Ares I in political trouble?

[holmec]

Eventually yes....<br /><br />But it could take 5 years or it could take 50 years. Who and when will have a working system is the big thing for the market. Who will be first? That is the question. <div class="Discussion_UserSignature"> <p> </p><p><font color="#0000ff"><em>"SCE to AUX" - John Aaron, curiosity pays off</em></font></p> </div>

 

[holmec]

Shoot! He has already has ideas on how his Tier 2 orbital plane will look! <br /><br />A drawing of his of the orbital space plane is on the DVD Black Sky by discovery channel.<br /><br />It looked like SS1 but had two hybrid engines and was launched from a White Knight like plane with an extra rocket stage booster attached to the space plane. <br /><br />Sorry to bust you bubble there Josh!<br /><br />Burt also had designs of space stations for a hotel. I didn't see anything for Tier3 which is interplanetary travel but I wouldn't put it passed him if he thought about it and has some ideas on the drawing board. <div class="Discussion_UserSignature"> <p> </p><p><font color="#0000ff"><em>"SCE to AUX" - John Aaron, curiosity pays off</em></font></p> </div>

 

[Boris_Badenov]

Do you have the DVD? Can you post some pix? <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>

 

[vt_hokie]

<i><font color="yellow">Shoot! He has already has ideas on how his Tier 2 orbital plane will look! <br /><br />A drawing of his of the orbital space plane is on the DVD Black Sky by discovery channel. <br /><br />It looked like SS1 but had two hybrid engines and was launched from a White Knight like plane with an extra rocket stage booster attached to the space plane. </font>/i><br /><br />Yes, but I don't know if the sketch shown on the program makes any sense. It's basically SS1 mounted on a first stage rocket. How would a vehicle designed for low speed, low thermal stress flight be capable of reentry from orbital velocities?</i>

 

[ckikilwai]

"This is probably why a pattern is developing here. Orion launched by Ares I, Soyuz TMA by the Soyuz launcher, Dragon by Falcon 9. The pattern is that a specific craft is launched by a specific launcher. This is a proven system of operating, just look at the Russian's record."<br /><br />I don't really understand what you want say here.<br />The soyuz spacecraft was designed to fit on the R-7/Soyuz launcher, so that's rather an argument against the Ares I, because it proves that a spacecraft designed to fit on an existing rocket can work very well.<br /><br />But I'm not against the Ares I, the experience we will get, will be useful on the Ares V, the Saturn V wasn't designed without predecessors to.<br />

 

[holmec]

Between R-7 and Soyuz launcher was the Vostok....so you are actually talking about a series of developed rockets. Makes no sense for your argument but defends mine.<br /><br />http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Soyuz_launch_vehicle <div class="Discussion_UserSignature"> <p> </p><p><font color="#0000ff"><em>"SCE to AUX" - John Aaron, curiosity pays off</em></font></p> </div>

 

[holmec]

<blockquote><font class="small">In reply to:</font><hr /><p>Yes, but I don't know if the sketch shown on the program makes any sense. It's basically SS1 mounted on a first stage rocket. How would a vehicle designed for low speed, low thermal stress flight be capable of reentry from orbital velocities?<p><hr /></p></p></blockquote><br /><br />Shouldn't your question be: How do you design a space plane based on SS1 for high speeds and high thermal stress?<br /><br />Its not the same as SS1..that's how. SS1 has no thermal shield and operates at above sonic speed levels. The bet here is that the composite is strong enough to slow the SS Tier 2 ship in feather mode and I guess have some type of light weight heat shield with out killing everybody inside due to G levels.<br /><br />I agree, I don't know how Rutan expects to pull it off, but I'm curious. <div class="Discussion_UserSignature"> <p> </p><p><font color="#0000ff"><em>"SCE to AUX" - John Aaron, curiosity pays off</em></font></p> </div>

 

[holmec]

I have the DVD, but I think I'd be infringing on some copyright laws if I tried to extract a pic. <br /><br />You might be able to rent the DVD, but I do recomend buying it since it gives good insight as to the differences between government and commercial entrepreneur approach to space.<br /><br />here's a link to it:<br />http://shopping.discovery.com/product-56717.html <div class="Discussion_UserSignature"> <p> </p><p><font color="#0000ff"><em>"SCE to AUX" - John Aaron, curiosity pays off</em></font></p> </div>

 

[ckikilwai]

Maybe I missed your point but...<br /><br />The R-7 was designed to launch sputnik/nuclear warhead, later they decided to further develop it to launch Vostok, Voschod and Soyuz.<br />Most have flown safely.<br /><br />Now there are a lot people who say, use delta IV or atlas V, and develop it to a man rated launcher for the Orion.<br /><br />Now you say designing a spacecraft to fit on an existing rocket is more risky, but the Russians proved this isn't the case.

 

[vulture2]

>>NASA certainly can not depend on a commercial LEO capability being ready in time.<br /><br />Given the slips in Orion, they may not be able to depend on having a government furnished LEO capability either. But "ready in time" for what?<br /><br />More seriously, I do not think Congress should dictate to NASA what booster to use, but neither should NASA dictate such a choice to a contractor. COTS and the former Orbital Space Plane program did not. In contrast, the Ares I was chosen by Mr. Griffin, and it's tough to imagine any contractor other than ATK using it if they had a choice. The main thing Ares I has going for it is that by the time of the next election it may have too much momentum to stop,<br />

 

[propforce]

<blockquote><font class="small">In reply to:</font><hr /><p>In reply to:<br />--------------------------------------------------------------------------------<br /><br />As to the use of VAB, an EELV solution to Ares V would not required the use of VAB and can be accomplished via either a horitonal integration approach or an on-pad vertical assembly.<br /><br /><br /><br />--------------------------------------------------------------------------------<br /><br /><br /><br />??? Ares V is to be bigger than Saturn V how could you raise it up if its contructed horizontally? Not only that where is the savings if you have to create more buildings and tear down a building and create an erecting mechanism? Sounds pretty silly to me. <p><hr /></p></p></blockquote><br /><br />What is silly is a mind that can not free itself from the constraints of the past and think of a solution that is right for the future. <br /><br />Because the Ares V is "forced" to be designed with the constraints of the past, it will be over-cost, inefficient, and it may not ever get built at all. Now that's the real tragedy. <div class="Discussion_UserSignature"> </div>

 

[vt_hokie]

Well said. If I were somehow elected president, one of the first things I would do is revive X-33.

 

[holmec]

<blockquote><font class="small">In reply to:</font><hr /><p>Because the Ares V is "forced" to be designed with the constraints of the past, it will be over-cost, inefficient, and it may not ever get built at all. Now that's the real tragedy.<p><hr /></p></p></blockquote><br /><br />Right, the future will require a launcher 4 times the size of Ares V (to come up with commercial logistic standards of transporting cargo)......your right. <div class="Discussion_UserSignature"> <p> </p><p><font color="#0000ff"><em>"SCE to AUX" - John Aaron, curiosity pays off</em></font></p> </div>

 

[propforce]

<blockquote><font class="small">In reply to:</font><hr /><p>Well said. If I were somehow elected president, one of the first things I would do is revive X-33. <p><hr /></p></p></blockquote><br /><br />Dude, I really hate to disagree with someone who's just paid me a compliment, but the X-33 is not the answer, not yet anyway. We've discussed this issue to death already.<br /><br />Free oneself from the constraints of the past does not mean to ignore the lessons learned from the past ! <div class="Discussion_UserSignature"> </div>

 

[j05h]

<i>> but the X-33 is not the answer, not yet anyway. We've discussed this issue to death already. </i><br /><br />Yes. The answer is extremely large, sea-launched rockets built in shipyards. Several hundred tons to orbit per launch in a reusable, tough craft. Something like Boeing's old "LEO" proposal.<br />JOsh <div class="Discussion_UserSignature"> <div align="center"><em>We need a first generation of pioneers.</em><br /></div> </div>

 

[vt_hokie]

<i><font color="yellow">Dude, I really hate to disagree with someone who's just paid me a compliment, but the X-33 is not the answer, not yet anyway. We've discussed this issue to death already. </font>/i><br /><br />It's not that I think X-33 would lead directly to an operational vehicle, single-stage, two-stage, or otherwise. But I do think it is absolutely necessary to investigate new technologies like the metallic TPS that was to be flown on X-33. And I sure would've loved to see those linear aerospike engines in action! <br /><br />And I still wonder how much the X-33's cancellation was politically motivated. I wonder if it would have been cancelled had Gore become president.</i>

 

[gunsandrockets]

<To design a capsule/sm to do a lunar mission AND fit on an existing launcher is twice the difficulty and twice the risk as designing a capsule/sm to do a lunar mission and design a launcher to launch the capsule/sm.><br /><br />Spacecraft are tiny piddly little things compared to the enormous boosters which launch them into space. It's much easier to design a spacecraft to fit an existing booster than to come up with a brand new booster to fit the spacecraft. Just look at the NASA project for the proof of that. The development costs and infrastructure costs of the Ares I and Ares V are many times more expensive than the cost of the Orion spacecract.<br /><br /><To use an existing launcher for the Orion would invite the risk of: <br />1. costing more by taking more time to develope. <br />2. jeopardizing the success of the project (the designing of the capsule and sm). <br />3. turning out an inferior capsule/sm. Inferior as far as performance and safety. /><br /><br />Reality is not comporting with your theory. The huge costs of the clean sheet design rockets NASA is developing is endangering the prospects of the entire manned space exploration program.<br /><br /><The 'magical' thing about a crew of 4 on the moon is that you can have two teams of two. Twice the work done for a trip. While a crew of two would half your work potential and probably cost more than half of sending up 4. /><br /><br />That is a gross oversimplificatin of the issue of crew size. What matters is the cost per man/hour on the moon. If a smaller crewed spacecraft permits more man hours on the moon for the same total budget than a larger spacecraft, than the smaller spacecraft is superior. It doesn't matter if the crew is half the size if you can afford to send more than twice the number of missions because of the smaller crew size.<br /><br /> <br /><br />

 

[scottb50]

I think it would have been canceled regardless, it was a faulty path. A great idea that just wouldn't work in the real world.<br /><br />Not that SSTO might not be in everyones garage in two hundred years, it just can't be done now. One thing to remember the X-33 was not planned to come anywhere close to orbit. That would have been the next step, the big problem there were always a lot of next steps. I think the true word is Pork though.<br /><br />TSTO makes the best sense. If you add an aerodynamic cover to the ARES-5, or a similar vehicle, and add turbojet engines to offset the weight, of the fly-back structural requirements and SRB return weight, you could easily put Ares-5 or higher weights into LEO.<br /><br /> All engines to 50,000 feet, solids to 200,000 and rockets to 80 miles. The Second stage separates and continues to orbit, the first stage makes a low stress re-entry and glides to 25,000 feet where the turbojets are started. <br /><br />After landing the spent propellant cannisters from the SRB's would be replaced, and the vehicle placed on the launch platform. Attaching a new Second Stage as well as rocket propellant and engine fuel loading would be done at the launch pad. <div class="Discussion_UserSignature"> </div>

 

[jimfromnsf]

"Poster: shuttle_guy<br />Subject: Re: Ares I in political trouble? <br /><br />"From what I understand NASA's sole reason for wanting the Ares I rocket is just so that they retain in-house ownership of a LEO-access capability ie. no ultimate dependency on private industry." <br /><br />Not true. The Delta IV or Atlas V can not perform the mission of the Ares I. Also NASA certainly can not depend on a commercial LEO capability being ready in time. "<br /><br />That is completely untrue. <br /><br />Derivatives of Atlas and Delta could be fielded quicker than Ares I that could meet Orion requirements.<br /><br />They were good enough for OSP.<br /><br />Orion is over built for the ISS so a "smaller" Orion could be launched by current Atlas and Delta.<br /><br />Manrating mods are minor

 

[jimfromnsf]

"And I still wonder how much the X-33's cancellation was politically motivated. I wonder if it would have been cancelled had Gore become president. "<br /><br />It couldn't work, so it diodn't matter who is prez

 

[holmec]

<blockquote><font class="small">In reply to:</font><hr /><p>Reality is not comporting with your theory. The huge costs of the clean sheet design rockets NASA is developing is endangering the prospects of the entire manned space exploration program. <p><hr /></p></p></blockquote><br /><br />Sorry its not theory, its practical fact in any project. Its much harder to make an interfacing system than it is to make your systems one at a time as they connect. No this is not theory, I wish it was. <br /><br />If you ever managed a semi complex to complex project you would not what I mean. I can't think of any project more complex than making new space craft and launchers for NASA. <div class="Discussion_UserSignature"> <p> </p><p><font color="#0000ff"><em>"SCE to AUX" - John Aaron, curiosity pays off</em></font></p> </div>

 

[holmec]

<blockquote><font class="small">In reply to:</font><hr /><p>That is a gross oversimplificatin of the issue of crew size. What matters is the cost per man/hour on the moon. If a smaller crewed spacecraft permits more man hours on the moon for the same total budget than a larger spacecraft, than the smaller spacecraft is superior. It doesn't matter if the crew is half the size if you can afford to send more than twice the number of missions because of the smaller crew size. <p><hr /></p></p></blockquote><br /><br />Then let me be gross about it: Your production goes up and your safety factor goes up thus your chance of success goes up.<br /><br />With your thinking we might as well send one. But what's the point then? <div class="Discussion_UserSignature"> <p> </p><p><font color="#0000ff"><em>"SCE to AUX" - John Aaron, curiosity pays off</em></font></p> </div>

 

[holmec]

<blockquote><font class="small">In reply to:</font><hr /><p>They were good enough for OSP.<p><hr /></p></p></blockquote><br /><br />I thought OSP was just for Earth Orbit and not for moon or mars while the Orion is. That makes a big difference. <div class="Discussion_UserSignature"> <p> </p><p><font color="#0000ff"><em>"SCE to AUX" - John Aaron, curiosity pays off</em></font></p> </div>

 

[subzero788]

In regards to the crew size, I don't really see the point of a lunar crew smaller than 4. As someone said earlier, 3 is illogical and 2 would just be repeating Apollo. For the sorts of tasks NASA want to do on the moon (ie. establish a base) you really need the extra man power and I'm sure that sending two missions with 2 astronauts each is going to be more complicated than the single one with 4 crew.

 

[thereiwas]

Establish a base for what purpose? Until that is agreed upon we really have no idea how many people it would take.