BIG problems with Ares I - "the stick"

j05h · Nov 15, 2006

> For less than $100 million, Elon designed & built two distinct engines and a rocket and launched it. Mind you it was unsuccsessful, but it launched. By contrast, Kistler was $600 million in debt when they went into bankruptcy, despite having bought existing engines and never having gotten anywhere close to a launch. What SpaceX has done is impressive, even *with* the first-launch failure. SpaceX is already a success in many ways, including that they have more money in contracts for launches than they have reportedly put into development. They are still working the bugs out of the Falcon but there is strong confidence in them, represented by those launch contracts. The were unsuccessful but deserve congratulation - the same way that Jon Carmack and Armadillo were congratulated after their awesome "failed" XPrize flights. They put on a good showing and learned a lot in the process. SpaceX will most likely field the next orbital rocket series, worldwide. I think they will also field the next human space vehicle, before the Stick or any Russian offerings. I'd like to point out that along with Kistler not anywhere near flying hardware, Rocketplane hasn't been exactly revolutionizing spaceflight. They had a perfectly good concept (rocket retrofits in jet aircraft, airial fuel-up) but haven't gotten there in over 10 years. I'm not confident in their CATS venture, the exception being that it looks like ATK will be actually running the project. On topic, this is probably the route to NewSpace moneys for Big Aero. There is still hardware that is very hard to build and Big Aero does have the expertise. Instead of aquiring or burying upstart space companies, they will skim large amounts of work off the top. This will start with NASA contracts but eventually include VC and other capital investments. It makes sense from a small company's perspective, too, if ATK etc. bring unique skills to the table. My concern with the Stick is that <div class="Discussion_UserSignature"> <div align="center">We need a first generation of pioneers. </div> </div>

j05h · Nov 15, 2006

> Bending ...yes. POGO....no A solid rocket can not get into a POGO. POGO is possible only in a liquid propellant stage. Thanks, s_g /> How about longitudinal vibration? Or possibly better Propulsion Induced Vibration or PIV PIV sounds like a good TLA. Get used to using it, too. Someone described the Stick as a "hotdog on a pencil". They should fly a boiler-plate ASAP to get a handle on actual flight dynamics. Josh <div class="Discussion_UserSignature"> <div align="center">We need a first generation of pioneers. </div> </div>

propforce · Nov 15, 2006

<blockquote>In reply to:<hr />But do we have the need for a new acronym, for the roughness of a large solid burn? Ares 1 is longer and much more prone to bending forces than the shorter, and supported against a large mass, present SRBs. There will probably be a short period when the frequency and magnitude of vibration, happening at a particular amount of grain burn produces a violent ride. Any ideas for what we call the roughness when it comes up in conversation? <hr /></blockquote> How about.... Combustion Related Acoustic Propagation (CRAP)? <img src="/images/icons/smile.gif" /> <div class="Discussion_UserSignature"> </div>

halman · Nov 15, 2006

PistolPete, Thank you for the link! <div class="Discussion_UserSignature"> The secret to peace of mind is a short attention span. </div>

jschaef5 · Nov 16, 2006

"With modern computer aided analysis and some ground testing there should be no surprizes on the first launch. " Do you happen to know if Lockheed has a model/sim of the system with their proposed CEV design? I'd think that'd be a pretty big thing to demonstrate the dynamics at liftoff... <div class="Discussion_UserSignature"> </div>

mattblack · Nov 16, 2006

With each design review, the performance is admitted to be lower and the cost is admitted to be higher. Its happened several times already in the last 2 years and it this trend will continue. To paraphrase - "It's the engineering calculations, stupid." Ares 1 was (originally) supposed to place into orbit 25 tons or more: It CAN'T, at least not without bringing back the SSME/RS-25 upper stage engine. Now payload is a miserable 18 tons - Anyone wanna bet how long it'll be before it slips to 17 tons, or LESS? It was supposed to cost $1 billion dollars: It WONT. How are they going to recover the lost payload capability, without deleting all recovery systems from the SRB and/or using filament wound casings? (making it expendable, oh that's right: Delta & Atlas are expendable). How could you improve the Isp over 265 seconds? You CAN'T. Anyone got a magic bullet solution? Anyone?? And more than a year ago on this and another forum, I proposed using strap-ons for the Ares 1's SRM and was soundly poo-poohed and shot down. Now there is a (serious?) proposal to do the same. Ironic, eh? *1): Why, why WHY build new, expensive crawler Transporters when Delta IV & Atlas don't need them and 'Direct' could use the existing, refurbished Crawlers? *2): Delta IV Heavy: Man-rateable and upper stage upgradable with RL-60s -- Less than $3 billion, less than 4 years to fly. Ready before Orion could be. **Already flown in basic form. *3): Atlas V Phase 2: Less than $5 billion, less than 5 years to fly. Ready before Orion could be. Safer hydrocarbon propellants. *4): Direct: Better than Ares 1, even if proposal's figures are off by a wide margin. Ready before Orion could be, most capable launcher(s) and best use of existing Shuttle infrastructure. The true meaning of "Simple, Safe & Soon". ARES 1-"Stick": THE EMPORER HAS NO CLOTHES. <div class="Discussion_UserSignature"> One Percent of Federal Funding For Space: America CAN Afford it!! LEO is a Prison -- It's time for a JAILBREAK!! </div>

subzero788 · Nov 16, 2006

"Now payload is a miserable 18 tons..." Where did you hear this? *EDIT* Jeff Hanley said this: " the latest set of analyses indicate that the Ares I can lift 58 klbm to the program-specified injection point of -30 x 100 nmi. This number PROJECTS worst case propulsion performance on the first and second stage." Thats more than 26mT.

mattblack · Nov 16, 2006

Sorry, that should read slightly more than 19 tons, for a vehicle with a liftoff thrust of over 3.6 million pounds. My mistake. Where did I hear it from from?: Exclusive Sources on Nasaspaceflight.com (GREAT site) and their various statements, some of which may or may not turn out to be erroneous. And, some of these guys keep anonymity to protect their jobs. Also, I have a good friend who's a human spaceflight engineer, not related to launchers (I'm going to protect his anonymity); he says he and his colleagues think the "Stick" is a joke and a wasteful duplication of launcher capabilities. But of course, for their careers, they tow the party line. I wish I was wrong, truly, but I fear I'm not... http://www.nasawatch.com/archives/2006/11/nasa_responds_t.html#more <div class="Discussion_UserSignature"> One Percent of Federal Funding For Space: America CAN Afford it!! LEO is a Prison -- It's time for a JAILBREAK!! </div>

bpfeifer · Nov 16, 2006

"Is ATK going for the K1 job to replace SRB work? " ATK is using the K-1 as their entry into the medium lift launch market. As I understand, they actually pursued the deal with Kistler, and not the other way around. <div class="Discussion_UserSignature"> Brian J. Pfeifer http://sabletower.wordpress.com The Dogsoldier Codex http://www.lulu.com/sabletower </div>

bpfeifer · Nov 16, 2006

"Do you happen to know if Lockheed has a model/sim of the system with their proposed CEV design? I'd think that'd be a pretty big thing to demonstrate the dynamics at liftoff..." I've seen images on NASA TV of wind tunnel tests of the Stick+Ares stack. The model was quite small, roughly the length of a hotdog on a pencil... <img src="/images/icons/smile.gif" /> <div class="Discussion_UserSignature"> Brian J. Pfeifer http://sabletower.wordpress.com The Dogsoldier Codex http://www.lulu.com/sabletower </div>

gunsandrockets · Nov 17, 2006

" Jeff Hanley said this: " the latest set of analyses indicate that the Ares I can lift 58 klbm to the program-specified injection point of -30 x 100 nmi. This number PROJECTS worst case propulsion performance on the first and second stage." NASA can't seem to get their story straight. According to this NASA press realease... http://www.nasa.gov/home/hqnews/2006/nov/HQ_06354_Constellation.html ...the mass of the Orion spacecraft has grown to ridiculous proportions! See this excerpt... " Engineers established Orion's take off weight for lunar missions at over 61,000 pounds." ...holy smokes! That's over 27 metric tons. Of course the same press release claims the Ares I has a 15% margin in excess of that weight, which would equal 70,000 pounds. I wonder what Jeff Hanley has to say about this now?

j05h · Nov 17, 2006

> ATK is using the K-1 as their entry into the medium lift launch market. As I understand, they actually pursued the deal with Kistler, and not the other way around. ATK's pursuit of RpK is very interesting, and reinforces the point. I think ATK knows that they are about to lose the Stick and are looking for replacement income. I'm still wondering why Orbital bailed on the prime integration contract. Josh <div class="Discussion_UserSignature"> <div align="center">We need a first generation of pioneers. </div> </div>

josh_simonson · Nov 17, 2006

There's a difference between takeoff weight and insertion weight. Takeoff weight may inclue the LAS, for instance. We already know that bit is 3-5t.

rfoshaug · Nov 17, 2006

That same document says: "An example of the activity was a review and analysis that confirmed the planned Ares I launch system has sufficient thrust to put the Orion spacecraft in orbit." So - no problemo. <img src="/images/icons/smile.gif" /> <div class="Discussion_UserSignature"> ----------------------------------My minds have many opinions </div>

spacester · Nov 17, 2006

I have no anxiety over this development. First, I have trust in Mike Griffin, simple as that; I won't elaborate the point here. Secondly, this fits with my conclusions way back when the Stick was announced and Mike said "they don't want us fiddling around with their systems anyway", meaning the EELV folks converting to human spaceflight. That phrase was telling, but a bit coded and I pondered it a lot. See, what I think Mike is doing is establishing 'Market Position' for NASA in the human spaceflight business. He's looking way down the road and trying to protect NASA from getting embarrassed 10-15-20 years from now. Without a NASA-led launcher and CEV, then NASA becomes a mere customer and while that sounds appealing to many of us it is simply too soon. NASA needs to establish superior capability to the private sector. They need to lead or risk becoming irrelevant. It's the "Lead, Follow or Get out of the way" thing I've been saying since forever, and Dr. Griffin intends to execute the first option and do it right. Suppose NASA went with human-rating Delta and Atlas. Suppose you could write a check for $2 Billion and make that happen without fail. Sounds attractive, eh? But would NASA be exclusive customers of this launch system? No, they would have the same size capsule in space as everybody else who can build a vehicle to put atop those rockets. What kind of a NASA would that be? Who do you think would be the first to return to the moon? NASA or Branson? What about that sexy spaceplane atop that Delta Variant that NASA wouldn't approve? They could take the extra risk, succeed and embarrass NASA horribly. Anyway, back to the subject at hand, Mike Griffin is head of NASA, not some private company. He operates in a hugely political environment so he is forced to build a Political Rocket. The solution to this political equation is the Stick; that bad boy will put some serious payload on the lun <div class="Discussion_UserSignature"> </div>

mattblack · Nov 17, 2006

I've said that I respect Griffin enormously, many times. But Nasa can't get their stories straight on the Stick. Many people in Nasa KNOW it wont be able to do what they want for an affordable price or without a drastically altered configuration. I believe that Mike Griffin is letting this thing take its course and will only act, rightly or wrongly, once all the engineering and management solutions have been tried. Perhaps we should all wait and see how this thing will take its course, and just be patient. That doesn't mean we're all immune to alarm over bad ideas or decisions, of course. *Also, its not the Ares 1-Stick that will put big payload on the lunar surface; that's the Ares V, which I certainly want to see built. Otherwise, much of what you say is true and I agree with it. <div class="Discussion_UserSignature"> One Percent of Federal Funding For Space: America CAN Afford it!! LEO is a Prison -- It's time for a JAILBREAK!! </div>

steve82 · Nov 17, 2006

josh is right. The Gross Liftoff Weight includes the LAS weight (considerably more than 3-5 tons, too) and is not the weight (okay, mass) that goes into orbit. I see three things coming out in this controversy: 1) System engineering is all about negotiating compromises and trades against constraints, resources, and performance expectations. Sometimes the constraints are technical ("Box X must withstand 2,000 degrees centigrade for an hour and still process data in a vacuum), some of them are political ("Box X must be built in state Y and 30 percent of the workforce must be women-/minority-owned Small Disadvantaged Businesses). This is true whether you are building a rocket, a road, or an apartment complex. When engineers negotiate these issues, it's called a requirements review. Yes, sometimes engineers are required to find technical solutions to political problems. 2) Conversely, NASAWatch seems to like to turn technical discussions into political debates. Keith Cowing seems to have a habit of dumpster diving into somebody's powerpoint charts or other technical presentations and pick little things completely out of context then draw a line in the sand and raise his sword of righteous indignation over the injustice of it all. He's a cure in search of a disease. There are going to be a LOT of requirements reviews in the Constellation/Orion program over the next few years, and I can assure you every one of them will have some issue going in that is somebody's pet concern and a potential program breaker. That's what engineering is all about and that's why we have reviews. 3) NASA managers can feel entrenched under such an onslaught ("those who wish see us fail")-an accusation is made and they have to respond to it no matter how baseless. But they can't respond directly ("Keith, we enjoy your column but here are the facts....") without having to go through official channels and putting out an official response from NASA. I'd be

mikeemmert · Nov 17, 2006

<blockquote>In reply to:<hr />NASA managers can feel entrenched under such an onslaught ("those who wish see us fail")-an accusation is made and they have to respond to it no matter how baseless.<hr /></blockquote>I was pretty disturbed when I read that e-mail. What onslaught? Some blog? I'll be frank, Jeff Hanley sounds a little paranoid to me. Nobody thinks the stick is going to fail. It's a rocket. It is known how to make rockets work. The problem is that any improvements over Soyuz, H-1, Ariane, Delta IV, Atlas V, on and on, are going to be small indeed. Whatever rocket we build will come up within a few percent of the performance of a Long March Shenzhou. And that can go either way. After all, between 2003 and 2006 we saw the Soyuz seriously outperform the Space Shuttle. Now we have to build a new rocket. Since there's a deadline, we'll have to go with the stick. For now. There's something better out there. I have faith in that. I would think on this board, of all places, there would be an advocacy of serious funding increases to find something better. It kind of disturbs me to see the X-30, X-33, X-43 and the like get tantalizingly close to a test flight, only to be cancelled at the last second. We might get outperformed by the Indian rocket, and they're not even competing with us, they're competing against the Chinese!

propforce · Nov 17, 2006

Spacester, You sound like a NASA-apologist! <img src="/images/icons/laugh.gif" /> Speaking of which, I wonder where did that last poster go? What's his name? So you said that NASA must lead, their product must be better than what the contractors can produce, they must control space-access and deny others of success and risking "...embarrass NASA horribly....". That's your MAIN argument why NASA should not use the EELV for CEV launches? <img src="/images/icons/laugh.gif" /> Don't let me put words in your mouth now, I am making sure I am reading your post correctly. Whatever happen to Cheap Access to Space? <img src="/images/icons/laugh.gif" /> <blockquote>In reply to:<hr /> Anyway, back to the subject at hand, Mike Griffin is head of NASA, not some private company. He operates in a hugely political environment so he is forced to build a Political Rocket. The solution to this political equation is the Stick; that bad boy will put some serious payload on the lunar surface and that will be something that the private sector will have a very hard time matching. So that's why Mike is sticking to his guns - he sees it as almost now or never for NASA led human spaceflight. <hr /></blockquote> I am sorry to point out some "technical facts" in this otherwise "political-biased" thread by most posters, including yours <img src="/images/icons/laugh.gif" /> 1) *The Stick* will NOT put up "...some serious payload ...". 2) *The Stick* will only deliver the CEV to LEO and not "...on the lunar surface ...". Your worship of Mike Griffin does not hide the fact that he's making a terrible mistake by *sticking* with ATK - the manufacturer of the SRB. This un-holy alliance comes with the fact that many NASA top managers either came from ATK or has gone over to ATK is just look very shady to the rest of us. It would be one thing if the choice ma <div class="Discussion_UserSignature"> </div>

propforce · Nov 17, 2006

<blockquote>In reply to:<hr /> That same document says: "An example of the activity was a review and analysis that confirmed the planned Ares I launch system has sufficient thrust to put the Orion spacecraft in orbit." So - no problemo. <hr /></blockquote> I feel so much better now that a NASA INTERNAL MEMO, a.k.a., not for public release, but "somehow" made it to the public, stating as such. I can sleep easy now <img src="/images/icons/wink.gif" />. <div class="Discussion_UserSignature"> </div>

propforce · Nov 17, 2006

<blockquote>In reply to:<hr /> I've said that I respect Griffin enormously, many times. <hr /></blockquote> Who would not respect someone who has 7 degrees, wrote a book, but has never managed any real developmental project, enormously? <blockquote>In reply to:<hr /> But Nasa can't get their stories straight on the Stick. Many people in Nasa KNOW it wont be able to do what they want for an affordable price or without a drastically altered configuration. <hr /></blockquote> Maybe NASA can't get their story straight because they can't keep *The Stick* straight! Is this the stick with or without two additional solid "strap-on" motors? Why not make public the SRR briefing package? <blockquote>In reply to:<hr />I believe that Mike Griffin is letting this thing take its course and will only act, rightly or wrongly, once all the engineering and management solutions have been tried<hr /></blockquote> Let's see, yup... it will be another two-years and many billion of dollars later. BUT... ALL NASA employees would be gainfully employeed. Thus the big picture..... We are *not* in a hurry to get back to the Moon afterall.... <div class="Discussion_UserSignature"> </div>

propforce · Nov 17, 2006

<blockquote>In reply to:<hr />It kind of disturbs me to see the X-30, X-33, X-43 and the like get tantalizingly close to a test flight, only to be cancelled at the last second. <hr /></blockquote> Despite I am critical toward NASA's *The Stick* design, I do have to defend the canceling of these failed projects. <img src="/images/icons/smile.gif" /> First, these projects were not cancelled ".. the last second..". Their failures were known prior to actual test flights and, in the case of X-30 and X-33, it would not make sense to build the actual flight test vehicle and to incur additional expenses. The X-43 was successfully flown. It's purpose was accomplished. Thus the end of an X test program. In the case of *The Stick*, I understand NASA's objective (as per ESAS) and I even agree with its prime objectives. I just don't see the "chosen configuration" is a correct one, nor do I see NASA employees are the right one to design them. NASA employees have not design, develop, or manufacture any launch vehicles for quite sometimes. They were not the one who designed the Space Shuttle vehicle and that's over 30 years ago. In the last 30 years, its employees have not had any experience in designing anything. They were merely contract monitors. The design know-how rest in the industry. Afterall, if the Air Force, Army, Navy and the Marine trust their vehicles designed & manufactured by the industry. If the general public trust the airplanes they fly are built by the industry. If the NASA astronauts trust the industry to fly them to orbit and back for the last 30 years, why can't this NASA? <div class="Discussion_UserSignature"> </div>

propforce · Nov 17, 2006

<blockquote>In reply to:<hr />I'm drawing a blank here. What vehicle(s) has NASA designed in the past? <hr /></blockquote> I think you'll have to go back to Werner Von Braun's NASA <img src="/images/icons/smile.gif" /> Unless you mean most recently, the X-34, which NASA MSFC claimed their biggest lessons learned was "we learned not to design or manufacture any vehicle ourselves !" <img src="/images/icons/laugh.gif" /> <div class="Discussion_UserSignature"> </div>

baktothemoon · Nov 17, 2006

Hey, could you modify a Falcon V to launch an Orion capsule? Just a question to see what alternatives to the stick are on the drawing table right now.

mikeemmert · Nov 17, 2006

(newsartist):<blockquote>In reply to:<hr />In reply to: -------------------------------------------------------------------------------- I'm drawing a blank here. What vehicle(s) has NASA designed in the past? --------------------------------------------------------------------------------<hr /></blockquote> (propforce):<blockquote>In reply to:<hr /> I think you'll have to go back to Werner Von Braun's NASA<hr /></blockquote>Correctamundo!!! You got it!<blockquote>In reply to:<hr />...The exploration of space will go ahead, whether we join in it or not, and it is one of the great adventures of all time, and no nation which expects to be the leader of other nations can expect to stay behind in this race for space. Those who came before us made certain that this country rode the first waves of the industrial revolutions, the first waves of modern invention, and the first wave of nuclear power, and this generation does not intend to founder in the backwash of the coming age of space. We mean to be a part of it-we mean to lead it. For the eyes of the world now look into space, to the moon and to the planets beyon Yet the vows of this Nation can only be fulfilled if we in this Nation are first, and, therefore, we intend to be first. In short, our leadership in science and in industry, our hopes for peace and security, our obligations to ourselves as well as others, all require us to make this effort, to solve these mysteries, to solve them for the good of all men, and to become the world's leading space-faring nation... ...We choose to go to the moon in this decade and do the other things, not because they are easy, but because they are hard, because that goal will serve to organize and measure the best of our energies and skills, because that challenge is one that we are willing to accept, one we are unwilling</blockquote>

BIG problems with Ares I - "the stick"

j05h

Guest

j05h

Guest

propforce

Guest

halman

Guest

jschaef5

Guest

mattblack

Guest

subzero788

Guest

mattblack

Guest

bpfeifer

Guest

bpfeifer

Guest

gunsandrockets

Guest

j05h

Guest

josh_simonson

Guest

rfoshaug

Guest

spacester

Guest

mattblack

Guest

steve82

Guest

mikeemmert

Guest

propforce

Guest

propforce

Guest

propforce

Guest

propforce

Guest

propforce

Guest

baktothemoon

Guest

mikeemmert

Guest

Similar threads

TRENDING THREADS

Latest posts

Share this page