are in the same lifting-class. Why is this significant? A few years ago, we were talking about spending billions more developing a rocket called Magnum to do the job that the SDLV will now do. It had an inferior capacity (approx 80t) and was ultimately canned. The concept of Ares (and SDLV) is to do as much as you can with existing technology, which NASA and contractors seem to have taken onboard, but to take it to a useful level like 100t+ (i.e. Saturn, Energia, etc...). 5. Mars Direct underwent a thorough review by NASA in the late Clinton period, but was never adopted. They knew detailed conceptual ideas for Ares, but the government was never going to fund them...until now.
As an aside, one of the single biggest aspects of Mars Direct that has been adopted by NASA is methane fuelled engines for use on Mars. This was stressed over and over and over in Zubrin's 'The Case for Mars' where he lays out Mars Direct. A Sabatier reactor produces Methane from Carbon Dioxide. If such a crucial, crucial point is being effected by NASA, when it has previously done virtually nothing with metahne engines over the last 50 years is not a coincidence, then I think other elements of the design may well have been adopted too.
-- Themanwithnoname 17:56, 6th November 2005 (GMT)
Just to add my tenpenneth again - if the SDLV designation really is the Ares V when it is officially announced, this would be yet enother tip of the hat to Mars Direct and Robert Zubrin. Not sure I can chalk all this up to coincidence....-- Themanwithnoname 14:57, 1st April 2006 (GMT)
I would particularly like to add here that since the rocket family that is being developed for Project Constellation is now to be known as 'Ares' (same as Zubrin's Mars Direct', the similarities are getting silly........-- Themanwithnoname 20:51, 7th July 2006 (BST)
The criticism about the 5-segment booster ending up with its nozzles too deep underwater for OSHA regulations references a blog entry by "MJ" at chairforceengineer.blogspot.com. However, there is an update at that blog entry which reads, "It has come to my attention that a Wikipedia article is treating this post as an authoritative source regarding the five-segment SRB. I should warn the readership that my info comes from just one second-hand source. I can't vouch for the authenticity of this info because I haven't done the analysis, at least not yet...."
So I think the smart think for me to do on Wikipedia's behalf is to water down the claim in the Criticisms section a little bit. I will do this, and also move this entry lower down in the section, as a way of addressing "MJ"'s comments. I'm being bold, but if you wish to tweak my wording, go ahead.
I say we change the name of this article to Ares Rocket. LOL!
Supercool Dude 02:48, 1 July 2006 (UTC)
OPPOSE: SDLV is a concept, Ares rocket is a actual rocket. they shoud stay be seperated, the removal of the vast majoity of Ares reference, which should be on the Ares rocket article.-- aceslead 16:30, 2 September 2006 (UTC)
Is it just me or does the logic of a THIRD NEW launch vehicle (the previous two being the Atlas 5 and the Delta 4) just seem stupid. Why built a THIRD NEW launch vehicle, NASA said it would save money. Really???? It which imaginary universe would this actually happaned.
I propose a critism article questioning the wisdom of using SDLV technology for a NEW manned launch vehicle. Sense the EELV (delta 4 and Atlas 5) would have been man rated.
Further more it seem that NASA is "keeping" the the SRB for a man rated launch vehicle to please ATK Thiokol. Real smart NASA.-- aceslead 04:35, 16 August 2006 (UTC)
SDLV should not contain info on the CEV. That info belong on the CEV page.-- aceslead 00:41, 23 August 2006 (UTC)
Why is duplicate information from the Ares (rocket) on the SDLV? -- aceslead 01:06, 1 September 2006 (UTC)
Add "* Support" or "* Oppose" followed by an optional one-sentence explanation, then sign your opinion with ~~~~
Add any additional comments
The information in question is irrelevant for the SHUTTLE DERIVED LAUNCH VEHICLE concept. Information that belongs on the Ares rocket article is infested the SDLV article which ISN'T about the Ares rocket nor is the SDLV about the C.E.V. or Orion space capsule. For this article CEV & Orion & Ares shouldn't be on THIS article.-- aceslead 01:24, 8 November 2006 (UTC)
As mentioned in my edit summary where the {{ inuse}} tag was removed, this is the rationale for the major edit. My goals were to:
So there you go. Is there more room for improvement? Certainly, as no person or article is perfect. If you can improve it further, then by all means, be bold and do so. SchuminWeb ( Talk) 19:31, 7 December 2006 (UTC)
So. "Proponents of NASA's planned Ares and Orion vehicles claim that a primary benefit of the proposed Ares system would be a risk reduction of an estimated ten to one hundred times for Orion crews compared to the present Shuttle system."
Depending on who the 'proponents' are, either NASA is admitting that the Shuttle is unsafe, or groups within NASA are. That's how I read this section, anyway. Agreed? WikiReaderer 21:55, 8 August 2007 (UTC)
The article states that DIRECT bears a strong resemblance to Ares IV. I don't see why this is stated. Ares-IV uses 5-segment SRBs and a 10m core stage; DIRECT uses 4-segment SRBs and an 8.4m core stage. Thus, Ares-IV resembles Ares-V far more closely than it does DIRECT. In fact, it is just an Ares-V with the upper stage from Ares-1 put on top in place of the usual EDS. I will remove the comparison unless somebody can explain why it is there. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 88.108.36.5 ( talk • contribs)
Has there been any public discussion of this unusual choice of names? It seems somewhat surprising that NASA would choose to name the centerpiece of its space program after the Greek God of violence and war. It would be interesting to learn more about the thinking that, in this era of global cooperation, convinced NASA that it was appropriate to rebuild its space program around the mythos of this ancient God of War. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 192.17.164.213 ( talk) 21:09, 15 December 2008 (UTC)
Because Ares is also going to be used as an ICBM. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 166.56.100.129 ( talk) 20:14, 31 March 2009 (UTC)
I have created the Wikipedia entry for the Shuttle-Derived Heavy Lift Launch Vehicle, but it needs someone to read the two articles and watch the NASA video and then write a decent Wikipedia article. Can someone please step forward and do this? -- Radical Mallard ( talk · contribs) 23:52, 11 July 2009 (UTC)
Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just modified 3 external links on Shuttle-Derived Launch Vehicle. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:
When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.
This message was posted before February 2018.
After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than
regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors
have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the
RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{
source check}}
(last update: 5 June 2024).
Cheers.— InternetArchiveBot ( Report bug) 09:01, 11 November 2017 (UTC)
The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
Should the scope of the article be to the launch vehicles derived from the Space Shuttle (e.g. SLS, Ares I, etc.) or extended to the spacecraft derived from the Space Shuttle (e.g. Orion, Shuttle-C, etc.)? -- Soumyabrata ( talk • subpages) 05:13, 24 January 2020 (UTC)