Buzz Aldrin did not like the Ares 1-X

[radarredux]

Interesting editorial by Buzz Aldrin panning the Ares 1-X (it was just politics) and the Ares I and Ares V combination.

To add just a little bit to his position, if even under the current plan NASA won't be venturing into deep space for about 20 years (estimate by the Augustine Committee), why not step back and design a truly next generational rocket that can do it all in one launch.

Why We Need Better Rockets
by Buzz Aldrin

 

[mj1]

I say it may be time for NASA to get out of the LEO business. It's time for them to put those brains down there to work designing a ship for deep space exploration on the moon and beyond that is built and launched in space. Yes, it will take some time to get us to that point, but it will be time better spent on this than on expensive boosters that private companies can design for a fraction of the cost. I rather them wait 10-20 more years and build a real ship than use a rehashed Apollo program to go to the moon. Let the privateers handle getting men and material to LEO. NASA has been there and done that. They can invest a fraction of the money they would spend designing new boosters in private industry and get a lot more bang for the buck. It is time for them to move onto new frontiers in space exploration and get a more long term view.

 

[docm]

Amen, and they can get a head start by getting in bed with Bigelow for the necessary habs.

 

[Booban]

Except we need a new rocket yesterday, a ton of money has already been spent and there is just no guarantee that private industry will not encounter development difficulties and cost increases.

But Ares 1 is too small, barely able to lift the crew space capsule. And Ares V is too weak to boost all of the elements together.

This says to me that Ares 1 is just right, you don't want more rocket than you need. And Ares V is just right to take advantage of there being an Ares 1.

What do we need? One rocket for all our deep space missions. Save the taxpayer's money by canceling the Ares 1 and V. And go "back to the future" in designing the big beast. So how do we get to the space station without Ares 1? Let the commercial space firms develop their own crew launchers, and crew vehicles. Why should Uncle Sam be in the people hauling business?

Uncle Sam is in the people hauling business because it wants to put people in space, pretty simple. If Virgin Galactic or Space-X had a rocket ready that NASA could just buy at a known cost, fine. But they don't. There is no time to have an open competitive contracting process, and then get sued and start over when it fails.

Buzz wants to do a different mission than what Ares and Constellation are meant to do, of course they seem inadequate.

 

[Swampcat]

Uncle Sam is in the people hauling business because it wants to put people in space, pretty simple. If Virgin Galactic or Space-X had a rocket ready that NASA could just buy at a known cost, fine. But they don't. There is no time to have an open competitive contracting process, and then get sued and start over when it fails.

Uncle Sam is not in any kind of business.

Maybe if NASA had a rocket ready to fly we wouldn't be having this discussion. But they don't.

 

[Booban]

Uncle Sam is not in any kind of business.

Doesn't Uncle Sam own a bunch of car companies and banks now?

Things are not so clear cut as ideology wants it to be. Private enterprise is not always cheapest, and government isn't always the worse solution.

 

[xXTheOneRavenXx]

I personally think that resorting back to an Apollo type craft was NASA's act of despiration to come up with something before they lost the oppurtunity to do so. With the amount of "great minds" that I believed work for NASA, I would have thought they could have come up with something better. By building this particular type of craft NASA just really limited themselves of what they could not only carry into space, but the type of missions as well. I really would have considered the "biggest bang for your buck" kind of craft before stealing an old idea, and calling it a new one. There have been many many advances in technology that NASA could have utilized but simply choose not to. I really think building this thing is a waste of time and money. A few heads need to be knocked together to get people thinking again at NASA instead of pretending their living in the past. A craft that had both the capability to carry cargo when required as well the ability to utilize that area for an extra booster for distance when doing deeper space missions would have been the ideal craft, but again the NASA needs to show a bit more motivation towards a positive progress ahead before that will ever happen.

 

[SpaceForAReason]

Better Vehicles (part I)

Ares I may turn out to be a good vehicle to LEO, I don't know. Buzz is the rocket scientist and has ridden in more rockets than I have. I do know that it will never go to the moon or mars. Something else will be needed. Something more appropriate.

Mission Transfer Vehicle (MTV)
We do need another vehicle. But not launched from earth; at least not launched more than once. This MTV needs to be born in space and stay in space. The MTV can be roomier and packed with more redundancies and, heck, maybe a big screen TV. It's purpose is similar to that of a 32ft Winnebago. It merely goes from point A to point B; but with a comfort level suited for long journeys, equipment more suted to long journeys like radar and astrogation, and decent sleeping accomodations. To my disappointment, Ares simply won't accomodate the queen-sized bed I wanted. There's no point to taking the VW bug (Ares capsule) on a long trip if you do not get there in a ready to work condition. (The kids would just fight over the front seat anyway and complain that they have to 'go' every fifteen minutes.) And besides... why drag around a heat shield, parachutes, etc. in a place you will never use them when you can trade it for living and cargo space? Leave all that launcher stuff in a parking ourbit around earth.

The MTV does not have to be as light. Make these guys comfortable and give them lots of room and ample radiation sheilding. Build in all the redundancies that could not be launched in an earth-based vehicle. Give it large solar panels. Give it a large airlock for EVAs. It is made for space and, like a fish in water, it works best there. Ask any astronaut. A vehicle like this would make the first trips to the moon seem like a pioneer wagon ride!

Lunar Lander (LL)
We also need space based landers that remain in a lunar parking orbit until the Winnebago pulls up and drops off the happy campers to use them. When the LLs return, they are left in parking orbit for the next time they need to be used. (The government does have a green initiative, I think they just forgot that in space reuse saves cost, litter, and energy too.) The lander must be light with ample fuel capacity. If the vehicle is reused, who cares if there is more fuel left over? We can use it next time and extend the next mission profile!

Crew Ascent Vehicle (CAV) Revisited
No matter what the final outcome, the crew launcher must be light. It does not need to have deep-space sheilding for LEO. It does not need a lunar transfer engine, just an orbital maneuvering engine. Smaller. Lighter. Easier to launch from earth. It should be the lightest, most economical of all the vehicles.

 

[SpaceForAReason]

Better Vehicles (Part II)

Mission Mode Specific Vehicles Are Better
The modes of every mission must be considered and have a vehicle specifically designed to ensure the highest level of performance for its specific purpose. For example:

When I want to haul something I use a truck (and I don't have to dock my car to it for it to work).
When I go on vacation with my family I rent a Winnebago (I still don't dock the car to it even if I choose to drag the silly thing).
When I want to have fun in the sand I drive a sand rail (again, I do not recommend docking your car to it; it just spoils the fun).
When I travel or work on water I use a boat (nope, no car).
When I travel in the sky I use a plane (no car).
Wouldn't it be nice to have Delta Airlines drop me off at the hotel in the 737? (Cool but wrong).
Likewise I do not try to drive a VW Bug to China (not cool at all if you want to sleep).

A single vehicle for every purpose simply will not suffice. On Earth we use vehicles appropriate to the job. We have spent thousands of years discovering this here on earth, it makes me wonder why we think this would change in space?

When the vehicle does one job well, it is far more economical, is far safer, and easier to use.

Each vehicle is simpler to design and build because it is not integrating conficting missions into one complicated, swiss-army-knife-leviathan. Once the support vehicles are assembled in space and placed at their duty stations ready to be used, the only lifting left is the crew, the supplies, and the fuel. Period. Next mission... Ditto, because the other stuff is still up there ready to be used over and over.

Buzz had a point: We need one rocket. I propose that it need not be a beast if we place the necessary reusable infrastructure in space and intelligently not launch it over and over. Lets build re-use into the equation and make it so we can afford to launch and afford to launch in shorter intervals.

 

[vulture4]

Reply to "Better Vehicles" -- Hey, I agree with the three-vehicle scheme, and so does Arthur C. Clark- didn't we see this all "2001 A Space Oddesy".? It would at least have a chance of making human lunar flight financially feasible. But I think the first step should be the Earth-to-Leo shuttle, because that gets just about everything else up there, and can make money supplying the ISS and hauling tourists as well.

But regarding the Ares, this is not the sixties. The US has a budget deficit, and is the world's largest debtor. If we are going to spend tax dollars, what we get must be worth the cost. To spend $140 billion you need a really good reason. Constellation was created to send Americans back to the Moon and on to Mars. Obviously we don't have the money to go to Mars with what is essentially 1960's technology. For LEO Orion makes a very poor Shuttle. What is Constellation going to provide that is worth the cost, or is even of any practical value?

 

[jakethesnake]

Buzz is just Buzzed in the head! :lol:

 

[SpaceForAReason]

But regarding the Ares, this is not the sixties. The US has a budget deficit, and is the world's largest debtor. If we are going to spend tax dollars, what we get must be worth the cost. To spend $140 billion you need a really good reason. Constellation was created to send Americans back to the Moon and on to Mars. Obviously we don't have the money to go to Mars with what is essentially 1960's technology. For LEO Orion makes a very poor Shuttle. What is Constellation going to provide that is worth the cost, or is even of any practical value?

I agree, Ares is just too darned expensive. Just figure that Scaled Composites did sub-orbital at a fraction of the cost of the original sub-orbital fights by NASA. I can only imagine that orbital flights should cheaper as well.

 

[jakethesnake]

"Obviously we don't have the money” OMG!

NASA’s budgetary cost as compared to the United States Federal Budget in 2009 was only 0.55%, and as it looks right now it will only be 0.52% in 2010…

If you were going to invest in any company, and when you look at that companies prospectus and did not see at least 4% of that company’s total earnings going into R&D… then you are most likely looking at a company that is not long for this world…

Also, I don’t see how anyone can get by the fact that an SRB has an order of magnitude less moving parts than any liquid rocket out there, and to say you can’t throttle down an SRB… Good God you are kidding me right???

BOOM is BOOM and DEAD is DEAD! :shock:

From an engineering standpoint less moving parts is a more simple design… not very easy to get by that one.

As Far as the MONEY GOES:

This great stimulus package that support such thing as $2 million for neon signs in Las Vegas, $4.5 million for an eco park featuring butterfly gardens and gopher tortoises, $500,000 for a dog park, $3 million for a municipal golf course clubhouse, $886,000 for a 36-hole disc golf course, $1.8 million for replacement tennis courts, $6 million for three aquatic centers with water slides…

And the list goes on, and on, and on, and on…

I would think we could find the cash if we truly wanted to right :?:

I wonder where we would be if it wasn’t for the push towards the MOON in the 60s ?

Maybe somewhere in the early 1980s technologically???

God that would suck to have to carry around a 25 pound ipod!

Sorry , Just a little venting... I couldn’t help myself…

 

[Booban]

"Obviously we don't have the money” OMG!

NASA’s budgetary cost as compared to the United States GDP in 2009 was only 0.55%, and as it looks right now it will only be 0.52% in 2010…

If you were going to invest in any company, and when you look at that companies prospectus and did not see at least 4% of that company’s total earnings going into R&D… then you are most likely looking at a company that is not long for this world…

Japans defense budget is just 1% of its GDP. Europe its not much higher than 2%. 1/2 a percent of a countries GDP is a absolutely huge proportion for just a single mission. The space program really shouldn't expect anything more than this.

I do not know what the number is, but a significant portion of NASA's budget isn't even about space, but aviation. To me, aviation and space are two different things and ought to be separated.

And its not comparable to an R&D budget, NASA's budget is not purely for R&D and there is another part of the budget for that, not to mention that it is actually private companies that should pay for their own R&D isn't it.

 

[jakethesnake]

"Obviously we don't have the money” OMG!

NASA’s budgetary cost as compared to the United States GDP in 2009 was only 0.55%, and as it looks right now it will only be 0.52% in 2010…

If you were going to invest in any company, and when you look at that companies prospectus and did not see at least 4% of that company’s total earnings going into R&D… then you are most likely looking at a company that is not long for this world…

Japans defense budget is just 1% of its GDP. Europe its not much higher than 2%. 1/2 a percent of a countries GDP is a absolutely huge proportion for just a single mission. The space program really shouldn't expect anything more than this.

I do not know what the number is, but a significant portion of NASA's budget isn't even about space, but aviation. To me, aviation and space are two different things and ought to be separated.

And its not comparable to an R&D budget, NASA's budget is not purely for R&D and there is another part of the budget for that, not to mention that it is actually private companies that should pay for their own R&D isn't it.

I did not want this to become a thesis, my point was to show what meager portion NASA gets, and as far as the percentage of GDP… actually my numbers would be incorrect, I should have said that NASA is getting $17.318 Billion dollars or .55% of $2.6 Trillion dollars of the (United States Federal Budget) not the (GDP).

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/NASA_Budget

If compared to the United States GDP, which is projected to be $14.7 Trillion dollars in 2009; NASA’s budget is actually only about 0.10% of that.

Europes Military Budget = 2 % or about $62 Billion. for NASA.

Japan's Military Budget = 1% or about $31 Billion for NASA

Also, I think comparing NASA as it relates to R&D is a very good comparison and/or analogy as compared to U.S. corporate structure, keeping in mind in this analogy I am not forgetting the other things such as Physics, Astronomy, medicine and many other cutting edge sciences.

As far as Military budgets goes… check out what the U.S. spends… and NASA gets what???

The federally budgeted (see below) military expenditure of the United States Department of Defense for fiscal year 2009.

Total Base Spending of the U.S. Military for 2009 = $515.4 billion.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Military_b ... ted_States

 

[Booban]

Yes, and I should have known better than to believe it was true that it was .55% of GDP.

Yes, R&D is important for a country, but you have no numbers on actual corporate research on the matter. Remember that many here believe that private and government should be kept separate.

Comparing NASA's budget to the military, well, its easier than comparing it to say, schools and roads, and health perhaps, or whichever part of government spending your current audience doesn't find popular.

NASA's budget should be increased or decreased on it's own merit, otherwise just because the country decreases defense spending, it won't mean that NASA will get the funds.

 

[jakethesnake]

NASA’s merit has nothing to do with it… ya got Russia, China, India, the EAU and Japan that will either pass the U.S. by or we can spend what is needed to make sure that doesn’t happen. It’s that simple.

 

[Booban]

I don't quite know where they are heading to as they pass us by, but if they do, it's not because of funding. NASA has a far far larger space budget than any of those countries.

China's space budget is for sending those taikonauts to space was....2.4 billion dollars
http://www.spacedaily.com/reports/Chine ... s_999.html


Estimates of China's space activities by western sources vary considerably. Though unsupported by documentation, western media report that China's annual spending on space activities is between $1.3 billion to $3 billion. There are also claims that China has invested tens of billions of dollars in its military-linked space program. Most studies estimate China's space program costing around $1.5 to $2 billion per year, comparable to what Japan spends, and far more than Russia. This compares to the budget of $6 billion annually for the European Space Agency and the $15.5 billion a year NASA gets in the United States, outside of unclassified U.S. military space programs command a further $8.5 billion a year in federal spending.

http://www.wsichina.org/space/program.cfm?programid=3&charid=1

This means the NASA has a bigger space budget than any of our major competitors combined. There really is little excuse for the American space program to be in such a shabby shape, NASA's budget has been comparatively huge and stable for decades.

I do believe that the Chinese, and other countries, get considerably more bang for their buck than the US does.

 

[vulture4]

Booban>>NASA's budget should be increased or decreased on it's own merit, otherwise just because the country decreases defense spending, it won't mean that NASA will get the funds.<<

Excellent point!! You can bet if spending is cut, the taxpayers will want their taxes cut as well. It's time to stop arguing about how small NASA's share of the budget is, and start talking about what NASA can do for America, what it would cost, and what it would be worth.

Jakethesnake>>NASA’s merit has nothing to do with it… ya got Russia, China, India, the EAU and Japan that will either pass the U.S. by or we can spend what is needed to make sure that doesn’t happen. It’s that simple.<<

It is not that simple. In the sixties America was the world's largest creditor. Apollo was a substitute for a nuclear arms race with an ideological adversary. Today America is the world's largest debtor. Our competitors in space are our capitalist trading partners, and our adversaries have no interest in space. Any tax dollars we spend on space must produce benefits greater than we would get by investing the money in some other form of R&D.

Spaceforareason>>Ares is just too darned expensive. Just figure that Scaled Composites did sub-orbital at a fraction of the cost of the original sub-orbital fights by NASA. I can only imagine that orbital flights should cheaper as well.<<

I agree 100%. Scaled Composites built the airframes for the X-34, and NASA canceled the project for no stated reason. Rutan famously offered to fly the X-34s at his own expense, and NASA inexplicable refused. Now Rutan has the world's most sophisticated carrier aircraft, and plans to use it to launch small satellites as well as suborbital passengers. Why isn't NASA helping him? Why doesn't NASA give him the X-34 prototypes, which will otherwise just rust into uselessness? Now that might excite the public, and for a good reason.

 

[Booban]

Thanks for your post.

Now about private space companies, I am not at all against that, just these cases are to me, inappropriate.

You see, why should NASA give away tech that tax payers paid for? Burt would get advanced research for free, and since NASA would probably be their only customer, sell it back to NASA for profit. The American tax payer pays twice!

I am all for supporting private enterprise, but you have to consider this is making a few wealthy individuals even richer. The laws of capitalism just doesn't work here.

Failing that a wholly govt. owned entity with many smart people doing anything efficiently, I don't really have a problem with the government partially owning 25% of private companies, if they insist on being subsidized in this manner.

 

[jakethesnake]

First off you are going off on a total tangent here…

Burt Rutan will no doubt go down in the history books… and for the most part… he already has… and he’s not even dead yet.

He might even get to LEO... who knows... :?:

But getting beyond that is a quantum leap from suborbital flight :!:

As far as SpaceX and Orbital Sciences, I hope nothing but the best for them every time they launch! I am most definitely rooting for them!

The sample size of launches for SpaceX is (4)... and not to mention the outcome and the of those launches... you need at least a sample size of 7 to have anything that is statistically tangible!

Do you know what a gamble is booban :?:

Private companies launching Astronauts into LEO anytime soon are at best a HUGE GAMBLE! :!: :!: :!:

 

[jakethesnake]

Booban"]I don't quite know where they are heading to as they pass us by,

That's the problem here! :lol:

 

[Booban]

Don't get me wrong, I agree that betting on private companies is a gamble. I am not a gambling man.

 

[vulture4]

SpaceX and Virgin Galactic have their pick of the best engineers in the country. I don't know anyone working for a government contractor who wouldn't jump at the chance, because they are so much more efficient. Given the funding, either can get people into space in fairly short order. SpaceX would use multiple unmanned flights to assess safety, Virgin would "expand the envelope" by gradually increasing speed and altitude; in both cases a simple design and thorough testing would replace endless paper analysis and tabletop reviews, and redundancy everywhere that adds complexity, cost, and often new failure modes without significantly improving reliability.

 

[job1207]

There is enough $$$ in the defense budget to build a real rocket. Period. We do not need a bunch of toys they are building. We have enough defense toys.

Also, W spent the peace dividend in Iraq, while FORGETTING UBL. Ooops. Now we have to spend another ten years cleaning up Afghanistan. ( more or less )

We have $200 Billion in TARP money that is unspent. We could buy a new rocket in no time at all. The Stimulus money is not all spent either. There is about $400 billion left there.