Ares I:problems and alternatives

[ruff_house]

Well, everyone, myself included, seem desperate for a dedicated thread for this topic, so lets have at it:<br /><br />The question of the day is: is Areis I going to work, and if not, what else can we do?<br /><br />I personally am in favor of man rating a commercial launcher. If al went well, then eventually the more expensive launchers that are currently available could be swapped out and replaced with the SpaceX Falcon 9 superheavy, which thanks to Dragon (which uses the slightly smaller single-body Falcon 9), would be pretty easy to man-rate.<br /><br />What are your ideas?

 

[jimfromnsf]

Once it is on a Delta or Atlas, keep it there, no need to good to another booster

 

[thereiwas]

Unless they are much cheaper with the same capabilities.

 

[edkyle98]

<blockquote><font class="small">In reply to:</font><hr /><p><br />The question of the day is: is Ares I going to work ... <br /><p><hr /></p></p></blockquote><br />Of course it will. As long as funding holds up.<br /><br />Could it have been done another way? <br /><br />Sure. <br /><br />As long as funding held up.<br /><br /> - Ed Kyle

 

[docm]

As much as I'd love to see Orion on an Atlas the Russian engine availability issue is a huge problem, which brings us to the other thread about same. <div class="Discussion_UserSignature"> </div>

 

[holmec]

<blockquote><font class="small">In reply to:</font><hr /><p>Once it is on a Delta or Atlas, keep it there, no need to good to another booster<p><hr /></p></p></blockquote><br /><br />Delta and Atlas launch less payload than Ares I. <div class="Discussion_UserSignature"> <p> </p><p><font color="#0000ff"><em>"SCE to AUX" - John Aaron, curiosity pays off</em></font></p> </div>

 

[j05h]

<i>> Delta and Atlas launch less payload than Ares I.</i><br /><br />Well, viewgraph rockets have infinite capabilities. Delta and Atlas actually exist, hence they have "lower" payloads.<br /><br />Josh <div class="Discussion_UserSignature"> <div align="center"><em>We need a first generation of pioneers.</em><br /></div> </div>

 

[ctrlaltdel]

There are lots of engineering alternatives to Ares I, but there is no realistic alternative to Ares I and to say otherwise is to ignore the political reality: No rocket will get funding from congress let alone leave the ground if you make the srb workforce redundant - NASA needs all the political muscle it can get and that includes getting the senator (or is that congressman? - dunno i'm from the uk) from Utah on their side. Also don't forget that even though EELV's exist, they would still have to undergo a lot of changes to the launch vehicles and its infrastructure which will cost time and money. They will also inevitably come with engineering issues of their own as all complex engineering projects do.<br />I, like many here, am not thrilled with the wafer thin margins of Ares I. But as I understand it, Ares I can currently fulfill the ISS role and just barely do the Moon mission. As Orion gets lighter I expect that margin to increase. It's not ideal, but it's the political and engineering compromise that we have.

 

[jimfromnsf]

"Also don't forget that even though EELV's exist, they would still have to undergo a lot of changes to the launch vehicles and its infrastructure which will cost time and money. "<br /><br />It is not "a lot of changes" Just some health monitoring systems, some more analysis and a crew access tower

 

[ctrlaltdel]

They would have to create an interface between the rocket and the spacecraft. They would presumably do more wind tunnel work. Load bearing analysis. The crew access tower would have to include some sort of escape system, and if you were to go down the EELV route with Atlas then LM's prefered solution would be to do their 'phase 2' concept in order to keep the LOM/LOC numbers down- this is a nothing short of completely re-engineering atlas 5 technology into a new launch vehicle. Delta 4 heavy is a complex launch vehicle that has been described by a Boeing engineer as launching 3 rockets at the same time. Ares I by comparison has just two engines in it.

 

[PistolPete]

<blockquote><font class="small">In reply to:</font><hr /><p>They would have to create an interface between the rocket and the spacecraft.<p><hr /></p></p></blockquote><br />NASA's going to have to create an interface between Orion and Ares I anyway.<br /><blockquote><font class="small">In reply to:</font><hr /><p>They would presumably do more wind tunnel work. Load bearing analysis. <p><hr /></p></p></blockquote><br />NASA's going to have to do that for Ares I as well.<br /><blockquote><font class="small">In reply to:</font><hr /><p>The crew access tower would have to include some sort of escape system<p><hr /></p></p></blockquote><br />NASA's going to have to build a new crew escape system for Orion/Ares I as well.<br /><blockquote><font class="small">In reply to:</font><hr /><p>Delta 4 heavy is a complex launch vehicle that has been described by a Boeing engineer as launching 3 rockets at the same time.<p><hr /></p></p></blockquote><br />The same could be said about the Shuttle or the Titan III/IV. Launching stages in parallel is nothing new. <br /><br /><br />I used to support the Stick because I knew that without it there would be no Ares V and no return to the Moon. But with the cost of the Stick constantly rising and the payload capacity constantly falling, I think it's time for NASA to begin seeing if there isn't a better way to do this. <div class="Discussion_UserSignature"> <p> </p><p><em>So, again we are defeated. This victory belongs to the farmers, not us.</em></p><p><strong>-Kambei Shimada from the movie Seven Samurai</strong></p> </div>

 

[no_way]

duh, i'd say X-38 had a better chance of flying when it was cancelled, than Stick does at the moment. It was a bit more useful, too. Also, IMHO <br /><br />EDIT: i wonder what Bigelow will use as lifeboats on his stations ? Maybe the 80%-complete orbital prototype of X-38 would be another good bit of tech to acquire from NASA ...

 

[rocketscientist327]

<i>There are lots of engineering alternatives to Ares I, but there is no realistic alternative to Ares I and to say otherwise is to ignore the political reality: No rocket will get funding from congress let alone leave the ground if you make the srb workforce redundant - NASA needs all the political muscle it can get and that includes getting the senator (or is that congressman? - dunno i'm from the uk) from Utah on their side. Also don't forget that even though EELV's exist, they would still have to undergo a lot of changes to the launch vehicles and its infrastructure which will cost time and money. They will also inevitably come with engineering issues of their own as all complex engineering projects do. <br />I, like many here, am not thrilled with the wafer thin margins of Ares I. But as I understand it, Ares I can currently fulfill the ISS role and just barely do the Moon mission. As Orion gets lighter I expect that margin to increase. It's not ideal, but it's the political and engineering compromise that we have.</i><br /><br />This is what scares the crap out of me. I do not want faulty, flawed from the get go, designed rocket pushed down NASA’s throat from senator from Utah or other political crack head who does not know the difference between GTO and LEO. This is how we got the shuttle. Constellation should not be at the mercy of some senator’s constituents will lose their jobs because there is a safer alternative. <br /><br />I read that Lockheed Martin got paid 4.5 <b>BILLION</b> dollars to design the CEV. I wonder how much better of a vehicle we would have got if some newer, private company would have been given say 200 million to design a capsule?<br /><br />Ares I payload capability is 50,000 lbs to LEO.1 The next closest vehicle is the Delta IV Heavy can put 28,620 lbs into geostationary transfer orbit.2<br /><br />We are at the whim of a bunch of old guys who don’t care about NASA but the jobs in their districts and states. This is why I hope for

 

[PistolPete]

<blockquote><font class="small">In reply to:</font><hr /><p>I read that Lockheed Martin got paid 4.5 BILLION dollars to design the CEV. I wonder how much better of a vehicle we would have got if some newer, private company would have been given say 200 million to design a capsule?<p><hr /></p></p></blockquote><br />That has less to do with Big Aerospace and more to do with government red tape. <div class="Discussion_UserSignature"> <p> </p><p><em>So, again we are defeated. This victory belongs to the farmers, not us.</em></p><p><strong>-Kambei Shimada from the movie Seven Samurai</strong></p> </div>

 

[jimfromnsf]

"I read that Lockheed Martin got paid 4.5 BILLION dollars to design the CEV. "<br /><br />LM did not get paid "4.5 BILLION dollars"<br />That is the potential cost of the contract. It includes X years of support, W prototypes/boilerplate/trainers, Y flight vehicles and Z flights and U test flights. It also includes the mechanical and Electrical GSE to prep the CEV for flight.<br />(try to find copy of CEV RFP to propulate numbers)<br /><br />"I wonder how much better of a vehicle we would have got if some newer, private company would have been given say 200 million to design a capsule? "<br /><br />you wouldn't get much more than paper.<br /><br />So compare apples to apples before make outlandish statements like this.<br /><br />This type of post is the reasons I respond like this. <br />

 

[thereiwas]

"i wonder what Bigelow will use as lifeboats on his stations ?"<br /><br />Most of their artist-conception pictures show Soyuz vehicles docked.

 

[larper]

<blockquote><font class="small">In reply to:</font><hr /><p>What are your ideas? <p><hr /></p></p></blockquote><br />1) Ditch the idea of Ares 1.<br /><br />2) Scale UP, not DOWN, the size, capabilities, robustness of Orion and fly it on Ares 5 only.<br /><br />3) Fly shuttles until Ares 5 is flight tested. <div class="Discussion_UserSignature"> <p><strong><font color="#ff0000">Vote </font><font color="#3366ff">Libertarian</font></strong></p> </div>

 

[no_way]

<blockquote><font class="small">In reply to:</font><hr /><p>3) Fly shuttles until Ares 5 is flight tested. <p><hr /></p></p></blockquote><br />For what purpose, for heavens sake ? Just spend 4.5 Billion a year for hoots ?

 

[radarredux]

> <i><font color="yellow">3) Fly shuttles until Ares 5 is flight tested.</font>/i><br /><br />If NASA continues to fly the shuttles, Ares V will never fly because the money to design, develop, and build Ares V comes from the money freed up by retiring the shuttle.<br /><br /><br /> /> <i><font color="yellow">1) Ditch the idea of Ares 1.</font>/i><br /><br />I think an interesting alternative path would have been to develop Ares V first and then develop Ares I later, and only if needed. For example, <i>if</i> SpaceX and others can get their act together, Ares I & Orion won't be needed for ISS, and if SpaceX and others fail, a smaller version of Ares V (call it Ares IV) could be used to launch Orion to the ISS.<br /><br />But that is all water under the bridge.</i></i>

 

[holmec]

<blockquote><font class="small">In reply to:</font><hr /><p>I think an interesting alternative path would have been to develop Ares V first and then develop Ares I later, and only if needed. For example, if SpaceX and others can get their act together, Ares I & Orion won't be needed for ISS, and if SpaceX and others fail, a smaller version of Ares V (call it Ares IV) could be used to launch Orion to the ISS.<br /><p><hr /></p></p></blockquote><br /><br />Interesting. <br /><br />I kind of wish they went with a design on ARES I that was more scalable. In other words, make it like ARES V but smaller main tank and use current STS SRB's to start with. I think that would have given us a rocket somewhat quicker but more importantly you can scale it up. It would probaly be simular but not same as ARES IV.<br /><br />The current ARES I design leave little room to scale up. After you make a five segmented SRB, all you have left to scale up is the second stage. <div class="Discussion_UserSignature"> <p> </p><p><font color="#0000ff"><em>"SCE to AUX" - John Aaron, curiosity pays off</em></font></p> </div>

 

[larper]

<blockquote><font class="small">In reply to:</font><hr /><p>For what purpose, for heavens sake ? Just spend 4.5 Billion a year for hoots ? <p><hr /></p></p></blockquote><br />No. Simply fly as needed. Finish the ISS without rushing it. No stupid drop dead date. <br /><br />Build Ares V and forget completely about Ares I. When you are designing a spacecraft, you scale the spacecraft as required by the mission (in this case, return to moon). Once you have the spacecraft requirements, you then scale the launch vehicle accordingly. They are doing Orion in completely the wrong order. The spacecraft is being scaled back, not to fit onto an existing booster, but to fit onto a powerpoint booster. This is completely ass-backwards.<br /><br />While the shuttle has its problems, and those problems are derived from its original mission requirements, at least it was sized to fulfill those requirements, and its engines and boosters sized accordingly. <div class="Discussion_UserSignature"> <p><strong><font color="#ff0000">Vote </font><font color="#3366ff">Libertarian</font></strong></p> </div>

 

[lampblack]

Funny that you should mention Ares IV.<br /><br />Among other things, this article (which was published sometime back) mentions the notion of using the liquid-fueled bottom stage of the Ares V without the SRBs -- and mating it to the Ares I upper stage to loft the Orion capsule to ISS.<br /><br />WITH the SRBs, it's essentially a Saturn V-plus-a-little, capable of sending the capsule directly into trans-lunar trajectory. <div class="Discussion_UserSignature"> <font color="#0000ff"><strong>Just tell the truth and let the chips fall...</strong></font> </div>

 

[no_way]

<blockquote><font class="small">In reply to:</font><hr /><p>you scale the spacecraft as required by the mission<p><hr /></p></p></blockquote><br />The trouble here is, that the "mission" itself is horribly vaguely defined, with random parameters ( four men to the lunar surface) tacked on. If it were simply "return to the moon" you'd get by with existing launchers easily, and if it were "establish an off world colony" an entirely different approach would be called for.<br /><br /><br />Otherwise, yes, Orion development is ass backwards, but extending STS life is not going to help it.

 

[larper]

I am not saying we extend STS life just for the sake of that. I am trying to avoid a 7 year period between American manned launches. Those of you where were not around in the 70's don't know how painful that was. <div class="Discussion_UserSignature"> <p><strong><font color="#ff0000">Vote </font><font color="#3366ff">Libertarian</font></strong></p> </div>

 

[radarredux]

> <i><font color="yellow">No. Simply fly as needed. Finish the ISS without rushing it. No stupid drop dead date.</font>/i><br /><br />While I am a little concerned about the schedule pressures to complete ISS, there are good reasons for the decisions NASA made for retiring the Shuttle in 2010.<br /><br />(1) The problem is that keeping the capability to launch the shuttle pretty much means you spend the same amount of money whether you launch 0 flights per year or 5 flights per year.<br /><br />(2) The orbiters need to go through an expensive re-certification process after 2010, so NASA wants to avoid that expense if the shuttle isn't going to fly much after 2010.<br /><br />(3) NASA doesn't have the money to keep the shuttle flying AND build a new rocket. If you keep the shuttle flying, you pretty much guarantee that the US will be stranded in LEO.<br /><br />Its a really touch choice, but the reality is, the shuttle keeps us from going beyond LEO. When NASA first unveiled ESAS, Griffin said time and time again to Congress and the public that NASA could greatly reduce the flight gap between the end of shuttle operations and the beginning of Constellation flights by pumping a little extra money into the program early. How did Congress respond? They <i><b>cut</b></i> the money to the Constellation program.</i>