Updates Ares Updates and Discussion

[Moonwalker]

I doubt that reusable systems will become significant cheaper. People sometimes seem to compare space flight with aviation, which is a pretty bad comparison. Space is a totally different environment than the upper troposphere/lower stratosphere (and the energy and physics required to get in space and stay in space also is not comparable). I don't think that space flight technology would ever become something like cheap airplane-like technology, while not even supersonic airplane technology will become subsonic airplane-like technology (and aviation by far is not cheap, just because your ticket is cheap). It will always be a big difference. You can turn upside down, but special environments will always require special technologies and materials, which also have to be replaced sooner or later, no matter if it's reusable. Everything comes at a price, even reuseability.

I think that Soyuz is a rather valid example why using capsules for space flight is the best choice IMHO. And it does not even have to be reusable and so high-maintenance and expensive again (which still does not make it endlessly usable anyway). Also, always flying with a "new" spacecraft is nice too in my point of view (as long as it does not "rust" on the ground before...). Russia even continues to stick with that design on the very long run AFAIK. And I think almost any other space agency, but also company, will do so. There will always be material and money waste in space flight, and I seriously don't even see any problem of it. I don't even see a problem in case Orion completely would lose its reuseability

PS: and I think that artillery is required for manned space flight indeed.

 

[Omhra]

tblaxland...

I am agreeing... Politics should say if we are going to colonize or explore or just play. But never dictate which rocket should be used to get there... that should be left to the white coats...

 

[RocketMan_Len]

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.

"Most of the time"...? I don't think I'd trust anything with a 10% chance of total failure.

You're right - STS is not the way to go. But... how would we KNOW that, if we didn't try?


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

I don't think that space flight technology would ever become something like cheap airplane-like technology, while not even supersonic airplane technology will become subsonic airplane-like technology (and aviation by far is not cheap, just because your ticket is cheap).

Right - and I'll bet that's what the Wright Brothers had to endure as well...

"Airplane technology will NEVER be as cheap as trains."

but special environments will always require special technologies and materials, which also have to be replaced sooner or later, no matter if it's reusable. Everything comes at a price, even reuseability.

Sure. But there's a difference between using something once and throwing it away, and using something ten times, repairing damaged parts, and using it another ten times...

(If you had to buy a twenty-dollar razor, every time you shaved, instead of a ten-dollar handle and a ten-dollar pack of ten blades, how often would you shave...? )

Also, always flying with a "new" spacecraft is nice too in my point of view (as long as it does not "rust" on the ground before...).

Ahhh... that New-Spaceship smell... :rofl:

 

[movieman]

"Most of the time"...? I don't think I'd trust anything with a 10% chance of total failure.

Comparing reliability of unmanned expendables against manned spacecraft is somewhat unfair, because in many cases if you get a serious failure on that unmanned launcher your payload is toast so there's no point trying to do anything other than crash safely; whereas if you had people on top, you'd at least want to get them back alive, even if you can't get them into orbit.

Also, manned launchers tend to use more mass for safety systems for precisely that reason; so they can do something if an engine fails or whatever.

 

[C3PO]

"Most of the time"...? I don't think I'd trust anything with a 10% chance of total failure.

Where do you get that 10% number from? STS is currently considered the most "dangerous" craft to fly, and analysis range from 0.05% all the way up to 2%. (2% isn't really resulting from analysis, but rather the actual time it has failed)

You're right - STS is not the way to go. But... how would we KNOW that, if we didn't try?

STS was a fantastic technological experimental programme, that IMHO will not be topped for a long time. But it was never ready for operational status.

Sure. But there's a difference between using something once and throwing it away, and using something ten times, repairing damaged parts, and using it another ten times...

That depends on how much you have to spend on the re-used parts to make them as safe as new ones. It's also often cheaper to update new systems then used ones.

 

[tblaxland]

(If you had to buy a twenty-dollar razor, every time you shaved, instead of a ten-dollar handle and a ten-dollar pack of ten blades, how often would you shave...? )

Not very often, but the comparison you make is not fair - not even for razor blades. Lets run a typical scenario that I would look at when buying razors and I'll set a program goal to shave 400 times. How might I acheive that? I'll use some real world prices from woolworths.com.au:

1. 400 cheap disposable razors that can be used once each. $140.06
2. 200 better disposable razors that can be used twice each. $161.24
3. 2 decent handles (200 shaves each) + 100 better blades that can be used four times each. $30.20 + $310.25 = $340.45.

What would you do?

The situation is even further exacerbated in manned space flight were the cost multipliers for reusable gear are even higher.

 

[Moonwalker]

"Airplane technology will NEVER be as cheap as trains."

To compare airplanes with trains is not really valid, although such comparisons are favoured in such discussions. But airplane technology on the whole is not as cheap as trains anyway. And it won't become as cheap as trains, especially if we talk about the heavy stuff (which partly would not be possible without the good old governments once again). It just works because there is a market, which is not the case for manned space flight in such a scale. To be honest: who really wants to travel into space? Most people are not interested in at all (like also not even in submarines for example).

 

[C3PO]

Very few people travel on aeroplanes, because they're interested in them.

 

[Urwumpe]

Very few people travel on aeroplanes, because they're interested in them.

Even less people travel in spacecraft, because they are interested in them. :rofl:

 

[Andy44]

Air travel is cheaper than rail travel in the United States, which put the commercial rail business out. Lesson learned: it's not the cost of the hardware that counts, but the cost of everything, operations, fuel, training, staffing, coupled with the demand by a market that wants fast, convenient travel, and has reasons for traveling.

Space travel will be no different. STS is mostly reusable, but that doesn't make it cheaper to operate. Much more effort in man hours is needed to keep it reusable, and because of safety considerations, STS can not fly on a convenient schedule, nor can it fly anywhere but ISS, nor can it carry commercial payloads or any payload with propellants anymore. In the months leading up to the Challenger accident, STS was almost there economically, because the launch rate was high and the payload and mission diversity was high also. But to achieve this NASA was working its ground personnel nearly to exhaustion, and making some poor decisions. The design of STS just wasn't ready for this kind of fast-paced operation without lots of extra employees and facilities.

 

[RocketMan_Len]

Okay - I'll admit that I SUCK when it comes to analogies and comparisons.

All I'm trying to say is... just because one particular design failed to live up to expectations, doesn't mean that the design PHILOSOPHY is flawed. As long as we learn from our mistakes, rather than abandon them, we'll do better next time.

(Just because something HASN'T been done, is no reason to say that it CANNOT be done. )

 

[Orbinaut Pete]

The Ares 1-X components are coming together nicely now in VAB HB4:

And the new Ares 1-X lightning tower at Pad 39B seems to keep getting bigger & bigger...

 

[RocketMan_Len]

Not very often, but the comparison you make is not fair - not even for razor blades. Lets run a typical scenario that I would look at when buying razors and I'll set a program goal to shave 400 times. How might I acheive that? I'll use some real world prices from woolworths.com.au:

1. 400 cheap disposable razors that can be used once each. $140.06
2. 200 better disposable razors that can be used twice each. $161.24
3. 2 decent handles (200 shaves each) + 100 better blades that can be used four times each. $30.20 + $310.25 = $340.45.

What would you do?

I'd go with Option 4 - buy a $90 electric that just needs a good cleaning after each shave.

 

[tblaxland]

I'd go with Option 4 - buy a $90 electric that just needs a good cleaning after each shave.

Your $90 electric razor is about AUD$115. That's at the lower end quality-wise, but its plausible it would last 400 shaves. You would need a replacement cutter/screen about halfway through though, which run at about AUD$60. $115 + $60 = $175. You're still better off with a disposable solution. That said, it is analogy, so let's not push it too far. My point was (and still is) that a re-usable solution is not always the best.

 

[RocketMan_Len]

My point was (and still is) that a re-usable solution is not always the best.

So, in other words, the whole 'Reduce, Reuse, Recycle' concept is just so much BS...? :rofl:

Guess we'll just have to agree to disagree. Truce?

 

[tblaxland]

Truce

 

[Andy44]

Wow, that LES is huge, by itself it's a big rocket!

 

[tblaxland]

Some interesting updates here:
http://www.nasaspaceflight.com/2009...s-roadmap-2015-hanley-proposes-major-changes/

Citing schedule concerns and technical challenges, Constellation manager Jeff Hanley has outlined a series of proposed solutions to avoid further slips in the Ares/Orion schedule. Mr Hanley proposes deleting the Ares I-Y test flight, making Ares I’s first stage disposable, switching from Orion 4 to Orion 3 as the Full Operational Capability (FOC) date, along with a host of additional changes in order to achieve the 2015 target for manned Orion debut.

So, if you make the first stage disposable, you pretty much have an EELV don't you? Different tech to Atlas V and Delta IV, but still answering the goal of getting twenty odd tons into orbit. So, why not use an EELV, since it looks like they may be suitable (perhaps even more so, looking at the margins and the schedule pressure the Ares I is up against).

Another interesting comment by Hanley stood out:

"Do not implement SI units"

I thought SI units were "baked in" this time round, program wide?
http://oceexternal.nasa.gov/oce/functions/standards/MeasurementSystem.html

 

[Urwumpe]

I thought SI units were "baked in" this time round, program wide?
http://oceexternal.nasa.gov/oce/functions/standards/MeasurementSystem.html

As far as I know, the Constellation program was meant to be the first manned NASA program to use SI units, while many US companies already adopted it. I think NASAs JPL also switched to SI units already, after some embarrassing conversion errors.

I mean, just the official NASA standard already says:

That measurement system, formally known as the "SI" system " after its name in French, "Systeme Internationale" " is almost universally used by all countries except the United States. Use of SI measurement is growing in importance for international trade.

Of course it is expensive and takes time to change the measurement system. But the later you pay the price and take the time for this, the more expensive and the more time consuming it will get. And the SI units are superior to the old imperial units, except in very rare situations (for example the definition of flight levels, despite being possible to be replaced by using 300m = 1000 ft)

 

[tblaxland]

I mean, just the official NASA standard already says:

That measurement system, formally known as the "SI" system " after its name in French, "Systeme Internationale" " is almost universally used by all countries except the United States. Use of SI measurement is growing in importance for international trade.

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