Ares I: "We can fix it" (NY Times article)

docm · Feb 19, 2008

Link.... <blockquote>In reply to:<hr />NASA Insists It Can Fix Flaw in Rocket Design Published: February 19, 2008 Preliminary calculations by NASA last summer suggested that the rocket it had on the drawing board to replace the space shuttle possessed a design flaw: vibrations in the booster might shake the top of the rocket so violently that any astronauts riding aboard would suffer severe, perhaps fatal, injuries. That sounds alarming, but NASA officials insist it is just a step in the process of designing and engineering — identifying problems and solving them. And they say the vibrations — “thrust oscillations” in the language of rocket scientists — are understood and will be fixed well before astronauts fly. Michael D. Griffin, NASA’s administrator, said the oscillation “is not a significant problem, and to the extent that it needs solutions, we’ve got three or four ways to go after it.” In 2004, NASA announced plans to develop a family of rockets, collectively known as the Constellation program, to replace the three-decade-old shuttles, due to be retired in 2010. The first, Ares I, is to have its first test flight next year. To understand the engineering challenge, here is the key thing to know: Unlike most space-bound rockets that use liquid oxygen and hydrogen for fuel, Ares’ first stage will use solid rocket propellant, borrowing the design of the shuttle’s solid fuel boosters. With a solid fuel rocket, the fuel starts burning at the bottom and combusts toward the top. When the fuel is gone, what is left is a hollow metal tube — one that behaves remarkably like an organ pipe. The rich sounds of an organ result from the blowing of air through the pipes. When the wavelength of the vibrations equals the length o</blockquote> <div class="Discussion_UserSignature"> </div>

vogon13 · Feb 19, 2008

A small correction for the article: SRB does not burn its' fuel from the bottom up as that would cause the steel casing to melt from the bottom up. The SRBs burn from the inside out, and the unburned fuel protects the casing from the 2500F combustion. <div class="Discussion_UserSignature"> TPTB went to Dallas and all I got was Plucked !!So many people, so few recipes !!Let's clean up this stinkhole !! </div>

spacelifejunkie · Feb 19, 2008

"We can fix it" Is Jeff Spicoli engineering this thing, now? SLJ

radarredux · Feb 19, 2008

I like the lines:<blockquote>In reply to:<hr />vibrations in the booster might shake the top of the rocket so violently that any astronauts riding aboard would suffer severe, perhaps fatal, injuries. ... The vibrations would not be violent enough to shake the rocket to pieces, he said. Rather, the concerns were that the vibrations could injure equipment or passengers ... A shock absorber could be added between the first and second stages ... “The vibration challenge we call thrust oscillation,” he said, “is the type of problem we would expect to encounter in an engineering development project, which is exactly what the Ares I is.”<hr /></blockquote> Translation: (1) We promise to fix the problem enough so that the vibrations won't kill the astronauts. Jeesh, it really puts that smooth soyuz ride video on you tube into perspective. I would think NASA rocket engineers might want to start wearing bags over their head when going to public conferences."Um, no... I wasn't part of the Ares I team." (2) We have to shave more weight from Orion because we need to add more weight to the rocket. Maybe they could just go back to the original Apollo capsule. (3) This idea of using legacy hardware because it would be a cheaper, better, and faster path to manned spaceflight is really FUBARed. They've pretty much had to redesign everything.

docm · Feb 20, 2008

I agree. Granted they want the Ares I 5-seg to make it cheaper to develop the Ares V, but it's reached the point where they're putting both at risk. Anyone for building the Jupiter? It would be fun if SpaceX put a cam & seated dummies inside the Dragon COTS-1 to show it's vibrations, or more probably lack of same. That would make for an interesting conversation at the next congressional hearing <img src="/images/icons/wink.gif" /> <div class="Discussion_UserSignature"> </div>

docm · Feb 20, 2008

Typo. Changed. Either way it's a dog & pony show. <div class="Discussion_UserSignature"> </div>

venator_3000 · Feb 20, 2008

RR: "...it really puts that smooth soyuz ride video on you tube into perspective." 1. Is there any reason why we can't simply use the Soyuz as the taxi cab? 2. Stop building Orion/Ares and use the money to build an interplanetary vessel that could at least take us to the orbits of Venus, Mars, and perhaps some asteroids? Rationale: I worry this will become an exercise in developing a system that private industry or an existing launch entity (Soyuz) already has or is about to establish. I would rather see NASA spend its (our) money on a ship that can explore the planets (not just, ultimately, the Moon). I guess I look at these things with the old question in mind...well, if it was my money and my career lifespan... Just curious... v3k <div class="Discussion_UserSignature"> </div>

radarredux · Feb 20, 2008

> 1. Is there any reason why we can't simply use the Soyuz as the taxi cab?/i> The soyuz rocket and capsule cannot handle the mission requirements identified by NASA (i.e., crew of 4, supplies for said crew to the Moon and back, direct re-entry at beyond LEO velocities). Also, NASA had said it wants to be in full control of all core elements of the architecture. It is always easy to define mission requirements that exceed any existing capability and thus justifying the building of new capability.

radarredux · Feb 20, 2008

> 2. Stop building Orion/Ares and use the money to build an interplanetary vessel that could at least take us to the orbits of Venus, Mars, and perhaps some asteroids?/i> Some might argue that this is what is actually happening. The Ares I and Ares V were designed in part to support a mission to Mars. I think people made a calculation as to how much mass we needed to put into LEO in order to proceed onto Mars, and the Ares V was designed to fit that bill. The "Mars Direct" (Zubrin) and "Mars Semi-direct" (Zubrin+NASA) layout mission profiles that (I think) can be carried out by the Ares V. A big debate among armchair quarterbacks in the space program is whether we need to go to the Moon at all. The discussion is something like: "Been there; done that; nothing worth going back for. Go ahead and build the Ares I and Ares V, but don't invest in Lunar components (like a lander and habitat) and Lunar mission costs. Build Mars habitats and return rockets and launch those on the Ares rockets."

rybanis · Feb 20, 2008

RadarRedux: Also there is a bit of "HEY, asteroids!" thrown in there, too. <div class="Discussion_UserSignature"> </div>

venator_3000 · Feb 21, 2008

I believe in the Case for Mars book Zubrin laid out a requirement that was pretty close to Ares V. In fact I even believe it was called Ares. That being said, is NASA "allowed" to discuss or plan a manned Mars mission? I have the impression that Dr. Griffin, et al, have laid out a fairly logical vision, but are being told, via the budgetary process, that they are allowed to work on a set piece or pieces of that vision. So we build a vehicle with a set mission requirement or specification (4 people to the Moon, etc) rather than utilize what is either a) available (Soyuz) or b) on the books per prior contractor-designed studies and iterations (Shuttle-C or BDB). This is troubling in light of past history. STS was derived as one set piece of an all-encompassing vision. This was the so-called Von Braun vision wherein Shuttle was designed as the people-ferry to space stations or transfer vehicles that would take astronauts to lunar bases or ultimately, a Mars base. All that NASA got from this prior vision was the STS system with a "utility" that remains debatable, whether you argue about its actual capability versus the management-generated hype from back in the day. With Orion/Ares I see and read in the papers, AW&ST, and various other outlets something similar. In this case we build a vehicle with requirement x that will allow us to go (if we can convince Congress) to location y. The ultimate realization of a visit to location y is based upon the success of Orion/Ares. This is similar to the build evolution and overall mission plan that incorporated STS. In that case, if and when STS was successful and "paying its way" (the words used at the time...not mine) then we would build a station(s) and a tug and ultimately an infrastructure that would return us to the Moon and perhaps lead elsewhere. One of STS's mission parameters was that it be "reusable." Why, exactly, the ultimate throw-away society required a recyclable spaceship is a que <div class="Discussion_UserSignature"> </div>

samkent · Feb 21, 2008

I didn’t know that NASA had a mission? I thought it’s mission was which ever way the congressional winds blew that year. And they haven’t blown in any one direction since the 60’s. I would compare it to giving a child an allowance without guidance. This week he is saving for an R/C car. Next week it’s a video game. In the mean time he’s buying candy and saving nothing. Give them a clear mission and I’ll bet they’ll complete it. As for purchasing space on updated 40 year old Soviet craft. Just wait for the first (scratch that) NEXT deaths on Soyuz. If it’s American watch the poo hit the fan. Plus how would it look to the rest of the world if the Russians had us by the astronuts. And domestic commercial rockets (Falcon) are mostly experimentally hopeful. Even Elon Musk, CEO of SpaceX stated the biggest reason for launch delays has been “Excessive optimism internally.” . Doesn’t anyone think that 9 engines on the Falcon 9 is stretching the probability rope a bit far? Didn’t the N1 have 30? That didn’t work so well either. If you had to bet your life on the first human launch of Ares or SpaceX, which would you chose? I can see the headlines if the first human Falcon 9 fails. The Walmart rocket with Walmart quality! More poo in the fan. As a country I don’t see that we have much of a choice, but to build our own. And if our engineers are chosing to go down a different path, so be it. I can only guess what some people would be saying if the Skunk Works opened the doors to all of their meetings in the 50’s 60’s and 70’s. You can’t do that! You should do it this way! That’s the way it’s always been done! Old engineers come with old ideas. Give the sons a chance to prove their metal to their dads.

venator_3000 · Feb 21, 2008

I appreciate your points, however... NASA does have a mission, and when one gets beyond this year's mission statement or stop-light chart the mission really is the same one it had at its inception: exploration. Regarding a launch accident, on Soyuz, I believe the last crew loss was 1971 on Soyuz-11. Not bad for a 40 year old system. I assume that by flying it and upgrading the basic design they have gained both experience and confidence. I wish that as a nation we had done the same with Apollo/Saturn. Granted, the next Soyuz launch could fail, and people die, and likely you would read about that in the paper. But isn't one of the operating parameters of such an endeavor an acceptance of the risk involved? I think that as a nation we have many choices. One of those choices is to choose partners in an endeavor that is truly international in scope. This pools resources, saves time, and money. We've done that with mixed success on ISS. We've certainly done that with great success in terms of robotic exploration. And we have already relied on Soyuz as our taxi-cab. Indeed, Dr. Griffin recently had to go back to the well, yet again, and ask Congress for appropriations and approval to use Soyuz in the years between the retirement of STS and the first Orion/Ares 1 launch. In a sense, by developing Orion/Ares, rather than moving to a true interplanetary ship, we're losing time, money, and career-lifespans. The old engineers have already built and then been required to decommission two LEO-capable systems. Why task the next generation with a third? Hasn't the time arrived, after so many years of analysis and design study, to get out of LEO and explore? Let someone else provide the ferry service. We should move away from tasking the sons of those old engineers with the need to yet again develop a LEO-only system, and let them build a ship that could, at least, take us to Phobos-Deimos. That would certainly be a way of allowing them to prove <div class="Discussion_UserSignature"> </div>

josh_simonson · Feb 21, 2008

It's cheaper for the government to use a domestic program in the long run because the money they spend on it here gets taxed and spent here. Buying soyuz results in that cash being taxed and spent in Russia. NASA is building an interplanetary craft. It's called CEV and EDS. Several EDS, a CEV and a relativley inexpensive habitat module would provide the capabilities to get to cis-mars space. A slightly modified lunar lander would be more than capable of landing on the martian moons. Landing on Mars itself will require something much more substantial. The biggest complaints are about Ares 1 more than the CEV (except in that the CEV appears to have been designed to be just out of EELV's capability).

MeteorWayne · Feb 21, 2008

Nice Post! <div class="Discussion_UserSignature"> But the Krell forgot one thing John. Monsters. Monsters from the Id. I really, really, really, really miss the "first unread post" function </div>

venator_3000 · Feb 21, 2008

I'm not certain how far along EDS development is but I don't think it is currently being "built." There are NASA offices that are responsible for it and they are likely performing analyses, but is anyone actually bending tin? I don't yet view EDS as an interplanetary vessel or building block. EDS is integral to Ares V, but development on that system can't commence until STS retires in 2010-11. Also, doesn't that also require the development of a modified rocket system, the J2X? Ares V and EDS are also the flip side to the Orion/Ares 1 coin. The plans I've read about require EOR. They hinge upon Orion/Ares 1 success. Again, EDS and Ares V seem like a design rev in a holding pattern. Especially in light of the fact that other systems may already be available that can be utilized or modified to serve as an EDS. I recall reading about a proposal to use a modified Centaur with RL-10 engines as a potential EDS. This is a proven system with extant facilites and a dedicated as well as experienced work-force (no, I am not a rep for LockMart). I'm also not sure if you need a CEV mounted on the end of a cluster of EDS blocks to serve as a command center for an interplanetary mission. Why not build a modified ISS or SpaceHab module or modules to serve this purpose? There has been more design study and actual tin-bending experience on these modules in the last 20 years than on the CEV. It might prove cheaper and less time-consuming in the long run. Many of the choices made in the VSE architecture (if I may call it that) suggest that there is a very honest attempt to justify budget by making the system "shuttle-derived." However, it seems like it is less and less so. The "shuttle-derived" aspect seems to be the preservation of jobs within the current STS infrastructure (which is fine by me). However, this budget-design-justification triad can quickly unravel and you get an ad-hoc system. Although STS was revolutionary (not evolutionary, in terms of gro <div class="Discussion_UserSignature"> </div>

radarredux · Feb 21, 2008

> In a sense, by developing Orion/Ares, rather than moving to a true interplanetary ship/i> Ignoring, for the moment, the issues surrounding the Ares I first stage, I don't think Orion/Ares rockets are at odds with developing interplanetary exploration. Orion is about traveling through Earth's atmosphere, initially into LEO and then back down to Earth. The Ares systems are about getting mass into LEO. Clearly those capabilities are prerequisites to interplanetary exploration. What worries me is getting tied down in an expensive lunar program without having a well argued and well articulated explanation as to what we are going to be doing there and why. NASA's position is that we are going because it has been mandated by the current president -- a president I might add with an approval rating of about 20% and who has shown little interest in or respect for science. Certainly there are things we can do on the Moon, but the "killer app" for a Lunar program has not been identified or at least well articulated.

danhezee · Feb 21, 2008

I worry about the exact opposite I don't think we should get tied down in an expensive Martian program without a well argued and articulated explanation as to why we are going. I would rather see NASA act as an incubator to a cislunar economy than waste money going to just to have footprints. Also, if NASA's only goal is "Being the first on _____ and never go there again because we did that a few times 30 years ago". Don't you think a lot can be learned having people live on a base on the moon for the same duration as a mars mission would take? I know it isn't a direct analog but i think the moon is a good place to learn. <div class="Discussion_UserSignature"> </div>

trailrider · Mar 7, 2008

Replying to: <DIV CLASS='Discussion_PostQuote'>I worry about the exact opposite I don't think we should get tied down in an expensive Martian program without a well argued and articulated explanation as to why we are going. I would rather see NASA act as an incubator to a cislunar economy than waste money going to just to have footprints. Also, if NASA's only goal is "Being the first on _____ and never go there again because we did that a few times 30 years ago". Don't you think a lot can be learned having people live on a base on the moon for the same duration as a mars mission would take? I know it isn't a direct analog but i think the moon is a good place to learn. Posted by danhezee</DIV>Exactly! In spite of the fact that I am a charter member of the Mars Society, and the activities thereof (Mars Desert Reseach Station, Flashline Research Station, etc.) will give experience to students planning careers that may take us to Mars...eventually, I firmly believe that right now Mars is "a bridge too far".  I, too, worry that an immediate push for Mars, without developing the Lunar scientific and commercial capabilities, will result in our possibly succeeding in a human Mars mission...after which we might not go back for another 100 years!I am concerned about the use of the "stick" configuration with the 5-segment SRM.  My concern, however, stems from the use of a solid rocket for the first stage...or any high-value payload (such as humans!).  Once you light that firecracker, you simply can't turn it off...though they might engineer thrust termination ports into the upper segment.  This wasn't possible on the Shuttle, due to the "Navajo stack" configuration (my terminology...based on the piggyback configuration of the old Navajo cruise missle and its booster...also designed by North American Aviation back in the day).It may well be that ATK can tailor both the grain shape and the propellant formulation to reduce the acoustic problems...I don't know.  But, I have a sneaking suspicion that the whole Orion/Ares I/Ares V thing could be severly revisited following November's election.  Hopefully, it won't result in the U.S. abrogating its lead in human space exploration!Ad Luna! Ad Ares! Ad Astra!

Ares I: "We can fix it" (NY Times article)

docm

Guest

vogon13

Guest

spacelifejunkie

Guest

radarredux

Guest

docm

Guest

docm

Guest

venator_3000

Guest

radarredux

Guest

radarredux

Guest

rybanis

Guest

venator_3000

Guest

samkent

Guest

venator_3000

Guest

josh_simonson

Guest

MeteorWayne

Guest

venator_3000

Guest

radarredux

Guest

danhezee

Guest

trailrider

Guest

Similar threads

TRENDING THREADS

Latest posts

Share this page