NASA completes requirements review for Ares I vehicle

[radarredux]

> <i><font color="yellow">Why do you insist of using "G" for "Billion"?</font>/i><br /><br />Its a computer thing:<br /><br />Kbps - kilobits per second (thousands)<br />Mbps - Megabits per second (millions)<br />Gbps - Gigabits per second (billions)<br />Tbps - Terabits per second (trillions)</i>

 

[josh_simonson]

No, it's a metric thing. <img src="/images/icons/wink.gif" /><br /><br />I deal in Mega-ohms and Giga-hertz more than mbps. <img src="/images/icons/wink.gif" /> Also microhenries, nanometers, and femptofarads. They're one big happy family.<br /><br />The issues with solids aren't so much the safety aspect, launchers using solids are about as reliable as their liquid equivalents, but that past the GEM size of solids the fully accounted cost/size goes up faster for solid boosters than for liquid ones. If SpaceX's redundant engine approach to reliability pans out then rockets with solid fuels may end up in the bottom of the barrel, reliabilitywise, because their fuel cannot be diverted around a malfunctioning engine. However, on a per engine basis, solids have proven more reliable than liquids. Consider how many have flown on Delta 2 with a fantastic reliability record of 1 failure in 936 flown.

 

[j05h]

<i>> I think your putting the launcher before the craft here.<br />The point is that Orion is classed to go beyond earth orbit and the Shuttle Orbiter was not. It may not be a Walmart bargain but its not bad.</i><br /><br />Nope. I'm putting the mission ahead of the spacecraft. The goal is to go to the Moon. I really question the architecture that NASA is pursuing. Everything that goes into these missions should be reusable above the atmosphere. Propellant depots, "base camping", payload/launcher neutrality and a growing array of reusable vehicles instead of a bunch of single-use space junk at the end. Basically, everything that makes sense and is completely against the direction ESAS created. I don't think they can succeed with projected budgets using the current approach. And the Stick is a dangerous Rube-Goldberg device that is going to kill astronauts. IMHO, of course.<br /><br />I'm not expecting Walmart prices, I understand how expensive aerospace is. There is expensive and then there is deliberate inflation of costs. There is no need to pursue the Stick, IMHO, because we already have medium-lift vehicles and crew capsules commercially available. <br /><br />Holmec and others, are you really supportive of spending $15G on replicating capabilities via ARES I instead of on building payloads? That money could go directly to fund lunar hardware now, if NASA would just use existing rockets. <br /><br />Josh <div class="Discussion_UserSignature"> <div align="center"><em>We need a first generation of pioneers.</em><br /></div> </div>

 

[propforce]

<font color="yellow">I'm not expecting Walmart prices, I understand how expensive aerospace is. There is expensive and then there is deliberate inflation of costs. There is no need to pursue the Stick, IMHO, because we already have medium-lift vehicles and crew capsules commercially available. <br /><br />Holmec and others, are you really supportive of spending $15G on replicating capabilities via ARES I instead of on building payloads? That money could go directly to fund lunar hardware now, if NASA would just use existing rockets. <br /></font><br /><br />A very good point. Let's see what we can do with the $15G (and I'll follow the "giga" convention here).<br /><br />1) Spend $1G to "man-rate" Delta IV heavy (Atlas would have to build its "heavy" on its own money like the Delta did).<br /><br />2) Spend $5G on RS-84 engine development. This is an American version of 1M (can be scaled to 1.6M) lbf thrust LOx/Kerosene staged combustion engine. Bring back the Saturn V booster but use the RS-84 instead of the F-1.<br /><br />3) Spend the money saved on MISSIONS - both scientific as well as human explorations. <br /><br /> <div class="Discussion_UserSignature"> </div>

 

[nyarlathotep]

<font color="yellow">Also microhenries, nanometers, and femptofarads. They're one big happy family.</font><br /><br />Sorry to be an SI stickler, but it's femto.<br /><br />Similarly, I think that exa will be the most suitable unit to conceptualise how much future value NASA is about to burn by using the wrong booster stage for the job. I say spend $2B now on finishing the development of the dense hydrocarbon FFSCC engine (preferred) or simply on buying a bulk order of 100 RD-17x's from Russia. Let's not be continuing our moon plans through 2025 and waste what will then be a present value 2E$ on the massive infrastructure for solids. <br /><br />I know it's a political cliché , but think about your children and the additional interest payments on that extra 2E$ of deficit that they'll have to maintain just so a couple of congressmen get sub-$1m kickbacks from ATK for the next election cycle.

 

[nyarlathotep]

<font color="yellow">1) Spend $1G to "man-rate" Delta IV heavy (Atlas would have to build its "heavy" on its own money like the Delta did). </font><br /><br />Spend nothing. Offer Boeing, Lockheed, and any newcomer a fixed price six launch contract of $1.8B each if they manrate and launch a suitable 20T booster by 2011. Put a line item in next years NASA budget to place $9B worth of bonds in escrow. If there is no launcher, there is no cost and the debt just magically disappears in 2011.<br /><br /> Just maybe the primes won't bite, but I bet you a round of drinks that Lockheed will. But if they don't, I'm sure someone will build it.

 

[holmec]

>Holmec and others, are you really supportive of spending $15G on replicating capabilities via ARES I instead of on building payloads? That money could go directly to fund lunar hardware now, if NASA would just use existing rockets.<br /><<br /><br />No not really, but I understand that NASA is a government agency, and it has operated on build use one time use components for a long time.<br /><br />I do think your right but your ideas would be better received in the commercial market. I kinda planned out myself what it would take, infrastructure wise, for commercial companies open the moon for manned business (so to speak) and every component I thought of was reusable. <div class="Discussion_UserSignature"> <p> </p><p><font color="#0000ff"><em>"SCE to AUX" - John Aaron, curiosity pays off</em></font></p> </div>

 

[pathfinder_01]

“Spend nothing. Offer Boeing, Lockheed, and any newcomer a fixed price six launch contract of $1.8B each if they manrate and launch a suitable 20T booster by 2011. Put a line item in next years NASA budget to place $9B worth of bonds in escrow. If there is no launcher, there is no cost and the debt just magically disappears in 2011.”<br /><br />Other than the fact that NASA doesn’t have the power to issue bonds and the issue of paying the intrest due on the bond(i.e. Bonds are not free money). No manufacturer in it’s right mind would sign on to a fix cost contract..<br /><br />You have to incur R/D cost as well as tooling costs without any guarantee of the government accepting your booster. You incur all theses costs to produce a product that will be used by one customer (NASA) and you will only have six boosters over which to spread the costs out and no guarantee of additional purchases.<br /><br />Even if you were to accept the idea, what happens if someone beats you to the pad with a good rocket? Now you eat those costs without getting any income. <br />

 

[propforce]

<font color="yellow">You have to incur R/D cost as well as tooling costs without any guarantee of the government accepting your booster. You incur all theses costs to produce a product that will be used by one customer (NASA) and you will only have six boosters over which to spread the costs out and no guarantee of additional purchases. </font><br /><br />That's what happened with major Air Force procurement, e.g., the EELV, the F-35, etc. where winner (was suppose to) take all. <br /><br />The bidders will charge each of the six total boosters as follows: Add up (the development cost + total production cost of six boosters), divide by 6 boosters X % profit = cost per booster to NASA<br /><br /><font color="yellow">Even if you were to accept the idea, what happens if someone beats you to the pad with a good rocket? Now you eat those costs without getting any income. </font><br /><br />Presumably NASA will have a "multi-phase" competition and eleiminate candidates with each phase and ideally ended up with 2~3 contractors "fly-off" demonstration. <br /><br />It's a risk you take as a contractor if you don't win. It's risky but a lot more fair than the current approach. <div class="Discussion_UserSignature"> </div>