Ares I flight rate -- a clue

[gunsandrockets]

http://www.nasaspaceflight.com/content/?cid=5059<br /><br />"The NASA solicitation requires the winning party to build 23 Upper Stages over the period of performance, at the rate of two Upper Stages per year - matching the current flight rate that has been scheduled for the Ares I, with NASA requesting information on the possibility of six being built per year."

 

[radarredux]

> <i><font color="yellow">at the rate of two Upper Stages per year - matching the current flight rate that has been scheduled for the Ares I</font>/i><br /><br />That would match what NASA has been saying for some time -- two missions each year (eventually lasting up to six-months) to the Moon. Assuming COTS works, there will be very little need for the Ares I/Orion to go to the ISS. And even if COTS doesn't work out, Ares I/Orion will probably stop going to ISS by the time the Lunar missions start (in the 2018-2020 timeframe).<br /><br />The higher launch rates (six per year) would require a substantial boost to NASA's manned exploration funding levels, since six Upper Stages for Ares I would also imply six Ares V launches, or (alternatively) support for ISS beyond 2020.</i>

 

[jimfromnsf]

<blockquote><font class="small">In reply to:</font><hr /><p><br />1. That would match what NASA has been saying for some time -- two missions each year (eventually lasting up to six-months) to the Moon. Assuming COTS works, there will be very little need for the Ares I/Orion to go to the ISS. And even if COTS doesn't work out, Ares I/Orion will probably stop going to ISS by the time the Lunar missions start (in the 2018-2020 timeframe).<br /><br />2. The higher launch rates (six per year) would require a substantial boost to NASA's manned exploration funding levels, since six Upper Stages for Ares I would also imply six Ares V launches, or (alternatively) support for ISS beyond 2020. <p><hr /></p></p></blockquote><br /><br />1. COTS wouldn't take care of the manned flights to the ISS and there still is cargo flights. Total Ares I ISS flights is 4 a year.<br /><br />2. The 6 a year is 4 ISS and 2 Lunar

 

[Swampcat]

<font color="yellow">"COTS wouldn't take care of the manned flights to the ISS and there still is cargo flights."</font><br /><br />Uh, actually, that's the whole purpose of COTS:<br /><br />From Wikipedia:<br /><center><blockquote><p align="left">Commercial Orbital Transportation Services is a NASA program to coordinate the commercial delivery of crew and cargo to the International Space Station. The program was announced on January 18, 2006. NASA has suggested that "Commercial services to ISS will be necessary through at least 2015."</p>/center><br /></blockquote></center> <div class="Discussion_UserSignature"> <font size="3" color="#ff9900"><p><font size="1" color="#993300"><strong><em>------------------------------------------------------------------- </em></strong></font></p><p><font size="1" color="#993300"><strong><em>"I hold it that a little rebellion now and then is a good thing, and as necessary in the political world as storms in the physical. Unsuccessful rebellions, indeed, generally establish the encroachments on the rights of the people which have produced them. An observation of this truth should render honest republican governors so mild in their punishment of rebellions as not to discourage them too much. It is a medicine necessary for the sound health of government."</em></strong></font></p><p><font size="1" color="#993300"><strong>Thomas Jefferson</strong></font></p></font> </div>

 

[vulture2]

Does this mean the US will continue to be a full partner in the ISS through 2015? At one time it appeared the US ISS budget was expected to decline rathre quickly after the assembly was complete.

 

[jimfromnsf]

Never use Wikipedia as a source.<br /><br />COTS is a demostration of the capability. COTS II would be the contract for services.<br /><br />The manned part of COTS is also not a given.<br /><br />And still it doesn't replace the CEV, there is still requirements for the CEV to go to the ISS, both manned and unmanned

 

[jimfromnsf]

<blockquote><font class="small">In reply to:</font><hr /><p><br />Does this mean the US will continue to be a full partner in the ISS through 2015? At one time it appeared the US ISS budget was expected to decline rathre quickly after the assembly was complete.<p><hr /></p></p></blockquote><br /><br />The US was always a full partner. Also the ISS can't exist without US support. No US, no ISS. The other partners can't manage the USOS without the JSC MCC, TDRSS, NBL, ISS trainers, and the system experts

 

[docm]

According to the manifest published by NSF here the Orion flights to the ISS start with Orion 5 (manned, <i>possible</i> ISS stop) and ends with Orion 11 (unmanned cargo). After that it's lunar practice runs until the landing with Orion 13. <br /><br />Not much of an ISS 'commitment'.<br /><br />At the least SpaceX and Benson seem determined to go to LEO long before Orion is ready. If they make it denying them access to ISS servicing would be real bad PR for NASA. Real bad. Especially if they're already servicing Bigelow.<br /><br />The image of 1970's GM/Ford/Chrysler laughing at Toyota while NHTSA was building Joan Claybrook's impractical "crash-proof car" comes to mind <img src="/images/icons/tongue.gif" /> <div class="Discussion_UserSignature"> </div>

 

[radarredux]

> <i><font color="yellow">Total Ares I ISS flights is 4 a year.</font>/i><br /><br />The problem is that <i>currently</i> NASA plans to zero out its ISS budget soon after Orion comes on line and well before the Lunar missions. Recently (about a month ago?) NASA expressed interest in supporting ISS beyond 2016, but given that NASA can't win funding for its current list of tasks, adding yet more tasks seems optimistic.<br /><br /><i><b>If</b></i> the COTS efforts succeed (the COTS teams want to do both cargo and humans), then there will be virtually no need for Ares I/Orion until the Lunar missions start.<br /><br />To summarize:<br /><br />Scenario 1: 6 Orion flights per year -- assumes NASA has funding to maintain both ISS and Lunar program, and COTS fails.<br /><br />Scenario 2: 4 Orion flights per year -- assumes NASA is only flying to ISS (no Lunar missions) and COTS fails.<br /><br />Scenario 3: 2 Orion flights per year -- Assumes NASA has exited ISS or COTS is successful, and NASA flying to the Moon.<br /><br />Scenario 4: 0 Orion flights per year -- Assumes NASA has exited ISS or COTS is successful, and NASA is not flying to the Moon (e.g., delays, defunded, etc.).</i>

 

[jimfromnsf]

Crew transport is not a given with COTS, So there is a scenario with COTS doing cargo and CEV doing crew

 

[docm]

But the NSF manifest, presuming it's accurate, limits that to 4-5 flights during a 2 year period after Orion starts flying. Before that Orion doesn't exist; after it's practicing for the Orion 13 landing. <div class="Discussion_UserSignature"> </div>

 

[rocketman5000]

If COTS is successful for crew transport do they need to launch from the cap?

 

[Boris_Badenov]

If the COTS competitors fail who do you think will transport passengers to Bigelow outposts? CEV? A ULA craft? If a ULA craft is capable of transporting passengers & cargo to a Bigelow station do you believe they will try to expand their business to supplying the ISS? Or do you beleive Bigelow will fail too? <div class="Discussion_UserSignature"> <font color="#993300"><span class="body"><font size="2" color="#3366ff"><div align="center">. </div><div align="center">Never roll in the mud with a pig. You'll both get dirty & the pig likes it.</div></font></span></font> </div>

 

[jimfromnsf]

there is a ULA and Bigelow agreement pending

 

[Boris_Badenov]

<font color="yellow"> there is a ULA and Bigelow agreement pending </font><br /><br /> And RpK & SpaceX. <div class="Discussion_UserSignature"> <font color="#993300"><span class="body"><font size="2" color="#3366ff"><div align="center">. </div><div align="center">Never roll in the mud with a pig. You'll both get dirty & the pig likes it.</div></font></span></font> </div>

 

[vogon13]

My prediction:<br /><br />*Costs will be perceived as going totally out of control soon<br /><br />*The program will be put on hold for 2 years for a total redesign, to save money<br /><br />*The new design will be smaller and less capable<br /><br />*The new design will cost more<br /><br />*The launch rate will be slashed to save money <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>

 

[vogon13]

And that is the cold hard frelling truth.<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>

 

[qso1]

jimfromnsf:<br />Never use Wikipedia as a source.<br /><br />Me:<br />I would say, never use wikipedia...or any other sole source as the only source. Three source if practical or possible. But as one of three sources, IMO wiki is a good source most of the time.<br /><br />COTS will no doubt change over time anyway so what could be reliable info today, will change tommorow. <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>

 

[Swampcat]

"Three source if practical or possible." <br /><br />BTW, I checked more than three sources, even one from NASA related to the COTS initiative, before posting only the wikipedia link. All said pretty much the same thing. Cargo and crew capabilities are part of COTS. It's certainly true that cargo will be the first part of it and crew second if the money holds out, but that's splitting hairs. As you say, things change over time and money gets re-allocated. <br /> <div class="Discussion_UserSignature"> <font size="3" color="#ff9900"><p><font size="1" color="#993300"><strong><em>------------------------------------------------------------------- </em></strong></font></p><p><font size="1" color="#993300"><strong><em>"I hold it that a little rebellion now and then is a good thing, and as necessary in the political world as storms in the physical. Unsuccessful rebellions, indeed, generally establish the encroachments on the rights of the people which have produced them. An observation of this truth should render honest republican governors so mild in their punishment of rebellions as not to discourage them too much. It is a medicine necessary for the sound health of government."</em></strong></font></p><p><font size="1" color="#993300"><strong>Thomas Jefferson</strong></font></p></font> </div>

 

[bpfeifer]

"If COTS is successful for crew transport do they need to launch from the cap?"<br /><br />Both RPK and SpaceX are planning COTS test flights from the Cape. I would assume this indicates that at least the initial cargo flights will also launch from the Cape, although both ar persuing other launch facilities. <div class="Discussion_UserSignature"> Brian J. Pfeifer http://sabletower.wordpress.com<br /> The Dogsoldier Codex http://www.lulu.com/sabletower<br /> </div>

 

[jimfromnsf]

RPK has yet to determine a US launch site. Originally, it was to be at NTS. I believe they are going to wait until they have demonstrated the K-1 a few times.

 

[jimfromnsf]

"Capability D Crew Transportation Option" of the space act agreements has not been funded nor has it been exercised.

 

[docm]

Let's take that as given, even in the absense of a confirmational link. Now lets follow a hypothetical timeline;<br /><br />Dragon flies by 2010 and works, becoming the first manned American private orbital services provider.<br /><br />Bigelows Sundancer flies and is serviced by Dragon.<br /><br />We still have a Democratic Congress; a <i>protectionist</i> Congress, as Dems tend to be.<br /><br />Our political relationship with Russia continues to sour.<br /><br />NASA goes before the House subcommittee and asks for funding to continue getting services from Russia (Soyuz and Progress).<br /><br />The questioning by Chairman Udall starts like this;<br /><br />----<br />U: Why are we spending taxpayer dollars on Russian services when we have an American company that employs American workers that can do the same job? <br /><br />NASA: (mumble) ahhhh... Mr. Chairman, they are unproven.<br /><br />U: They're already servicing Bigelow, and they never will be "ISS Certified" if you don't give them trial missions.<br /><br />NASA: uhhhh.... (followed by 10 minutes of incomprehensible BS)<br />------<br /><br />It's on YouTube & Google Video in 10 minutes.<br /><br />House's message: keep those tax dollars home.<br /><br />PR result: NASA looks foolish and parochial. <div class="Discussion_UserSignature"> </div>

 

[jimfromnsf]

"Both RPK and SpaceX are planning COTS test flights from the Cape."<br /><br />K-1 launches are from Woomera.<br />Spacex is TBD ( Cape/Kwajalein are both listed)

 

[jimfromnsf]

Too many "if's" and who says it is spacex that go to Bigelow