SAVE CONSTELLATION

[nimbus]

Re: SAVE CONTSTELLATION

1. Ares I is a duplicate of EELV.
2. ASAP reportedly is not an impartial assessment. Dixit Musk. Go ahead and refute his objections.
3. Time mag is meaningless. They've had completely bogus endorsements in the past. Kinda like the Nobel prize.
4. Not funding NASA with the same virtual money as much of the rest of the budget could be something to be thankful for. Either way, NASA got a bump in total budget. The missing piece (an ultimate objective) is supposed to be worked on right now, so that's what needs to be revealed to allow a truly informed assessment of the quality of this new space development policy.

 

[jakethesnake]

Re: SAVE CONTSTELLATION

I honestly don't think going back to a capsule that plops down on the ocean under parachutes is moving forward but to cancel NASA human space flight is absurd. Arguing on one hand that jobs need to be saved /created and then cancelling a major space program is two faced. Once again I point out that not one penny of the NASA budget gets shot into space, well OK the hardware is worth a lot of money. But the NASA budget goes to pay PEOPLE to do jobs, people in every state. And then there is the matter of National Pride, OK we have to accept that other nations are becoming capable of human space flight, but does that mean the USA should step aside and let others take the lead?

Soon maybe private ventures such as Burt Rutan's and Robert Bigelow's will go where NASA fears to tread but until then I believe NASA still needs to plan and execute manned space flight missions.

Yep… that was my feeling as well... to go back to Splashing in to the Ocean from landing on a runway really bothered me too… and still does...

But as it sits now... if we don’t move ahead with the Ares 1 then we won’t have ANYTHING at all.

Also, in my opinion it will take much longer for the commercial Space industry to field a human rated Launcher then it will take to finish the Ares 1, and I am confident that that will be the case if we take that rout.

 

[jakethesnake]

Re: SAVE CONTSTELLATION

1. Ares I is a duplicate of EELV.
2. ASAP reportedly is not an impartial assessment. Dixit Musk. Go ahead and refute his objections.
3. Time mag is meaningless. They've had completely bogus endorsements in the past. Kinda like the Nobel prize.
4. Not funding NASA with the same virtual money as much of the rest of the budget could be something to be thankful for. Either way, NASA got a bump in total budget. The missing piece (an ultimate objective) is supposed to be worked on right now, so that's what needs to be revealed to allow a truly informed assessment of the quality of this new space development policy.

Ya… NASA got a BUMB alright… it got Bumped right out of the human space flight business!

If you're counting on SpaceX or anyone else for that matter to field a human rated launcher anytime soon you are dreaming!

You must be a gambling man???

 

[nimbus]

Re: SAVE CONTSTELLATION

With some luck the forums won't have yet another crash by then. So I can point to this post in a couple of years. Not that I get a kick out of it, but just so there's no doubt that you actually said so.

Go ahead and refute the points above.

 

[jakethesnake]

Re: SAVE CONTSTELLATION

With some luck the forums won't have yet another crash by then. So I can point to this post in a couple of years. Not that I get a kick out of it, but just so there's no doubt that you actually said so.

Go ahead and refute the points above.

I am totally good with that…

And if and when you do call me on this I hope you are right!

Because it looks like it is ALL we have left!

I will go over your points when I get some time to do so... kind of busy at the moment...

 

[menellom]

Re: SAVE CONTSTELLATION

1. Considering "Ares 1-X" was essentially a shuttle SRB, I'd be concerned if it wasn't considered sound.
2. It's difficult to judge any of the Constellation architecture except perhaps Orion. Ares' design is years from being finished, nevermind its construction. Hard to judge the capabilities of a rocket that doesn't exist.
3. ASAP is not an independent reviewer, and despite it's claims that companies like SpaceX are 'unsafe' and 'unproven', the Falcon 9 rocket meets all of NASA's human-rating standards with the exception the escape system for the Dragon.
4. Appearing on a list in a magazine does not somehow improve Ares' reality.
5. First of all, let's be realistic, the odds of Congress giving NASA enough funding to properly run Constellation are, rough estimate, 2^2079460347:1 against. Plus, funding is not a magic wand that poofs rockets into existence. Congress could drop $10 billion on NASA's doorstep tomorrow, and while it would cut down the development time a bit, Ares I still wouldn't fly for another four or five years at best.

 

[Gravity_Ray]

Re: SAVE CONTSTELLATION

The only technical problem with Ares 1 is that it’s a solid fuel rocket. That just scares me to no end. But the real problem is even with a budget bump for Ares 1 by the time its ready its mission is almost over. Falcon 9 will do anything Ares 1 was going to do in half the time (maybe faster) for half the money. Ares 1 (1 billion per flight, first flight estimate 2017). Falcon 9 (49 million per flight, first flight estimate 2010). Got these figures from Wiki.


The Orion capsule is not dead yet. I suspect it will be brought back during budget discussions. That capsule can sit on most HLV's.


I suspect that building Ares V and man rating Delta IV heavy or Atlas V is a wash as far as time to do is concerned (Ares V may cost more). Arguing about them is a waste of our time, since none of us are going to be the decision makers. I am ok with any of these options.

 

[nimbus]

Re: SAVE CONTSTELLATION

Pretty sure I've seen industry reports that man rated Delta or Atlas could be ready by 2014 or so.

 

[menellom]

Re: SAVE CONTSTELLATION

The only technical problem with Ares 1 is that it’s a solid fuel rocket. That just scares me to no end. But the real problem is even with a budget bump for Ares 1 by the time its ready its mission is almost over. Falcon 9 will do anything Ares 1 was going to do in half the time (maybe faster) for half the money. Ares 1 (1 billion per flight, first flight estimate 2017). Falcon 9 (49 million per flight, first flight estimate 2010). Got these figures from Wiki.

Those right there are the three reasons I like Falcon 9. First, it's liquid, not solid fuel. Second, the Falcon 9 Heavy (which simply adds a pair of Falcon 9 first stage segments on as LRBs) can be completed long before the Ares I and can carry 20% more than Ares I. Third, it's significantly cheaper - at an estimated $50 million a flight, it'd be 20 times cheaper than an Ares I launch is estimated at. Cheaper rockets mean more launches for less cash, we're talking dozens of launches a year instead of three or four.

The Orion capsule is not dead yet. I suspect it will be brought back during budget discussions. That capsule can sit on most HLV's.

Likewise. People forget that this will all be negotiated on, and I imagine the wise move would be compromising and letting development of Orion continue in exchange for scrapping Ares. Orion could easily be adapted to launch with the F9H.

 

[Gravity_Ray]

Re: SAVE CONTSTELLATION

Pretty sure I've seen industry reports that man rated Delta or Atlas could be ready by 2014 or so.

Perhaps, perhaps not, the only real study I have seen is the one ordered by Richard Gilbrech, but that study to me had a lot of "ifs".

The Aerospace Corp. estimates it would take from five to seven years to develop the hardware necessary to human-rate the Delta IV heavy. The Delta IV Heavy can be human rated, but two of the versions considered will compare more with Ares 1 rather than the Ares V in capability. It sort of depends on what engines they use for the upper stage of the Delta IV Heavy (J-2X or the RL-10), it will certainly cost much less than the Ares 1 though.

That is still just a guess, because Ares V was going to depend on a lot of work that was being done on Ares 1. So if they scrap Ares 1 and start to really dig in with good funds into Ares V, I think it’s still a tossup.

The study did not address the heavy-lift version of the Atlas V - because of "no clear advantages and several disadvantages," including the difficulty in obtaining human-rating data on its Russian RD-180 engines.

Ares V (to LEO upto 190,000Kg), (to TLI [to me more improtant] 71,000Kg). Delta IV Heavy (to LEO upto 26,000KG), (upto 10,800Kg to GTO). Atlas V (to LEO upto 29,500Kg), (upto 28,600KG to GTO).

Again, from everything I have read I could live with any of these 3 rockets for our HLV.

 

[menellom]

Re: SAVE CONTSTELLATION

Here's something worth thinking about - who says heavy lift vehicles need to be man-rated? Let's say (hypothetically) you have a non man-rated rocket that can carry... let's say 50,000 kg to LEO. Couldn't you simply use that rocket to launch 50,000kg or so of cargo, and use another smaller, man-rated rocket to launch crew and spacecraft?

 

[Gravity_Ray]

Re: SAVE CONTSTELLATION

Yes Menellom.

If I read the new NASA budget correcty (thats a pretty big if because you need a lawyer to read that stuff and its a bit above my pay grade), that’s what some of the conversation in the new NASA budget is about. If ULA can get their heads out of their collective asses and slim down a bit (read this as forget this cost+ crap, and change to deliver for payment), the stuff I read is about launching ships, and fuel separately and doing rendezvous with a human capsule and sending the whole thing to NEO's or the Moons of Mars. That is what the LEO delivery for Delta IV Heavy and Atlas V is all about.

The advantage of the Ares V would be by-passing this whole rendezvous stuff and getting to TLI for the Moon. Or, Mars and beyond ready to rumble in one shot. But that takes us back to cost and time to delivery again, which is where this conversation started.

 

[pathfinder_01]

Re: SAVE CONTSTELLATION

Here's something worth thinking about - who says heavy lift vehicles need to be man-rated? Let's say (hypothetically) you have a non man-rated rocket that can carry... let's say 50,000 kg to LEO. Couldn't you simply use that rocket to launch 50,000kg or so of cargo, and use another smaller, man-rated rocket to launch crew and spacecraft?

A man rated HLV could be useful, but yeah not must have. So long as you don't do something silly like
the constellation plan. Such as launch a cryogenic stage that cannot wait more than a few days for the smaller craft.

With fuel depots you might have even less need for the HLV or it could greatly amp up the power of the HLV allowing say a more reasonable cost for a trip to mars or allowing you to take much more stuff to from the moon.
In addition this thing could be useful for picking up some of the slack from the loss of the shuttle. It could carry equipment; launch heavy or bulky space station modules perhaps launch a small cargo only space plane or some kind of decent module to bring large items down form space.

I hope that the President's plan focuses building infrastructure in space. Perhaps NASA could be the orbital version of a department of transportation. They don't build or own the trucks, they build the roads that make it possible to move the trucks.

 

[bdewoody]

Re: SAVE CONTSTELLATION

I don't quite understand why some of you have a greater fear of solid fueled rockets than their liquid fuel counterparts. Humans have been building solid fueled rockets for centuries (the Chinese were the first) whereas liquid fueled rockets have only been around for a hundred years or so. Most of the big launch failures of the 60's were liquid fueled boosters. Even though the Challenger accident was sparked by a leak from a solid booster the explosion was of the fuel tank for the three main liquid fueled engines. I think a check of records will show that solid fueled rockets are much more reliable.

The only technical problem with Ares 1 is that it’s a solid fuel rocket. That just scares me to no end. But the real problem is even with a budget bump for Ares 1 by the time its ready its mission is almost over. Falcon 9 will do anything Ares 1 was going to do in half the time (maybe faster) for half the money. Ares 1 (1 billion per flight, first flight estimate 2017). Falcon 9 (49 million per flight, first flight estimate 2010). Got these figures from Wiki.


The Orion capsule is not dead yet. I suspect it will be brought back during budget discussions. That capsule can sit on most HLV's.


I suspect that building Ares V and man rating Delta IV heavy or Atlas V is a wash as far as time to do is concerned (Ares V may cost more). Arguing about them is a waste of our time, since none of us are going to be the decision makers. I am ok with any of these options.

 

[menellom]

Re: SAVE CONTSTELLATION

I hope that the President's plan focuses building infrastructure in space. Perhaps NASA could be the orbital version of a department of transportation. They don't build or own the trucks, they build the roads that make it possible to move the trucks.

Serious infrastructure in LEO will develop as we send more and more people up. When STS-130 launches there will be about a dozen people in orbit. That's nothing.

A couple of commercial space stations, a hundred people in orbit at any given time? That's something, and I think that could happen within the decade. And by 2030 who knows where we could be? Dozens of stations? Hundreds of people in orbit, maybe even a thousand? That's infrastructure, that's an industry, and most importantly, that's serious progress toward human expansion and colonization beyond Earth.

 

[Gravity_Ray]

Re: SAVE CONTSTELLATION

I don't quite understand why some of you have a greater fear of solid fueled rockets than their liquid fuel counterparts. Humans have been building solid fueled rockets for centuries (the Chinese were the first) whereas liquid fueled rockets have only been around for a hundred years or so. Most of the big launch failures of the 60's were liquid fueled boosters. Even though the Challenger accident was sparked by a leak from a solid booster the explosion was of the fuel tank for the three main liquid fueled engines. I think a check of records will show that solid fueled rockets are much more reliable

Well I don’t like them for human space flight. Here are the reasons why I don’t like them.

1. Once lit you cannot extinguish them. This has draw backs if your cargo is human beings. I don’t know if you have ever lit Roman candle fireworks, but when I light one up, I run for my life.
2. You have much more control with a liquid rocket than a solid. You can do adjustments which again is important if your cargo is humans. Rockets can be throttled, turned off and then on again. For example a Falcon 9 can be fired up but “held down” while systems are checked and then launched. Once Ares 1 is fired up its going.
3. Liquid rockets are more powerful than solids (specific impulse). That means that you get much more up with liquid. If you are flying humans, much of your cargo (weight) should be for the humans not for your rockets. In two words; Tankage efficiency.
4. Liquid rockets can be tested before launch, solids cannot.
5. Liquid rockets can be reused (this is important only if you use this in your architecture). Falcon 9 is a reusable heavy lift vehicle. That’s where much of the cost savings comes over say Ares 1.

So basically there is nothing wrong with solid rockets. Actually for non human cargo and many applications they are a better choice. I don’t even mind them for human space flights, I just I don’t like them, and prefer liquid rockets.

 

[jakethesnake]

Re: SAVE CONTSTELLATION

The only technical problem with Ares 1 is that it’s a solid fuel rocket. That just scares me to no end. But the real problem is even with a budget bump for Ares 1 by the time its ready its mission is almost over. Falcon 9 will do anything Ares 1 was going to do in half the time (maybe faster) for half the money. Ares 1 (1 billion per flight, first flight estimate 2017). Falcon 9 (49 million per flight, first flight estimate 2010). Got these figures from Wiki.


The Orion capsule is not dead yet. I suspect it will be brought back during budget discussions. That capsule can sit on most HLV's.


I suspect that building Ares V and man rating Delta IV heavy or Atlas V is a wash as far as time to do is concerned (Ares V may cost more). Arguing about them is a waste of our time, since none of us are going to be the decision makers. I am ok with any of these options.

Everyone seems to be missing two VERY important things here and that is REDUNDANCY and REDUNDANCY!

The Atlas 5 doesn’t have human rated redundancy of systems.

The Delta IV heavy doesn’t have human rated redundancy of systems.

The Falcon 9 doesn’t have human rated redundancy of systems.

Also, to human rate these launchers would require a monumental undertaking to say the least!

You are basically redesigning the launcher adding weight and redundant system potentially changing the flight characteristics as well as a whole host of other things!

And to me the SRB has one very attractive feature that stands out over liquid fueled rockets…
Simplicity and a Gazillion less moving parts.

When I look at the Falcon 9 it brings visions of the N1 Russian Moon rocket and it’s 30 engines…
You know what happened to the N1 right???

Just a refresher BOOM!

 

[Gravity_Ray]

Re: SAVE CONTSTELLATION

I see your N-1 and raise you a Saturn V.

What was the reason why we beat the Russians to the Moon? It was engineers and materials science. The Russians just didn’t have the ability to make their engines work nor the young engineers who threw themselves at making it work.

It maybe pride speaking (Lord forgive me), but our technology has always been better than the Russians. It was true in the 60's and its true today. I'll take one 30 something US engineer over any two 30 something Russian and Chinese Engineers.

 

[menellom]

Re: SAVE CONTSTELLATION

To human rate these launchers would require a monumental undertaking to say the least!

I'll give you that man-rating the Atlas or Delta would be a pain, but Falcon 9 already meets all of NASA's published human-rating requirements (minus the escape system which is in development).

 

[jakethesnake]

Re: SAVE CONTSTELLATION

I see your N-1 and raise you a Saturn V.

What was the reason why we beat the Russians to the Moon? It was engineers and materials science. The Russians just didn’t have the ability to make their engines work nor the young engineers who threw themselves at making it work.

It maybe pride speaking (Lord forgive me), but our technology has always been better than the Russians. It was true in the 60's and its true today. I'll take one 30 something US engineer over any two 30 something Russian and Chinese Engineers.

Oh I’m definitely on board with you on the pride thing… and that is most certainly WHY I am here, I also agree that our technology is much better than the Russians! Before and definitely NOW!

The Saturn V was superior to the N1 because it had “LESS Engines” and that was most certainly obvious to me even when I was only 8 years old…

Look… NASA took a good hard look at how to get to the moon the second time around, and the architecture was looking them right in the face … BIG TIME!

Not to expose what I do for a living, but material scientist is pretty close to the mark… and with composites as well as ALL the other technological advances over the last 40 years… computers just to name one… the Constellation Program was appropriately named Apollo on steroids!

We can do this… and to keep changing course every time we change administrations… Democrat and or Republican, and I am neither… is to me getting a little dizzying!

Can we for the love of God just stay the course for… I don’t know… two administrations???

 

[EarthlingX]

Re: SAVE CONTSTELLATION

Can we for the love of God just stay the course for… I don’t know… two administrations???

That is one part of a change.

 

[jakethesnake]

Re: SAVE CONTSTELLATION

To human rate these launchers would require a monumental undertaking to say the least!

I'll give you that man-rating the Atlas or Delta would be a pain, but Falcon 9 already meets all of NASA's published human-rating requirements (minus the escape system which is in development).

The Falcon 9 meets all of the NASA published human rated requirement... Not even remotely close... you're kidding RIGHT?

 

[jakethesnake]

Re: SAVE CONTSTELLATION

Can we for the love of God just stay the course for… I don’t know… two administrations???

That is one part of a change.

CHANGE??? Get ready... I'm pretty sure from what I have seen already that you're in for a heck of a ride...

Have ya been paying attention to what our heath care is going to look like??? :?: :lol:

 

[EarthlingX]

Re: SAVE CONTSTELLATION

Can we for the love of God just stay the course for… I don’t know… two administrations???

That is one part of a change.

CHANGE??? Get ready... I'm pretty sure by what I have seen already that you're in for a heck of a ride...

Have ya been paying attention to what our heath care is going to look like??? :?: :lol:

You mean the part where your employer will not be able to blackmail you with the health insurance any more ? No.
Let's not talk politics.

 

[jakethesnake]

Re: SAVE CONTSTELLATION

We have been floundering ever since the X33!

It’s time to stay the course!