Is Ares I another dead end like the Shuttle?

[nuaetius]

Given that the Ares I rocket has the ability to carry 55k lbs to the ISS, and the current Orion capsule takes every pound of capacity that the Ares I rocket has, how can the Constellation project in the future get to the moon using this rocket or capsule? From everything I have read there is no “upgrading†of the Ares I to increase its lifting capacity. Also the Orion Stage 2 (and 3 for that matter) capsule capable of reentry from outside LEO will weigh significantly more than the current Orion Stage 1 capsule design. Has anyone heard an interview or read an article about NASA addressing this issue?

 

[willpittenger]

The Ares I only needs to lift the Orion to LEO. Unlike Apollo, they are not using Lunar Orbit Rendezvous (LOR). Rather, the plan is what was called Earth Orbit Rendezvous (EOR). An Ares V will lift the lander and a booster to dock with the Orion. The booster will provide the TLI (trans-lunar injection) energy. <div class="Discussion_UserSignature"> <hr style="margin-top:0.5em;margin-bottom:0.5em" />Will Pittenger<hr style="margin-top:0.5em;margin-bottom:0.5em" />Add this user box to your Wikipedia User Page to show your support for the SDC forums: <div style="margin-left:1em">{{User:Will Pittenger/User Boxes/Space.com Account}}</div> </div>

 

[radarredux]

Well, given that the shuttle will have flown operationally for ~30 years when it retires, I will be quite happy if Ares I lasts until 2040.<br /><br />However, you concern about its limited capacity is a concern that has been discussed a fair amount here. It seems every few months the Orion capsule gets a little smaller to accomodate the Ares I limitations.<br /><br />As was mentioned, the Lunar Lander and the Earth Depature Stage will be launched on a separate Ares V booster, and the Orion and its command module will dock with them in Low Earth Orbit before proceeding to the Moon. <b><font color="yellow">However,</font>/b> for Lunar missions Orion and its command module will need to carry additional consumables for the round trip to the Moon, enough propellant to break into Lunar orbit and then later break out of Lunar orbit, and a more massive heatshield for faster re-entries.<br /><br /><b>Does anyone know how much additional mass (if any) these extra requirements for a Lunar Orion will be over the LEO Orion to ISS?</b></b>

 

[jimfromnsf]

Are I maqy be a dead end but not Orion.

 

[chode]

I remember hearing at the latest Orion news conference that the plan is to use the lunar lander descent engine to do the lunar orbit insertion burn. This significantly reduces the extra fuel that the Orion SM needs to carry for lunar missions. Of course, there still is the extra fuel needed for trans-earth injection, additional consumables, and (possibly) heavier heat shield.<br /><br />Regards

 

[grdja]

The best "worst case" scenario regarding USA spaceflight is that Ares I is developed in order to give orbital and ISS access, and Ares 5 is postponed until further notice by new administration. And i believe that moon plans will be scrapped whether democrats or republicans win in 2008.

 

[jammers]

Actually, they're using EOR *and* LOR. The EOR part is as you described in your post, and the LOR part is when the LSAM (Lunar Surface Access Module) undocks from Orion and lands, then docks after taking off again.

 

[jimfromnsf]

"Given that the Ares I rocket has the ability to carry 55k lbs to the ISS"<br /><br />It isn't to the ISS, it is to a 100 nmi by 30 orbit or so

 

[askold]

Going back to the moon is going to be a tough sell no matter which party wins the election. Been there, done that.<br /><br />Meanwhile, here on Earth, bridges are falling down, levees are failing.<br /><br />I don't think that NASA is going to automatically get the funding like it did with Apollo.

 

[willpittenger]

You're correct. Sorry. <div class="Discussion_UserSignature"> <hr style="margin-top:0.5em;margin-bottom:0.5em" />Will Pittenger<hr style="margin-top:0.5em;margin-bottom:0.5em" />Add this user box to your Wikipedia User Page to show your support for the SDC forums: <div style="margin-left:1em">{{User:Will Pittenger/User Boxes/Space.com Account}}</div> </div>

 

[docm]

Bridges and levees are failing because corrupt politicians are diverting the infrastructure funds geared for them to build memorials to themselves. Party doesn't matter as there are prime examples in both, which cooperate with each other to perpetuate the "earmarks" system. <div class="Discussion_UserSignature"> </div>

 

[willpittenger]

Actually, the problem with American roads is how we "improve" them. There is a fundamental difference between how we build and maintain roads and how the Germans maintain their autobahns. Here in the US, when contractors bid on a road construction project funded by the feds, the lowest bidder wins -- period. There are no exceptions. Furthermore, the state or local government can't require a warranty.<br /><br />Imagine shopping for a new car that seats 5 and holds X amount in the trunk. If the lowest bidder wins and you can't ask for a warranty, would you expect to get a pile of junk for your hard earned cash?<br /><br />Contrast that with the Autobahn. The Germans will replace a section of pavement if one little crack appears. We would settle for attempting to seal the crack. In fact, the very design of the road is different. Our freeways typically have concrete just 12 inches thick. An autobahn will use up to twice that.<br /><br />In the end, our roads are <font color="yellow"><b><i>not</i></b></font>losing money to the space program. We are just spending the money that we allocate to roads poorly. <div class="Discussion_UserSignature"> <hr style="margin-top:0.5em;margin-bottom:0.5em" />Will Pittenger<hr style="margin-top:0.5em;margin-bottom:0.5em" />Add this user box to your Wikipedia User Page to show your support for the SDC forums: <div style="margin-left:1em">{{User:Will Pittenger/User Boxes/Space.com Account}}</div> </div>

 

[docm]

Agreed on European roads and their design/maintenance. Been there, seen that, but that doesn't change that the majority of our infrastructure funds are wasted. <br /><br />I live in a small city of <50,000 and I can visit at least 6 of these within a 5 minute drive, most all of which have a politicians name and were built using federal earmark funds from the highway program. <br /><br />Meanwhile many of our roads are either unpaved or poorly maintained. When they are rebuilt it's a quick skim-over with 4-6 inches of asphalt instead of a real replacement of the concrete. <br /><br />Even when they do replace the concrete it's a joke. Once they rebuilt 1 mile of badly crumbled road only to have it be a washboard. The first fire truck to make a run over it resulted in 3 firefighters going to the hospital for head & neck injuries; their heads were dribbled off the roof of the fire engine <img src="/images/icons/mad.gif" /> <div class="Discussion_UserSignature"> </div>

 

[PistolPete]

Besides, NASA is such a small portion of the Federal budget that I doubt scrapping NASA alltogether would change mutch. <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>

 

[MeteorWayne]

That is an excellent point.<br /><br />In the big picture, it's chump change.<br /><br />We spend more in 6 weeks in Iraq than the annual NASA budget, interest on the national debt most likely dwarfs both those numbers. Useless pork exceeds NASA's budget, never mind useful pork.<br /><br />Road maintainance should be paid for by a dedicated (and I mean really dedicated, not Washington or Trenton weaseley) gas tax.<br /><br />I'll check the forecast for hell to see how likely a freezing spell is.<br /><br />However, we are getting off topic here (my bad). That thing you see up is my dander <img src="/images/icons/tongue.gif" /><br /> <div class="Discussion_UserSignature"> <p><font color="#000080"><em><font color="#000000">But the Krell forgot one thing John. Monsters. Monsters from the Id.</font></em> </font></p><p><font color="#000080">I really, really, really, really miss the "first unread post" function</font><font color="#000080"> </font></p> </div>

 

[askold]

Hmm. If you're concerned about "low bidder" construction, then you probably don't want to read NASA's Constellation RFP. Here's the bid evaluation part:<br /><br /><i>M.2 BASIS FOR CONTRACT AWARD <br /><br />(a) Discussions<br /><br />In accordance with the Instructions to Offerors – Competitive Acquisition provision of this solicitation (FAR 52.215-1), the Government intends to evaluate proposals and award a contract without discussions with Offerors (except clarifications as described in FAR 15.306(a)). Therefore, the Offeror’s initial proposal should contain the Offeror’s best terms. The Government reserves the right to conduct discussions if the Contracting Officer later determines them to be necessary. Only one award will be made as a result of this solicitation. Award will be made to the Offeror who is deemed to be responsible in accordance with the Federal Acquisition Regulation (FAR), whose proposal conforms to the solicitation requirements <b>and whose proposal is found to have offered the best value.</b>"</i><br /><br />In other words, from all proposals that meet the requirements, low bidder gets it.

 

[willpittenger]

Best value is better than lowest price tag. Value usually includes more than just the price. <div class="Discussion_UserSignature"> <hr style="margin-top:0.5em;margin-bottom:0.5em" />Will Pittenger<hr style="margin-top:0.5em;margin-bottom:0.5em" />Add this user box to your Wikipedia User Page to show your support for the SDC forums: <div style="margin-left:1em">{{User:Will Pittenger/User Boxes/Space.com Account}}</div> </div>

 

[PistolPete]

I just did the math. NASA's current budget is 0.56% of the Federal budget for this year. IIRC it is one of the least funded organizations in the Federal Government <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>

 

[dragon04]

The whole notion of the "lowest bidder" is flawed and always has been.<br /><br />This is where private enterprise is going to shine. I don't know about spacecraft, but I do know that once upon a time, a company I worked for put in a bid to put a simple key telephone system in a National Guard base.<br /><br />Due to the bureaucratic red tape, and endless pages of specifications, we had to charge the Government double what we would have any other customer in order to comply with what the Government wanted.<br /><br /> <div class="Discussion_UserSignature"> <em>"2012.. Year of the Dragon!! Get on the Dragon Wagon!".</em> </div>

 

[docm]

Remind me sometime to post on how much govt. paperwork BS is involved in getting permits for a CT or MRI scanner <img src="/images/icons/tongue.gif" /> <div class="Discussion_UserSignature"> </div>

 

[jimfromnsf]

"and whose proposal is found to have offered the best value." "<br /><br />It doesn't not say lowest cost. It said "best value" Cost is just one of many discriminators. <br /><br />Example: Spacex would not have won the CEV contract because previous experience would be valued more than cost

 

[willpittenger]

Unfortunately, some similar claims turned out to be comparisons of apples and oranges. Example: The cost of each B-2 includes a lot of replacement parts. Subtract those and the cost of that B-2 seems at least remotely reasonable although still expensive. <div class="Discussion_UserSignature"> <hr style="margin-top:0.5em;margin-bottom:0.5em" />Will Pittenger<hr style="margin-top:0.5em;margin-bottom:0.5em" />Add this user box to your Wikipedia User Page to show your support for the SDC forums: <div style="margin-left:1em">{{User:Will Pittenger/User Boxes/Space.com Account}}</div> </div>

 

[askold]

The point is - most government procurements are bid out on a least cost basis. Not just road construction. NASA too.<br /><br />Whoever can meet the requirements at the lowest cost gets the contract - laying asphalt or building spaceships.

 

[holmec]

<blockquote><font class="small">In reply to:</font><hr /><p>The whole notion of the "lowest bidder" is flawed and always has been.<br /><br />This is where private enterprise is going to shine. I don't know about spacecraft, but I do know that once upon a time, a company I worked for put in a bid to put a simple key telephone system in a National Guard base.<br /><br />Due to the bureaucratic red tape, and endless pages of specifications, we had to charge the Government double what we would have any other customer in order to comply with what the Government wanted. <p><hr /></p></p></blockquote><br /><br />As flawed as it is (because its an urban myth), when you have to depend on some gov't equipment to keep you alive, you tend to remember:<br /><br />"This equipment was made as cheaply as possible by the lowest bidder."<br /><br />And when the equipment is a plane your flying in, you question if your will is up to date. <br /><br />been there...done that <div class="Discussion_UserSignature"> <p> </p><p><font color="#0000ff"><em>"SCE to AUX" - John Aaron, curiosity pays off</em></font></p> </div>

 

[kdavis007]

The money is there to spend on bridges and other stuff. It is the way politicians spend it.. <br /><br />Maybe we should cancel some robotic missions to help pay for the bridges..