Updates Ares Updates and Discussion

[Moonwalker]

They are all currently flying Soyuz. And so will NASA in a few years!:lol:

NASA already flies Soyuz. And I don't see any problem on it for the future. That's the best available option. It's better than no US astronaut activities in orbit, like between 1975 and 1981. But I would not even see any problems in case NASA would not send any astronauts up until Ares is on its way.

Also, don't forget that NASA contributes about 100 billion dollar to the ISS at the end (without the costs of the required STS missions), which will survive the STS era and possibly the gab.

..... and that's why STS SRB's aren't very good as a 1'st stage for manned launch vehicle.

So you say. NASA conclusions look different.

If it wasn't for STS, NASA wouldn't use a solid fuel 1'st stage.

The reality is that they'll use it a second time, while this intention is the third one if we take the Apollo era into account.

Remember the impressive list of capabilities of the Shuttles? Spy sats in polar orbit, satellite repair missions, returning large payloads, cheap and frequent flights?

Yes I remember. But in this context I also remember the list of Apollo capabilities, which were fulfilled almost perfectly. NASA returns to designs which I always called the best choice for manned space exploration.

And it ended up barely able to finish ISS assembly. It needs a stand-by rescue shuttle if it's going anywhere but ISS. Very few of those capabilities were used more then once, before NASA realized that it wasn't safe.

A spacecraft is never safe, nor spaceflight is. But those issues with STS can't happen on Orion. Its TPS will be protected during ascent.

And you deliver a very valid reason why the Space Shuttle actually should have been retired already after STS-107, would the ISS not have been taken its place in orbit.


-----Post Added-----

Thats the difference between trolling and a honest discussion... backing the opinion up with reason.

We've just got a perfect example of what real trolling is like...

Pic says it all!

 

[C3PO]

NASA already flies Soyuz. And I don't see any problem on it for the future. That's the best available option. It's better than no US astronaut activities in orbit, like between 1975 and 1981.

Also, don't forget that NASA contributes about 100 billion dollar to the ISS at the end (without the costs of the required STS missions), which will survive the STS era and possibly the gab.

True, but I can't see how the fact that NASA pays for Soyuz/Progress/ISS, is going to make Ares-I any better.

So you say. NASA conclusions look different.

Yes, but I don't have to consider politics when I make my conclusions.

The reality is that they'll use it a second time, while this intention is the third one if we take the Apollo era into account.

Huh? I'm pretty sure that Apollo didn't have a solid 1'st stage.:lol:

Yes I remember. But in this context I also remember the list of Apollo capabilities, which were fulfilled almost perfectly. NASA returns to designs which I always called the best choice for manned space exploration.

Apollo was designed to get to the Moon and back. Nothing else! Imagine if someone suggested to use SaturnV's for ISS crews. NASA is planning to use a Moon rocket to carry crews to LEO. It just doesn't make sense to me.

A spacecraft is never safe, nor spaceflight is. But those issues with STS can't happen on Orion. Its TPS will be protected during ascent.

Of course Orion will not have the same problems as STS. But

And you deliver a very valid reason why the Space Shuttle actually should have been retired already after STS-107, would the ISS not have been taken its place in orbit.

I disagree. With respect to the Astronauts and their families, I do not think the loss of lives should make us throw in the towel, and just stop exploring.
But I'm afraid that the safety requirements of today, compared to the '60's and '70's, will prevent any major Lunar activity for the next 2-3 decades. If we wait until it's "safe" to go to the Moon, we are going to have to wait a while.
I would gladly jump at the chance to go to the Moon if I had an 80% chance of survival. But I doubt that the american taxpayers would like to fund such high-risk missions.

We've just got a perfect example of what real trolling is like...

:rofl:Yeah! I didn't get that picture at all.

 

[tblaxland]

Apollo was designed to get to the Moon and back. Nothing else! Imagine if someone suggested to use SaturnV's for ISS crews. NASA is planning to use a Moon rocket to carry crews to LEO. It just doesn't make sense to me.

If we are talking about just the rocket, then Ares I is no moon rocket. It is designed to get Orion into LEO, and no more. That is why proposals like Mars Direct were not seriously considered - because they were overkill for the LEO missions. The Earth Departure Stage, carried aloft on Ares V is for getting Orion to the Moon. That is also a fundamental difference between Apollo and Constellation - it has EOR in addition to LOR.

No-one would seriously suggest Saturn V's for LEO missions - that is why Apollo had the Saturn 1b, and it worked quite nicely for those five missions.

There is a question of whether or not Orion is overkill for LEO missions/ISS crew transfer. IMHO, a COTS-type operation (eg, SpaceX Dragon) would be better suited.

 

[Ghostrider]

By the way, Gemini actually has nothing to do with Soyuz. The Gemini capsule was just a small manned rendezvous and EVA test vehicle. NASA did not miss an "American Soyuz" at all by developing and operating the Apollo spacecraft just right after Gemini, which even flew to the Moon

They missed out on Big Gemini and the relative designs, which were a development of the spacecraft capabilities. And BTW Gemini was designed when Apollo was already in development. Had Big Gemini happened, there would have been a modular, functional spacecraft able to function as LEO workhorse and even beyond, if docked with an orbiting stage - same approach Ares is taking.

 

[C3PO]

If we are talking about just the rocket, then Ares I is no moon rocket. It is designed to get Orion into LEO, and no more. That is why proposals like Mars Direct were not seriously considered - because they were overkill for the LEO missions. The Earth Departure Stage, carried aloft on Ares V is for getting Orion to the Moon. That is also a fundamental difference between Apollo and Constellation - it has EOR in addition to LOR.


No-one would seriously suggest Saturn V's for LEO missions - that is why Apollo had the Saturn 1b, and it worked quite nicely for those five missions.

There is a question of whether or not Orion is overkill for LEO missions/ISS crew transfer. IMHO, a COTS-type operation (eg, SpaceX Dragon) would be better suited.

Constellation does have EOR. But the CEV has to do the Earth transfer burn, and the service module will be massive overkill in LEO operations.

I meant to say Saturn 1b(that's sleep deprivation for you) It was perfect for testing the Apollo CSM/LEM in LEO. But 1b would be overkill for LEO ops too.

NASA had the opportunity to make a Big Gemini type LEO work horse now the Shuttles are phased out, but chose to tie the LEO craft to Lunar (and possibly Mars) operations.

IMHO +LEO craft are too expensive to operate in LEO. If the problem is man-rating the Heavy launcher, you could have a EOR and transfer the crew. You could also take the LEO capsule along to the Moon as accommodation, but I don't think that would be very efficient.

The Lunar landers are going to be much bigger this time around, so there should be room for landing the whole craft on the Moon. It would save at least one engine. You can use the ascent engine for the Earth Injection burn. This would eliminate the LOR.

 

[Urwumpe]

I think the better solution would have been, defining interface standards for spacecraft and rockets for use in future government/NASA programs and leave the rest to the companies to provide. How much new technology is really inside the constellation program? All stuff which had even a mild technological risk had first been removed, so that the RT mitigation stuff is now the only thing which is new - and even that not really.

 

[Moonwalker]

Yes, but I don't have to consider politics when I make my conclusions.

And that's exactly the difference, why our subjective conclusions and desires are totally irrelevant actually. It's is not our job, and not our program, not even because it gets tax money.

I'm pretty sure that Apollo didn't have a solid 1'st stage.:lol:

At those days NASA engineers already were thinking about solid first stages (Saturn 1b), which was discarded. Wernher von Braun did not like the idea of using solid rockets anyway (but STS proved that his safety concerns were wrong). But intentions always existed within NASA to use SRB's for manned launch vehicles. Using SRB's for manned launchers would have taken place anyway sooner or later, which did on STS and continues on Ares.

Apollo was designed to get to the Moon and back. Nothing else!

Right. And that was and still is a lot. It was a spacecraft similar to Orion (while Orion will carry twice as much astronauts into space). But It was also perfectly usable for LEO operations, such as Skylab missions and ASTP. It did its job very well and was not overestimated like the entire Space Shuttle program.

NASA is planning to use a Moon rocket to carry crews to LEO. It just doesn't make sense to me.

You are talking about a different launch vehicle obviously (Ares V, which won't carry any astronaut into LEO). Ares I is no Moon rocket. It's just the launch vehicle to lift Orion into LEO.

With respect to the Astronauts and their families, I do not think the loss of lives should make us throw in the towel, and just stop exploring.

I think so too, just like almost any NASA person involved in manned space flight also. And NASA does not throw in the towel, it takes new challenges. The STS is at a well known risk level. STS-107 has opened some eyes. To develope a new system was the right decision, which just took place a little bit too late.

But I'm afraid that the safety requirements of today, compared to the '60's and '70's, will prevent any major Lunar activity for the next 2-3 decades. If we wait until it's "safe" to go to the Moon, we are going to have to wait a while.

It will never be safe to go to the Moon, which is very well known and accepted by people involved in manned space flight. It won't take 2-3 decades to return because of safety concerns and safety strategies, but because of low budget.

 

[Urwumpe]

At those days NASA engineers already were thinking about solid first stages (Saturn 1b), which was discarded. Wernher von Braun did not like the idea of using solid rockets anyway (but STS proved that his safety concerns were wrong). But intentions always existed within NASA to use SRB's for manned launch vehicles. Using SRB's for manned launchers would have taken place anyway sooner or later, which did on STS and continues on Ares.

Actually, the STS proved that SRBs can be tolerated, but are not ideal at all. They had been a source of many limitations and problems in the STS history, and just got politically cemented as status quo (ATK is the only spaceflight company in Utah).

SRBs are useful - no question. For some applications even more than liquid propellant engines. But it is lazy to say "it worked on the STS, so it is no problem using them on Ares I". It was never problem free and neither the solid propellant fans among NASA really liked them, but they did the job, they can do, with a never previously achieved perfection for solid rocket motors.

But the question is: Is what the SRBs can do enough for relying on them as only source of thrust for a manned mission? Is using two tons of mass additionally to all mass penalties of using solid rocket motors justified, just as well as the related R&D costs?

 

[C3PO]

I think the better solution would have been, defining interface standards for spacecraft and rockets for use in future government/NASA programs and leave the rest to the companies to provide. How much new technology is really inside the constellation program? All stuff which had even a mild technological risk had first been removed, so that the RT mitigation stuff is now the only thing which is new - and even that not really.

That's an excellent suggestion. Modular design is the way forward. And yeah, most of the new technology in Ares is new material.
Oh! And round solar panels!!!:lol:

And that's exactly the difference, why our subjective conclusions and desires are totally irrelevant actually. It's is not our job, and not our program, not even because it gets tax money.

I think politics has ruined one NASA program too many already.

At those days NASA engineers already were thinking about solid first stages (Saturn 1b), which was discarded. Wernher von Braun did not like the idea of using solid rockets anyway (but STS proved that his safety concerns were wrong). But intentions always existed within NASA to use SRB's for manned launch vehicles. Using SRB's for manned launchers would have taken place anyway sooner or later, which did on STS and continues on Ares.

Using solid fuel liftoff boosters and solid fuel 1'st stage are two very different things. If STS proved one thing, it is the need for an abort option during EVERY stage of a manned launch.

Right. And that was and still is a lot. It was a spacecraft similar to Orion (while Orion will carry twice as much astronauts into space). But It was also perfectly usable for LEO operations, such as Skylab missions and ASTP. It did its job very well and was not overestimated like the entire Space Shuttle program.

Apollo/Saturn was way too expensive to use for LEO ops, after the space race was over. It's a bit difficult to design a lunar craft that can't operate in LEO. So Apollo was more then capable of doing just that.
But it was expensive enough to effectively kill off Skylab. The last Saturn 1b was used in ASTP, which was purely a PR flight. I could mention a few cheaper ways to shake hands with Russians, test a pocket calculator (HP-65) and contract nitrogen tetroxide poisoning.

You are talking about a different launch vehicle obviously (Ares V, which won't carry any astronaut into LEO). Ares I is no Moon rocket. It's just the launch vehicle to lift Orion into LEO.

I know the difference between Ares I and Ares V. The problem is that Ares I is designed to launch Orion, which IS a lunar craft. It's huge DV is not required for LEO. And the heat shield is for direct re-entry from the Moon, or even Mars. Ares I/Orion was having weight problems even before the pogo issue, and the planned capabilities are shrinking fast.

It will never be safe to go to the Moon, which is very well known and accepted by people involved in manned space flight. It won't take 2-3 decades to return because of safety concerns and safety strategies, but because of low budget.

Safety cost $$$, so yeah, it's going to be budget over-runs that are going to delay the permanent lunar bases.

 

[tblaxland]

It sounds like you think that the choice is between Ares I and no manned flights. The fact that politics is required for space travel shouldn't prevent people to disagree with political decisions in a space programme.

I agree. I see nothing wrong with politics setting the goals of a space program (in fact it is probably essential) but what grates me is when politics gets involved in the implementation.

Also don't forget mentioning the April 5 anomaly, which was a high altitude launch abort.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Soyuz_18a

Thanks, I wasn't aware of that one.

I did not know about Soyuz T-10-1. There were just so many Russian incidents

You can do the numbers yourself but I am not sure that there were more Russian incidents than US ones:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Space_accidents_and_incidents

Regardless, your joke paints Russian designers/engineers with a pretty dark brush, and IMHO, quite unfairly so.

 

[Moonwalker]

your joke paints Russian designers/engineers with a pretty dark brush, and IMHO, quite unfairly so.

You perfectly got it. Is painting Ares designers/engineers with a dark brush, even before they did put anything onto a launch pad, not quite unfairly too?

 

[RocketMan_Len]

I doubt that manned space flight will be ever what can be called "cheap".

That's mainly because space agencies are stuck in the paradigm that you need artillery to go to space. Make no mistake, rockets ARE a form of artillery... and until we can go from that to an aircraft-like system, it will always be expensive.

After all... you can't lower costs by making a vehicle and then throwing it away. Until we can get NASA to shift from 'Better, Faster, Cheaper' to 'Robust, Reliable, REUSABLE'... launch costs won't go down appreciably.

Structures are sufficiently light to make flyback-boosters a real possibility. Current technology could give us a two-stage-to-orbit, fully reusable vehicle. All it takes is the vision and willingness to take the chance.

Sadly, there doesn't seem to be a lot of that at NASA lately...

 

[C3PO]

Is painting Ares designers/engineers with a dark brush, even before they did put anything onto a launch pad, not quite unfairly too?

When they put the political goals before the mission objective, I don't think it's unfair.

That's mainly because space agencies are stuck in the paradigm that you need artillery to go to space. Make no mistake, rockets ARE a form of artillery... and until we can go from that to an aircraft-like system, it will always be expensive.

After all... you can't lower costs by making a vehicle and then throwing it away. Until we can get NASA to shift from 'Better, Faster, Cheaper' to 'Robust, Reliable, REUSABLE'... launch costs won't go down appreciably.

Structures are sufficiently light to make flyback-boosters a real possibility. Current technology could give us a two-stage-to-orbit, fully reusable vehicle. All it takes is the vision and willingness to take the chance.

Sadly, there doesn't seem to be a lot of that at NASA lately...

I like the flyback-booster approach, but I think they are still a few years off. I'd like to see more research in that area though.

"Reusable" gets thrown around a lot these days as the solution to everything. So far we've had just one re-usable space craft, and it turned out to be the most expensive one yet.
I've got nothing against systems containing expendable parts, as long they're not too expensive.

 

[Omhra]

There I was, reading intently when I saw the following:

... I see nothing wrong with politics setting the goals of a space program (in fact it is probably essential) but what grates me is when politics gets involved in the implementation.

Sorry to barge in...

It is true that the political goals for a space program should be kept in check by the people floating the bill... BUT out from choosing the implementation, (forgive me if I adlib to your meaning) or choosing how the money is spent in the development of vehicles and science in general. That should be done in accordance with scientific review.
I think scientist are not being assertive enough and this keeps budgets low.

I am with Urwumpe of the idea that the combination of "universally" linkable modules of various capacities would be the best investment in all areas.

 

[tblaxland]

You perfectly got it. Is painting Ares designers/engineers with a dark brush, even before they did put anything onto a launch pad, not quite unfairly too?

No. It is fair to criticise them when they lose sight of the engineering and mission goals and focus on the political gratification instead. Actually, I think there is probably some fair criticism to be directed at at both Russian and US camps in this regard, particularly management. The Rogers Commission certainly thought so, too.

[FONT=Verdana,Geneva,Arial,Helvetica,sans-serif][SIZE=-1]My main issue is with the Ares I-X test. We have (I think) clearly outlined why this test is of little-to-no value and would be better postponed until better approximations to the actual flight hardware can be constructed. I would be happy to hear any benefits Ares I-X, as it is currently proposed, would provide to the program. In regards to your earlier comment about the Enterprise "fit check" in 1979, I would be more than happy if if the engineers wanted to roll Ares I out for a fit check. Having it not leave the pad would certainly make the fit check a lot cheaper than Ares I-X, and about as effective.
[/SIZE][/FONT]

There I was, reading intently when I saw the following:

Sorry to barge in...

It is true that the political goals for a space program should be kept in check by the people floating the bill... BUT out from choosing the implementation, (forgive me if I adlib to your meaning) or choosing how the money is spent in the development of vehicles and science in general.

I'm confused, are you agreeing or disagreeing with my earlier statement? It seems we are saying the same thing...

I think scientist are not being assertive enough and this keeps budgets low.

I agree. I like generally Wayne Hale's musings and this was one of my favourites on this subject:
Memo From NASA's Wayne Hale: Leading your leaders

...[FONT=Verdana,Geneva,Arial,Helvetica,sans-serif][SIZE=-1] For your leaders to make an appropriate decision, you need to educate them, lead them, talk with them, and engage in the discussion until a full understanding takes place.[/SIZE][/FONT]

 

[C3PO]

I agree. I like generally Wayne Hale's musings and this was one of my favourites on this subject:
Memo From NASA's Wayne Hale: Leading your leaders

If Mr. Hale was a woman, I would marry him.:lol: Or should that be "her" :rofl:
I think NASA needs more people of his character. I like his polite no-nonsense honesty. Even when he isn't sure, he's honest too.
And he never looses sight of the goal.
I hope he ends up as NASA administrator.

PS: I like this guy.:lol:

 

[Urwumpe]

I agree. I like generally Wayne Hale's musings and this was one of my favourites on this subject:
Memo From NASA's Wayne Hale: Leading your leaders

Really a great "Memo".

 

[RocketMan_Len]

"Reusable" gets thrown around a lot these days as the solution to everything. So far we've had just one re-usable space craft, and it turned out to be the most expensive one yet.

But, as a first attempt, it was pretty good. You don't think that, knowing what we know now *because* of that, we can do better...?

I've got nothing against systems containing expendable parts, as long they're not too expensive.

Except that - current launch systems are made up of VERY expensive components... ALL of which are expendable.

 

[Urwumpe]

Except that - current launch systems are made up of VERY expensive components... ALL of which are expendable.

Yes, but not all reusable parts can be used again for an infinite time. When a SSME costs more than the ~25 expendable RS-0120, which could replace it (partially, the RS-0120 has slightly higher dry mass), it is uneconomic to reuse it. As paradox as it sounds.

 

[C3PO]

Except that - current launch systems are made up of VERY expensive components... ALL of which are expendable.

But they're still cheaper: And they perform well most of the time.

Re-usable components aren't bad by definition, but STS is an example on how NOT to reuse components.