- Status
I'd be shocked if Ares I survives. Orion will probably continue. Ares V, or something quite like it will be the HLV of choice for beyond LEO missions.
I don't see what all the negativism about Ares I is about. The first stage launched nominally and met it's expectations.
bdewoody
I have read two different types of answers to your question on these forums.
A) Ares I is technically flawed. But as you state, they have collected some positive test results so far, (granted most of Ares I-X was fake stuff). But it showed to a layperson like me that it’s on track.
B) Why are you designing Ares I? This one I cant just dismiss since it’s not a technical complaint. If NASA wanted it could well have man rated Saturn V or Delta IV by lowering its man rating standards from "you gotta be kidding me" to the lower rating of "holy crap this is hard". By allowing private companies to develop the light rockets to LEO it could have stimulated some private industry.
That would have solved the roles of re-supply for the ISS, and, the rendezvous with the moon rocket when that’s needed. Also would have developed some space companies and kept the eyes on the real prize: Ares V and heavy lift to the Moon. This is the rocket you need to drop your ISRU stuff on the Moon.
I have read two different types of answers to your question on these forums.
A) Ares I is technically flawed. But as you state, they have collected some positive test results so far, (granted most of Ares I-X was fake stuff). But it showed to a layperson like me that it’s on track.
B) Why are you designing Ares I? This one I cant just dismiss since it’s not a technical complaint. If NASA wanted it could well have man rated Saturn V or Delta IV by lowering its man rating standards from "you gotta be kidding me" to the lower rating of "holy crap this is hard". By allowing private companies to develop the light rockets to LEO it could have stimulated some private industry.
That would have solved the roles of re-supply for the ISS, and, the rendezvous with the moon rocket when that’s needed. Also would have developed some space companies and kept the eyes on the real prize: Ares V and heavy lift to the Moon. This is the rocket you need to drop your ISRU stuff on the Moon.
http://selenianboondocks.com/2009/12/wh ... of-record/bdewoody":1iytp0um said:
And much more food for thought at hobbyspace.com/nucleus/ if you search for "Ares".
Ares I & V are a jobs program for the Northern Alabama Space Agency. As long as there are powerful Senators that can influence space policy, politics will hinder exploration, & colonization by Government will be delayed by decades at the least.
that is a well written article nimbus.
Boris what would you use if you dont want Ares V? Please dont say Falcon or SpaceX or something like that. How are you going to get 50,000 to 70,000 Kg's to TLI?
Boris what would you use if you dont want Ares V? Please dont say Falcon or SpaceX or something like that. How are you going to get 50,000 to 70,000 Kg's to TLI?
The Delta IV Heavy;Future variantsGravity_Ray":1d4axxpm said:
Possible future upgrades for the Delta IV include adding extra strap-on solid motors to boost capacity, higher-thrust main engines, lighter materials, higher-thrust second stages, more (up to six) strap-on CBCs, and a cryogenic propellant cross feed from strap on boosters to the common core. These modifications could potentially increase the mass of the payload delivered to LEO to 100 tonnes.
Gravity_Ray":2kmzaqz6 said:
GR, Boris is right, though I think MSFC will be thrown a bone that will include an Ares V variant as a long term project to keep the talent there in the game.
swampcat I've been reading Boris for a long time, and he is usually right. LOL
But I think he is making my point for me in his post. Right now there is no heavy lift capability in this country or anyplace else in the world. To upgrade the Delta IV by strapping on boosters and other things, is stated as if its easy! Your talking about a major redesign with all that goes with it, and on top of that man-ratting it. Well if you gonna do all this work, and have a quilt, why not design it from scratch with the primary goal in mind?
Its true that it can be done, but why? Why not make a new rocket that is (I'll have to check) the most powerful rocket ever built in Ares V? In my vision we have to take alot of stuff to the Moon. Its not about how much you can get to LEO, but how much you can get to TLI. I dont want to just make it over the treshold of acceptability with a Delta IV when I can have more than I need with the Ares V. I would have liked to see NASA get the Delta IV ready for LEO work, but hey they didnt. Not sure if 'us' pointing it out to NASA will change anything now.
Ultimately I'll take any rocket (I mean it) if it will get us out of LEO. Are we there yet? Are we there yet? Are we there yet?...
But I think he is making my point for me in his post. Right now there is no heavy lift capability in this country or anyplace else in the world. To upgrade the Delta IV by strapping on boosters and other things, is stated as if its easy! Your talking about a major redesign with all that goes with it, and on top of that man-ratting it. Well if you gonna do all this work, and have a quilt, why not design it from scratch with the primary goal in mind?
Its true that it can be done, but why? Why not make a new rocket that is (I'll have to check) the most powerful rocket ever built in Ares V? In my vision we have to take alot of stuff to the Moon. Its not about how much you can get to LEO, but how much you can get to TLI. I dont want to just make it over the treshold of acceptability with a Delta IV when I can have more than I need with the Ares V. I would have liked to see NASA get the Delta IV ready for LEO work, but hey they didnt. Not sure if 'us' pointing it out to NASA will change anything now.
Ultimately I'll take any rocket (I mean it) if it will get us out of LEO. Are we there yet? Are we there yet? Are we there yet?...
In nearly 4 years here that's first time I've had that said about me.Gravity_Ray":3qk4fkvk said:
Yes & no. Delta IV Heavy has flown 3 times & can put 50k lb in LEO. The hardware to upgrade it to 100 tons to LEO already exists & could be assembled in less than 3 years. If there were an Orion Spacecraft available right now, DIVH could launch it in much less time than Ares I.Gravity_Ray":3qk4fkvk said:
I have a bone to pick with that too. Delta IV & Atlas V have a reliability of 98% or better. They launch payloads worth billions. What exactly has to be done to make them capable of lifting crew that hasn't already been done?Gravity_Ray":3qk4fkvk said:
Ares V can be built & it could be the most powerful launch vehicle ever built. But it really isn't necessary & if ATK Thiokol thinks it'll be something that is of great use, let them spend their own money to build it.
Boris IS correct here. I can not see where adding two more Common Booster Cores to the present Delta IV with the CBC's current configuration comes anywhere near close to the problems in designing an entirely new rocket would have!
In fact I know for a fact that the RS68 engines are already going to be upgraded from 665K thrust to 700K, and at least some work has already been done on raising that figure (with a cooled by liquid hydrogen channeled nozzle, instead of the current ablative one) all the way to a million pound engine! Even with the current Delta IV Heavy configuration that would mean at least some 75,000 lbs to LEO instead of the current 50,000! So, if you were to add two more CBC's and upgraded engines you would have a vehicle capable of lifting well over 120,000 lbs to LEO! So, ULA is already going to be able to lift more to LEO with just the new 700K engines alone, but they are not going to spend the money for greater changes as there is nothing at present on the horizon that would need more such lift!
Just for an instance, there was a thread here some time back on the problem for the Ares V of its huge weight. It would be far heavier than the current shuttle, and even far heavier than the original Saturn V was! Remember that the Ares V is only going to have one of the new five segment SRB's on it, and no separate large center rocket. The Ares V will have both two such ARB's, and at least a five RS68 engined center rocket, we are not talking about a light weight here!
NASA's stated problem is the distinct possibility that the crawlers, and even the crawler track to the launch pads may very well not be able with their current configuration to even sustain the kind of possible damage that such a vast weight would create for them. And just changing that configuration would be almost as expensive as the entire Ares V is slated to be in itself!
However, even if the Delta IV were to be heavily upgraded with more CBC's it would remain relatively light on its way to the pad itself, just as the Saturn V did. This is because the very heavy weight of the propellants (with an all liquid engined rocket) is not placed into them in the VAB, but on the pads themselves, and this is NOT the case with the large SRB's!
In the long run it is going to be far less expensive to upgrade a system that you already know is working and reliable (such as the Delta IV Heavy), than to build a new and totally untried system! And that is the truth!
In fact, it is the Ares I, with all the monies for research that have already spent on it, that is quite probably going to be retained (unfortunately there was no choice in the poll for retaining the Ares I, while using something else for the heavy lift vehicle, so I really could not vote, the closest that I could have come would be to have retained both, and I do not feel that is the right way to go here) . Especially, as a Very Heavy Lift Vehicle such as the Ares V would be far more expensive than even the man-rated Ares I would be, even though the Heavy Lift would not have to necessarily be man-rated!
Funny, but I also think that continuing the Ares I development while using something else for the Very Heavy Lift need was also the implied recommendation of the Augustine Committee! The first consideration will be budget, budget, and then budget, whether we "Space Cadets" like it or not!! :twisted:
In fact I know for a fact that the RS68 engines are already going to be upgraded from 665K thrust to 700K, and at least some work has already been done on raising that figure (with a cooled by liquid hydrogen channeled nozzle, instead of the current ablative one) all the way to a million pound engine! Even with the current Delta IV Heavy configuration that would mean at least some 75,000 lbs to LEO instead of the current 50,000! So, if you were to add two more CBC's and upgraded engines you would have a vehicle capable of lifting well over 120,000 lbs to LEO! So, ULA is already going to be able to lift more to LEO with just the new 700K engines alone, but they are not going to spend the money for greater changes as there is nothing at present on the horizon that would need more such lift!
Just for an instance, there was a thread here some time back on the problem for the Ares V of its huge weight. It would be far heavier than the current shuttle, and even far heavier than the original Saturn V was! Remember that the Ares V is only going to have one of the new five segment SRB's on it, and no separate large center rocket. The Ares V will have both two such ARB's, and at least a five RS68 engined center rocket, we are not talking about a light weight here!
NASA's stated problem is the distinct possibility that the crawlers, and even the crawler track to the launch pads may very well not be able with their current configuration to even sustain the kind of possible damage that such a vast weight would create for them. And just changing that configuration would be almost as expensive as the entire Ares V is slated to be in itself!
However, even if the Delta IV were to be heavily upgraded with more CBC's it would remain relatively light on its way to the pad itself, just as the Saturn V did. This is because the very heavy weight of the propellants (with an all liquid engined rocket) is not placed into them in the VAB, but on the pads themselves, and this is NOT the case with the large SRB's!
In the long run it is going to be far less expensive to upgrade a system that you already know is working and reliable (such as the Delta IV Heavy), than to build a new and totally untried system! And that is the truth!
In fact, it is the Ares I, with all the monies for research that have already spent on it, that is quite probably going to be retained (unfortunately there was no choice in the poll for retaining the Ares I, while using something else for the heavy lift vehicle, so I really could not vote, the closest that I could have come would be to have retained both, and I do not feel that is the right way to go here) . Especially, as a Very Heavy Lift Vehicle such as the Ares V would be far more expensive than even the man-rated Ares I would be, even though the Heavy Lift would not have to necessarily be man-rated!
Funny, but I also think that continuing the Ares I development while using something else for the Very Heavy Lift need was also the implied recommendation of the Augustine Committee! The first consideration will be budget, budget, and then budget, whether we "Space Cadets" like it or not!! :twisted:
In fact, a fact is that for a fact the RS68A variant passed its qualification testing and is in fact expected to be used on a Delta IVH in 2011.
In fact, I believe you misremembered your Roman numerals here. Ares I's first stage is an SRB. And that is the truth!
In fact, my crystal ball (and NSF.com) suggests you are quite probably wrong...at least as far as the Ares I is concerned. Of course, that decision has not been made public yet, so we shall see.
Not exactly. The Augustine Committee leaned toward Commercial Crew Services and a NASA-built HLV. Orion has bloated to the point where Ares I is underpowered for its mission and would require an additional $3B for development while pushing its time line further to the right. So it would be ready just in time for ISS decommissioning.
In the meantime... :?
Swampcat, is there some reason for your apparent mockery of me?
I do not normally go into one of these post-to-post confrontations, but you seem to be somehow incensed by anything that I say, whether it is true or not, so in your particular case I will make a temporary exception!
When you stated:
"In fact, a fact is that for a fact the RS68A variant passed its qualification testing and is in fact expected to be used on a Delta IVH in 2011."
I have no problem with your giving such additional information, even though you are just saying what it was that I said anyway, such as the RS68A, and that was fine with me. No problem with that one, thanks for the additional information! And on the additional information about the possible upgrade of the RS68A to a million pound engine, I still have some friends at Rocketdyne in such areas as engineering, and It seemed at least logical to me.
Then:
"In fact, I believe you misremembered your Roman numerals here. Ares I's first stage is an SRB. And that is the truth!"
Yes, I did mean the Ares I, I made an error and will now give myself forty lashes with a wet noodle! However, my point was that the Areas I only has one of the heavier five segment SRB's, instead of the two for the Ares V, and the rather large central rocket (even though it would not be fueled until it got to the pad) with the two five segment SRB's, and all that extra weight was what NASA seemed to be worrying about on the transport system from the VAB to the launch pads. And THAT is the truth! So, if you have some actual additional information on just how NASA was going to propose to solve this problem, then I am all ears!
Next up:
"In fact, my crystal ball (and NSF.com) suggests you are quite probably wrong...at least as far as the Ares I is concerned. Of course, that decision has not been made public yet, so we shall see."
Yes, I could be wrong. However, think about it for a minute here (and ignore NSF.com, they do not control NASA's budget, and they have their own problems anyway, that is if you are referring to the National Science Foundation, and if not, then I do wish you would have the courtesy to spell out your acronyms, at least the first time you use them) congress has already allowed NASA to spend more than $5 billion in development of a rocket that you are now saying that NASA is not going to even develop further, or use at all? Congress in these times is going to tell the US taxpayers (that are already in some degree of revolt anyway) that they just made such a mistake? From a political standpoint, I would logically think not!!
On the other hand, there has been relatively little funding that has at this time gone into the Ares V, and it could be relatively and easily canceled without much political fall out to Congress (which is all that Congress people usually worry about anyway).
And that is why I used the word probable, but I did not state that it was an absolute fact!
Finally, if NASA can not even get the funding for the continuation of the Ares I, then just how would the Augustine committee expect they would get the funding for the much more expensive Ares V?
Now, I am not trying to start one of those post-for-post wars with you here, but I did feel that your possible hostility did deserve at least this much of an answer. If that offends you, then I am sorry. And I actually mean that, as I am not a combatitive type of person, normally. Especially not on these particular forums!
So please, next time do not do that blah, blah type of thing, it is not only offensive in itself, but it then belittles what should be a serious discussion of a serious subject! Instead, could I suggest that you use what I think is called an "ellipses", which is at least some three ... in a row, as this indeed a sufficiency to show that the information was originally continued, and is far more professional to use it as such, as it should not offend the original party! Thanks for your consideration and even possible cooperation!
At any rate, please do not take these discussions personally, and do Have A Very Good Day!
I do not normally go into one of these post-to-post confrontations, but you seem to be somehow incensed by anything that I say, whether it is true or not, so in your particular case I will make a temporary exception!
When you stated:
"In fact, a fact is that for a fact the RS68A variant passed its qualification testing and is in fact expected to be used on a Delta IVH in 2011."
I have no problem with your giving such additional information, even though you are just saying what it was that I said anyway, such as the RS68A, and that was fine with me. No problem with that one, thanks for the additional information! And on the additional information about the possible upgrade of the RS68A to a million pound engine, I still have some friends at Rocketdyne in such areas as engineering, and It seemed at least logical to me.
Then:
"In fact, I believe you misremembered your Roman numerals here. Ares I's first stage is an SRB. And that is the truth!"
Yes, I did mean the Ares I, I made an error and will now give myself forty lashes with a wet noodle! However, my point was that the Areas I only has one of the heavier five segment SRB's, instead of the two for the Ares V, and the rather large central rocket (even though it would not be fueled until it got to the pad) with the two five segment SRB's, and all that extra weight was what NASA seemed to be worrying about on the transport system from the VAB to the launch pads. And THAT is the truth! So, if you have some actual additional information on just how NASA was going to propose to solve this problem, then I am all ears!
Next up:
"In fact, my crystal ball (and NSF.com) suggests you are quite probably wrong...at least as far as the Ares I is concerned. Of course, that decision has not been made public yet, so we shall see."
Yes, I could be wrong. However, think about it for a minute here (and ignore NSF.com, they do not control NASA's budget, and they have their own problems anyway, that is if you are referring to the National Science Foundation, and if not, then I do wish you would have the courtesy to spell out your acronyms, at least the first time you use them) congress has already allowed NASA to spend more than $5 billion in development of a rocket that you are now saying that NASA is not going to even develop further, or use at all? Congress in these times is going to tell the US taxpayers (that are already in some degree of revolt anyway) that they just made such a mistake? From a political standpoint, I would logically think not!!
On the other hand, there has been relatively little funding that has at this time gone into the Ares V, and it could be relatively and easily canceled without much political fall out to Congress (which is all that Congress people usually worry about anyway).
And that is why I used the word probable, but I did not state that it was an absolute fact!
Finally, if NASA can not even get the funding for the continuation of the Ares I, then just how would the Augustine committee expect they would get the funding for the much more expensive Ares V?
Now, I am not trying to start one of those post-for-post wars with you here, but I did feel that your possible hostility did deserve at least this much of an answer. If that offends you, then I am sorry. And I actually mean that, as I am not a combatitive type of person, normally. Especially not on these particular forums!
So please, next time do not do that blah, blah type of thing, it is not only offensive in itself, but it then belittles what should be a serious discussion of a serious subject! Instead, could I suggest that you use what I think is called an "ellipses", which is at least some three ... in a row, as this indeed a sufficiency to show that the information was originally continued, and is far more professional to use it as such, as it should not offend the original party! Thanks for your consideration and even possible cooperation!
At any rate, please do not take these discussions personally, and do Have A Very Good Day!
I predict that Ares I will continue at very low funding levels as a "technology development" program. Ares V will be rescoped down to 8.4m core (shuttle ET derived) with either 4 or 5 SSME. There will be a "block I" variant with 4 segment SRB's (perhaps with a spacer ala Ares I-X). P&W say that there are 17 usable existing SSME which can be used in Block I which will be tested initially without an upper stage but will probably eventually fly with a 4 or 6 engine RL-10 powered 2nd stage. The putative "Block II" vehicle might have new production "single use" SSME , actual 5 segment SRB's and the long awaited J-2X on the second stage. Direct proponents will note that the new Ares V will be a LOT like a Jupiter-241/6SH.
That is not an unreasonable prediction, and may very well come about over the next decade or so of NASA funding.
However, it is equally possible that the Ares I will be fully funded, but perhaps slowed down so that the funding can be both lowered and spread out (after all, getting to the moon in a decade instead of the currently planned eight years is not all that bad, as long as NASA can get us there at all).
This comes about while spacex develops both its Dragon Capsule for both material and human access to the ISS, which will certainly be used well beyond 2016 even if Congress cuts the funding by NASA, it is too good a platform to be abandoned by the other partners in its maintenance and use. And with a far lower in price Dragon Capsule on top of either inexpensive Russian or inexpensive Falcon 9 rockets even the trips up to and from the ISS itself will come down rather dramatically in price.
The Ares I however will be developed, as it is the only thing on the immediate horizon that is being designed specifically to get back to the moon. And with such new discoveries as usable water at the poles, the moon has now become both the most accessible (at only 240,000 miles from the Earth) and desirable (with many areas still left to explore, and even more importantly many of the materials needed for the further expansion of humanity out into the solar system) destination for NASA and humanity in general beyond LEO. So I do believe that the Ares I will indeed continue, even if it takes somewhat longer to get it fully up and running.
However, as to the Ares V, I also believe that both Congress and NASA are going to look for a far less expensive solution to the problem of getting much larger payloads up to LEO. A totally new rocket of that kind of size is going to be very expensive to develop, even if it initially uses older SSME's and four segment SRB's. It is at least possible however, that this type of thing might be a faster and less expensive variant to get such a program off the ground.
But I do at the same time think that as ULA is already upgrading the Delta IV at least somewhat, and it is an already operating system, that it stands at the least an even chance of also being the next Heavy Lift Vehicle for NASA. At the same time relatively simple continuing upgrades to the Delta IV would inexpensively place it into the Very Heavy Lift category of rockets. And that is if spacex takes longer with its plans for also such a rocket at a fraction of the costs of anything that either NASA or the more established contractors can come up with.
In fact, I even see the possibility, due to nothing else other than the enormous costs that come to those that wish to develop rockets of this size, that there may very well come a time when ULA and spacex will merge for such a vast endeavor, but cost will still be the over all controlling factor!
I also believe that this will be the direction that NASA will take, as it has the other advantage of being incremental in its efforts, just as the early efforts of the 1960's were. So the political power of ATK is kept at bay by continuing the development of the five segment motors for the Ares I. While in the meantime developing a heavy lift capacity using only the higher performance, and eventually lower cost liquid engines for the development of not only Heavier lift vehicles, but also Very Heavy Lift vehicles, without the possible problem of such enormous weight and expense!
I have no doubt that I could be wrong, but it does seem to me to be at least somewhat logical, and performance oriented (especially for the new performance of cost), as well as a more (and this may even be more important then just cost) politically acceptable solution to NASA's future!
And if that does not work then the ONLY thing left to hope for IS that the pure private space efforts of such as Burt Rutan, Elon Musk and Richard Bigelow bear great fruit in their efforts to very inexpensively get humanity into space in a big way, at least for the US.
What happens in the rest of the world I am not as sure of, perhaps others here from other areas of this space developing world could tell us of just what plans other countries have? I would suspect greatly that at least ESA, Russia, China, India, Japan, and even Brazil and Australia have at the very least some degree of hope of leading humanity into space, especially if the US falters in that so very important area of human effort!!!
So there is always hope!!!
Have A Very Great Day, Fellow Space Enthusiasts!
However, it is equally possible that the Ares I will be fully funded, but perhaps slowed down so that the funding can be both lowered and spread out (after all, getting to the moon in a decade instead of the currently planned eight years is not all that bad, as long as NASA can get us there at all).
This comes about while spacex develops both its Dragon Capsule for both material and human access to the ISS, which will certainly be used well beyond 2016 even if Congress cuts the funding by NASA, it is too good a platform to be abandoned by the other partners in its maintenance and use. And with a far lower in price Dragon Capsule on top of either inexpensive Russian or inexpensive Falcon 9 rockets even the trips up to and from the ISS itself will come down rather dramatically in price.
The Ares I however will be developed, as it is the only thing on the immediate horizon that is being designed specifically to get back to the moon. And with such new discoveries as usable water at the poles, the moon has now become both the most accessible (at only 240,000 miles from the Earth) and desirable (with many areas still left to explore, and even more importantly many of the materials needed for the further expansion of humanity out into the solar system) destination for NASA and humanity in general beyond LEO. So I do believe that the Ares I will indeed continue, even if it takes somewhat longer to get it fully up and running.
However, as to the Ares V, I also believe that both Congress and NASA are going to look for a far less expensive solution to the problem of getting much larger payloads up to LEO. A totally new rocket of that kind of size is going to be very expensive to develop, even if it initially uses older SSME's and four segment SRB's. It is at least possible however, that this type of thing might be a faster and less expensive variant to get such a program off the ground.
But I do at the same time think that as ULA is already upgrading the Delta IV at least somewhat, and it is an already operating system, that it stands at the least an even chance of also being the next Heavy Lift Vehicle for NASA. At the same time relatively simple continuing upgrades to the Delta IV would inexpensively place it into the Very Heavy Lift category of rockets. And that is if spacex takes longer with its plans for also such a rocket at a fraction of the costs of anything that either NASA or the more established contractors can come up with.
In fact, I even see the possibility, due to nothing else other than the enormous costs that come to those that wish to develop rockets of this size, that there may very well come a time when ULA and spacex will merge for such a vast endeavor, but cost will still be the over all controlling factor!
I also believe that this will be the direction that NASA will take, as it has the other advantage of being incremental in its efforts, just as the early efforts of the 1960's were. So the political power of ATK is kept at bay by continuing the development of the five segment motors for the Ares I. While in the meantime developing a heavy lift capacity using only the higher performance, and eventually lower cost liquid engines for the development of not only Heavier lift vehicles, but also Very Heavy Lift vehicles, without the possible problem of such enormous weight and expense!
I have no doubt that I could be wrong, but it does seem to me to be at least somewhat logical, and performance oriented (especially for the new performance of cost), as well as a more (and this may even be more important then just cost) politically acceptable solution to NASA's future!
And if that does not work then the ONLY thing left to hope for IS that the pure private space efforts of such as Burt Rutan, Elon Musk and Richard Bigelow bear great fruit in their efforts to very inexpensively get humanity into space in a big way, at least for the US.
What happens in the rest of the world I am not as sure of, perhaps others here from other areas of this space developing world could tell us of just what plans other countries have? I would suspect greatly that at least ESA, Russia, China, India, Japan, and even Brazil and Australia have at the very least some degree of hope of leading humanity into space, especially if the US falters in that so very important area of human effort!!!
So there is always hope!!!
Have A Very Great Day, Fellow Space Enthusiasts!
Frodo, check your PMs. The rest of my response to your post is there.
You're welcome.
So, where's the problem? Oh yeah, the little part about "just saying what it was that I said anyway."
I didn't just say what you said. I was, I thought, clarifying your point. In your original post, you said "In fact, I know for a fact that the RS68 engines are already going to be upgraded." Skipping over the "in fact, I know for a fact" unnecessary redundancy, I will point out that you were not technically correct. The fact is that the RS68A (you left off the "A" in your first post) has already gone through qualification testing...not "going to be," but already done. I believe in my post, I corrected your very slight errors and gave additional information. But you had to mention it anyway as if I had slighted you somehow. Sheesh. I should turn this around and ask you why you are so quick to see offense when none was intended.
Ah, sarcasm. I like it. And you once got upset at me for the same. Interesting.
I understood your point. My point was that you typed the wrong Roman numeral. For the benefit of those who might have been confused by your minor mistake, I used a "Bushism" to jokingly correct you. And it offended you. Sheesh.
I also don't need the additional explanation of the "rather large central rocket (even though it would not be fueled...yadda-yadda-yadda." That's patronizing and pedantic. I might cut you some slack on that if you were replying to someone else, but this post was directed at me. Are you assuming that I need all that information? Please. I might not have worked at Rocketdyne, but I know a little bit about this rocketry stuff.
You seem troubled by my using your phrase "And that is the truth?" You use it...and used it again here. Frankly, I find that phrase rather annoying as if I have to be told by you what the truth is. Can't take your own medicine? Hmmm.
At any rate, I don't understand the point of that last sentence. It doesn't appear relevant to anything I wrote.
That's all I was suggesting.
I don't need to think about it for a minute. I've thought about it for many minutes. Again, you're patronizing me.
You mean you don't know about NASASpaceflight.com? Amazing. You ought to go there. You might learn something. And telling me to ignore them is patronizing.
OK, I'll cut you some slack on the acronym, but next time cut out the "have the courtesy" crap and simply ask. I'll be happy to help when appropriate.
On what planet is politics logical? And I'm not saying it. It seems to be the consensus of those who follow this sort of thing in more depth than you or I can. If one needs logic, try considering the additional money that is needed to get Ares I to IOC versus what it would take to do just about anything else? Also consider the possibility of a small variant of the Ares V that could get a less-than-Lunar-capable Block I Orion to the ISS in less time and money than Ares I.
So, where is my offense again? You have your opinion, I have mine. You make your point. I make mine. Where is the offense? That I disagreed with you? Oh my.
And I used the word "probably". Again, where is the offense?
I didn't say the Ares V was going to get funded. I said something like Ares V. IOW, an HLV.
The Augustine Committee didn't expect it. You're setting up scenarios that I didn't bring up. But since you did, I'll point out that one of the possibilities was to make use of the capabilities of private enterprise, including ULA, SpaceX and OSC, to provide crew service to LEO. Without the cost of Ares I, NASA could concentrate on the HLV. No private company wants to sink money into an HLV as there is no market for it. But it would be of great benefit to NASA for deep space HSF. So you get the development of private HSF and an HLV for less money. At least that's the argument.
My apologies to everyone else for the long-winded post.
You're welcome.
So, where's the problem? Oh yeah, the little part about "just saying what it was that I said anyway."
I didn't just say what you said. I was, I thought, clarifying your point. In your original post, you said "In fact, I know for a fact that the RS68 engines are already going to be upgraded." Skipping over the "in fact, I know for a fact" unnecessary redundancy, I will point out that you were not technically correct. The fact is that the RS68A (you left off the "A" in your first post) has already gone through qualification testing...not "going to be," but already done. I believe in my post, I corrected your very slight errors and gave additional information. But you had to mention it anyway as if I had slighted you somehow. Sheesh. I should turn this around and ask you why you are so quick to see offense when none was intended.
Ah, sarcasm. I like it. And you once got upset at me for the same. Interesting.
I understood your point. My point was that you typed the wrong Roman numeral. For the benefit of those who might have been confused by your minor mistake, I used a "Bushism" to jokingly correct you. And it offended you. Sheesh.
I also don't need the additional explanation of the "rather large central rocket (even though it would not be fueled...yadda-yadda-yadda." That's patronizing and pedantic. I might cut you some slack on that if you were replying to someone else, but this post was directed at me. Are you assuming that I need all that information? Please. I might not have worked at Rocketdyne, but I know a little bit about this rocketry stuff.
You seem troubled by my using your phrase "And that is the truth?" You use it...and used it again here. Frankly, I find that phrase rather annoying as if I have to be told by you what the truth is. Can't take your own medicine? Hmmm.
At any rate, I don't understand the point of that last sentence. It doesn't appear relevant to anything I wrote.
That's all I was suggesting.
I don't need to think about it for a minute. I've thought about it for many minutes. Again, you're patronizing me.
You mean you don't know about NASASpaceflight.com? Amazing. You ought to go there. You might learn something. And telling me to ignore them is patronizing.
OK, I'll cut you some slack on the acronym, but next time cut out the "have the courtesy" crap and simply ask. I'll be happy to help when appropriate.
On what planet is politics logical? And I'm not saying it. It seems to be the consensus of those who follow this sort of thing in more depth than you or I can. If one needs logic, try considering the additional money that is needed to get Ares I to IOC versus what it would take to do just about anything else? Also consider the possibility of a small variant of the Ares V that could get a less-than-Lunar-capable Block I Orion to the ISS in less time and money than Ares I.
So, where is my offense again? You have your opinion, I have mine. You make your point. I make mine. Where is the offense? That I disagreed with you? Oh my.
And I used the word "probably". Again, where is the offense?
I didn't say the Ares V was going to get funded. I said something like Ares V. IOW, an HLV.
The Augustine Committee didn't expect it. You're setting up scenarios that I didn't bring up. But since you did, I'll point out that one of the possibilities was to make use of the capabilities of private enterprise, including ULA, SpaceX and OSC, to provide crew service to LEO. Without the cost of Ares I, NASA could concentrate on the HLV. No private company wants to sink money into an HLV as there is no market for it. But it would be of great benefit to NASA for deep space HSF. So you get the development of private HSF and an HLV for less money. At least that's the argument.
My apologies to everyone else for the long-winded post.
Swampcat, I said I was NOT going to get into one of those back and forth types of arguments here, and I meant just that, so I am not going to respond to your post at all!
Have a Very Good Day!
Have a Very Good Day!
frodo1008":3ad7x37q said:
Was my post too long to bother reading? :lol: Believe me, I understand.
And that's fine by me, frodo. I don't like these exchanges either. They are mostly off-topic and do no good for either of us.
Now, at the risk of incurring your wrath again:
It's Robert Bigelow, not Richard.
And I agree with you :shock: Thanks for the succinctness. It's much appreciated.
OK, swampcat, I have no problems with such correction(s) to what I post at all! In fact, I thank you for it!
I also think that we can both agree that it is better to to be hopeful!
Thanks again, and may You and Yours Have a truly Excellent Holiday season!!
I also think that we can both agree that it is better to to be hopeful!
Thanks again, and may You and Yours Have a truly Excellent Holiday season!!
>>congress has already allowed NASA to spend more than $5 billion in development of a rocket that you are now saying that NASA is not going to even develop further, or use at all? Congress in these times is going to tell the US taxpayers (that are already in some degree of revolt anyway) that they just made such a mistake? From a political standpoint, I would logically think not!!
Interesting point. I agree that it makes little sense to spend billions on a program and then cancel it. However numerous NASA projects have been canceled over the years, Indeed, Constellation was to be paid for by canceling first Hubble, then Shuttle and Space Station The total investment in these projects was over $200B, and of course they were intended to produce important scientific advances. All these cancellations were announced without any meaningful dialog with the users and partners. "Push back" forced a reversal on Hubble, and later continuation of ISS until 2015, after which it is still scheduled to be abandoned. But as a result there now isn't enough money in the budget to actually go to the moon. Shuttle still seems likely to be canceled, but ironically Orion may be reduced to a far more limited Shuttle and ISS will have much less than the optimal level of logistical support.
But the central difficulty with Constellation is not the particular launch vehicle, but rather the lack of a clear and meaningful strategic objective for the program itself. The program was announced from the top with no discussion, the mission and vehicle already decided down to the manufacturer of the booster. The is quite different from the usual procedure in, for example, SMD, where typically users are asked to propose missions, or the traditional approach in NACA where projects were proposed by industrial customers or individual engineers. It's clear that the physical objective of the program is to send a series of perhaps 20 manned missions to the lunar surface, but it isn't clear what benefit this will provide to advance the goals of American taxpayers in science, technology, commerce, or geopolitics. When I've asked, I've been told "it was a management decision", or "we're tired of being stuck in LEO" or "the Chinese would get to the moon first". This seems a little superficial as a justification for spending $150 billion. There's been little opportunity to have a serious discussion with NASA, so the on-line community has been the logical forum.
Interesting point. I agree that it makes little sense to spend billions on a program and then cancel it. However numerous NASA projects have been canceled over the years, Indeed, Constellation was to be paid for by canceling first Hubble, then Shuttle and Space Station The total investment in these projects was over $200B, and of course they were intended to produce important scientific advances. All these cancellations were announced without any meaningful dialog with the users and partners. "Push back" forced a reversal on Hubble, and later continuation of ISS until 2015, after which it is still scheduled to be abandoned. But as a result there now isn't enough money in the budget to actually go to the moon. Shuttle still seems likely to be canceled, but ironically Orion may be reduced to a far more limited Shuttle and ISS will have much less than the optimal level of logistical support.
But the central difficulty with Constellation is not the particular launch vehicle, but rather the lack of a clear and meaningful strategic objective for the program itself. The program was announced from the top with no discussion, the mission and vehicle already decided down to the manufacturer of the booster. The is quite different from the usual procedure in, for example, SMD, where typically users are asked to propose missions, or the traditional approach in NACA where projects were proposed by industrial customers or individual engineers. It's clear that the physical objective of the program is to send a series of perhaps 20 manned missions to the lunar surface, but it isn't clear what benefit this will provide to advance the goals of American taxpayers in science, technology, commerce, or geopolitics. When I've asked, I've been told "it was a management decision", or "we're tired of being stuck in LEO" or "the Chinese would get to the moon first". This seems a little superficial as a justification for spending $150 billion. There's been little opportunity to have a serious discussion with NASA, so the on-line community has been the logical forum.
If logic were used, then Ares 1 would be cancelled while Ares V progresses. There is no reason to build a 25 tonne to LEO rocket whose sole purpose is to place Orion into orbit, when the Falcon 9 Heavy can place five more tonnes into orbit, and, from what I know of the SpaceX Dragon, lifts a superior capsule.
But when did NASA start using logic?
But when did NASA start using logic?
Polishguy":qxuasv3m said:
I disagree with your logic. I believe the Ares 1 will continue and that the Ares V will transform in to a side mounted cargo carrier with a Shuttle ET and 2 SRBs, probably five segment SRBs. We should know the plan in a few weeks.
I do not have any inside info. This is just the way I think the Obama team's plan is headed.
shuttle_guy":1024pbbo said:
I'm not saying that's not what's going to happen. I'm just saying that the Ares 1 is a pointless diversion of resources, while Ares V has much potential outside of the Constellation Program.
NASA bashing posts without careful supporting arguments are really dull, and probably do huge damage to the credibility of serious and necessary criticism.
If someone knows enough to have a useful opinion they should also be able to put together an informative and convincing argument that is a pleasure to read.
Otherwise, if it is just an enthusiast's opinion, lay off the denigration.
Now.. can someone put together that informative and convincing argument that we can rely on Falcon 9 heavy to reduce the gap, and reduce costs with comparable safety?
(edit: probably better to put that in a different thread and just reference it here, or maybe the article already exists and just needs a link from here)
If someone knows enough to have a useful opinion they should also be able to put together an informative and convincing argument that is a pleasure to read.
Otherwise, if it is just an enthusiast's opinion, lay off the denigration.
Now.. can someone put together that informative and convincing argument that we can rely on Falcon 9 heavy to reduce the gap, and reduce costs with comparable safety?
(edit: probably better to put that in a different thread and just reference it here, or maybe the article already exists and just needs a link from here)
- Status
Similar threads
TRENDING THREADS
-
Things are finally looking up for the Voyager 1 interstellar spacecraft
- Started by Admin
- Replies: 12
-
-
Goodbye infinity and all that infinite singularity and infinite density descriptions
- Started by Catastrophe
- Replies: 49
-
-
Does a cosmic 'glitch' in gravity challenge Albert Einstein's greatest theory?
- Started by Admin
- Replies: 73
-
Boeing Starliner's 1st astronaut mission delayed, no new launch date announced
- Started by Admin
- Replies: 11
-
Big Bang theory contradicts both Special and General relativity
- Started by Marvas
- Replies: 26
Facebook
Twitter
Instagram