SAVE CONSTELLATION

Page 8 - Seeking answers about space? Join the Space community: the premier source of space exploration, innovation, and astronomy news, chronicling (and celebrating) humanity's ongoing expansion across the final frontier.
Status
Not open for further replies.
M

menellom

Guest
Jacksonjr0458":37ypywvo said:
Menellom":37ypywvo said:
Based on what? Congress is suddenly going to be suddenly overcome by Carl Sagan syndrome and throw an extra $3-5 billion dollars a year at NASA? They haven't approved a budget increase on that scale in 25 years! What makes you think that will change?
If they choose to save it, they will choose to fund it better. Otherwise, why bother?
:lol:
 
J

Jacksonjr0458

Guest
gawin":173x3l8q said:
The constellation program is and will be political. One of the reasons it was based of 1 large SRB had not so much to do about science as it did about jobs. The SRB and its refurbishment employs tons of people from many states. All these states have congressmen who control budgets. Take a look at a partial list of who makes what just for the SRB

prime contractor, ATK Launch System's Wasatch Division based in Brigham City, Utah.
United Space Alliance's Solid Rocket Booster Element division, SRB assembly, checkout and refurbishment for all non-solid-rocket-motor components and for SRB integration.
Parker-Abex Corp. of Kalamazoo, Michigan (hydraulic pumps)
Aerojet of Redmond, Washington (hydrazine gas generators)
Arde Inc. of Mahwah, New Jersey (hydrazine fuel supply modules)
Arkwin Industries Inc. of Westbury, New York (hydraulic reservoirs)
Aydin Vector Division of Newtown, Pennsylvania (integrated electronic assemblies)
Bendix Corp. of Teterboro, New Jersey (integrated electronic assemblies)
Consolidated Controls Corp. of El Segundo, California (hydrazine)
Eldec Corp. of Lynnwood, Washington (integrated electronic assemblies)
Explosive Technology of Fairfield, California (CDF manifolds)
Gaco Western of Seattle, Washington (Hypalon Paint)
Lockheed Martin (formerly Martin Marietta) of Denver, Colorado (pyro initiator controllers)
Moog Inc. of East Aurora, New York (servoactuators, fuel isolation valves)
Motorola of Scottsdale, Arizona (range safety receivers)
Pioneer Parachute Co. of Manchester, Connecticut (parachutes)
Sperry Rand Flight Systems of Phoenix, Arizona (multiplexers / demultiplexers)
Teledyne of Lewisburg, Tennessee (location aid transmitters)
ATK Launch Systems Corp. of Brigham City, Utah (separation motors)
Hamilton Sundstrand of Rockford, Illinois (auxiliary power units)
VACCO Industries of So. El Monte, CA (safe and arm device)
Voss Industries of Cleveland, OH (SRB Retention Bands)

Look at how many states benefit from this one single program. Also some of the strongest voting states NY, CA, NJ. Penn.

Every govt program no matter how big or small is political. It boils down to how many people (voters) can we keep happy.

My personal opinion is that constellation needs to go. I know a lot of jobs will be lost but a lot of civilian jobs for all the new up and coming private companies should help fill in the gaps. I also look back at other technologies and see when we had some of the most advances were when we had competition. We got more bang for the buck and advanced much faster then you would have with out it.



The SRB was used because it was proven technology. And it was cheaper than using something new. 2,500 jobs will be lost. This is never how we did NASA space exploration, leaving it all to private companies.
 
J

Jacksonjr0458

Guest
menellom":2ud28ntc said:
Jacksonjr0458":2ud28ntc said:
Menellom":2ud28ntc said:
Based on what? Congress is suddenly going to be suddenly overcome by Carl Sagan syndrome and throw an extra $3-5 billion dollars a year at NASA? They haven't approved a budget increase on that scale in 25 years! What makes you think that will change?
If they choose to save it, they will choose to fund it better. Otherwise, why bother?
:lol:

Great argument.
 
M

menellom

Guest
Jacksonjr0458":i3xmxsmf said:
Great argument.
Your basis for saving Constellation is the assumption that Congress would properly fund it... and your basis for assuming Congress would properly fund Constellation is the assumption that Congress would properly fund Constellation. :lol:
 
J

Jacksonjr0458

Guest
menellom":2mi9it1i said:
Jacksonjr0458":2mi9it1i said:
Great argument.
Your basis for saving Constellation is the assumption that Congress would properly fund it... and your basis for assuming Congress would properly fund Constellation is the assumption that Congress would properly fund Constellation. :lol:


No it's not. If they want to save it they will probably fund it, is my assumtion.


Lighten up.

:lol:
 
G

gawin

Guest
Jacksonjr0458":36vwlhzx said:
And it was cheaper than using something new.
Falcon 9 if sucessful will have cost less then 1 bil. (I will give you this is a BIG if but so is Ares. 2/3 parachutes fail on flight 1 so its not off to a good start.)

The total estimated cost to develop the Ares I through 2015 has risen from $28 billion in 2006 to more than $40 billion in 2009

so your quote as far as cheaper then something new needs some more backing.

You are rite that NASA was not run this way in the past.... or was it....

Did NASA make the North American X-15 to help study high speeds and reentry... no they helped a private company do so.
Did NASA make the Mercury rocket or was it a private companies missile that was revamped for humans to ride on.
Did NASA make the Boeing X-48 Blended wing... no but they are helping test the concepts.

You can go on and on and see all over where NASA and private companies have worked hand in hand in all forms of Flight not just space. This is a chance to do this all over again. NASA helps out private companies for the manned mission and resupply to LEO and this frees them up to do even MORE research into new and exciting areas.
 
J

jakethesnake

Guest
gawin":36da4fuw said:
Jacksonjr0458":36da4fuw said:
And it was cheaper than using something new.
Falcon 9 if sucessful will have cost less then 1 bil. (I will give you this is a BIG if but so is Ares. 2/3 parachutes fail on flight 1 so its not off to a good start.)

The total estimated cost to develop the Ares I through 2015 has risen from $28 billion in 2006 to more than $40 billion in 2009

so your quote as far as cheaper then something new needs some more backing.

You are rite that NASA was not run this way in the past.... or was it....

Did NASA make the North American X-15 to help study high speeds and reentry... no they helped a private company do so.
Did NASA make the Mercury rocket or was it a private companies missile that was revamped for humans to ride on.
Did NASA make the Boeing X-48 Blended wing... no but they are helping test the concepts.

You can go on and on and see all over where NASA and private companies have worked hand in hand in all forms of Flight not just space. This is a chance to do this all over again. NASA helps out private companies for the manned mission and resupply to LEO and this frees them up to do even MORE research into new and exciting areas.
Hey... I am all for SpaceX... and I hope all the luck in the world for them... and the key word here is luck, but if they prove themselves unworthy... I still don't think we should give up on them!
 
H

halman

Guest
jakethesnake":3ustya60 said:
NASA cancels KSC contract leading to charge “Obama broke law”

Let the battle begin… :D

One thing that is becoming glaringly obvious is that Obama does not understand what is meant by “Separation of Powers”… It looks as if Obama believes that his authority as the President of the United States of America overrides that of the Judicial and Legislative branches of government.

What Obama doesn’t seem to get is that his authority is neither greater nor less than the Legislative or Judicial branches of the government, they are equal i.e. “Seperation of Powers” and with 27 bipartisan members of Congress weighing in on the side of Constellation it looks to be a real battle and another wake up call for Mr. Obama.

This man is seemingly beyond reproach, and he didn’t get it when he tried to shove a nationalized heath care systems down our throat, or when he disrespected the Supreme Court in front of the entire country during his State of the Union address.


A copy of the letter to Charles Bolden from Congress can be found here.

http://www.floridatoday.com/content/blo ... 5-2010.pdf


From the Orlando Sentinel

NASA cancels KSC contract leading to charge “Obama broke law”

NASA on Friday cancelled its solicitation for the next generation ground services contract for Kennedy Space Center, leading to accusations that President Barack Obama broke the law.
http://blogs.orlandosentinel.com/news_s ... ponse.html


From the Orlando Sentinel

Reps tells NASA’s Bolden: “Stop damaging Constellation”

A group of 27 members of Congress, mainly Republican representatives from Alabama and Texas, two states with major NASA centers, wrote a letter Friday to NASA chief Charlie Bolden, demanding that he agree to cease any activity that could be construed as damaging to the Constellation moon program.
http://blogs.orlandosentinel.com/news_s ... ation.html


From Spacenews.com

NASA Warned Against Constellation Stoppage

Two dozen members of the U.S. House of Representatives are warning NASA Administrator Charles Bolden not to shut down any part of the Constellation program this year, citing a provision included in a 2010 omnibus spending bill that bars the agency from terminating any part of the space shuttle replacement effort without formal congressional approval.
“We have become aware of the formation by NASA Headquarters of at least five ‘tiger teams,’ the job of which is to shut down Constellation and transition to the new program,” states a Feb. 12 letter to Bolden spearheaded by Rep. Pete Olson (R-Texas) and signed by 19 other Republicans and four Democrats.

The letter also instructs Bolden to reinstate an unspecified “major contract related to Ares 1” that was put on hold Jan. 23, adding that any disruption to Constellation contracts will be viewed as a program termination.

From Floridatoday.com

Legislators Allege NASA, Obama In Violation Of Law

WASHINGTON, DC -- Congressman Bill Posey (R-Rockledge) released the following statement in response to the Obama Administration's notice today that it is cancelling Kennedy Space Center's Exploration Ground Launch Services (EGLS) contract:

"Administration's unilateral decision to cancel contracts associated with the Constellation program, absent Congressional consent is a direct violation of the law and of Congressional intent," said Congressman Posey.
http://www.floridatoday.com/content/blo ... a-in.shtml
Perhaps you don't realize that, while Congress appropriates the money, the administration operates the agencies. Congress passes spending bills which may itemize what the money is for, but those are not contracts.
 
J

Jacksonjr0458

Guest
gawin":etqlz4jx said:
Jacksonjr0458":etqlz4jx said:
And it was cheaper than using something new.
Falcon 9 if sucessful will have cost less then 1 bil. (I will give you this is a BIG if but so is Ares. 2/3 parachutes fail on flight 1 so its not off to a good start.)

The total estimated cost to develop the Ares I through 2015 has risen from $28 billion in 2006 to more than $40 billion in 2009

so your quote as far as cheaper then something new needs some more backing.

You are rite that NASA was not run this way in the past.... or was it....

Did NASA make the North American X-15 to help study high speeds and reentry... no they helped a private company do so.
Did NASA make the Mercury rocket or was it a private companies missile that was revamped for humans to ride on.
Did NASA make the Boeing X-48 Blended wing... no but they are helping test the concepts.

You can go on and on and see all over where NASA and private companies have worked hand in hand in all forms of Flight not just space. This is a chance to do this all over again. NASA helps out private companies for the manned mission and resupply to LEO and this frees them up to do even MORE research into new and exciting areas.



For LEO it may be cheaper, but for moon travel it will not be. A whole new spacecraft will be needed for moon travel for private companies. The parachutes are an esay fix, they know why they failed. The rocket did very well. Spacex has lost 3/5 falcon 1s! Falcon 9 will probably be trial and error too. No time for that. Sure, NASA has private companies make it's spacecraft a lot of times, but we never let them make them for themselves and NASA have little involvement. They are not making spacecraft for NASA, NASA has no spaceship.
 
G

gawin

Guest
Jacksonjr0458":z221ade1 said:
Spacex has lost 3/5 falcon 1s! Falcon 9 will probably be trial and error too.
This is one of my favorite quotes people use to defend NASA and not to give credit where credit is due for a NEW rocket system from scratch 3 out of 5...... how about this figure 8 out of 11 LOST!!!!!!! hmm and that was a govt project with a new system it was the Vanguard Rocket.. maybe you have herd of it. New system trial and error.

1. Vanguard TV3 - December 6, 1957 - Failed to orbit 1.36 kg (3 lb) satellite
2. Vanguard TV3 Backup - February 5, 1958 - Failed to orbit 1.36 kg (3 lb) satellite
3. Vanguard 1 - March 17, 1958 - Orbited 1.47 kg (3.25 lb) satellite
4. Vanguard TV5 - April 28, 1958 - Failed to orbit 9.98 kg (22 lb) satellite
5. Vanguard SLV 1 - May 27, 1958 - Failed to orbit 9.98 kg (22 lb) satellite
6. Vanguard SLV 2 - June 26, 1958 - Failed to orbit 9.98 kg (22 lb) satellite
7. Vanguard SLV 3 - September 26, 1958 - Failed to orbit 9.98 kg (22 lb) satellite
8. Vanguard 2 - February 17, 1959 - Orbited 10.8 kg (23.7 lb) satellite
9. Vanguard SLV 5 - April 13, 1959 - Failed to orbit 10.3 kg (22 lb 11 oz) satellite
10. Vanguard SLV 6 - June 22, 1959 - Failed to orbit 10.3 kg (22 lb 11 oz) satellite
11. Vanguard 3 - September 18, 1959 - Orbited 22.7 kg (50 lb) satellite

So 3 out of 5 is not to bad considering.

Even NASA has had a multitude of failures. So before you go running off yelling 3/5 remember your history and think 8/11

How many redstone's were lost before we launched a man on one....

Why not do just what you say and have the companies build the rockets for NASA. I am 100% sure that if any of the private companies do not meet or exceed NASA's expectations then NASA will not use them. There is no way that NASA is going to let some piece of junk go trotting off to the ISS. This is a chance again for NASA to assist civilian space like they took of the reigns of when they started for civilian aviation.

This has the potential to benefit both sides.

Private companies can now get interested backers because now there is a genuine profit to be made.

NASA frees up monies and resources for NEW and more exciting and im very positive ground breaking research. I have every faith in NASA and believe that they will come up with the "next best thing" but they will not come up with it if they are stuck burning up all there funds and resources making another same old principle rocket and trying to get to the moon again.....
 
N

neutrino78x

Guest
I have a question, the NASA budget as proposed by Obama in 2010 apparently includes money for development of a heavy lift booster.

Would this be a fleet of reusable heavy lift boosters owened by NASA, or more commercial services?

Does NASA plan to own a fleet of heavy lift rockets for the deep space targets such as asteroids, the Moon, etc.?

Navy submarines are manufactured by General Dynamics Electric Boat, not Navy enlisted men. However, the fleet of manufactured submarines is owned by the US Government, and operated by US Navy personnel. Would this be the model for the heavy lift vehicles used to send astronauts to asteroids, the Moon, and Mars, or not?

I understand that LEO flights, mainly to the ISS, would be done by commercial providers, but I am asking about the deep space flights.

--Brian
 
H

halman

Guest
neutrino78x":jwcjmiai said:
I have a question, the NASA budget as proposed by Obama in 2010 apparently includes money for development of a heavy lift booster.

Would this be a fleet of reusable heavy lift boosters owened by NASA, or more commercial services?

Does NASA plan to own a fleet of heavy lift rockets for the deep space targets such as asteroids, the Moon, etc.?

Navy submarines are manufactured by General Dynamics Electric Boat, not Navy enlisted men. However, the fleet of manufactured submarines is owned by the US Government, and operated by US Navy personnel. Would this be the model for the heavy lift vehicles used to send astronauts to asteroids, the Moon, and Mars, or not?

I understand that LEO flights, mainly to the ISS, would be done by commercial providers, but I am asking about the deep space flights.

--Brian
That's a darn good question, Brian. In all probability, NASA will design and develop the booster, working with contractors, then, hopefully turn that design over to SpaceX or someone to operate. When the space shuttle was in development, a consortium of investors wanted to pay to have an 8th (this is when the fleet was going to number 7) one built, which they would operate themselves, paying for the use of NASA facilities. The Reagan administration said, "No, they are not for sale," which really befuddled a lot of people, because NASA was supposed to develop technologies for the private sector to use.

Hopefully, the United States has progressed beyond launching deep space missions from Earth. We will save ourselves immense amounts of money and difficulty if we launch our deep space vehicles from Earth orbit.
 
G

Gravity_Ray

Guest
jacksonjr

You’re in a circular argument.

NASA has not been "properly" funded in 60 years by the government. The last time Congress properly funded NASA they were afraid they were going to get bombed from orbit by the USSR.

Your assuming that Congress wants an exploration program, they don’t, they want a jobs program.
 
I

its_amazing

Guest
halman":fkhwu1fb said:
neutrino78x":fkhwu1fb said:
I have a question, the NASA budget as proposed by Obama in 2010 apparently includes money for development of a heavy lift booster.

Would this be a fleet of reusable heavy lift boosters owened by NASA, or more commercial services?

Does NASA plan to own a fleet of heavy lift rockets for the deep space targets such as asteroids, the Moon, etc.?

Navy submarines are manufactured by General Dynamics Electric Boat, not Navy enlisted men. However, the fleet of manufactured submarines is owned by the US Government, and operated by US Navy personnel. Would this be the model for the heavy lift vehicles used to send astronauts to asteroids, the Moon, and Mars, or not?

I understand that LEO flights, mainly to the ISS, would be done by commercial providers, but I am asking about the deep space flights.

--Brian
That's a darn good question, Brian. In all probability, NASA will design and develop the booster, working with contractors, then, hopefully turn that design over to SpaceX or someone to operate. When the space shuttle was in development, a consortium of investors wanted to pay to have an 8th (this is when the fleet was going to number 7) one built, which they would operate themselves, paying for the use of NASA facilities. The Reagan administration said, "No, they are not for sale," which really befuddled a lot of people, because NASA was supposed to develop technologies for the private sector to use.

Hopefully, the United States has progressed beyond launching deep space missions from Earth. We will save ourselves immense amounts of money and difficulty if we launch our deep space vehicles from Earth orbit.
When Bolden came to JSC last week, he told us that the heavy lift would be done internationally but really had no idea how that was going to be done. Every answer he gave us was that he did not know and that it would take weeks/months before they had a plan laid out. To be honest, neither we nor the administration knows what the words "heavy lift vehicle" actually imply's in the FY2011 budget plan. He did say however that "starbucks is hiring"...
 
J

Jacksonjr0458

Guest
gawin":e1n0kkno said:
Jacksonjr0458":e1n0kkno said:
Spacex has lost 3/5 falcon 1s! Falcon 9 will probably be trial and error too.
This is one of my favorite quotes people use to defend NASA and not to give credit where credit is due for a NEW rocket system from scratch 3 out of 5...... how about this figure 8 out of 11 LOST!!!!!!! hmm and that was a govt project with a new system it was the Vanguard Rocket.. maybe you have herd of it. New system trial and error.

1. Vanguard TV3 - December 6, 1957 - Failed to orbit 1.36 kg (3 lb) satellite
2. Vanguard TV3 Backup - February 5, 1958 - Failed to orbit 1.36 kg (3 lb) satellite
3. Vanguard 1 - March 17, 1958 - Orbited 1.47 kg (3.25 lb) satellite
4. Vanguard TV5 - April 28, 1958 - Failed to orbit 9.98 kg (22 lb) satellite
5. Vanguard SLV 1 - May 27, 1958 - Failed to orbit 9.98 kg (22 lb) satellite
6. Vanguard SLV 2 - June 26, 1958 - Failed to orbit 9.98 kg (22 lb) satellite
7. Vanguard SLV 3 - September 26, 1958 - Failed to orbit 9.98 kg (22 lb) satellite
8. Vanguard 2 - February 17, 1959 - Orbited 10.8 kg (23.7 lb) satellite
9. Vanguard SLV 5 - April 13, 1959 - Failed to orbit 10.3 kg (22 lb 11 oz) satellite
10. Vanguard SLV 6 - June 22, 1959 - Failed to orbit 10.3 kg (22 lb 11 oz) satellite
11. Vanguard 3 - September 18, 1959 - Orbited 22.7 kg (50 lb) satellite

So 3 out of 5 is not to bad considering.

Even NASA has had a multitude of failures. So before you go running off yelling 3/5 remember your history and think 8/11

How many redstone's were lost before we launched a man on one....

Why not do just what you say and have the companies build the rockets for NASA. I am 100% sure that if any of the private companies do not meet or exceed NASA's expectations then NASA will not use them. There is no way that NASA is going to let some piece of junk go trotting off to the ISS. This is a chance again for NASA to assist civilian space like they took of the reigns of when they started for civilian aviation.

This has the potential to benefit both sides.

Private companies can now get interested backers because now there is a genuine profit to be made.

NASA frees up monies and resources for NEW and more exciting and im very positive ground breaking research. I have every faith in NASA and believe that they will come up with the "next best thing" but they will not come up with it if they are stuck burning up all there funds and resources making another same old principle rocket and trying to get to the moon again.....


I know that. You are missing my point. We were alredy working with trial and error on Ares, and the 1 launch did pretty well. Ares 1 was being built with PROVEN tech, not totally new, like Falcon9.
 
J

Jacksonjr0458

Guest
Gravity_Ray":22a65dv7 said:
jacksonjr

You’re in a circular argument.

NASA has not been "properly" funded in 60 years by the government. The last time Congress properly funded NASA they were afraid they were going to get bombed from orbit by the USSR.

Your assuming that Congress wants an exploration program, they don’t, they want a jobs program.

Funny, NASA has not yet been around for 60 years. Guess what will be a jobs program.
 
J

Jacksonjr0458

Guest
vulture4":ou91jqnk said:
If NASA has a 100 ton payload, which they don't, they could just put out an RFP for a launch vehicle.. ULA already has advertised their plans for augmenting the D-IVH all the way to 100 tons to LEO if they are asked. No doubt SpaceX can come up with a design quickly to since they already have a larger engine in work. It would be senseless for NASA to design a heavy lift booster because they don't have anybody who has any real hardware experience.

Now that Constellation has been cancelled all the civil service manangers that have nothing to do want to look over the shoulders of Elon Musks's engineers and tel them what they have to do to be "safe". This would be a real disaster. The Constellation program is awash in people who have never put hands on hardware, who spend all their time creating paper requirements that are utterly inappropriate and safety assessments that demonstrate a complete lack of real experience. I have seen failure rate data obtained by calling up auto companies and asking for the reliability of a component, then using it to determine redundancy requirements in a spacecraft. This is Inappropriate because the failure modes are different and in an aerospace application the appropriate strategy is to test the component to failure, and correct the failure modes. Redundancy is seldom effective for mechanical systems because most failures of mechanical systems in a launch vehicle are deterministic. I have also seen failure rates estimated by ROM with no data, and then used to evaluate system safety and require redundancy. By people who were "not sure" whether common mode failures might be something they should consider.

This is just a very simple example of the superficial and often incorrect nature of NASA design analysis. On the Shuttle program there are some NASA people I consider quite competent, but their numbers are small and most of the difficult decisions are made by the USA people who actually maintain the Shuttles.

Anyone who thinks NASA safety has anything to teach SpaceX about how to build and launch a reliable rocket is, in my opinion, somewhat naive. Remember this is the NASA that's spending $2.5 billion to "close out" Constellation and put it on the shelf on the assumption that someone will "commercialize" Ares I. This is the NASA that says SpaceX and ULA would never be able to launch humans except from LC-39, so they'll have to modify the VAB for the Falcon or Delta. This is the NASA that forced the Obama administration to cancel the Shuttle when it was actually working well, but now wants ULA or SpaceX to keep all their people employed.

Unfortunately only the contractors will lose their jobs. The civil service people will be around to add useless costs and delays to SpaceX. What the Constellation managers need to do is figure out that their program was wrong on almost every count, and list the things that should be done differently next time.


And who are you to trash NASA.
 
P

pathfinder_01

Guest
Jacksonjr0458":ajtfmtwd said:
gawin":ajtfmtwd said:
Jacksonjr0458":ajtfmtwd said:
And it was cheaper than using something new.
Falcon 9 if sucessful will have cost less then 1 bil. (I will give you this is a BIG if but so is Ares. 2/3 parachutes fail on flight 1 so its not off to a good start.)

The total estimated cost to develop the Ares I through 2015 has risen from $28 billion in 2006 to more than $40 billion in 2009

so your quote as far as cheaper then something new needs some more backing.

You are rite that NASA was not run this way in the past.... or was it....

Did NASA make the North American X-15 to help study high speeds and reentry... no they helped a private company do so.
Did NASA make the Mercury rocket or was it a private companies missile that was revamped for humans to ride on.
Did NASA make the Boeing X-48 Blended wing... no but they are helping test the concepts.

You can go on and on and see all over where NASA and private companies have worked hand in hand in all forms of Flight not just space. This is a chance to do this all over again. NASA helps out private companies for the manned mission and resupply to LEO and this frees them up to do even MORE research into new and exciting areas.



For LEO it may be cheaper, but for moon travel it will not be. A whole new spacecraft will be needed for moon travel for private companies. The parachutes are an esay fix, they know why they failed. The rocket did very well. Spacex has lost 3/5 falcon 1s! Falcon 9 will probably be trial and error too. No time for that. Sure, NASA has private companies make it's spacecraft a lot of times, but we never let them make them for themselves and NASA have little involvement. They are not making spacecraft for NASA, NASA has no spaceship.
If trail and error is needed then NASA is at a disadvantage. Falcon 9 is sitting on the pad. Ares I's "test flight" was not even the version that is going to be used for flight(4 vs. 5) Segment SRB, guidance system from another rocket, no upper stage and did not separate cleanly. Space X could spend the next 4 years doing trial and error and still beat Ares I to orbit.

I am a supporter of NASA but I am sorry constellation should end. The goal was unattractive (the moon via Apollo methods, again??). The program badly thought out(it should not take 7 years or more to put a capsule in orbit). The Ares I rocket too underpowered and struggling just to get Orion to orbit. It was as sad as some retired athlete trying to relive glory days.

Here is what NASA could do, design fuel depots so that a craft in LEO can reach the moon and/or design a reusable lunar transfer vehicle that could be parked at a LaGrange point. NASA needs to learn to leverage its advantages. This could enable access to the moon quickly and if HLV becomes available it could make it more effective. Imaging the cost advantage of having lunar capable reusable craft. It also may be cheaper than building/using a rarely used HLV. This approach gives us assets for further exploration of the solar system (depots) and breaks moon missions into manageable pieces (i.e. we could partner with other countries for moon craft or fuel).

Ares I was a fine research project into using segment solid rockets as a first stage. It was not something to be relied upon for quick access to space.

It was not a good method for reusing the shuttles parts ( i.e. The J2x, ect...). It was not good form an operational timeline standpoint (NASA needs access to space NOW!) and the moon is more than ten years (Apollo had 8)? It was not good from an operations standpoint what are we going to do with an Orion capsule during the period when we have no ISS and no ARES V for the moon?

I think the moment it took more than 3 years between the shuttle and ARES I the plan should have changed. Not to mention there should have been something in mind other than going to the moon for Orion. The shuttle could do some interesting missions without the ISS; Orion can’t do much without Ares V.

Orion locked the new administration in ways that shuttle did not (which maybe why it survived so long). Orion was good for the moon and maybe an overkill visit to transfer crew at the ISS. The shuttle could fly a “star wars” payload, a “green” payload what ever Washington was interested in. Orion was the moon or bust.
 
J

Jacksonjr0458

Guest
"If trail and error is needed then NASA is at a disadvantage. Falcon 9 is sitting on the pad. Ares I's "test flight" was not even the version that is going to be used for flight(4 vs. 5) Segment SRB, guidance system from another rocket, no upper stage and did not separate cleanly. Space X could spend the next 4 years doing trial and error and still beat Ares I to orbit.I am a supporter of NASA but I am sorry constellation should end. The goal was unattractive (the moon via Apollo methods, again??). The program badly thought out(it should not take 7 years or more to put a capsule in orbit). The Ares I rocket too underpowered and struggling just to get Orion to orbit. It was as sad as some retired athlete trying to relive glory days. Here is what NASA could do, design fuel depots so that a craft in LEO can reach the moon and/or design a reusable lunar transfer vehicle that could be parked at a LaGrange point. NASA needs to learn to leverage its advantages. This could enable access to the moon quickly and if HLV becomes available it could make it more effective. Imaging the cost advantage of having lunar capable reusable craft. It also may be cheaper than building/using a rarely used HLV. This approach gives us assets for further exploration of the solar system (depots) and breaks moon missions into manageable pieces (i.e. we could partner with other countries for moon craft or fuel).
Ares I was a fine research project into using segment solid rockets as a first stage. It was not something to be relied upon for quick access to space. It was not a good method for reusing the shuttles parts ( i.e. The J2x, ect...). It was not good form an operational timeline standpoint (NASA needs access to space NOW!) and the moon is more than ten years (Apollo had 8)? It was not good from an operations standpoint what are we going to do with an Orion capsule during the period when we have no ISS and no ARES V for the moon? I think the moment it took more than 3 years between the shuttle and ARES I the plan should have changed. Not to mention there should have been something in mind other than going to the moon for Orion. The shuttle could do some interesting missions without the ISS; Orion can’t do much without Ares V. Orion locked the new administration in ways that shuttle did not (which maybe why it survived so long). Orion was good for the moon and maybe an overkill visit to transfer crew at the ISS. The shuttle could fly a “star wars” payload, a “green” payload what ever Washington was interested in. Orion was the moon or bust.[/quote]"



That's a bad argument. It was not the real rocket but it simulated the rocket exactly. The launch was not a failure by any means, the only real problem was its parachutes. A full SRB would have made no difference, weight was put in for it.
And..uh, the J2X engine was not based on shuttle technology. It was based on the J2 engine of the Apollo program. Nasa's plan would definitely get to the moon first. We could keep the ISS and the constellation program, other nations involved could pay more or we could increase it's budget too. Orion can do many more missions than the moon, even without Ares V. The shuttles missions are just as limited, but we kept it for years. Just for a few years we could not get to the moon with Orion, but then we could go anywhere, the moon included. We need the Moon NOW? Not going to happen either way, it takes time. It will take far more time with private companies.
 
J

Jonny_Quest

Guest
vulture4":1o0mqiv8 said:
... this is the NASA that's spending $2.5 billion to "close out" Constellation and put it on the shelf on the assumption that someone will "commercialize" Ares I....
Does anyone know if ATK has any plans to commercialize Ares I for launching satellites or probes? They have the plans and the capability to manufacture them, as well as a successful test launch.
 
V

voyager4d

Guest
Jonny_Quest":3oqu1ntq said:
Does anyone know if ATK has any plans to commercialize Ares I for launching satellites or probes? They have the plans and the capability to manufacture them, as well as a successful test launch.
That will never happend, Ares I would never be able to compete. It is to big (94m/310ft), when compared with what it can lift, and therfore it will be to expensive to run in a competitive market.

The Orion on the other hand, has a chance to survive in some form.
 
G

gawin

Guest
2 quick questions I am looking for info on along the lines here.

1 What is the annual cost of the ships and crews of the retrieval of the SRB's. (IE budget for getting them out of the ocean)

2 What is the cost of a new SRB and what is the cost of refurbishing them (not the 5 segment but the existing). I have herd all sorts of figures but nothing to back it up. Most seem to hit around 5 million more for new V used. can some one back this up?

Thanks if any one has this info.
 
V

vulture4

Guest
I do not have exact figures. I can only say that I have never seen any data to indicate that SRB recovery is cost-effective. Most people I have talked to informally say that new SRBs would be cheaper than refurbished ones if the recovery apparatus were deleted. This doesn't mean all reuse is uneconomical; a liquid fueled runway landing vehicle would require much less refurbishment.
 
E

edkyle99

Guest
voyager4d":2ffv923p said:
Jonny_Quest":2ffv923p said:
Does anyone know if ATK has any plans to commercialize Ares I for launching satellites or probes? They have the plans and the capability to manufacture them, as well as a successful test launch.
That will never happend, Ares I would never be able to compete. It is to big (94m/310ft), when compared with what it can lift, and therfore it will be to expensive to run in a competitive market.

The Orion on the other hand, has a chance to survive in some form.
ATK did propose a COTS booster based on SRB and Castor 120 technology. The first stage would only have used two and a half SRB segments. The proposal lost to Taurus 2 and Falcon 9. (In retrospect, a sign of things to come.)

I don't see Orion surviving. The "Taxi" idea seems to hinge on use of a smaller. lighter, less-capable spacecraft for ISS only - an American Soyuz. Soyuz only weighs 7.2 tonnes give or take. Orion for ISS missions was going to weigh 20-ish tonnes. The SpaceX Dragon is posited to weigh 8.5 tonnes.

Mass to orbit is a function of dollars spent. The cost implications of cutting mass by more than half should be obvious. The cost implications by comparison to orbiting the 100+ tonne Shuttle Orbiter should also be obvious.

- Ed Kyle
 
Status
Not open for further replies.

ASK THE COMMUNITY

Latest posts