*NEWS* ARES 1 CLV NO MORE?

[vt_hokie]

<i>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?</i><br /><br />This is what happens when you let politics drive a design more than technical merit. If low flight rates and outrageous costs are what you want to see, then VSE is the plan for you! Otherwise, it's not much more than a jobs program for ATK and other existing contractors.

 

[josh_simonson]

There's alot of ATK bashing regarding the stick, but if you look at the numbers ATK only grosses $400m/year off the SRBs for the STS. That's fairly small compared to the $4B yearly STS budget. They also make the GEMs that are used on the Delta IV as well as the nozzles for the RS-68 and several other components of the Delta IV. That somewhat deflates the "lets stick it to ATK by going with the Delta IV" argument.

 

[elguapoguano]

The Bashing of ATK comes from the fact that they said it would take $1Billion dollars to design a 5 segment SRB. A little pricy, but doable. SO when NASA agree's they say..... Oh well It'll really cost $3Billion to design a 5 segement SRB. WTF? <div class="Discussion_UserSignature"> <font color="#ff0000"><u><em>Don't let your sig line incite a gay thread ;>)</em></u></font> </div>

 

[barrykirk]

And if that in fact is what happened, then that may be the problem with the stick.<br /><br />A fininancial problem more than a technical problem.

 

[publiusr]

I agree with Josh. Don't think the EELV people won't gouge. Ares V has engine out--and it would take 15-18 RS-68s using ISS-DART assembly options for a return to the moon.<br /><br />I don't think so. Scott is an astronaut, and astronauts have expressed misgivings about EELV. If people don't know about the disposal issue--then it is out of willful ignorance most likely. The Stick can fly depressed trajectory and heel over. EELVs are sat-launchers first and foremost. Disposal issues were discussed at NASASPACEFLIGHT.<br /><br />I think the ESAS report is sound.<br /><br />If Delta can be used for CLV--fine, as long as we get some kind of HLLV for MARS, large outerplanet probes, etc.

 

[propforce]

<font color="yellow">There's alot of ATK bashing regarding the stick...</font><br /><br />If you read the posts, both here on SDC and at Nasaspaceflight, you'd notice most opposition with the stick is not about bashing ATK. <br /><br />Most of us are engineers with many years of technical experience, we argue based on the technical merit of the stick, not based on politics. We do not argue from the point of ".. how could we keep our jobs.." as some of us are from NASA, some from Boeing, and some are from Lockheed. We do not say Atlas V (or Delta IV, insert your favorite concept here) is the ONLY way to go. We pointed out the flaws in the current CLV concept, both from performance, operation, risk, cost and schedule points of view. As a matter of fact, most of us are favorable to NASA coming up with a better design, as long as it makes sense. Just don't assign inexperienced people to this important task.<br /><br /><br />To Publisur-<br />If the ESAS report is sound, then why it began to fall apart within 6 months of its initial publication? <br /><br />Oh and if the astronauts have any misgivings about riding on top of an EELV, then they'll really regret to ride on top of a 5 segment RSRM. <br /><br /> <div class="Discussion_UserSignature"> </div>

 

[edkyle98]

"I agree with Josh. Don't think the EELV people won't gouge. Ares V has engine out--and it would take 15-18 RS-68s using ISS-DART assembly options for a return to the moon. "<br /><br /><br />Gouging is why I think the Stick should go - it could help reduce the number of potential contractors (gougers) involved in the program. <br /><br />No Stick provides an argument to drop the SRB altogether for heavier launchers. There are any number of ways to develop the heavier-lift launcher needed for lunar missions without SRBs. NASA could develop an all-liquid two-stage heavy that could be smaller - and cheaper - than Ares V if the mission architecture shifted to a dual or triple-launch setup. <br /><br />Why build a CLV at all? The same smaller-than-Ares V heavy-type launcher could do the ISS missions too. <br /><br /> - Ed Kyle

 

[josh_simonson]

The stick is inefficient because NASA will be flying two dedicated rockets late next decade, at huge expense. The ESAS report even shows that it takes 13 CLV flights/year to make the CLV less expensive than an additional HLV. That's not going to happen and it will be simpler, safer and cheaper to simply fly more HLVs even if they're only lifting a 30t CEV. That's not really ATKs fault, and they could probably care less what configuration the rockets are in as long as they use SRBs, since they're an all you can eat buffet of SRB segments for $400m.<br /><br />The way I look at it is this:<br />Shuttle costs a little over $4b/year independant of flightrate.<br />CLV+HLV cost about $3b/year.<br />HLV alone will cost about $2b/year.<br /><br />That's a nice roadmap to reducing NASA's expenditures on launch vehicles over time in a politically pallatable manner. Sortie missions can use the 1.5 launch architecture, then the CLV can be dropped and the LSAM grown out to ~100t cargo version for a two-launch (EDS then LSAM/CEV) system and outpost building.