Updates Ares Updates and Discussion

[Urwumpe]

I couldn't find that quote, but this is the standard AFAIK:

http://oceexternal.nasa.gov/oce/functions/standards/MeasurementSystem.html

http://nodis3.gsfc.nasa.gov/displayDir.cfm?Internal_ID=N_PD_8010_002E_&page_name=main

Looks they decided it was "impractical, adds unacceptable risk, or is likely to cause significant inefficiencies or loss of markets to U.S. firms"

Well, let me guess: The people who decided that have never sold anything in their life. If the rest of the world uses SI units, using imperial units means additional risks for the USA (importing machines), inefficiencies (other countries will not always use imperial units in technical documentation, for pleasing the US companies, so the USA will need to do the conversion) and loss of markets of US firms (If you don't deliver technical documentation in SI units, people will be reluctant to buy it).

The most efficient way for international trade are international standards... of course, you can always have too strict standards, but I doubt this applies to using the SI system instead of something based on the length of the lower arm of a deceased monarch.

 

[Pquardzvaark]

I get the sense I'm going to get more and more disappointed the way this program is. Seems only the hope is that maybe their current plans collapse so quickly and badly that an alternative, like EELV or Direct, is practically forced up-on them.

I also don't see how establishing a Moon base is a terrible 'distraction' from Mars. I'd think a Moon base might even have more practical application than the ISS because of the potential of lunar ice.

 

[Urwumpe]

What I see worse is the thinking, that NASA will solve all technical problems on the way to Mars just so and suddenly be able to have reduced the technological risk by work on Earth or in LEO. Reality does not work like that. All the unknown problems (UNK-UNKs) which you will encounter on the way to Mars, will not be found by Apollo 2.0 - otherwise, we would be going to Mars easily.

Flags and footprints are simple - staying on the moon for more than 2 days is hard.

 

[tblaxland]

More troubles for Ares, this time for I-X:
http://www.orlandosentinel.com/news/local/orl-nasa-rocket-troubles-062809,0,4229034.story

Air Force officials who have safety jurisdiction over all launches from Kennedy Space Center are worried that the rocket's vibrations could knock out the self-destruct mechanism required in case the launch goes awry.
...
And the possibility that the $360million prototype will veer off course is a real risk, according to both the Air Force 45th Space Wing and NASA managers, because the rocket's vibrations could also wreck its steering system, known as the Thrust Vector Control, or TVC.
...
"We ... need a flight-safety system that we know with a 99.9 percent confidence level will function," said Lt. Col. Loretta Kelemen, head of the 45th Space Wing Range Safety Office at Cape Canaveral Air Force Station. "If they do not meet our requirements, then they do not launch here."

Ares 1-X has no trust oscillation damping like what is proposed for later flights.

They are also disagreeing over the Orion launch abort system.

 

[Orbinaut Pete]

In my humble opinion:

ARES = CANCEL

 

[Ark]

In my humble opinion:

ARES = CANCEL

We have a booster that can do the job safely, ditch the money pit that is Ares and use that.

 

[Piper]

In my humble opinion:

ARES = CANCEL

Sadly I agree. Or at least ARES-I should be cancelled. The simple fact is, it isn't safe, and there are MUCH safer and proven methods for launching Orion.

America wants to get to the moon by 2020, and so do I, but they aren't going to do it with faulty and unsafe designs.

 

[Orbinaut Pete]

Sadly I agree. Or at least ARES-I should be cancelled. The simple fact is, it isn't safe, and there are MUCH safer and proven methods for launching Orion.

America wants to get to the moon by 2020, and so do I, but they aren't going to do it with faulty and unsafe designs.

Here's what I think Ares is NOT:

. Safe
. Proven
. Cheap/on budget
. On schedule
. Needed

Hopefully, the U.S Review of Human Space Flight Plans Committee (AKA The Augustine Commission) will agree, and find a better option (which is in my opinion, DIRECT V3).
The Augustine Commission's report is due in August, and hopefully, NASA will make a decision before the end of this year - it needs to be done before metal starts being cut for Ares.
I think we can still get away with flying Ares 1-X, as some of the data from that could be used to aid in the development of whichever other launch system is decided on.

It's 11:59 for the future of the Constellation Program now, but I just hope the right decision is made.

If you want to ask a question to/send a suggestion to/make a comment about the U.S Review of Human Space Flight Plans Committee, then you can do so here:
http://www.nasa.gov/offices/hsf/home/index.html

Former Astronaut Leroy Chiao, who is a member of the Augustine Commission, is also taking your suggestions:
http://leroychiao.blogspot.com/2009/06/augustine-human-space-flight-review.html

 

[Spicer]

I'm a fan of Ares/Constellation/Orion, but I really feel that everyone would be better served by launching on a Delta IV. Any reason why not?

 

[movieman]

I'm a fan of Ares/Constellation/Orion, but I really feel that everyone would be better served by launching on a Delta IV. Any reason why not?

Delta IV doesn't keep KSC shuttle workers employed.

Which is a problem for the shuttle as well as Ares: if shuttle workers know that there's a follow-on program which will use similar hardware, they're likely to stay to work on that. If they know they'll be out of a job when the shuttle program ends, the more competent are likely to find new jobs and leave well before then.

 

[Ark]

Delta IV doesn't keep KSC shuttle workers employed.

Ding! :lol:

Anyone want to start a pool on whether the thing is gonna blow sky-high when they light it?

 

[cinder1992]

€20 on it blowing the cape to kingdom come.:rofl:

 

[Ark]

Detroit needs an economic stimulus, maybe they could build the new space center (DSC?) there...

$20 says it halfway clears the tower before crashing back down.

 

[tl8]

That is some what concerning....

 

[Donamy]

Did the Apollo capsule have any such environment ?

 

[tblaxland]

Did the Apollo capsule have any such environment ?

I don't know for sure but it is much less likely. It is the burning solid fuel fragments that would cause the damage to the parachutes and you would not have those with a liquid fuel rocket. Any fuel/oxidiser cloud ought to burn itself out quite quickly when it is not contained.

 

[Ark]

You know what, I think I'll fly Soyuz...

 

[zerofay32]

Well it's still an improvement over the shuttle's abort capabilities. Not saying that's hard to do... :dry:

 

[Linguofreak]

Here's a couple posts I made on a mailing list with regards to that article:

Post #1:

This assumes that the "abort" is caused by the SRB exploding. It assumes that
the SRB fails without warning and that the LES is not fired before the booster
explodes. It assumes that an exploding Ares SRB will explode in the same manner
as a Titan IV. It tells us alot about the debris trajectory, but it does not
tell us where they get their assumptions about the performance of the LES and
the trajectory of the capsule from. It does not tell us whether they are
assuming the use of the LES tower currently planned, or the MLAS system being
considered as an alternative, or both. It omits the fact that the Shuttle has
*no* abort modes in the event of a booster explosion at any point between launch
and booster separation, which is a 126 second window (0-126 seconds) as opposed
to a 30 second window (30-60 seconds). It omits the fact that Shuttle boosters
(a modification of which is being used on the Ares) have a higher demonstrated
reliability than Titan IV boosters (no Shuttle booster has ever exploded in over
100 flights. The only booster related fatality incident with the shuttle could
not have occured with Ares because of the different arrangements of the two
stacks).

Your conclusion that this report kills the manned spaceflight program assumes
that the manned spaceflight program isn't already doomed.

Post #2:

As I said in my reply to Henry, the report he brought up is an analysis of the
survivability of a booster *explosion* (not just any old abort), and the
shuttle, by comparison, cannot survive *any* booster explosion whatsoever
(making for a 126 second window of death WRT a booster explosion), whereas Ares
"merely" cannot survive a booster explosion within a 30 second window. Plus,
being on the side of the stack instead of the top, and being much bigger,
there's no way a shuttle could survive a booster explosion on the pad, whereas
Ares could, which makes the shuttles "window of death" even wider. (And, also as
I said, no booster of the type being used on both craft has *ever* exploded
accidentaly, AFAIK. The booster that caused the Challenger disaster went sailing
merrily on its way until self-destructed by the range safety officer, despite
banging up against the side of the external tank and being in the high-debris
environment of the breakup).

 

[tblaxland]

Linguofreak, I don't think anyone here is arguing that Ares I is more dangerous than STS because of that report. More dangerous than an all-liquid rocket (EDIT: conventional vertical stack, that is)? Perhaps (see my post above) but not proven. I've always felt that the Ares I LoC figures were overstated and that report sure does not give confidence in them (they are stated here at 1 in 2850).