Ares I won't work, says John Young.

[ctrlaltdel]

Came across this link at nasaspaceflight:<br />http://collectspace.com/ubb/Forum39/HTML/000114.html<br /><br />John Young is no stranger to openly criticising NASA, it sounds like something he'd say. Even in the best case scenario, Ares I has always had problems with the delta-v imbalance caused by the first stage (with the second stage trying to make up for it). Other problems have stemmed from this initial stumbling block. Maybe it has finally proven to be unworkable? I hope not; I don't want to see the shuttle workforce go the same way as the apollo/saturn workforce.

 

[thereiwas]

He says Orion is not their original proposal for a lightweight 6-person capsule. Which proposal was that, or was it pretty much what is on the drawingboards now except NASA added too much stuff to it for missions it will never be used on?

 

[ctrlaltdel]

I'm sorry that sentance should have been clearer. I mean that being as the first stage is solid propellant, it doesn't have a high delta-v, which means the second stage has to do a lot more of the work getting into orbit compared to other launchers.

 

[no_way]

ISS does not work as advertised, neither does Shuttle. Has this ever stopped NASA from building them ? <img src="/images/icons/wink.gif" />

 

[j05h]

It's a ringing denouncement from a real explorer. John Young has always been the brash test pilot. He may not be a rocket scientist but he is definitely qualified to have an opinion.<br /><br /><i>> Please explain this comment. Are you talking about the slight thrust imbalance on Shuttle SRBs during the ascent? </i><br /><br />He's refering to the larger than usual proportion of thrust (and hammerhead config) of the proposed ARES I second stage. <br /><br />Here's a compromise: Build an SSTO or near-SSTO "ARES" core stage. RS68, Lox and H, like the Big Delta or Atlas Evolved proposals. Fly a capsule/service-module on a single core or dock 5 of them together with a 6th on top to create HLV. We have the technology. <br /><br />Josh <div class="Discussion_UserSignature"> <div align="center"><em>We need a first generation of pioneers.</em><br /></div> </div>

 

[j05h]

<i> >>"...We have the technology...."<br /> /> ...on animated websites. </i><br /><br />No. You are denying the existence of the RS-68 and that Atlas B flight. Also, the Saturn IC (I think) had the mass fraction for SSTO with a couple hundred pound payload. I also mentioned Stage-and-Half. If NASA is going to operate their own vehicles, the craft should make sense and be progressive. The ARES architecture is starting to look a lot like SEI and all the other viewgraphs. I just don't buy it that they can take that many budget cycles and survive, never mind make it efficient. Their major concern seems to be who gets what chunk of the tax-dollar pie in 15 years. It's still simply cheaper to just use existing ELVs and deal with their limitations. NASA could be ordering the lunar hardware now if they were willing to take the logical step toward current launchers. <br /><br /><i>>A clean sheet design would never make it as far as the funding needed to cut metal today, or any time in the reasonable future. </i><br /><br />What you call clean-sheet, I'd call "evolved again". As I posted before (and I wasn't referring to DIRECT), a lot of the technology is off-the-shelf. Boeing and Lockmart have both proposed bigger, better core stages. ATK has played us all for suckers. "Use our fire cracker or we'll sick Orin Hatch on you!" <br /><br />What do you want out of NASA? I want top quality science and human/robotic exploration, not a state-run trucking company. <br /><br />Josh <div class="Discussion_UserSignature"> <div align="center"><em>We need a first generation of pioneers.</em><br /></div> </div>

 

[erioladastra]

"ISS does not work as advertised"<br /><br />In what sense does it not work as advertised?

 

[mattblack]

I think he meant 'years behind schedule, over-budget, not enough science being done'. Well, the reasons for that -- Russian delays, funding for Nasa, Columbia, too much reliance on Shuttle, political interference, and did I mention insufficient funding...? <div class="Discussion_UserSignature"> <p> </p><p>One Percent of Federal Funding For Space: America <strong><em><u>CAN</u></em></strong> Afford it!!  LEO is a <strong><em>Prison</em></strong> -- It's time for a <em><strong>JAILBREAK</strong></em>!!</p> </div>

 

[jschaef5]

What is the significance of May 23? <div class="Discussion_UserSignature"> </div>

 

[qso1]

They seem to be working pretty well if you ask me. Now if you specify are they cost effective? Or did the shuttle fly as many times as advertised? Then I'd say no. <div class="Discussion_UserSignature"> <p><strong>My borrowed quote for the time being:</strong></p><p><em>There are three kinds of people in life. Those who make it happen, those who watch it happen...and those who do not know what happened.</em></p> </div>

 

[qso1]

If John Young says so, then it must be!<br /><br />Seriously, he states "On May 23, we are gonna find out that the Ares I booster isn't powerful enough to get [the Orion spacecraft] into orbit."<br /><br />If that is indeed the case, they simply need to incorporate more power into the design, or beef up the upper stage. It would be interesting to know why our rocket scientists did not figure this out initially. With computers at their disposal. <div class="Discussion_UserSignature"> <p><strong>My borrowed quote for the time being:</strong></p><p><em>There are three kinds of people in life. Those who make it happen, those who watch it happen...and those who do not know what happened.</em></p> </div>

 

[j05h]

<i>> It would be interesting to know why our rocket scientists did not figure this out initially. With computers at their disposal.</i><br /><br />That's simple: they were told what to use for the first stage by politicians. Now they've pounded that square peg 1/3 the way into the round hole, so they'll try to finish it.<br /><br />Josh <div class="Discussion_UserSignature"> <div align="center"><em>We need a first generation of pioneers.</em><br /></div> </div>

 

[vogon13]

{not that I don't have serious concerns about the Ares program}<br /><br />IIRC, the STS was criticized for burning LH2 and LOx to loft inefficient solid fuel upper stages, and now the Ares is being criticized for doing it the other way round . . . .<br /><br /><br />Seems like you just can't win sometimes.<br /><br /><br /> <div class="Discussion_UserSignature"> <p><font color="#ff0000"><strong>TPTB went to Dallas and all I got was Plucked !!</strong></font></p><p><font color="#339966"><strong>So many people, so few recipes !!</strong></font></p><p><font color="#0000ff"><strong>Let's clean up this stinkhole !!</strong></font> </p> </div>

 

[gunsandrockets]

John Young said some very interesting things beyond just the trouble with Ares I, "Orion is too big and heavy a spacecraft. It isn't like the lightweight six-person crew exploration vehicle we proposed..."<br /><br />Well well, too big and heavy. That's always been my opinion about the Orion too.<br /><br />If Ares I was always just a stalking horse for Ares V, then the oversized Orion was also just a stalking horse for Ares I. Ultimately NASA's real objective has always been getting back a heavy lift vehicle in the Saturn V class. If the CEV and CLV had to be compromised to accomplish the real objective, NASA was happy to do it.<br /><br />Young also said this about the Ares I, "...the torque and loads that they expect mean we have to get another [launch] vehicle."<br /><br />The problems of the Ares I may go beyond issues of simple brute force and mass.

 

[no_way]

<blockquote><font class="small">In reply to:</font><hr /><p>They seem to be working pretty well if you ask me.<p><hr /></p></p></blockquote><br />There is no point in hijacking this thread, its sufficient to say that neither STS nor ISS delivered anything like the promises they were sold on.<br />Hold on, Ares I was supposed to be Safe, Simple and Soon...

 

[qso1]

Its not my intention to hijack the thread. I simply responded to the question. The shuttle has flown successful missions over 100 times. The ISS has hosted people since 2000. I did point out shuttle and ISS did not prove cost effective. Safe, simple, soon was the catch phrase for the Orbital Space Plane (OSP), not Ares.<br /><br />Were years away from seeing how the VSE hardware will actually perform. <div class="Discussion_UserSignature"> <p><strong>My borrowed quote for the time being:</strong></p><p><em>There are three kinds of people in life. Those who make it happen, those who watch it happen...and those who do not know what happened.</em></p> </div>

 

[no_way]

You have your facts thoroughly confused<br />http://safesimplesoon.com/<br />

 

[jimfromnsf]

"That's simple: they were told what to use for the first stage by politicians."<br /><br />Politicians never said anything, NASA assumed it would be easier to meet it's objectives by using a pork vehicle.<br /><br />#1 objective - 10 healthy centers.<br /><br />Whether it is the #1 is a matter for debate but Griffin has stated that 10 healthy centers is an objective

 

[drwayne]

"The solids were a change of direction in the interest of safety, not performance."<br /><br />Given the role of the solids in the STS, that statement sounds strangely backwards to me.<br /><br />Wayne <div class="Discussion_UserSignature"> <p>"1) Give no quarter; 2) Take no prisoners; 3) Sink everything."  Admiral Jackie Fisher</p> </div>

 

[subzero788]

I thought that the change to solids was due to cost rather than safety.

 

[vogon13]

Approval of the cryogenic upper stage for the shuttle was a long drawn out protacted ordeal for its' advocates. And then we lost Challenger and the 2+billion dollar development cost of the upper stage had to get eaten.<br /><br /> <div class="Discussion_UserSignature"> <p><font color="#ff0000"><strong>TPTB went to Dallas and all I got was Plucked !!</strong></font></p><p><font color="#339966"><strong>So many people, so few recipes !!</strong></font></p><p><font color="#0000ff"><strong>Let's clean up this stinkhole !!</strong></font> </p> </div>

 

[drwayne]

I think my comment, which was poorly qualified, about the role of solids in the STS, where I was referring to the boosters, rather than an upper stage - probably needlessly confused things.<br /><br />Wayne<br /><br /> <div class="Discussion_UserSignature"> <p>"1) Give no quarter; 2) Take no prisoners; 3) Sink everything."  Admiral Jackie Fisher</p> </div>

 

[holmec]

The article is not coming up from the link provided. <div class="Discussion_UserSignature"> <p> </p><p><font color="#0000ff"><em>"SCE to AUX" - John Aaron, curiosity pays off</em></font></p> </div>

 

[holmec]

He might be referring to the Orbital Space Plane:<br />http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Orbital_Space_Plane <br /><br />Or not! He might be referring to the Orion specs before Lockheed Martin got the contract. <div class="Discussion_UserSignature"> <p> </p><p><font color="#0000ff"><em>"SCE to AUX" - John Aaron, curiosity pays off</em></font></p> </div>

 

[qso1]

Not necessarily.<br /><br />Alliant Techsystems Inc. simply adapted the slogan to Ares1. I've never seen this slogan out of NASA itself once OSP was dumped. Even if I'm confused, one thing I'm not confused about. Safe, simple, soon is only a slogan...nothing more. <div class="Discussion_UserSignature"> <p><strong>My borrowed quote for the time being:</strong></p><p><em>There are three kinds of people in life. Those who make it happen, those who watch it happen...and those who do not know what happened.</em></p> </div>