Ares I is a terrible idea...

[astronaut23]

The only reason for it is to keep the people out in Utah in business making solid rocket motors. How many rockets do you see that the upper stage is bigger in diameter than the bottom stage. There is a reason that most any other rocket has a bottom stage that is the same diameter or bigger diameter than the upper stages. Its like trying to balance something on top of a pencil.

Also all the work going in to figure out how to seperate an upper stage when the bottom stage still has residual thrust. If you have a liquid engine you don't have to worry about that residual thrust. Also the capsules launch escape tower has to be able to pull it away from a booster that is still burning or as I read the Air Force report said a SRB blowing up early in flight would probably sear holes in the parachutes making a catastrophe.

All this idiotic nonsense just to keep the people out in Utah happy making solid rocket motors.

I admit the flight of 1-X was pretty interesting to watch. I'm just glad it got off the pad and went out over the water and didn't hit Atlantis over on Pad A.

Seriously though, look at the money thats already been spent on this thing. And they say it will take about 30 billion more to complete. Ares 1 is a waste of time and money. By the tme this thing flys the space station program will be about over with.

If they want something to fly Orion on the best thing would be to man-rate the Delta-IV heavy.

Having 10 years of not being able to fly oure astronauts into space is beyond sad and pathetic. They should manrate one of the rockets we already have in existence for fund COTS-D and get Musk's Dragon capsules going up with crew.

 

[MeteorWayne]

This belongs in Space Business and Technology, not Missions and Launches...

 

[its_amazing]

Also all the work going in to figure out how to separate an upper stage when the bottom stage still has residual thrust.

Not really sure what you mean by this. The FS has the BSM's and the US will have the ullage motors to push each other further away. What you saw in the I-X launch is far from the actual planned separation of Ares-I, since the US did not contain any control system. There will always be some sort of analysis work being done on many parts, that goes for any vehicle.

Also the capsules launch escape tower has to be able to pull it away from a booster that is still burning or as I read the Air Force report said a SRB blowing up early in flight would probably sear holes in the parachutes making a catastrophe.

Since that was leaked out, it has been shown that the comparison the USAF did is not actually the case. There have been many discussion about this throughout NASA centers as well as further briefings to the Whitehouse. There are LAS tests planned to further confirm that is not as severe of an issue as speculated.

Having 10 years of not being able to fly our astronauts into space is beyond sad and pathetic.

Where are you getting 10 years from?

There is no point in arguing man-rating, commercial, or any other variation. The current direction is to continue working on Cx and still fund a small amount to COST-D on the side. Anything beyond that is pure opinion and/or speculation.

 

[samkent]

As to the wider payload diameter.
All rockets are a balancing act. Try placing a tennis ball on a stick. It’s easier to balance with it than without. Plus they were using shuttle SRBs which are narrower than flight SRBs. It looked worse than it will.

As to the separation issue.
This was not a test of anything above the booster. They didn’t care.

As to the other things… What he said, sums it up.

All of the known issues have been addressed and seem to have a resolution.
Now what about the unknown issues about man rating one of the other boosters? Since you don’t know what they are then you don’t know how much it will cost. Or how long it will take.

It’s easy to say “ The next cake I bake will look and taste better.”. I can’t help but wonder how much more Spacex is going to cost since their first estimate.

 

[mj1]

I don't even know why NASA is still wasting time and money on LEO rocket boosters. They need to get completely out of that business. Let SpaceX and others handle ferrying stuff into LEO. They do it cheaper and are way ahead of them anyways with state of the art rockets. NASA has been there and done that. To me the next frontier for NASA should be manned exploration of the solar system and beyond. I think that NASA should stop what they are doing with the whole Constellation project. It is basically a rehash of Apollo. Given time, I think that private companies will be able to provide rockets and spaceships for lunar exploration anyway. A more ambitious goal would be for NASA to design and build a manned deep space probe that would be able to explore and eventually colonize the solar system. A ship like this would be built in space and launched from orbit or perhaps from a Lagrange point. They can work with the private launch companies to deliver men and building materials to LEO so that they can concentrate on the design and building of the spacecraft(s). It may take 20-30 years to get it done, perhaps even longer than that. The people who would actually go on the mission may not even be born yet. Something like this makes more sense as a long term goal than the way they are going.

 

[samkent]

We have been down this road before, check the search function.

Basically there is no public will to spend the vast sums of money needed.

The way the public sees it is.

If we bail out the banks, we still have our jobs.
If we build new roads, we get smoother rides.
If we increase heath care, we can sleep better in our old age.

If we send men to Mars, we get pictures.

Space is a tough sell to the public at large.

 

[DarkenedOne]

We have been down this road before, check the search function.

Basically there is no public will to spend the vast sums of money needed.

The way the public sees it is.

If we bail out the banks, we still have our jobs.
If we build new roads, we get smoother rides.
If we increase heath care, we can sleep better in our old age.

If we send men to Mars, we get pictures.

Space is a tough sell to the public at large.

First of all striping NASA of the measly 5-10 billion it spends of HSF is not going to do anything for anybody. That comes up to about $20 -30 per year.

Second of all, if the future of the human race really is in space as many people believe it is than people are going to have to developcheaper ways to conduct our business there. NASA cannot continue with business as usual if it hopes to really get anywhere with human sspace flight. Instead NASA needs to develop technologies that will make space cheaper. Nasa should leave LEO to these companies because eventually buying services from them will be cheaper than developing your own infrastructure.

 

[DarkenedOne]

I don't even know why NASA is still wasting time and money on LEO rocket boosters. They need to get completely out of that business. Let SpaceX and others handle ferrying stuff into LEO. They do it cheaper and are way ahead of them anyways with state of the art rockets. NASA has been there and done that. To me the next frontier for NASA should be manned exploration of the solar system and beyond. I think that NASA should stop what they are doing with the whole Constellation project. It is basically a rehash of Apollo. Given time, I think that private companies will be able to provide rockets and spaceships for lunar exploration anyway. A more ambitious goal would be for NASA to design and build a manned deep space probe that would be able to explore and eventually colonize the solar system. A ship like this would be built in space and launched from orbit or perhaps from a Lagrange point. They can work with the private launch companies to deliver men and building materials to LEO so that they can concentrate on the design and building of the spacecraft(s). It may take 20-30 years to get it done, perhaps even longer than that. The people who would actually go on the mission may not even be born yet. Something like this makes more sense as a long term goal than the way they are going.

I agree completely.

 

[Gravity_Ray]

Rant on...

With all due respect I disagree with both of you.
The Constellation program is not a LEO (Low Earth Orbit) ship. The space shuttle is a LEO ship. The constellation program is indeed what your talking about below. A ship that can get people off Earth and to the Moon, Mars and asteriods (and also various lagrange points). How do you expect a ship to be built in space later on? You gotta get people there to do that. The shuttle can not do that.

On the question of COTS, I am a huge supporter, but until I see somebody launch something that can just take cargo up regularly (never mind people), Im not impressed.

Also Im tired of people saying Constellation is basically a better Apollo... So what? Apollo program was an awesome program, why wouldnt you want to follow on a proven foot path? Why re-invent the wheel? If speed is needed then you must follow Apollo.

OK Rant off...

I don't even know why NASA is still wasting time and money on LEO rocket boosters. They need to get completely out of that business. Let SpaceX and others handle ferrying stuff into LEO. They do it cheaper and are way ahead of them anyways with state of the art rockets. NASA has been there and done that. To me the next frontier for NASA should be manned exploration of the solar system and beyond. I think that NASA should stop what they are doing with the whole Constellation project. It is basically a rehash of Apollo. Given time, I think that private companies will be able to provide rockets and spaceships for lunar exploration anyway. A more ambitious goal would be for NASA to design and build a manned deep space probe that would be able to explore and eventually colonize the solar system. A ship like this would be built in space and launched from orbit or perhaps from a Lagrange point. They can work with the private launch companies to deliver men and building materials to LEO so that they can concentrate on the design and building of the spacecraft(s). It may take 20-30 years to get it done, perhaps even longer than that. The people who would actually go on the mission may not even be born yet. Something like this makes more sense as a long term goal than the way they are going.

I agree completely.

 

[samkent]

First of all striping NASA of the measly 5-10 billion it spends of HSF is not going to do anything for anybody. That comes up to about $20 -30 per year.

12% of the US population is over 65 and can’t be taxed.
25% of the US population in under the age of 18 and can’t taxed.
10% of the US population can’t find a job and pay no taxes.

That leaves 53% footing the bill. Pick a family in your neighborhood with 2 adults and 2 kids. Ask them if they would be willing to pay an additional $130 per year to see pictures of men walking around on Mars. This is the problem facing the space program.

We all have our favorite pet social program. But the squeaky wheel gets the grease. Right now space is not squeaking.

Now if one of the robots find proof of life out there it would be a game changer.

 

[its_amazing]

"Senior House and Senate members approved a 2010 Omnibus Appropriations Bill that gives NASA $1.5 billion for work on the Ares I crew rocket and the Ares V heavy-lift rocket."

"The approval signals commitment on Capitol Hill to building new rockets for NASA, and the space program in general, after almost a year of drift"

http://www.al.com/news/huntsvilletimes/local.ssf?/base/news/1260440158203840.xml&coll=1

 

[Swampcat]

Rant on...

With all due respect I disagree with both of you.
The Constellation program is not a LEO (Low Earth Orbit) ship. The space shuttle is a LEO ship. The constellation program is indeed what your talking about below. A ship that can get people off Earth and to the Moon, Mars and asteriods (and also various lagrange points). How do you expect a ship to be built in space later on? You gotta get people there to do that. The shuttle can not do that.

*Rant Pause*

Constellation is far too limited in vision and unsupportable in the long run. Government cannot afford, for all sorts of good reasons, to provide the long term growth that could come from planting private enterprise more firmly in the picture. It's got to happen sometime or I'm afraid we're in for a period of very limited US HSF.

As far as the ship is concerned, I think any rational person would consider the construction of a Battlestar Galactica type Intergalactic warship to be a rather fruitless goal at this point in time . I'd consider something a little more modest, something similar to the ISS, but built with modules manufactured by various private companies and lifted by currently available, or soon to become available, LVs. It would be kind of like ISS on steroids. Better propulsion designed solely for in-space use, suitable for long term habitability (I mean, like years)...basically a testbed for an interplanetary spaceship that could travel around and explore the Solar System. It's a bit more than two Orions kissing , but doable and of more lasting value than building a brand new family of LVs that isn't necessary.

Though most of the tools are already available for the job, providing R&D, and possibly some direction to private enterprise, is exactly the kind of thing NASA should be doing if their purpose is to advance our capability to explore and exploit space.

*Rant Continue*

Also Im tired of people saying Constellation is basically a better Apollo... So what? Apollo program was an awesome program, why wouldnt you want to follow on a proven foot path? Why re-invent the wheel? If speed is needed then you must follow Apollo.

OK Rant off...

Constellation is indeed better than Apollo in many respects. I wouldn't question that a bit. The problem I have with it is that it sees our future in space as very limited in scope. If I didn't think so much of the fine people who make the decisions on this stuff , I might imagine that they see space exploration only in terms of the scientific value that can be gleaned from it and maybe a little of how it puts groceries on the table. That's fine for those in the industries that support all of this and a few humans would continue to go to space, status quo, for however long you maintain that attitude or a major change occurs.

In trying to continue the Apollo Legacy, TPTB chose to market Constellation as Apollo on Steroids, then proceeded to remodel everything, except perhaps the shape of the capsule. Comparing the histories of Constellation vs Apollo is, IMO, like comparing apples to oranges in terms of the time lines, hardware and cost.

"Why re-invent the wheel", indeed! Do we really need a cis-Lunar, and maybe-with-some-improvements a Mars Exploration Craft, when that need for speed you mentioned cries out for something a little more modest for LEO and back?

The whole Moon Base thing is another ISS-sized budget killer. Do the Moon Base and ISS and it's kin will go away. Fund a crewed Mars Mission and the Moon Base will run out of funding. The current approach gives neither lasting value to the tax payers nor work out so well for the average space cadet.

Let's try something different.

 

[samkent]

It’s the ‘value to tax payers’ part that’s holding everything up.

The average tax payer doesn’t see any value in what’s been going on or should I say going up.

For many years the administration(s) have been throwing just enough bread crumbs Nasa’s way to retain talent. I don’t see this changing anytime soon.

 

[Swampcat]

It’s the ‘value to tax payers’ part that’s holding everything up.

The average tax payer doesn’t see any value in what’s been going on or should I say going up.

The average tax payer sees a total of $13.64 billion dollars (2010 Budget for HSF) and thinks that's a considerable sum of money. Those in the know, so to speak, say this is a small percentage of the total US Budget. Fair enough and I don't disagree with that thinking. But right now, that $13.64 billion doesn't seem to be getting us anywhere and its fair to question why that is so.

For many years the administration(s) have been throwing just enough bread crumbs Nasa’s way to retain talent. I don’t see this changing anytime soon.

And I hate to say it, but it seems the people at NASA, in general, are content with that arrangement, irregardless of the bigger picture. Retaining talent is a valid argument for NASA's existence, but it's not enough. That talent must be directed and managed to do something useful with the resources at their disposal. Therein lies the rub.

 

[moonfie]

Rant on...

With all due respect I disagree with both of you.
The Constellation program is not a LEO (Low Earth Orbit) ship. The space shuttle is a LEO ship. The constellation program is indeed what your talking about below. A ship that can get people off Earth and to the Moon, Mars and asteriods (and also various lagrange points). How do you expect a ship to be built in space later on? You gotta get people there to do that. The shuttle can not do that.

On the question of COTS, I am a huge supporter, but until I see somebody launch something that can just take cargo up regularly (never mind people), Im not impressed.

Also Im tired of people saying Constellation is basically a better Apollo... So what? Apollo program was an awesome program, why wouldnt you want to follow on a proven foot path? Why re-invent the wheel? If speed is needed then you must follow Apollo.

OK Rant off...

Thank you! I quite agree. Over the past six or so years since Constellation was announced I've often found it extremely baffling how so many people think that just because we've already been to the moon that somehow means it's not worth going back. I've been to Hawaii before, that doesn't mean I wouldn't like to return one day .

What people seem to forget (or maybe just not realize) is that the Apollo program was canceled early, and that there's still a lot of lunar science and exploration that hasn't been done. Heck, out of the six Apollo crews that actually landed on the moon, only one of them actually included a scientist. As much as I greatly admire Dr. Schmidt, I don't think he could have possibly done all the lunar science there is to do during one short mission . The moon has potential resources, too, such as helium-3 which might have nuclear energy applications.

Really, I've never considered a return to the moon to be repeating what's already been done; rather, I've always considered it to be finishing what was started.

 

[Swampcat]

Really, I've never considered a return to the moon to be repeating what's already been done; rather, I've always considered it to be finishing what was started.

There's no question that the Moon needs further exploration. Now, show me the money.

Better yet, explain how it can be done with the resources available to NASA. I'm all ears. :|

Also, explain how we build a Moon Base, run an ISS and put together a Crewed Mars Exploration Program with those same resources. I don't see how it can be realistically accomplished any time soon without a different way of looking at the situation and the deep involvement of private industry and international partners.

 

[samkent]

Really, I've never considered a return to the moon to be repeating what's already been done; rather, I've always considered it to be finishing what was started.

With the money being allocated a repeat is about all we will get. I don’t most people really believe we will get the lunar base.

Dollars spent vs science returned. How much Earth bound science can you get for the same money as 3-4 boot on the Moon missions. Just because we haven’t turned over every rock up there, doesn’t mean we need to. We have only been to the Mariana Trench once with people. An augment can be made that we need to explore every part of the planet first. You are going to have to find proof of life out there before you are going to have a major effort. Looking at rocks just ain’t going to do it.

 

[moonfie]

I suppose you're right, but I still think meaningful exploration can be done without the existence of a permanent base. Does anyone have the rough numbers on how many shuttle missions you could pay for with the cost of one moon mission?

 

[ice9]

I would willingly pay a 1% national sales tax to fund NASA and i believe with a decent publicity campaign it could be sold to the public.

Or how about adding a check-box to your Federal tax return to contribute to NASA as they do for the Presidential Campaign.

 

[DarkenedOne]

Thank you! I quite agree. Over the past six or so years since Constellation was announced I've often found it extremely baffling how so many people think that just because we've already been to the moon that somehow means it's not worth going back. I've been to Hawaii before, that doesn't mean I wouldn't like to return one day .

What people seem to forget (or maybe just not realize) is that the Apollo program was canceled early, and that there's still a lot of lunar science and exploration that hasn't been done. Heck, out of the six Apollo crews that actually landed on the moon, only one of them actually included a scientist. As much as I greatly admire Dr. Schmidt, I don't think he could have possibly done all the lunar science there is to do during one short mission . The moon has potential resources, too, such as helium-3 which might have nuclear energy applications.

Really, I've never considered a return to the moon to be repeating what's already been done; rather, I've always considered it to be finishing what was started.

Yes the Apollo program was cancelled early. That is the problem. Nasa is great at solving technical challenges, but they are terrible at solving economic ones. Yes they were able to go to the moon, and it cost them an enormous amount of money. Back then space exploration was more about beating the Soviets than it was about exploration. And then we have the shuttle era and the ISS which both cost far more than they were advertised. And in the end what happens? THey get thrown away.

Take the Hubble telescope for example. No one questions that it was worth the 10 billion that was spent on it. So we end up building bigger and better ones.

Same thing with the Mars rover. No one question that it was worth the 1 billion it costs. So we end up building another. Thus there is a progression of technology and infrastructure. It is like cars. Each generation is followed by a new better one.

Constellation is going to end up being the same thing as the shuttle and apollo. People including me are sick of all the 100s of billions that are spent on building this infrastructure and technology that is discarded after only 10-15 years. There is no progression to better and better spacecraft.

 

[kelvinzero]

I suppose you're right, but I still think meaningful exploration can be done without the existence of a permanent base. Does anyone have the rough numbers on how many shuttle missions you could pay for with the cost of one moon mission?

I dont see a permanent base as a way to enable exploration but a purpose in of itself, to learn how to live without all the freebees this planet gives us.

The difference between shuttle missions and moon missions is that whatever we land on the moon stays there, and there are resources to learn how to exploit. Everything we put into LEO, we also let fall down again the moment it isnt state of the art any more and the only resources to exploit are sunlight and microgravity.

This doesnt mean I wish to defend constellation though. A permanent base was mentioned but really they just seemed to be juggling around several rationales for building the same rockets. We should start with the goal of colonizing space and figure out our steps from there.

If constellation were reduced to mere sorties they serve almost no point but to expend rockets and do a little science to fill books on coffee tables. I would far prefer those billions spent on developing the ISRU technology that will let us live on other worlds and also solve the problems of how to live on this one.

 

[MeteorWayne]

Darkened One :

You wrote:
"Same thing with the Mars rover. No one question that it was worth the 1 billion it costs. So we end up building another. Thus there is a progression of technology and infrastructure. It is like cars. Each generation is followed by a new better one. "

Just to correct your numbers. The first rover cost about 450 million (on the high side) and the second about 200 million, so the combined cost, even with the 5 year vs 90 day extended missions for both is less than a billion combined...

Also, Spirit and Oppurtunity were built at the same time, since they launched and landed less than a month apart from each other...

 

[Gravity_Ray]

Darkened One :

Also, Spirit and Oppurtunity were built at the same time, since they launched and landed less than a month apart from each other...

When he said another one built I thought he was talking about the new rover Mars Science Lab, not the second MER...

I remember the discussions from the late 70s (I still remember the pictures from the OMNI magazine so well, there was no internet then LOL), and they went something like this. We either build a space station or a space ship... We decided to build a space station because of the visions of Wernher Von Braun type space stations showed us that they could be launching points into deep space. To build a station we needed the capability to move large objects into orbit so the space shuttle was built. Now we understand that you dont need space stations to do deep space missions (they help but are not necessary).

Now we asked the same questions, but this time the answer was we want a space ship. But you dont build a generic space ship and go tooling around our solar system. You have to build mission specific ships (like going to the Moon and comming back). So if our new mission is the Moon the Ares program will work simply because it has worked before in the form of Apollo.

Nobody including me is stating that the Ares program is or can be the best program, just that for now you need a capsule to get to the moon (as it now appears to be a very good target due to new findings of water). So here is Ares. Ares is not really made for the ISS LEO duties (it can do them... efficiently? No. But it can do them while ISS lasts). I am sure that once Ares is built it will be used to move our knowledge forward and eventually be scraped. Thats just the way of exploring space (it’s expensive and time consuming). If you ask the question what should be cut out of funding to pay for Moon, I’d say the ISS, and the Shuttle.

I never meant to imply that constellation program will be the best that can be, just that its the best way right now to get out to deep space and explore and move forward. If others have better ideas, I don’t think anybody in NASA will ignore them.

 

[mj1]

In trying to continue the Apollo Legacy, TPTB chose to market Constellation as Apollo on Steroids, then proceeded to remodel everything, except perhaps the shape of the capsule. Comparing the histories of Constellation vs Apollo is, IMO, like comparing apples to oranges in terms of the time lines, hardware and cost.

"Why re-invent the wheel", indeed! Do we really need a cis-Lunar, and maybe-with-some-improvements a Mars Exploration Craft, when that need for speed you mentioned cries out for something a little more modest for LEO and back?

The whole Moon Base thing is another ISS-sized budget killer. Do the Moon Base and ISS and it's kin will go away. Fund a crewed Mars Mission and the Moon Base will run out of funding. The current approach gives neither lasting value to the tax payers nor work out so well for the average space cadet.

Let's try something different.

I so agree. Besides, here we all are talking about stuff that we KNOW that NASA does not have the money nor the nimbleness to do, like it or not. That is why I say reel all of this crap in and begin planning long term. In a really short time, like a year or two at the most, private companies will be in a position to corner the sending material to space market anyways. I say, let them have it. In fact, NASA should be helping them where it can. NASA really needs to turn its focus to solving the issues of actual people traveling to and surviving in deep space. That is something those great minds could really do well. Instead of rushing forward with the boondoggle Consellation program, which will eventually be cancelled anyway, NASA should come up with a cheaper, long term plan, say 30-40 years down the road to build ships that will actually explore the solar system. Something like that could be the springboard to mankind's real future in space.

 

[Gravity_Ray]

mj1 with a presidential election every 4 years and the congressional elections staggered every 2 years, NASA will Never Ever (note the vehemence), be able to make a 30 year plan. That will never happen.

Lets just accept that all NASA plans will change every 4 years, or possibly every 8 years.