Question SLS and the cancellation of Ares

[T.Neo]

You are aware that you are talking strange things? Since when has a government decision have to be logical...

I would sure hope, that an organisation such as an air force would be able to make decisions perhaps a bit more logical than one would usually expect from government. :lol:

ATK did put forward an EELV proposal, if I understand correctly... but it differed considerably compared to Liberty.

Liberty also isn't optimised for high orbits, which could limit its usefulness.

 

[Tychonaut]

There is a big market waiting. Especially if the SLS fails as expected.

Dare I ask what the connection would be between failure of the 70 mt to LEO SLS and the 20 mt to LEO Liberty?
Unless you're suggesting ATK will take the SLS money, wait for it to be cancelled, and then offer up this Ares I reboot as a booster for MPCV...oh, let us hope the heavy variants of Falcon, Delta IV and Atlas V are all flying and man-rated before such a dark day arrives. Though I wouldn't be surprised if the Thiokol people had such a devious plan.

 

[Unstung]

Betamax was also better than VHS. Guess which survived and which not.

No, it is not survival of the best, but survival of the fittest. VHS defeated Betamax simply by being far simpler and cheaper, despite it being of lower quality and with less features.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Accident_(fallacy)
In this case:
1. Betamax is superior to VHS (in some ways) but lost
2. Betamax did not survive like the Ares I
3. The nonexistent Liberty launch vehicle based on the Ares I is superior to all other launch vehicles
And:
1. Government decisions are illogical
2. The EELV is a government decision
3. Therefore, the EELV is illogical

Like you said before, everything looks better on paper.

 

[agentgonzo]

I was hoping that there was some good useful plan and technical reasons for cancelling Ares and then coming up with SLS. I was hoping it wasn't just politicians arguing first "it's too expensive, bin it" and then "ra ra we want space we want jobs ra". Seems my hopes were ill-founded.

Thanks for the info folks. :-(

 

[T.Neo]

I was hoping it wasn't just politicians arguing first "it's too expensive, bin it" and then "ra ra we want space we want jobs ra".

Different politicians, different reasons, different decisions.

The good news is that most technical issues of Ares were finally killed by that decision. The bad news is that all the political issues were not.

Obama's space plan was good, but it was a very vague and it lacked a concrete vision.

The new "plan" has all the vagueness of the original plan, and all the pork and retained paradigms of Constellation. It takes the worst of each.

 

[K_Jameson]

They claim to be cheaper than the EELVs, but Falcon 9's advertised cost is $80-125 million and would have similar payload capability. Its costs would have to grow by nearly 50% to match those advertised for Liberty.

Falcon 9 has a payload capability of less than half of the Liberty... if even its price is half, the cost/benefit is the same, isn't it? ;-)

 

[Urwumpe]

Like you said before, everything looks better on paper.

Yes, but in my defense of using a logical fallacy in my argumentation, it was as counter-fallacy to T.Neos: The EELV are using liquid propellant first stages, so liquid propellant first stages are always the best choice. It is not that easy and what kind of propulsion the EELVs use, had not been part of the EELV contract.

Also, the much cheaper and much more often used Minotaur rockets are ALL-solid, except the final upper stage.

 

[T.Neo]

Falcon 9 has a payload capability of less than half of the Liberty... if even its price is half, the cost/price is the same, isn't it? ;-)

I typed F9. I meant Falcon Heavy. :shifty:

FH would have a similar payload capability without crossfeed and is likely cheaper as well.

Yes, but in my defense of using a logical fallacy in my argumentation, it was as counter-fallacy to T.Neos: The EELV are using liquid propellant first stages, so liquid propellant first stages are always the best choice. It is not that easy and what kind of propulsion the EELVs use, had not been part of the EELV contract.

That is all very well. My question on the matter is: if solid first stages are that much better, why are they not so much more popular than they already are?

The only large vehicles that use(d) solid first stages that I can think of are Ariane, STS and Titan (the first two effectively if not strictly). The EELVs only use SRMs to increase payload; they are intrinsically based on liquid propellant cores.

My point is: if liquid first stages are inferior, and there were solid-based EELV proposals, why were these supposedly superior EELV proposals not selected?

Ok, so "SRB-X" and Liberty are not the same thing. Maybe Liberty is better, but how? How is it better, other than "it is just better"?

Also, the much cheaper and much more often used Minotaur rockets are ALL-solid, except the final upper stage.

Yes, but does this mean "solids are always cheaper"? There are all sorts of other factors going on, that can affect launch price... and are different, for different vehicles.

Even the OSC Taurus II moves away from solid fuels. And Liberty is supposedly costlier than the all-liquid SpaceX rockets.

Is the justification that this stuff has to be cheaper or better, just because it supposedly is?

Is there some special magic that they fill those SRM cases with?

Or... admit it... you are maybe just defending Liberty, because it uses an upper stage made in Europe..

 

[Urwumpe]

Is there some special magic that they fill those SRM cases with?

No magic, but a SRB is pretty much simple technology, despite all high-tech that went into it. You can easily mass-produce it, by automated processes, which is impossible for liquid rocket engines, because quality assurance is there much more complex.

Or... admit it... you are maybe just defending Liberty, because it uses an upper stage made in Europe..

OK, caught. :lol:

No, I just dislike quick conclusions when it is about engineering. Engineering is no 1-dimensional thing, it has hundreds or thousands of dimensions that influence its outcome. A tiny variation among those myriads of choices is enough to cause big changes in performance and costs.

Why was Ares 1 bad?

Because of the big vibration issues, that resulted in more and more dirty fixes getting applied to the original Ares 1 plan, making it more and more Frankensteins nightmare.

The Liberty is at first sight the same rocket, but that isn't true, there are many small differences, especially in the mass properties of the new upper stage. Since it starts really clean sheet now, it can implement better fixes for the vibration problems, as the many tuned dampers and extra mass of the SRB. I don't know any details there, but the alternatives to the dampers of the Ares 1 are pretty numerous, and could also apply to the SRM itself.

Next, because both stages already exist, the development work is mostly incremental. How to air-start the Ariane V core? What about vibration modes?

The next important detail, that makes me feel like the Liberty has not the curse of the Ares 1, is the fact that for example the air start problem can be tested by Arianespace without big problems. It just takes a launch of a Ariane V using the new core stage for the Liberty, with a changed launch profile. Any other design would have bigger problems, the direct Ariane V heritage would permit such test flights - especially in the same scale.

That kind of stuff also adds to the engineering dimensions, the project environment. Even if you have the same materials, the different project environment can have a big effect on the rocket.

A worse rocket that is more fitting to the world around it, has a better chance to become successful, as a better rocket, that integrates only poorly. Which is why the Soyuz launcher is now getting ready to launch from Kourou, despite being pretty historic in its design. It uses new technology now, but it is only one evolution instead of a revolution. But it thus fits better into the environment.

 

[Pipcard]

Answer: A few congressmen like to spend the money of other people for their private interests.

I would like some clarification on how politicians would benefit from this.

 

[T.Neo]

I would like some clarification on how politicians would benefit from this.

Simple. They can claim credit for securing jobs in their state, which gives them political power. It's "good PR", in a sense.

Also, if I understand correctly, aerospace companies (for example) contribute money to political campaigns. So beneficial to defend projects that will benefit certain aerospace companies.

If that is true, it is corruption!

 

[K_Jameson]

I typed F9. I meant Falcon Heavy. :shifty:

FH would have a similar payload capability without crossfeed and is likely cheaper as well.

I'm not sure that 28 engines are cheaper than 2 engines. I don't believe until i see it.

My point is: if liquid first stages are inferior, and there were solid-based EELV proposals, why were these supposedly superior EELV proposals not selected?

liquid first stages are superior; i'm not a fan of solid stages; i think that Liberty is based primarily on commonality with existing technology, rather than on performances.

Or... admit it... you are maybe just defending Liberty, because it uses an upper stage made in Europe..

Sincerely, i think that Ariane 5 (speaking of european rockets) is a far better LV than Liberty. And has BEO capability that Liberty lacks (in the version presented). On the other hand, i don't think that all the Space X creations are automatically better than all the rest.

 

[Urwumpe]

I would like some clarification on how politicians would benefit from this.

It is pretty simple about keeping companies with a few hundred jobs in places, which are practically bad for aerospace industry.

While we do live in a globalized world, the plain reality is, that it is much better to have clusters of excellence: You bring industries together in one place, encourage other companies to also move close there, see suppliers move towards the clusters, so you have a big center in which the competence of a whole industry is concentrated.

You might say a few conferences and internet can also do that, but that is wrong - The short ways from one company to the other have a HUGE effect, especially when you manage to bring employees of different companies in the same branch together in their free time. Such non-business contacts are very important for getting skills together. Just imagine the everyday scenario, of one engineer having a friend, who works for a company that solves exactly the problem, that his company currently has to solve.

Next, such pet companies like politicians like to keep alive in their state for showing how modern they are, are often far away from their customers, which would be deadly for private companies, but can be fixed by lots of tax payers money.

Without the infrastructure in such states, such companies would never settle there. But politicians prefer using lots of taxes and pork barrel contracts to ensure that such companies still go there, despite the bad environment, because building up the needed infrastructure for an industry takes decades - much longer than the term of a politician.

 

[T.Neo]

I'm not sure that 28 engines are cheaper than 2 engines. I don't believe until i see it.

They are different engines. Already the SpaceX design philosophy behind them seems to be reducing costs via mass-production and a very "easy to handle" design, in other words, part of it is making engine unit cost lower by making more engines.

liquid first stages are superior; i'm not a fan of solid stages; i think that Liberty is based primarily on commonality with existing technology, rather than on performances.

The EELV rockets also... "already exist". So what is so special about Liberty (I know I know, business case for ATK)?

Also, 5 segment SRM has no flight history whatsoever. And the Ariane 5 core will require modifications to be usable as an upper stage... but these could be relatively minor.

Sincerely, i think that Ariane 5 (speaking of european rockets) is a far better LV than Liberty. And has BEO capability that Liberty lacks (in the version presented).

Yes... but... Ariane 5 uses nothing made by ATK.

It is completely foreign, therefore as good a launch vehicle as it may be, it is politically unsuitable for US launch contracts.

The Ariane 5 derivation is there only because ATK were desperate to find an upper stage to marry to their beloved 5-segment SRB... :shifty:

On the other hand, i don't think that all the Space X creations are automatically better than all the rest.

Neither do I. But they have a lot of interesting features to them... they are not really cutting edge technology, but they have a degree of innovation to them.

 

[K_Jameson]

They are different engines.

I know.

Already the SpaceX design philosophy behind them seems to be reducing costs via mass-production and a very "easy to handle" design, in other words, part of it is making engine unit cost lower by making more engines.

Some dozens of engines can't be claimed "mass production", i think...
Pagani Zonda is a supercar produced in similar numbers, and his price has no benefits from "mass production"... ;-)

So what is so special about Liberty?

Nothing. I don't like Liberty particularly. Falcon 9 should be cheaper, true... But a first stage with 9 to 27 engines is a weird option for a rocket that wants to be "cheap". I hope that Elon Musk is right, however. Don't misunderstand me.

It is completely foreign, therefore as good a launch vehicle as it may be, it is politically unsuitable for US launch contracts.

I never spoken of an U.S. utilize of Ariane 5 rockets. My comparison was only based on the design.

 

[T.Neo]

Some dozens of engines can't be claimed "mass production", i think...
Pagani Zonda is a supercar produced in similar numbers, and his price has no benefits from "mass production"... ;-)

Not some dozens of engines. More like hundreds.

In rocket engine terms, that is indeed mass production. SpaceX likes to boast that when they get up to full production numbers, they'll be producing more rocket engines than any other country on the planet...

And the car analogy is apt, because the philosophy they seem to be pursuing is deriving from a sort of automotive production philosophy.

Nothing. I don't like Liberty particularly. Falcon 9 should be cheaper, true... But a first stage with 9 to 27 engines is a weird option for a rocket that wants to be "cheap". I hope that Elon Musk is right, however. Don't misunderstand me.

Number of engines does not directly correlate to cost. Of course it can affect it, though...

 

[K_Jameson]

Not some dozens of engines. More like hundreds.

OK, then i move my analogy from Pagani to Ferrari or Lamborghini. :lol:

 

[Urwumpe]

What about Bugatti Veyron tires? :lol: