Ares after Challenger?

Status
Not open for further replies.
P

pmn1

Guest
Would there have been support for the Ares idea after Challenger blew up?<br /><br />If so and Ares had followed the schedule planned for the current Ares, what changes would that have made so far to what is in orbit etc? <div class="Discussion_UserSignature"> </div>
 
E

edkyle98

Guest
I don't think so. The Space Shuttle was still new in 1986. Too much money had been invested in the program, and although flaws had become apparent, there would have been little support for replacing this still-futuristic reusable winged glider with an "old-fashioned" capsule. It would have meant the end of the ESA Spacelab cooperation, for example. Ending shuttle would also have meant the admission of a massive national technology failure, which wasn't an option in the midst of the Cold War during the Reagan administration.<br /><br /> - Ed Kyle
 
R

radarredux

Guest
> <i><font color="yellow">Would there have been support for the Ares idea after Challenger blew up?</font>/i><br /><br />I don't think so. There was still the expectation that a reusable vehicle would cost less. There was still a lot of expectation of what could be done with the down cargo capability. Exploiting LEO opportunities was still relatively new (Mercury was about just getting into space, Gemini and Apollo was about going to the Moon, Skylab was an all too brief experiment). The leadership at NASA had staked their professional reputations on the Shuttle.<br /><br />Columbia happened 17 years later. By then the everyone agreed that the shuttles would not live up to the cost effectiveness that everyone had hopped. The excitement of LEO operations had largely evaporated. The shuttle hardware was getting old and would need to go through an expensive re-certification process. People realized that the shuttle design was itself unsafe (e.g., putting delicate orbiter downstream of falling debris, limited abort options during ascent, etc.).<br /><br />Even with all this, Ares has faced a lot of detractors. I don't think Ares could have been accepted in 1986.</i>
 
V

vogon13

Guest
Was an Ares type vehicle even on the table in that time frame?<br /><br />Seems like the follow on vehicle to the shuttle would have been something more like the National AeroSpace Plane . . . . <br /><br /><br /><br /> <div class="Discussion_UserSignature"> <p><font color="#ff0000"><strong>TPTB went to Dallas and all I got was Plucked !!</strong></font></p><p><font color="#339966"><strong>So many people, so few recipes !!</strong></font></p><p><font color="#0000ff"><strong>Let's clean up this stinkhole !!</strong></font> </p> </div>
 
D

dreada5

Guest
I think "Freedom" station was on the cards as well and perhaps the concensus was that its construction would be facilitated more by a shuttle-type spacecraft as opposed to capsule/cargo launcher approach?
 
P

propforce

Guest
<blockquote><font class="small">In reply to:</font><hr /><p>I don't think so. The Space Shuttle was still new in 1986. Too much money had been invested in the program, and although flaws had become apparent, there would have been little support for replacing this still-futuristic reusable winged glider with an "old-fashioned" capsule. It would have meant the end of the ESA Spacelab cooperation, for example. Ending shuttle would also have meant the admission of a massive national technology failure, which wasn't an option in the midst of the Cold War during the Reagan administration. <br /><br />- Ed Kyle ]<p><hr /></p></p></blockquote><br /><br />IIRC, there were "many" studies, as well as big R&D programs (X-30, X-33, etc.) aimed as Shuttle replacement since the mid-80's. I think X-30 started more of a DARPA/ Air Force / DoD needs rather than as a Shuttle replacement, but then NASA got in on the JPO and talks started as a potential shuttle replacement. If anyone recalls, the program "NASP" unofficially stood for "Not Another Shuttle Program" <img src="/images/icons/smile.gif" /><br /><br />There was also a study initiated by then JSC Director, Jay Greene, for Liquid Fly Back Booster (FLBB). The FLBB was one of the original Shuttle concept but was scrubbed due to funding cut. <br /><br />The Air Force had a doctrine then, from Gen. Mooreman's study which eventually evolved into the EELV program, that is NEVER EVER to share a same launch vehicle program with NASA again! Because Air Force was "promised" by NASA that the Shuttle could launch ALL of its payload, its ELV fleet (Atlas II and Delta II) were shutdown during the Shuttle programs and had to rush to reopen the production lines after the Challenger.<br /><br /> <div class="Discussion_UserSignature"> </div>
 
R

radarredux

Guest
> <i><font color="yellow">I think "Freedom" station was on the cards as well and perhaps the concensus was that its construction would be facilitated more by a shuttle-type spacecraft as opposed to capsule/cargo launcher approach?</font>/i><br /><br />Freedom was announced by Pres. Reagan in 1984, and, IMHO, it was always seen as a strong complement to the shuttle. The post-Apollo world was supposed to have a space station with the shuttle going there and back, but only the shuttle was initially funded. NASA had a vehicle with no place to go. Soon we shall have a fully functional space station with no shuttle to get there and back. A lot of irony there.</i>
 
R

radarredux

Guest
> <i><font color="yellow">because Air Force was "promised" by NASA that the Shuttle could launch ALL of its payload</font>/i><br /><br />Of course the flip side of this is that the shuttle had a lot of compromises to accommodate Air Force requirements (NASA felt it needed the military's blessing to get funding), and many have argued that these compromises are what has limited the Shuttle's success. Sort of a Faustian bargain.</i>
 
R

rocketman5000

Guest
those big peices wouldn't have been lifted. They never would have been designed. If the was even larger than it is today you would see ISS components that are even bigger.
 
R

radarredux

Guest
> <i><font color="yellow">Before buying fully into the "Air Force had to have it that big" scenario, it is worth wondering how the various ISS, (or any other design station,) pieces would have been lifted without that capacity.</font>/i><br /><br />A combination of infrequent expendable heavy-medium launch vehicles (for major structural components) combined with frequent reusable light launch vehicles (for crews and supplies) might have been a nice combination.<br /><br />To some extent, that is what we are getting with the Ares I and V approach.</i>
 
E

edkyle98

Guest
"Because Air Force was "promised" by NASA that the Shuttle could launch ALL of its payload, its ELV fleet (Atlas II and Delta II) were shutdown during the Shuttle programs and had to rush to reopen the production lines after the Challenger. "<br /><br />Just a note: The Atlas II and Delta II USAF programs were started up *after* Challenger. Before Challenger, Atlas Centaur and Delta were NASA programs. It was NASA that pulled the plug on them. At the time, the Air Force had its own expendables, like Atlas E, Titan 34B, and Titan 34D, the latter of which it, of course, did not pull the plug on. In fact, the Air Force awarded a contract to start development of a new, more powerful Titan (later named Titan 4) nearly a year before Challenger.<br /><br /> - Ed Kyle
 
Q

qso1

Guest
pmn1:<br />Was an Ares type vehicle even on the table in that time frame?<br /><br />vogon13:<br />Seems like the follow on vehicle to the shuttle would have been something more like the National AeroSpace Plane . . . .<br /><br />Me:<br />There were several considerations for shuttle replacement vehicles that were being studied post Challenger and not necessarily solely due to Challenger. One was Shuttle II, another was the Jarvis launch vehicle, still another as Vogon13 mentioned was National Aerospace Plane or NASP, AKA Orient Express.<br /><br />There were no plans I'm aware of to return to an Apollo type capsule in 1986. This has only come about because several more replacement shuttle schemes were tried (Delta Clipper, Venture Star, HL-20) and none were considered cost effective enough to be approved for development and so NASA had to go back to doing what it did best...capsules. <div class="Discussion_UserSignature"> <p><strong>My borrowed quote for the time being:</strong></p><p><em>There are three kinds of people in life. Those who make it happen, those who watch it happen...and those who do not know what happened.</em></p> </div>
 
Q

qso1

Guest
newsartist:<br />What would those heavies have been? Consider the date before answering, "Protons".<br /><br />Me:<br />One of the early shuttle "C" designs was released just months after Challenger and shuttle "C" or shuttle derived vehicles had been proposed even before Challenger. Those would have been close to being Saturn class lifters and much more capable in terms of payload mass than Proton. The U.S. always had heavy lift capability in the form of the shuttle stack. Just replace the 100 plus ton orbiter with a similar but significantly lighter cargo cylinder and appropriate combination of SSMEs and you have heavy lift.<br /><br />Even in Russia...it was about 14 months after Challenger that Energia made its debut flight. A rocket with almost five times the Protons lift capability. <div class="Discussion_UserSignature"> <p><strong>My borrowed quote for the time being:</strong></p><p><em>There are three kinds of people in life. Those who make it happen, those who watch it happen...and those who do not know what happened.</em></p> </div>
 
P

pmn1

Guest
What would have happened if another orbitter had been lost within a year or so of the fleet getting back into space? <div class="Discussion_UserSignature"> </div>
 
N

nyarlathotep

Guest
<font color="yellow">Would there have been support for the Ares idea after Challenger blew up? </font><br /><br />No. Even before Challenger, the SRB-X idea was derided as "the single worst shuttle-derived launcher ever proposed." Other than politics, I'm not sure much has changed since then.
 
C

corbarrad

Guest
I don't think it would have seemed good sense back then to build a launcer derived from the part that was the cause of the catastrophe back then(the SRB) and to eliminate the orbiter which had only failed <i>after</i> the SRB and external tank.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.

Latest posts