So what's wrong with Ares/Constellation

[Geoduck2]

There has been a lot of discussion in article comments about the Ares/Constellation program. My question is what is wrong and what is right with the program?

I've been fairly outspoken in my disdain for the program. I said it was a huge mistake from the day it was announced. My complaints are:

I think it's a very bad idea to put people on top of a solid rocket.
They cannot be throttled or cut off increasing the danger. There is also more of a pollution concern for SRBs over H2-O2 liquid fuelled rockets.

We could do so much better with current technology.
The SRBs are essentially the same as those designed thirty-some years ago for STS. The upper stages are throwbacks to the Apollo program. The heavy lift version is very much a Saturn 5 clone. The command/service module uses Solar Cells like the Soyuz. The whole program strikes me as a scabbed together recycling of old parts.

It abandons the winged return vehicle.

The cause of all this is a short budget.
NASA has a history of making mistakes, losing missions, and yes killing people when they try to fly on the cheap. This inadequate funding is even making them talk seriously about deorbiting the ISS, IMO quite possibly one of the stupidest things they could do. I really feel that if you can't do what it takes and invest what it takes to do something right then don't even try. That's far more honest than trying to slap together something o the cheap and then having a disaster because of it.

On the other side
The Shuttle parts are designed, proven and don't have to be created from whole cloth. This saves money and time.
Solid rockets have fewer moving parts and in the long run are more reliable.
Saturn 5 was a good design and it is a good idea to start with a good design and go from there.
Why carry wings into space and back.
If not Ares/Constellation then the US will drop out of manned Spaceflight.

So where do you stand? Why do you favour the program? Why do you think it's a huge mistake? What do you think the US SHOULD be doing vis a vis manned spaceflight. Should NASA just hand manned spaceflight over to private contractors? Would you be willing to invest 10, 20, 30 billion each year to get someone up there. Should the moon be the goal? where SHOULD the us go from here.

 

[MeteorWayne]

This is not related to a Mission or a Launch, so will be moved to Space Business and Technology.

 

[RocketTony]

I think budget is the big problem. Yes, we are trying to use proven technology everywhere we can, in order to limit development costs and time. That by itself is not necessarily a bad thing. There are also some pretty significant differences, even in the solid motors (when compared to Shuttle) and in the J-2X engine (compared to Saturn).

Are solids inherently more dangerous than liquid fueled engines? I do not know the answer to that question. I suppose it depends on many factors.

As far as the health of the program, there are always technical issues to overcome when developing a new vehicle. Personally, I do not see any that cannot be overcome, but I'm sure there is a lot that I do not know. I work on Ares I.

I just hope we are not skimping on critical testing or other areas of development because of cost. If we don't spend enough money up front, the payback in the end is huge in terms of changes and/or operational costs. There is a sweet spot in there somewhere. I just hope we are not missing it.

In the end, I just hope that our government supports NASA with the funding that it needs for exploration. From what I have read, an infusion of money seems to be warranted if we want to move forward.

 

[Geoduck2]

This is not related to a Mission or a Launch, so will be moved to Space Business and Technology.

Thanks, I wasn't quite sure where it should go.

 

[radarredux]

My question is what is wrong and what is right with the program?

Champagne dreams on a beer budget. NASA was asked to do more (go to the Moon) than they were doing (flying the shuttle and building, maintaining, and using ISS), but were only given a modest budget increase. Then they got even less than they were expected. Now they are being told that they are going to get an ever smaller budget into the future. Ouch!

What do you think the US SHOULD be doing vis a vis manned spaceflight. Should NASA just hand manned spaceflight over to private contractors?

As much as I complain, I think it is relatively on track. There is enough money in the pipeline to support at least one and probably 2-3 commercial development efforts (by definition, these guys should get most of their development money from outside NASA). If they succeed, NASA needs to commit to them by making them the preferential provider of launch services to LEO over Ares I. If they fail, then hopefully NASA will have Ares I to fall back on.

My biggest complaint is that I would like to see a lot more robotic missions to the Moon, both for science as well as for preparation for human settlement.

 

[EarthlingX]

Just a couple of thoughts:
- Developing solid fueled booster is supposedly cheaper than liquid fueled engine
- Operating solid fueled booster is more expensive than for liquid fueled engine.
If you want someone to stop talking and annoying you, you pick what's cheaper, of course. It doesn't matter how it will work, at least while experimenting and developing, they're off your back. If you later don't give them enough money to finish it, or if costs rise because of unpredicted (oh, surprise) complications, even better. They are far and busy, and you can *****, how people, who got lots of money, don't do anything.
That's the case with Ares 1 solid core 5 segment booster.
With plenty of decent rocket engines with an extensive flight record, it is a waste of money, which could be put to much better use in areas, that are not so well covered.
Same goes for the second stage. Centaur second stage has a long history and could be put on either Atlas V or Delta IV H.
Orion is the only part that needs to be made, not just bought, but they made it without airlock, so you get EVA problems. At least some development from earlier concepts survived and evolved.
Ares V heavy launcher or some other HLV is currently not really needed, because things can be done with less cost to the same effect, with smaller launchers. You could probably lift empty EDS to orbit with some smaller launcher, then fill it in orbit, as refueling is done routinely on ISS.
I also don't know, why it is necessary to mix solid boosters with rs-68. Instead of those problematic 5 segment boosters, just strap on a Delta IV H or two.

Thrashing parts of the ship behind you is not exactly something i would call progress. That's how it was done, when they got everything they asked for, and they could use whatever to get there, which is not the case now. They should reuse those expensive parts of the ship, and work on extending their life time. Building them every time a new slows the pace of progress.

I think, that the future of human expansion will evolve around orbital fuel depots, and plans should be adjusted accordingly.
They would allow specialization of ships for orbital launch or interplanetary travel, make cheaper access to LEO, and open it for business.

If they evolved shuttle into crew-only vehicle, as it was initially planned, and use it as a command module, when joined with components that would allow at least lunar travel, that i would call progress. I would also expect turn around to be under a month, and not more crew than comparable number from air industry. Yea, that would be cool, 40 years late, but cool no less.

 

[samkent]

With plenty of decent rocket engines with an extensive flight record, it is a waste of money,

With plenty of internal combustion engines why should we develop hybrids or straight electrics?

At least they are trying a new approach. That’s what NASA is all about trying new ideas. A new type of launch vehicle in the stable is always a good idea. The ones that are against it usually have skin in the game. Would the big three in Detroit ever China to the US auto arena? I doubt it.

There is also more of a pollution concern for SRBs over H2-O2 liquid fuelled rockets.

Is there??
From what I understand all of our hydrogen is produced from natural gas. And the oxygen isn’t just laying around in pools. You have to at least use electricity in the manufacture of it. So in a sense you can say those rockets use coal and natural gas. Not quite as clean as we once thought.

 

[Geoduck2]

At least they are trying a new approach. That’s what NASA is all about trying new ideas.

That's my biggest problem with Ares and Constellation. It's not based on new ideas. They're recycling 30 year old shuttle parts and 40 year old Von Braun rocket designs. I keep thinking that this is a bad investment because I don't see this as something that will have 'legs' as it were. The comparison I make is with the Clipper Ships. They were the fastest and highest tech sailing ships of the age. However they mostly faded from the seas within a quarter century. They may have been the best SAILING ships on the seas but STEAM, the new technology just coming onto the scene made them obsolete as soon as they were launched. I'm suspect that the Ares will suffer the same fate. It will be developed, get it's first manned flight by 2015-17 and then by 2025 be retired. While NASA and the US is developing the best designed old style rocket, newer, more efficient, less polluting, more economical methods will, I'm afraid, eclipse it. That's a waste of time and money. That's an opportunity lost.

 

[offsprey6]

So, Geoduck2, the question then is " What the spaceship/launcher equivalent of the steamship compared to chemical rocket sailors?" and "Could these technologies be intergrated into the existing infrastructure (at least at first), like the steamship could dock, launch, and go where the old sailships went, or does brand new infrastructure need to be built along with it.?"

Any answers,anyone?

 

[samkent]

It's not based on new ideas.

Not all new ideas are totally new. How many times have you said to yourself “Why didn’t I think of that?”?
Solids have been around for centuries. I’d say they have been shown to “have legs”.
They have been doing the grunt work of the rocket world for decade after decade. But as Rodney would say “I don’t get no respect”.

We put them on our subs. No explosions. No complaints.
We put them on our ships. No explosions. No complaints.
We put them on our troops. No explosions. No complaints.

But try to put a human on top and suddenly it’s blasphemy!

Look they have been getting bigger and stronger and now it’s time to take the next logical step.

What are the critics going to say if this test goes off without a hitch and the ride quality equates with liquids?

 

[Geoduck2]

I gotta say after watching the launch yesterday my opinion is much different.

The launch was much smoother than I expected. Even if the 5th segment adds more it appears they have theissue under control.
They can 'throttle' the booster down and up as needed by how they pack the layers of propellant during manufacture. This means that not only can they adjust the thrust during MaxQ, they can control the G forces during launch.
I was struck by how the SRB did NOT need to be watched and fiddled with prior to launch. It just waited and then they set it off. This would be a huge improvement over the Shuttle or other boosters that have pumps and pressures and motors and actuators and such that have to be monitored.
This was very impressive. I'm still not 100% convinced but this went a long way to getting my full support.

 

[docm]

Might want to re-check the M&L thread as it didn't go quite as well as expected.

 

[annodomini2]

My main gripes with it are: (as some have listed)

1. No real 'new' technology or concepts

2. Other than maybe a cost benefit over the shuttle, development of a new machine when others are available appears to be a significant waste of money.

3. Are there any benefits of this design over other commercially available rocket systems?

4. Giving jobs to people on a half hearted project just to keep the skills there.

 

[Booban]

The worse thing about it is that people can't make up their minds.

The program needed to be fast to replace the shuttle, to do that it had to rely on proven technologies which usually solve many of the other issues, cost and reliability for example. More often than not, trying to get a perfect system, and developing new technology leads to increased costs and delays.

Even if it is not a perfect system, starting and stopping and canceling and changing is without a doubt wasteful.

Getting rid of the complex and trouble prone shuttle and going back to a simple related family of rockets is the best chance for further space development we have had for 20 years. Just follow through on the plan.

 

[access]

Ok so just some quick work on the clipper metaphor. The first rockets are about even with carracks sooooo..... before you can get to a steamer or clipper you've got to go threw, caravels, Galleons, barque, Ship 'o' the line, Schooner and finally clipper. So I would argue you have a long way to go before your gonna get eclipsed by huge advancements. The new SHLV are starting into the range of a galleon, same tech way more capacity.
The one part of constellation I really think is necessary is the Ares V because it may not use new tech but it is providing a service there is no alternative currently available for.
As far as i'm concerned the Ares I is just away to get people up to the lander and upper stage launched by Ares V I don't care how they do that they've decided to do that with a new rocket built from old tech whatever just get it done.

 

[bluegrassgazer]

Getting rid of the complex and trouble prone shuttle and going back to a simple related family of rockets is the best chance for further space development we have had for 20 years. Just follow through on the plan.

I agree. The shuttle is another accident waiting to happen. People wondering why we are going to put human payloads on top of solid fueled rockets only have to think back to Challenger for your answer.

If we want to talk about what should happen with the new program, maybe we should talk about what should have happened with the Shuttle. Even if it didn't cut costs as advertised, the program should have been used in the 80s for what it was intended: Building a space station. Now, 20 years later, we have the ISS and the orbiters are way too old to even maintain the structure after it is done being built next year. It is just the way our government seems to work. :roll:

Now we have the ISS and there is talk that we can't get the new ship in space before we have to de-orbit this outpost?

Listen, I would LOVE to go back to the moon. And I would LOVE to go to Mars and its moons. But NOW we have the ISS and I think we need to concentrate on getting Ares I working as a dependable way to get there and back. NASA needs the funding for these two projects! It would be shameful to lose the ISS in 2015 or even 2020!

Personally, when the Ares concept was unveiled I thought it was pretty smart. We have a small rocket to fly the manned missions to develop first, and a large rocket to send heavy payloads out of earth orbit. If funding got cut (which it did) maybe there is still enough to fund the small rocket. I believe that this is the direction in which we are heading.

Sorry for the long post, but just one more thought: When the ISS (and Space Station Freedom) were being proposed, one of the potential benefits I kept hearing was that it would be a "stop" along the journey to the Moon and Mars. Was that just a selling point, or are there real possibilities for this? I never seem to hear this anymore, now that it is built.

 

[thermionic]

In the Ares-1X launch thread, two points were mentioned that caught my eye.

1)NASA isn't sure if refurbishing the Ares1 first stage after flight will actually be an economic win
2)The parachute system weighs about 2 tons

I don't know if either of these are true, but if so then maybe giving up on first-stage reusability would open up 2 tons on the rocket for other uses.

 

[MeteorWayne]

I agree. The shuttle is another accident waiting to happen. People wondering why we are going to put human payloads on top of solid fueled rockets only have to think back to Challenger for your answer. ]

It's quite possible that on a rocket like ARES 1, nothing would have happened. The problem with Challenger was that the hot gas escaping from the SRB hit the ET. It's unclear whether it would have caused a loss of vehicle or crew if tons of LOX and LH2 had not been right next door.

 

[bluegrassgazer]

It's quite possible that on a rocket like ARES 1, nothing would have happened. The problem with Challenger was that the hot gas escaping from the SRB hit the ET. It's unclear whether it would have caused a loss of vehicle or crew if tons of LOX and LH2 had not been right next door.

I agree. If the hot gas had escaped the side facing away from the ET, there would have been less of a chance of a loss of life. But this accident is exactly why we will never see a NASA vehicle similar to the current STS configuration with a human payload again. Obviously, every rocket has risks, but a solid-fueled rocket failure will not have the giant explosion that a more traditional rocket might.

 

[EarthlingX]

Solid rocket boosters should go out of human space flight totally, they just don't compare with liquid engines.
They are ok for missiles and for non-HSF launches, but really have no place in HSF.
Reason, why Ares I needs so much thrust at the launch, is because it has such a poor Isp, that you need a lot of total mass and as a result have a very bad fuel/structure ratio.
Because of technology used, they are designed just for one type of mission, with very defined flight parameters, such as how much thrust at each stage of flight, any change means redesigning engine.
Making fuel modules is very expensive, because they have to be big and uniform and we know how that works from computer tech, where bigger chip cores mean more lost waffles.
Refueling means rebuilding the engine, which is not the case with liquid fueled engines.
One more time: orbiter is the best part of the stack and i really don't see why new, from SSME evolved engines, with Isp over 400 (SRBs around 250, almost two times lift-off mass), RS-68, couldn't be used instead of that firecracker.
Ares 1 will not be ready in 7 years, RS-68 is on the launch pad now, so which is sooner ?
If money for Ares I would go for RS-68 based vehicle, there would be operational rocket on the launchpad and not that PR stunt for throwing mud in the eyes.
Just kill it already and move on, enough wasting money, sooner the better.