*NEWS* ARES 1 CLV NO MORE?

[mattblack]

. <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>

 

[qso1]

Unable to get the actual news article, the link took me to a message board which had a link to a paysite, in a nutshell, what caused the ending of the CEV? <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>

 

[mattblack]

No: you misunderstand -- the link to nasaspaceflight.com I provided, HINTS of imminent news about the cancellation of the C.L.V. (Crew Launch Vehicle) Ares 1 'Single-Stick' launcher. If true, Nasa maybe preparing to choose an EELV-derived crew launcher (Atlas or Delta) instead, or another Shuttle-derived booster nicknamed 'stumpy'.<br /><br />I guess it now depends on which company, Boeing-Northrop/Grumman or Lockheed-Martin, gets awarded the 'Orion' C.E.V. contract shortly. I'd wager that whomever got the ship; the competitor would get the booster.<br /><br />We'll just have to wait and see whatever option happens. On these pages just a few weeks ago, I speculated that Nasa might change it's mind at the last moment. Now, before the final contracts are signed, and perhaps go with a Delta IV-Heavy for the CEV, in order to preserve commonality with the Ares V CaLV. And, that ATK would have to make do with the same 4-Segment SRB design now used on the Shuttle.<br /><br />We certainly do live in interesting times, spacewise, I mean... <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>

 

[themanwithoutapast]

Well it looks like all the technical problems the stick has are too severe. As NASA wants to select a CEV contractor this September, they need to have certainty over the launch system for the CEV before that. <br /><br />We might get information on that development within the next days.

 

[cuddlyrocket]

Mattblack, you're jumping to conclusions. You might be right, mind, but you're still jumping to conclusions. <img src="/images/icons/smile.gif" />

 

[nacnud]

<font color="yellow">I do not think they do need that decision for the CEV contract selection.<br /><br /><font color="white">Maybe not but if the stick is dead and the 5 seg SRB is dead then the CaLV looks iffy and the 1.5 EOR+LOR needs to be looked at again...<br /><br />Still this is speculation at the mo.<br /></font></font>

 

[vogon13]

For that concept to be officially dead, NASA will have to burn off another 5 billlion or so on development costs . . . .<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>

 

[j05h]

<blockquote><font class="small">In reply to:</font><hr /><p>Mattblack, you're jumping to conclusions. You might be right, mind, but you're still jumping to conclusions. <p><hr /></p></p></blockquote><br /><br />Not particularly. The other link might have no information, but Jeff Bell has a Scrap The Stick Now article up. I admit, this twice that I've now agreed with him, something has shifted in the winds. <br /><br />Best bits are at the end: <br /><br />"... At the same time, the various US unmanned space programs will be using two more distinct booster families with low flight rates, each of which essentially duplicates the performance of Ares I.<br /><br />Mike Griffin needs to admit he was wrong about The Stick ... This might be a painful exercise, but it can't possibly be worse than pressing on with The Stick."<br /><br />http://www.spacedaily.com/reports/Scrap_The_Stick_Now.html<br /><br />No news in it, just opinion, but interesting.<br /><br />I'm heading on vacation, but let me kick the hornet nest before leaving: While this situation changes, keep in mind that we have access to a commercially available, safe, trusted system for flights into space now: Soyuz. Can the CEV even approach Soyuz in cost, in any of it's proposed forms? No. Can SpaceX compete w/ Soyuz? Maybe. Soyuz is the gold standard for human space access now. NASA should concentrate on building and flying the deep space vehicles and use Soyuz for orbital segment and Earth return. There are minor technical and policy issues involved and huge cost savings, enough that NASA can actually afford to build that deep space hardware. /rant <br /><br />Do we need American human access? Yes. Is the Stick/CEV the right solution? I don't think so. Is there better on the horizon? Perhaps. Can NASA use Soyuz in the mean time and contract out that future DC10 of space? The numbers for CEV have approached Shuttle costs per seat, 10x what it costs on S <div class="Discussion_UserSignature"> <div align="center"><em>We need a first generation of pioneers.</em><br /></div> </div>

 

[barrykirk]

As for 5 years, I don't think so. 1 maybe 2 years I could believe.<br /><br />As for the CaLV, well there were some things being floated around about 4 SRB versions of it on this board.<br /><br />What about a CaLV with 4 four segment SRBs?<br /><br />I know that politically it's difficult if not impossible to not use SRBs and go with LOX / RP-1 boosters, but they sure would be nice.

 

[publiusr]

I go to the http://www.nasaspaceflight.com website quite a bit. A lot of professionals use the website.<br /><br />I am a fan of the old ABMA and butt heads with a Boeing Guy named Jim. I respect him. He admitted that Delta IV does have 'disposal' issues, and that it all wasn't ATK hype.<br /><br />I think the general fear is that the Stick would cost so much as to make things hard for the Ares V CaLV (HLLV). Stumpy gets some engines under existing tankage at least--and points the way to Ares V. <br /><br />In the "Alternatives to ESAS" thread-page, is some artwork showing an Ares V minus the SRBs altogether--giving the CLV engine-out capability, with existing SRBs coming later--with perhaps four SRBs for super Heavy lift in the range of Energiya-Vulkan. That would be my choice. A wide 10 meter tank may even allow for the large biconic craft you see over at www.frassanito.com IIRC. You could put a Big Gemini type craft atop the Ares IV as I would call it--and it would look just fine.<br /><br />The primes just want EELV only--and in the evolutionary paths new LVs will be asked for with less than CALV performance anyway.<br /><br />Griffin simply wants to skip a step. Jim and I are in agreement on Ares V--and more support for CaLV is growing.<br /><br />We have enough of the 20 ton to orbit rockets. I don't care one way or the other about the Stick.<br /><br />I just want that HLLV built first.

 

[edkyle98]

Oh no! *Anything* but that appalling "Stumpy" idea. Please!<br /><br /> - Ed Kyle

 

[vt_hokie]

I think it's well past time to de-classify "Blackstar"! <img src="/images/icons/wink.gif" />

 

[baktothemoon]

OMG. I could get to space faster by building a very tall ladder faster than NASA can make up their mind. Just please do not do another two years of studies NASA. If anything, manrate an Atlas V and leave it at that.

 

[john_316]

Perhaps now they are serious about the EELV program. I saw here just a few days ago that NASA and the USAF where going to work together in a few areas. <br /><br />Perhaps its the smoke of the hidden gun.<br /><br /><br />It may also be time to qualify the Atlas-5 and Delta-4H now to do something other than to send probes and satellites into space.<br /><br /><br />I sincerely believe the Delta-4H can do the job once the qualification process is complete. I could see them launching another dummy load within 9 months to test the CEV phase 1 ideas.<br /><br />JMHO<br /><br /><br /><img src="/images/icons/smile.gif" /><br />

 

[propforce]

<font color="yellow">I go to the http://www.nasaspaceflight.com website quite a bit. A lot of professionals use the website. <br /><br />I am a fan of the old ABMA and butt heads with a Boeing Guy named Jim....</font><br /><br />Jim is not a Boeing guy.<br /><br /><font color="yellow">He admitted that Delta IV does have 'disposal' issues, and that it all wasn't ATK hype. </font><br /><br />What 'disposal' issue?<br /><br /><font color="yellow">I think the general fear is that the Stick would cost so much as to make things hard for the Ares V CaLV (HLLV). Stumpy gets some engines under existing tankage at least--and points the way to Ares V.</font><br /><br />It's no secret that 'the stick' is just a glorified NASA welfare to ATK, even NASA guys on that site admitted that it's not the best design. The delta-vee split is totally wrong and the penalty is being put on the upper stage to take up most of the delta-vee. <br /><br />The fundamental argument is, why spend $10 billion to build a CLV while clearly the Delta IV Heavy (or a variant thereof) can take the CEV to both the ISS as well as for lunar mission? <br /><br />The "stumpy" looks interesting and I like the idea of minimizing the infrastructure impact at KSC (save time and cost), but unfortunately no performance numbers were given. I am afraid that, since it was designed by the launch site (KSC) guys, they did not consider the delta-vee split as well and ending up another 'ugly baby' vehicle design.<br /><br /><font color="yellow">"The primes just want EELV only--and in the evolutionary paths new LVs will be asked for with less than CALV performance anyway."</font><br /><br />I don't think that's the case at all. The fundamental question is why venture into a brand new vehicle development program, e.g., the CLV, when there are clearly TWO viable & demonstrated designs , proven to fly and paid for by the U.S. taxpayers' <div class="Discussion_UserSignature"> </div>

 

[SpaceKiwi]

<blockquote><font class="small">In reply to:</font><hr /><p>The fundamental argument is, why spend $10 billion to build a CLV while clearly the Delta IV Heavy (or a variant thereof) can take the CEV to both the ISS as well as for lunar mission?<p><hr /></p></p></blockquote><br />Well, I believe the argument put forward by Griffin and his team was that the Stick design would be less expensive in terms of time and architecture by utilising existing STS elements.<br /><br />Shuttle will still be flying in 2015 at this rate. They'll have no choice if they continue like this. The 'broad strokes' part of the system architecture was supposed to have been long since decided, and based on a SRB 1st stage. You would have expected enough smart people had looked at the concept 12 months ago and determined it was, in fact, a goer. <div class="Discussion_UserSignature"> <p><em><font size="2" color="#ff0000">Who is this superhero?  Henry, the mild-mannered janitor ... could be!</font></em></p><p><em><font size="2">-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------</font></em></p><p><font size="5">Bring Back The Black!</font></p> </div>

 

[PistolPete]

In designing "stumpy" KSC probobly took a page from the Energia M. The Energia M was basically a shortened Energia core with two strap-ons. Incidentally the Energia M core was also the upper stage on the Vulkan interplaitary HLLV. While developing stumpy might seem a waste of time because of the current capability of the Delta-IVH, at least stumpy could possibly use components that would need to be developed for the Ares V anyway. <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>

 

[edkyle98]

The main supporting reason given in the ESAS report for Stick was that it had the best crew survivability. Stumpy, with twice as many propulsion elements as Stick, is probably less than half as reliable - making it less safe than an EELV alternative. How can NASA defend an ulgy Stumpy selection, when safety was the prime reason given for selecting Stick over EELV?<br /><br /> - Ed Kyle

 

[jamie_young]

<font color="yellow"><br /> <br />I go to the http://www.nasaspaceflight.com website quite a bit. A lot of professionals use the website.<br /><br />I am a fan of the old ABMA and butt heads with a Boeing Guy named Jim. I respect him. He admitted that Delta IV does have 'disposal' issues, and that it all wasn't ATK hype. </font><br /><br />Jim is one of the many NASA people on there.<br /><br />There's hints on what's wrong at the bottom of today's COTS winner story.<br /><br />http://www.nasaspaceflight.com/content/?cid=4700<br /><br />"However, following last week's crucial design meeting, known as TIM Redlines, a critical 'showstopper' was discovered with the second stage, with sources involved speaking of a Tiger Team being called, aligned with a group of hugely experienced former Saturn V/Apollo engineers, known as 'grey beards' to find a solution.<br /><br />Sources note this problem - along with many other issues - will lead to a reconfiguration of the vehicle, thus moving away from the CLV being a 5 segment 'stick' configuration.<br /><br />(Articles on the CLV problems will follow - full information on L2)" <br /><br />I'm on L2, there's about 500 comments already on this, most of them from NASA, ATK, Boeing and Lockheed Martin people etc. and it's the ones who are actually working on the stick that are saying the realize and agree its a real problem and are working out alternatives. Might be a long time before management kill off the stick, they say because they have to show the problem is impossible to solve as it stands.

 

[john_316]

Why do I feel we are going to go through another dog and pony show in the near future with nothing done as per usual at NASA?<br /><br />Is it that mismanagement leads straight to the senior management doors.<br /><br /><br /><img src="/images/icons/smile.gif" /><br />

 

[edkyle98]

"http://www.nasaspaceflight.com/content/?cid=4700<br /><br />"However, following last week's crucial design meeting, known as TIM Redlines, a critical 'showstopper' was discovered with the second stage, with sources involved speaking of a Tiger Team being called, aligned with a group of hugely experienced former Saturn V/Apollo engineers, known as 'grey beards' to find a solution.<br /><br />Sources note this problem - along with many other issues - will lead to a reconfiguration of the vehicle, thus moving away from the CLV being a 5 segment 'stick' configuration. "<br /><br /><br />Hmmmm. What could it be? Dry mass growth? J-2X underperformance? Excessive aerodynamic heating due to the high-thrust of the first stage? Excessive bending moments on the long-thin vehicle? <br /><br />Whatever it is, the massive solid propellant first stage limits the range of "fixes". But some of the alternatives (esp "Stumpy") aren't too appealing either.<br /><br />I bet every NASA center has a "solution" right now, but that none of them are the same!<br /><br /> - Ed Kyle

 

[strandedonearth]

Cg not far enough ahead of (or behind) the Cp due to a big, low-density H2 tank in the second stage?

 

[propforce]

Good guess <img src="/images/icons/wink.gif" /><br /><br />I predict it's Cp is approx 100 feet ahead of Cg thus making the vehicle not flyable until the solid is almost burned up <img src="/images/icons/laugh.gif" /><br /> <div class="Discussion_UserSignature"> </div>

 

[strandedonearth]

That would make for some hefty fins... or a monster TVC system.

 

[thermionic]

<br />How could they miss something like that until now? Isn't that one of the first back-of-the-envelope things to check before taking the proposal to your boss?