Ares I:problems and alternatives

[no_way]

<blockquote><font class="small">In reply to:</font><hr /><p>I am trying to avoid a 7 year period between American manned launches.<p><hr /></p></p></blockquote><br />Barring some overzealous regulations, it is fairly certain that americans will be launching to space within these 7 years, regardless of status of the STS and Constellation programs.

 

[larper]

Not into orbit, they won't. <div class="Discussion_UserSignature"> <p><strong><font color="#ff0000">Vote </font><font color="#3366ff">Libertarian</font></strong></p> </div>

 

[PistolPete]

Don't forget about Soyuz missions to the ISS as well as the possibility of SpaceX Dragon missions as well.<br /><br />Just because NASA won't be launching missions itself doesn't mean that nothing will be happening in space. <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>

 

[larper]

I said "American manned launches". meaning, launching people from an American site using American rockets. <br /><br />Even in this day and age, it would be a tremendous blow to the American morale to have to rely on foreign resources to launch American's into space. <div class="Discussion_UserSignature"> <p><strong><font color="#ff0000">Vote </font><font color="#3366ff">Libertarian</font></strong></p> </div>

 

[vt_hokie]

The Ares/Orion boondoggle is obviously being driven by politics more than anything, and I think that unfortunately, it'll work just well enough to survive, and we'll be stuck with this albatross for the next 20 years or more. Maybe today's elementary school students will be able to look forward to a new generation of RLV's and more routine spaceflight, but at 32 I no longer expect to see it in my lifetime, or at least during my career.

 

[lampblack]

And speaking of alternatives... how 'bout that handy-dandy Ares IV?<br /><br />Has this already been discussed in other threads? It really does strike me as a very interesting article -- and somewhat on-point for this thread. <div class="Discussion_UserSignature"> <font color="#0000ff"><strong>Just tell the truth and let the chips fall...</strong></font> </div>

 

[larper]

Anything. The only useful purpose for Ares I would be for unmanned testing of the CM/SM in orbit. <div class="Discussion_UserSignature"> <p><strong><font color="#ff0000">Vote </font><font color="#3366ff">Libertarian</font></strong></p> </div>

 

[holmec]

<blockquote><font class="small">In reply to:</font><hr /><p>American manned launches<p><hr /></p></p></blockquote><br /><br />Well American men would still be launched. Some women might as well. <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>Anything. The only useful purpose for Ares I would be for unmanned testing of the CM/SM in orbit.<p><hr /></p></p></blockquote><br /><br />Really?? Been to 2015 lately? <div class="Discussion_UserSignature"> <p> </p><p><font color="#0000ff"><em>"SCE to AUX" - John Aaron, curiosity pays off</em></font></p> </div>

 

[no_way]

<blockquote><font class="small">In reply to:</font><hr /><p>I said "American manned launches". meaning, launching people from an American site using American rockets. <p><hr /></p></p></blockquote><br />You said precisely that. You did not however say "orbital"<br /><br />I repeat my statement, regardless of what NASA is doing, there will be american manned spaceflight. Maybe even orbital, but thats a irrelevant to the "manned spaceflight gap" as such.<br />

 

[larper]

Oh, don't get me wrong. I am all behind the commercial programs out there. I hope they ALL succeed. But, history has shown that it is very likely that they will all fail. <br /> <div class="Discussion_UserSignature"> <p><strong><font color="#ff0000">Vote </font><font color="#3366ff">Libertarian</font></strong></p> </div>

 

[holmec]

<blockquote><font class="small">In reply to:</font><hr /><p>history has shown that it is very likely that they will all fail. <p><hr /></p></p></blockquote><br /><br />All fail? What history are you referring to? I have a feeling that at least one will succeed. But I have no doubt there will be setbacks. Really I don't see any major obstacles for Virgin Galactic suborbital operations. SpaceX has some major obstacles to overcome, IMO. But I think Elon Musk will keep trying. <div class="Discussion_UserSignature"> <p> </p><p><font color="#0000ff"><em>"SCE to AUX" - John Aaron, curiosity pays off</em></font></p> </div>

 

[jimfromnsf]

"All fail? What history are you referring to?"<br /><br />AMROC, Conestoga, ROTON, etc

 

[j05h]

<i>> I said "American manned launches". meaning, launching people from an American site using American rockets.</i><br /><br />When did SpaceX stop being an American company? They are looking at human launches before Constellation, inside the Shuttle-Orion gap. That doesn't sound like relying on foreign resources to me. Or do you doubt their future success?<br /><br />Josh <div class="Discussion_UserSignature"> <div align="center"><em>We need a first generation of pioneers.</em><br /></div> </div>

 

[larper]

I doubt their success, but do not wish them to fail.<br /> <div class="Discussion_UserSignature"> <p><strong><font color="#ff0000">Vote </font><font color="#3366ff">Libertarian</font></strong></p> </div>

 

[vulture2]

I've seen a number of new space companies and helped one or two. SpaceX has 1) adequate capital, i.e. >$100M in internal funds 2) a government contract, and 3) a good, solid vehicle design. The only previous new company I've seen in the medium orbital launch arena with adequate capital and a functional design was Beal, and they were going head-to-head with the EELVs (at a time when they seemed a lot cheaper than they do now) and could not get a contract. SpaceX has threaded the needle on all three and I think they have reached critical mass. <br />

 

[radarredux]

> <i><font color="yellow">They are looking at human launches before Constellation, inside the Shuttle-Orion gap.</font>/i><br /><br />I <i><b>really</b></i> hope SpaceX succeeds and does so close to their timeline. However, they have already slipped their schedules several times, and a manned capsule is a big leap for them.<br /><br /><i><b>If</b></i> SpaceX is successful getting a manned capsule to ISS, I hope NASA chooses not to, or maybe Congress forbids them from, launching Orion to ISS. Although SpaceX is getting some money from NASA, it is nickles and dimes compared to what ATK, Boeing, and Lockheed are getting to launch Orion to ISS (and, in theory, ATK and Boeing are being paid to modify existing rockets, not build new ones). SpaceX should be given the opportunity to recover their internal IR&D by pricing their launches independent of Ares/Orion competition.</i>

 

[no_way]

SpaceX is not the only player, so their success or failure has only small impact.<br />Considering all the suborbital hopefuls, its a fairly safe bet that one of them will be flying before STS retires in 2010, so there will be no gap in US manned spaceflight. <br />Especially with new obvious incentives appearing over time, like LLC and the just announced V-Prize. <br /><br />EDIT: oh, and dont start with "just suborbital, not orbital". Average Joe, congresscritter and journalist would not understand anyway, and the time gap between suborbital and orbital can be nine months, as demonstrated by Freedom 7 and Friendship 7

 

[j05h]

Even if SpaceX takes twice as long to launch crew in a Dragon on F9, they will still beat Orion to orbit with crew (2012-13 vs no earlier than 2014). This assumes SpaceX succeeds and Orion isn't canceled. There are several contenders for circumlunar and lunar orbit flights prior to Orion, including upgraded, 2-seat Soyuz, Dragon and maybe Constellation Services (IIRC) who have a Soyuz-and-US-Tug architecture.<br /><br />I would discount the suborbital companies for the next 5-8 years - they are largely focusing on creating the tourism market. SpaceX and Bigelow are the new.space players to watch for orbital trends. Blue Origin and Armadillo appear to be working on lander tech as well, but that is tangential to human access.<br /><br />Josh <div class="Discussion_UserSignature"> <div align="center"><em>We need a first generation of pioneers.</em><br /></div> </div>

 

[jimfromnsf]

"The only previous new company I've seen in the medium orbital launch arena with adequate capital and a functional design was Beal,"<br /><br />That is debateable. Andy made some decisions against his engineers (including going for the big one first) that made the design iffy.

 

[larper]

<blockquote><font class="small">In reply to:</font><hr /><p> the time gap between suborbital and orbital can be nine months, as demonstrated by Freedom 7 and Friendship 7 <p><hr /></p></p></blockquote><br />You do understand the difference between launch vehicle and the orbital module, right? Freedom 7 was an orbital vehicle launched by a booster that could not achieve orbit. SS2, on the other hand, is a suborbital vehicle. No modifications, and certainly not a measly nine months, will transform it into an orbital vehicle. <div class="Discussion_UserSignature"> <p><strong><font color="#ff0000">Vote </font><font color="#3366ff">Libertarian</font></strong></p> </div>

 

[PistolPete]

<blockquote><font class="small">In reply to:</font><hr /><p>"All fail? What history are you referring to?" <br /><br />AMROC, Conestoga, ROTON, etc <p><hr /></p></p></blockquote><br />I find the companies you chose as examples interesting.<br /><br />AMROC was founded in 1985 and went out of business in 1996, the company worked on developing hybrid rocket technology. In 1999 the intellectual property was sold to SpaceDev which used the technology to power SS1.<br /><br />Conestoga and Rotary Rocket share a link because Gary Hudson, who helped found T/Space, was involved in both of them. You can tell when Gary has passed through a town because of the trail of dead space companies he leaves behind.<br /><br />Conestoga, Rotary Rocket, and Kistler are examples of "It's not what you know, but who you know" in the space business. All three companies had valid designs but ultimately failed because the management didn't know what the hell it was doing. On the other hand, Burt Rutan has had a track record of successes. Scaled Composites succeeded where AMROC failed because AMROC had poor management and Scaled has excellent management. <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]

<blockquote><font class="small">In reply to:</font><hr /><p>You do understand the difference between launch vehicle and the orbital module, right?<p><hr /></p></p></blockquote> <br />*sigh*<br /><br /><blockquote><font class="small">In reply to:</font><hr /><p>Freedom 7 was an orbital vehicle launched by a booster that could not achieve orbit. <p><hr /></p></p></blockquote><br />It was a development capsule that was launched on suborbital trajectory. Had it been used, without modifications, as a manned orbital vehicle, the results would have been fatal.<br /><br /><blockquote><font class="small">In reply to:</font><hr /><p>SS2, on the other hand, is a suborbital vehicle. <p><hr /></p></p></blockquote> <br />Who said anything about SS2 ? Besides, do you know, for certain, the final design of SS2 and its carrier vehicle ?