NRC report: Ares V and launching big telescopes

[docm]

If Obama listens to the space science/cosmology guys at the US <br /> National Research Council (NRC) he'll build Ares V heavy lift rocket<br /> for a lot more than going back to the moon - they want to launch <br /> telescopes with it that'll make Hubble look like a child's toy.<br /> <br /> The full report, "Launching Science: Science Opportunities Provided<br /> by NASA's Constellation System", is 160 pages, costs ~$34 US and <br /> can be purchased here or read online/printed for free here<br /> <br /> <div style="margin:5px20px20px"> <div class="smallfont" style="margin-bottom:2px">Quote:</div> <table border="0" cellspacing="0" cellpadding="4" width="100%"> <tbody><tr> <td class="alt2" style="border:1pxinset"> <strong>Summary:</strong><br /> <br /> In January 2004 NASA was given a new policy direction known as the Vision for Space Exploration. That plan, now renamed the United States Space Exploration Policy, called for sending human and robotic missions to the Moon, Mars, and beyond. In 2005 NASA outlined how to conduct the first steps in implementing this policy and began the development of a new human-carrying spacecraft known as Orion, the lunar lander known as Altair, and the launch vehicles Ares I and Ares V.<br /> <br /> Collectively, these are called the Constellation System. In November 2007 NASA asked the National Research Council (NRC) to evaluate the potential for new science opportunities enabled by the Constellation System of rockets and spacecraft.<br /> <br /> The NRC committee evaluated a total of 17 mission concepts for future space science missions. Of those, the committee determined that 12 would benefit from the Constellation System and five would not. This book presents the committee's findings and recommendations, including cost estimates, a review of the technical feasibility of each mission, and identification of the missions most deserving of future study.

 

[nimbus]

<p>I don't mean to derail the thread (..deja vu..), but wouldn't this rocket be inline with the current one, and all its development overruns and high cost? Or do these not apply to Ares V? &nbsp;I don't mean to say that SpaceX can be called a competitor today, but wouldn't everyone in that crowd be best off in pushing for (e.g.) SpaceX and private space in general to be competitive, so as to bring costs down across the board? &nbsp;This is part of the equation as much as the rocket and its payload performance.</p><p>The thing is that I read this: <font color="#333399">" It could also haul massive telescopes that dwarf the Hubble Space Telescope or fling deep space probes on faster missions to the outer planets."</font><font color="#000000">, and while it sounds nice, it doesn't seem so likely to be exploited any more than today (relatively not much at all) unless the costs are significantly reduced.</font></p> <div class="Discussion_UserSignature"> </div>

 

[dragon04]

<p><BR/>Replying to:<BR/><DIV CLASS='Discussion_PostQuote'>I don't mean to derail the thread (..deja vu..), but wouldn't this rocket be inline with the current one, and all its development overruns and high cost? Or do these not apply to Ares V? &nbsp;I don't mean to say that SpaceX can be called a competitor today, but wouldn't everyone in that crowd be best off in pushing for (e.g.) SpaceX and private space in general to be competitive, so as to bring costs down across the board? &nbsp;This is part of the equation as much as the rocket and its payload performance.The thing is that I read this: " It could also haul massive telescopes that dwarf the Hubble Space Telescope or fling deep space probes on faster missions to the outer planets.", and while it sounds nice, it doesn't seem so likely to be exploited any more than today (relatively not much at all) unless the costs are significantly reduced. <br /> Posted by nimbus</DIV></p><p>That's kind of what I was thinking. I'm REALLY hot to have private enterprise do the heavy lifting (pun intended) in our future manned and unmanned space programs. I just feel like we don't want to be patient enough to wait for SpaceX for example, to prove the reliability of the Falcon 9 launch vehicle.</p><p>IMO, every taxpayer dime we spend developing an Ares Anything is wasting money that could be better spent on robotic probes or other good. solid Science.&nbsp;</p><p>I suspect that the whole pie that includes ULA or USA or whatever they call them is <strong><em>WHY</em></strong> we keep going down that path. Jobs are at stake on both the manufacturing AND mission ends. And to some degree, they have a "right" to feel threatened because it is <strong><em>THEY</em></strong> who got us into space in the first place.</p><p>Times change. I sure wish NASA would change with them. </p> <div class="Discussion_UserSignature"> <em>"2012.. Year of the Dragon!! Get on the Dragon Wagon!".</em> </div>

 

[marko_doda]

This is not news, this is what everybody knows, bigger payloads means bigger stuff yoy can send without cutting it & docking the segments in orbit, Ares V would really help NASA, however i think the revolution would be when more and more missions are launched from over the world by various agencies, countries, people using falcon or other private launchers.

 

[tanstaafl76]

<p>Are they taking up the telescope subject because of a perceived popularity of Hubble with the public? &nbsp;Just seems like they are aiming kind of low if this is an attempt to convince people of the benefits and versatility of Ares V.</p><p>&nbsp;</p> <div class="Discussion_UserSignature"> </div>

 

[docm]

And if they want a <em>real </em>heavy lifter Jupiter III could probably do ~ 250 mT. <div class="Discussion_UserSignature"> </div>

 

[nimbus]

Is the total cost estimate for a JIII launch in any one of Direct's studies? &nbsp;Is there a total cost estimate for an Ares V? &nbsp;I mean not just the rocket itself, but all the supporting costs too. &nbsp; <div class="Discussion_UserSignature"> </div>

 

[docm]

<p>According to the cost estimates I've seen on NSF Ares-V, when flown 4 times per year as planned, will cost $1.4 billion <em><strong>each</strong></em>. Other&nbsp; guesstimates are $300m per Orion and $500m per Altair.&nbsp; </p><p>Then there is the question over if the Ares V would crush the crawler and/or its roadway. </p><p>Direct 2 would replace both the Ares I and Ares V with the Jupiter 232.&nbsp; It too would use two launches: one with Altair and Orion and one with the EDS.&nbsp; Its supposed cost advantage comes from being more suhttle derived than the Ares rockets. </p><p>Jupiter III's cost is far into speculation land as IMO it's more a Mars mission heavy lifter.&nbsp; It would use two STS tanks, four 4 segment boosters and a new core stage. </p><p><strong>Jupiter evolution</strong></p><p><img src="http://sitelife.space.com/ver1.0/Content/images/store/5/3/f5a53cba-1a2e-4034-93ff-6e847a5d08fd.Medium.jpg" alt="" /></p><br /><p>&nbsp;</p><p>&nbsp;</p><p>&nbsp;</p> <div class="Discussion_UserSignature"> </div>

 

[nimbus]

Thank you <div class="Discussion_UserSignature"> </div>

 

[Baskii]

<p>It seems that certain members of NASA management are trying to protect their former Administrator's legacy by attempting to win the support of the scientific community.&nbsp;&nbsp;The&nbsp;implication is&nbsp;that no launch vehicle other than the gargantuan Ares-V could launch a new space telescope with a large&nbsp;mirror,&nbsp;a complex outer planets mission, etc.&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;</p><p>Jupiter-232&nbsp;would be&nbsp;<strong>perfectly capable</strong> of lofting exactly the same kind of large telescope or deep space probe as Ares-V.&nbsp; In fact, the DIRECT team have suggested that the J-232&nbsp;could probably handle a payload fairing as large as 15m diameter, compared to Ares-V's 10m fairing.</p><p>However, the key point is that if Ares-V is built, the development, infrastructure and launch costs will be so high that there&nbsp;may be no money left for the kind of science missions NASA are suggesting!&nbsp; This is one of the many excellent reasons that DIRECT is a preferable way to go.</p><p>&nbsp;</p><p><BR/>Replying to:<BR/><DIV CLASS='Discussion_PostQuote'>According to the cost estimates I've seen on NSF Ares-V, when flown 4 times per year as planned, will cost $1.4 billion each. Other&nbsp; guesstimates are $300m per Orion and $500m per Altair.&nbsp; Then there is the question over if the Ares V would crush the crawler and/or its roadway. Direct 2 would replace both the Ares I and Ares V with the Jupiter 232.&nbsp; It too would use two launches: one with Altair and Orion and one with the EDS.&nbsp; Its supposed cost advantage comes from being more suhttle derived than the Ares rockets. Jupiter III's cost is far into speculation land as IMO it's more a Mars mission heavy lifter.&nbsp; It would use two STS tanks, four 4 segment boosters and a new core stage. Jupiter evolution&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp; <br />Posted by docm</DIV><br /></p>