Ares I is a terrible idea...

[Swampcat]

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.

Ray, I would never question NASA's ability to perform its mission as long as the budget supported it. The budget does not support it. Cold truth. We probably aren't going back to the Moon any time soon. The bucks are just not there. Apollo was expensive. To do right, Constellation will be even more expensive. We can't afford Apollo on Steroids.

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 get the impression that you are confusing the Ares launch vehicles with Orion, the crewed spacecraft. At any rate, my guess is that at least part of the Ares family will end up being NASA's new HLV, in one form or another and Orion may very well ride on that vehicle at some point.

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.

I think others with other ideas have been getting the ear of TPTB.

 

[DarkenedOne]

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.

While I think this idea that you can conduct space exploration without ever establishing any permanent space infrastructure is a popular idea right now especially after the financial failure of the ISS, if you think about it realisticly it is simply impossible. Exploring the universe while having no permanent infrastructure on earth is like exploring the world from my backyard. It cannot be done realistically for one good reasons.

Shipping costs. - It costs $10000 per kilogram on average for shipping into LEO. It takes about a factor of 10 more than that to ship to the moon. It probably is going to cost much more than that in order ship to mars. As you travel farther and farther away from the earth the more it costs, and the less exploration and scienctific work can be reasonably done.

Permanent infractructure radicially reduces the amount of shipping required because much of the equipment and infractructure is simply used over and over. Probably even more important than that is the fact that you can also use such an infractructure to gather, refine, and store necessary materials. Like on the moon there a great deal of oxygen. Which can be used in propulsion, rocket fuel.

The problem NASA has with permanent infractructure is the same problem NASA in practically all of HSF. NASA can get to the moon and build a permanent if you give them enough money. Can they do it for a price that is worth while? Not if they continue business as usual. I suspect that Constellation will turn out just like apollo did.

 

[DarkenedOne]

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.

First of all I have not seen any evidence that a generic space ship cannot be built. There is nothing in what I understand from physics that says it cannot be built. In fact a generic space ship is fairly similar to space stations. The only real difference between a space station and a space craft is that one is built for just station keeping and the other is built to travel. People have proposed a number of different space ship solutions. Space tugs would be one.

Secondly my problem is with these single purpose spacecraft in general. It is one thing to build one for less than a few billion dollars like most of the scientific missions. It is another to do it with hundreds of billions. One good reason for this is what we saw with the ISS. Problem is that if something goes wrong you are in a bind. The ISS and the shuttle tied up a huge amount of the resources of NASA for decades and sucked up all funds to do other things.

Thirdly one of the greatest leasons from Apollo has to be in sustainability. People were so inspired by apollo. So many people believed that this was the new begin for humanity. That it was the beginning of the space age. And then we took all of the infractructure including the rockets, the personal, the spacecraft, the landers, and we trash them. So after all that time money and hard work we are left only with the scientific knowledge that we gained and pictures like that guy said before. After all that money and hard work we are back to square one. Now we are going it again with the shuttle and the ISS. Once again after decades of hard work and hundreds of billions of dollars we are going back to where we were before the shuttle and the ISS. With no space stations and no HSF. I would rather NASA invest its time in money in something like space ships that can be used for a variety of future missions including the moon, mars, asteriods, and etc., than put its money in a vehicle and an infrastructure that it plans on discarding in a decade or so.

 

[Sherwood]

Don't mean to derail the thread, I saw a link here on Twitter and thought you guys might appreciate this. Not long after the launch of the 1-X I read this piece by a Rocket Scientist who writes for Knovel (I used them in school, not anymore though, learned that engineering wasn't for me)


http://knovelblogs.com/2009/10/craig-rocket-scientist-ben-affleck-ares-1x/

 

[moonfie]

That's a pretty informative article, and somewhat amusing as well. I guess in the end I'm not really sure how to feel about the Ares/Constellation/Orion program because what I really want is for humanity to return to the moon, very very badly. Of course I'd like a permanent moon base but any lunar missions are better than nothing. I've been defending the program in this thread due to the fact that I really, really want it to happen.

However, wanting it to happen and actually thinking it will happen are, unfortunately, two very different things. It isn't necessarily NASA that I lack faith in, but more the US government as a whole. Like Gravity_Ray said, four years between presidential elections and two between congressional and all the turnover in philosophy and policy that comes with it simply doesn't leave a lot of time for anything to get done. Actually, I believe that this was written in the constitution for just that reason -- the original Americans didn't want the government to be able to do much. But when it comes to space exploration, it's quite frustrating.

That's why, at the moment, I'm rooting for private industry. While they might have fewer sources of funding than a government agency, they have more freedom on how to use the money they do have. Although I haven't heard much (or anything, really) about private interest in the moon, I can only hope that if space tourism becomes profitable, perhaps in the next few decades companies like SpaceX and Virgin Galactic will think about the benefits of a lunar hotel. Or at least, one can dream, anyway

 

[vulture4]

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.

How can we possibly commit ourselves to a $150 billion program when there has as yet been no serious discussion of its strategic objectives? What practical benefits will Constellation bring to America? A new space race with China? This isn't the 60's. China is as capitalist as we are and our largest trading partner, and the cost of Constellation will be borrowed from China. Lunar science? Planetary scientists haven't considered the moon a priority in decades, and any lunar science could be done less expensively with robotics. Helium-3? Even if it were usable for fusion, it can easily be manufactured from the decay of tritium. Tourism or simply a permanent lunar base? That requires low-cost human spaceflight, and all the NASA research on reusable launch vehicles has been canceled.

For LEO, Constellation is a very poor Shuttle. We are about to abandon our only working system for human spaceflight just when it is working well, and replace it with a vehicle that is inferior in crew size (4 vs 7), flight rate (2/yr in 5 years vs 5-6 per year now), cargo capacity (~500lb vs 22,000lb to ISS) and even cost.

Even Apollo was canceled (by Nixon) because it was too expensive and, once we had landed once, didn't have any geopolitical benefits. America is heavily in debt. We need new technology that will improve exports and restore manufacturing. We need competitive commercial launch services, competitive aircraft, competitive manufacturing, nonpolluting energy and better and less expensive health care. A researcher at a NASA center has discovered the probable cause of Alzheimer's disease. Does it make sense to give him $100K to prove his theory, when it might save untold lives? Yet there is almost no money for new research.

Today every dollar in the NASA budget must provide practical benefits for America. That means we must seriously ask if we are on the right track. I welcome those who support the current direction to join in the debate.

 

[neutrino78x]

It isn't necessarily NASA that I lack faith in, but more the US government as a whole. Like Gravity_Ray said, four years between presidential elections and two between congressional and all the turnover in philosophy and policy that comes with it simply doesn't leave a lot of time for anything to get done. Actually, I believe that this was written in the constitution for just that reason -- the original Americans didn't want the government to be able to do much. But when it comes to space exploration, it's quite frustrating.

Well, private industry and the government have two different roles in space, in my opinion. I've said my view on it several times in this forum, but basically, I think that NASA is the space equivalent of the Navy, or perhaps the Coast Guard. Most vessels in the sea are not Navy or Coast Guard, but there are Navy vessels. Things like the Dragon capsule are the space equivalent of Merchant Vessels.

So, if we were to colonize Mars, NASA ships would have the role of Lewis and Clark, the Army officers who explored the Louisiana Purchase and other new American land holdings. They were the initial explorers, but they are not the ones who settled there. Private actors settled the land. The government -- the Army -- provided the law and order.

That's what I see NASA's role as in future colonization.

--Brian

 

[neutrino78x]

How can we possibly commit ourselves to a $150 billion program when there has as yet been no serious discussion of its strategic objectives?

Well there was the Augustine Commission.

What practical benefits will Constellation bring to America?

Jobs, scientific knowledge, economic expansion, etc.

China is as capitalist as we are

They are a communist dictatorship, and if they control space, space will not be free, as in freedom.

and our largest trading partner, and the cost of Constellation will be borrowed from China. Lunar science? Planetary scientists haven't considered the moon a priority in decades, and any lunar science could be done less expensively with robotics.

True, that is why I see Mars as the target for colonization.

The Moon is best used as a place to stage telescopes, on the far side, especially radio telescopes, but also infrared.

--Brian

 

[its_amazing]

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.

How can we possibly commit ourselves to a $150 billion program when there has as yet been no serious discussion of its strategic objectives? What practical benefits will Constellation bring to America? A new space race with China? This isn't the 60's. China is as capitalist as we are and our largest trading partner, and the cost of Constellation will be borrowed from China. Lunar science? Planetary scientists haven't considered the moon a priority in decades, and any lunar science could be done less expensively with robotics. Helium-3? Even if it were usable for fusion, it can easily be manufactured from the decay of tritium. Tourism or simply a permanent lunar base? That requires low-cost human spaceflight, and all the NASA research on reusable launch vehicles has been canceled.

For LEO, Constellation is a very poor Shuttle. We are about to abandon our only working system for human spaceflight just when it is working well, and replace it with a vehicle that is inferior in crew size (4 vs 7), flight rate (2/yr in 5 years vs 5-6 per year now), cargo capacity (~500lb vs 22,000lb to ISS) and even cost.

Even Apollo was canceled (by Nixon) because it was too expensive and, once we had landed once, didn't have any geopolitical benefits. America is heavily in debt. We need new technology that will improve exports and restore manufacturing. We need competitive commercial launch services, competitive aircraft, competitive manufacturing, nonpolluting energy and better and less expensive health care. A researcher at a NASA center has discovered the probable cause of Alzheimer's disease. Does it make sense to give him $100K to prove his theory, when it might save untold lives? Yet there is almost no money for new research.

Today every dollar in the NASA budget must provide practical benefits for America. That means we must seriously ask if we are on the right track. I welcome those who support the current direction to join in the debate.

The point of that comment is that there is no point in this discussion. We can spend days/weeks/months arguing it, but at the end of the day it is what it is; the current plan on record.

I am honestly tired of reading debate after debate between Cx and commercial. While Cx may seem like a clusterf**k to some of you, its a job to most of us. It employs thousands of people across the US with various talents and expertise. This is not just NASA, its contractors and subcontractors from many companies. From the engineer designing the screw to the contracted shop making it, it reaches far out more than just a design on paper. Let’s not also forget most of the people working on this have a far more important task to do, finishing out shuttle work. Most of Cx haters seem to ignore the notion that most of this Cx work is priority #2 at the moment below shuttle, hence why it lags at times. Working two completely different vehicles at the same time is not fun when deadlines approach.

Let's suppose we do get rid of Cx, now what? We re-contract out to a private company right? How is that any different than what we currently do? NASA will still require that company to reach the same, if not higher, standards that currently exist. They will most likely have to either hire the same people that were working Cx or subcontract it out to same companies that were working on Cx. All that would be done is a shift in money to a different location, thousands of people temporarily losing their jobs, and the people in charge of the prime private companies cashing in. All this because a claim its cheaper? What is to stop them from turning into the same companies that we have been reading about for the last few years. Every year they will ask for more money and every year more issues will come up as the design goes further in-line, just like NASA.

The amount of work required that currently goes into every launch is a ridiculous feat at times. I just don't see a private company even doing part of the analysis work that is done for every manned flight much less put up with the requirements they will have to eventually meet in the time required. There is just a lot of working going on in the background that the public just does not see.

 

[DarkenedOne]

It isn't necessarily NASA that I lack faith in, but more the US government as a whole. Like Gravity_Ray said, four years between presidential elections and two between congressional and all the turnover in philosophy and policy that comes with it simply doesn't leave a lot of time for anything to get done. Actually, I believe that this was written in the constitution for just that reason -- the original Americans didn't want the government to be able to do much. But when it comes to space exploration, it's quite frustrating.

Well, private industry and the government have two different roles in space, in my opinion. I've said my view on it several times in this forum, but basically, I think that NASA is the space equivalent of the Navy, or perhaps the Coast Guard. Most vessels in the sea are not Navy or Coast Guard, but there are Navy vessels. Things like the Dragon capsule are the space equivalent of Merchant Vessels.

So, if we were to colonize Mars, NASA ships would have the role of Lewis and Clark, the Army officers who explored the Louisiana Purchase and other new American land holdings. They were the initial explorers, but they are not the ones who settled there. Private actors settled the land. The government -- the Army -- provided the law and order.

That's what I see NASA's role as in future colonization.

--Brian

If through the history of the US it was not the government that colonized anything. Colonization was done by private entities for economic reasons. While America was discovered by a government funded enterprise, it was mainly private entities who colonized it for economic and political reasons. First you had the Pilgrims who were leaving England for religious reasons. Then you had the people who came to the new world for economic reasons. Then when the US expanded it followed the same formula. People traveled west and formed the western states in search of land and resources.

My point is no one colonizes something just for the sake of colonization, there has to be a reason for colonization, usually economic, for people to invest in such an enterprise. Then the enterprise has to provide enough jobs to lure people to the new colony. In the case of space NASA does a great deal of exploration work, but that is it. They are not looking for resources. They are not looking to develop space tourism.

It is private industry that is really looking into all of the economic possibilities for space. If anyone is going to find a reason to colonize space in a manner that is cost efficient enough to sustain it in the long run it is going to be them. Scientific research and space tourism will probably be among the first initial reasons for building a sustainable moon colony.

 

[DarkenedOne]

The point of that comment is that there is no point in this discussion. We can spend days/weeks/months arguing it, but at the end of the day it is what it is; the current plan on record.

I am honestly tired of reading debate after debate between Cx and commercial. While Cx may seem like a clusterf**k to some of you, its a job to most of us. It employs thousands of people across the US with various talents and expertise. This is not just NASA, its contractors and subcontractors from many companies. From the engineer designing the screw to the contracted shop making it, it reaches far out more than just a design on paper. Let’s not also forget most of the people working on this have a far more important task to do, finishing out shuttle work. Most of Cx haters seem to ignore the notion that most of this Cx work is priority #2 at the moment below shuttle, hence why it lags at times. Working two completely different vehicles at the same time is not fun when deadlines approach.

Let's suppose we do get rid of Cx, now what? We re-contract out to a private company right? How is that any different than what we currently do? NASA will still require that company to reach the same, if not higher, standards that currently exist. They will most likely have to either hire the same people that were working Cx or subcontract it out to same companies that were working on Cx. All that would be done is a shift in money to a different location, thousands of people temporarily losing their jobs, and the people in charge of the prime private companies cashing in. All this because a claim its cheaper? What is to stop them from turning into the same companies that we have been reading about for the last few years. Every year they will ask for more money and every year more issues will come up as the design goes further in-line, just like NASA.

The amount of work required that currently goes into every launch is a ridiculous feat at times. I just don't see a private company even doing part of the analysis work that is done for every manned flight much less put up with the requirements they will have to eventually meet in the time required. There is just a lot of working going on in the background that the public just does not see.

You have a point, however I do not believe the idea is to eliminate jobs or contractors. I do not think anyone is saying that commercial provides can do it for less money or do it better or anything like that.

I think the idea is largely to promote human space flight for applications other than NASA, and to off load much of the work on the private sector. One of the biggest reasons why HSF is so expensive compared to robotic probes is that NASA has to develop all of its own rockets and spacecraft for HSF. The only commercial provider for HSF is Russia. With satellites and robotic probes there exist a large number of commercial providers for rockets.

At the moment there are a number of companies that are investing in human space flight for both scientific work and space tourism. They are developing rockets capable of HSF with their own private money. Now the question becomes which one is cheaper, to develop a rocket yourself or just buy services from one developed by someone else.

Buying services from an emerging commercial HSF industry is seen by many as the way for NASA to have more money to explore beyond LEO.

 

[EarthlingX]

Space program should not be a social service but a technical endeavor. In a capitalistic country like America, it looks funny, not that i have anything against social programs.
To me it seams that the main reasons keeping SRBs in life are political, so at the end people will decide, same people that read about 'success' of the last Ares 1-X test.
Well, testing equipment was successfully tested, that's true.