Updates Ares Updates and Discussion

[Urwumpe]

*wonders how hard it would be to put an Orion on top*

Do you want to launch it in one piece or do EOR for assembling alone the Orion capsule?

I fear when they are done with it, the Orion Capsule will weight three times more than Apollo, while transporting only 3 astronauts...

---------- Post added at 02:45 PM ---------- Previous post was at 02:41 PM ----------

It's nice to have some hard data here, but let's not forget some lurking variables-- the Cold War, personal preferences of each president, etc.

Should not matter about the party effect, since you have many presidents and are now also having about 50% cold war years vs 50% post-cold war years.

The biggest cuts after Apollo happened during the same president(s), who also authorized rising the budget (Kennedy/Johnson)

 

[eveningsky339]

Do you want to launch it in one piece or do EOR for assembling alone the Orion capsule?

I fear when they are done with it, the Orion Capsule will weight three times more than Apollo, while transporting only 3 astronauts...

A one-piece launch would obviously be a better idea, and an existing EELV (say an Atlas V) would offer a high degree of reliability as well as shortening and cheapening this entire floundering endeavor.

As for the weight of the vehicle, there are other proposals which... oh, wait, NASA submitted their own design. Who's going to win that one?

Should not matter about the party effect, since you have many presidents and are now also having about 50% cold war years vs 50% post-cold war years.

The biggest cuts after Apollo happened during the same president(s), who also authorized rising the budget (Kennedy/Johnson)

True enough. But you can never be too careful when it comes to statistics.

 

[tblaxland]

It's nice to have some hard data here, but let's not forget some lurking variables-- the Cold War, personal preferences of each president, etc.

Hence my protest against the use of sweeping generalisations

 

[Urwumpe]

As for the weight of the vehicle, there are other proposals which... oh, wait, NASA submitted their own design. Who's going to win that one?

Yeah, NASA is a bit allergic against "Not invented here". :lol:

I still think the SpaceHab proposal for the lunar landing architecture is the better one.

http://astronautix.com/craft/cevcehab.htm

 

[T.Neo]

For lunar missions, a succession of nine launches of two types of launch vehicles would be made to low earth orbit.

Sounds fun.

 

[Evil_Onyx]

Why cant NASA put Orion on an existing/converted launch platform for LEO missions and build something bigger for when they have the budget to do more.

If they have a rocket that works and has proven reliability why not use it.

 

[T.Neo]

Why cant NASA put Orion on an existing/converted launch platform for LEO missions and build something bigger for when they have the budget to do more.

Because the people who manage NASA are idiots.

Granted, there would be man-rating and such involved, but I am sure the problems encountered would be far fewer then when designing an entirely new launch vehicle.

 

[Urwumpe]

Well, part of the man rating is changing the infrastructure of the launch pads and have emergency procedures, which is not done in a day. Also your redundancy in the subsystems has to change, unmanned rockets are usually maximal "one failure tolerant" in their design, manned rockets are "two failure tolerant" for the critical systems.

But the key thing is, the redesign is still simpler than the new design.

The problem is more, that the USA have no EELVs, that can lift the CEV as whole. Even the Delta IV Heavy is not strong enough.

 

[RisingFury]

Because the people who manage NASA are idiots.

How can you, or anyone else on this forum make a statement such as this? You don't have the education, experience and all the facts that people who manage NASA do. Believe me, when it comes to programs such as these, plenty of people considered all sides of the arguments and decided what was best.


And as far as politics goes... NASA's support is not determined by party politics. It's not a bipartisan organization, it's a non-partisan organization.

 

[Moonwalker]

Because the people who manage NASA are idiots.

Not even the Augustine Commission, which was a hope for a lot of Ares critics, does talk about mismanagement for now.

The reason why not man rating an existing launch vehicle is, as Urwumpe has pointed out, that it would also not come without extra costs and efforts, as had been even said by Augustine just two weeks ago. Man rating existing stuff is not an option, at least not for NASA.

I don't know when the full report will be available (or is it already?). But there are rumors going on that the alternatives turned out not to be real alternatives in relation to budget (and that Obama likely won't change the current course). All in all the basic message seems to be that Constallation is a well practicable program but just underfunded. But there is also criticism by some politicians and managers that the commission did not look precisely how to improve the Ares program more.

PS: I know there are people who think that von Braun did not have that much impact than one might thinkand that he is not a legend but just a Disney man. That this is not true at all shows that within the last few weeks, Augsutine was talking about von Braun and his earlier advices and ideas on a few things. This man indeed is a legend and he was way more than just a Disney man...

---------- Post added at 04:33 PM ---------- Previous post was at 04:32 PM ----------

And as far as politics goes... NASA's support is not determined by party politics. It's not a bipartisan organization, it's a non-partisan organization.

There is a bipartisan favour for Constellation and Ares. If NASA and its manned programs is not determined by party politics, by whom it is?

 

[RocketMan_Len]

There's a democrat in office, democrats always cut back on NASA.

Interesting concept... since it was a Democrat that charged NASA with a mandate to expand the frontiers of space (Kennedy)... and it was a Republican who first started cutting back the Apollo program (Nixon).

 

[RisingFury]

There is a bipartisan favour for Constellation and Ares. If NASA and its manned programs is not determined by party politics, by whom it is?

What I was trying to say way that when Bush first proposed the program to return to the Moon and Mars, democrats first wanted to send Bush to Mars. But when everyone got around reading the proposal, the support rose to the point where you can't say that it's party politics anymore, it came down to common sense.

 

[T.Neo]

How can you, or anyone else on this forum make a statement such as this?

Because some of us have been researching spaceflight topics for years, and know quite a bit about the inner workings of spacecraft and the like.

I'm not suggesting how NASA should build rockets, I'm putting forth my opinion on how they should not build rockets.

You don't have the education, experience and all the facts that people who manage NASA do.

Education counts for very little in the real world. I have met many a person who have a degree in their specific field, who make me wonder how they aquired that degree...

Likewise, you don't gain the ability to make the right decisions from experience. You gain the ability from researching history, and what others have done. I doubt anyone at NASA has 40 years management experience.

And the facts that are available to the public are clear enough. While a layman might not understand how to build an airplane, he sure knows that it crashes, when he sees it crashing.

Believe me, when it comes to programs such as these, plenty of people considered all sides of the arguments and decided what was best.

I am sure that it did happen. I'm not saying the engineers, the people who actually design and build rockets, are idiots.

In short, if you have a team of the smartest people on the planet working together, what they produce will be worth nothing if they're managed by a moron.

@Moonwalker:

The reason why not man rating an existing launch vehicle is, as Urwumpe has pointed out, that it would also not come without extra costs and efforts

He also pointed out that it would cost less then designing a new launch vehicle.

All in all the basic message seems to be that Constallation is a well practicable program but just underfunded.

With enough funding, you can get even a fence to fly.

 

[Moonwalker]

Because some of us have been researching spaceflight topics for years, and know quite a bit about the inner workings of spacecraft and the like.

That's nice for those, for us, who do so. But a little web-based research does not enable us to assess that those who manage NASA are idiots.

 

[simcosmos]

Please allow me two quick comments regarding ‘man rating’ / performance of EELV (in particular focusing in Delta IV Heavy):

a) Things like triple, dual-fault tolerance, etc have changed a good bit since ESAS report has been written years ago… This to say that such argument is no longer valid when comparing EELV with AresI given that AresI also ‘relaxed’ those very same requirements! The irony is that a previous redaction and interpretation of such ‘man-rating’ requirements have been used in the past to negatively compare EELV vs AresI for CLV roles...

b) A slightly adapted (by this I mean not significantly different from a commercial / DOD cargo vehicle) Delta IV Heavy might be able to lift Orion for ISS and the lunar Orion version to its injection targets (when upgraded with RS-68A and perhaps, for the ISS case and depending of specific ISS Orion assumptions, even without such RS-68A upgrade) without requiring a new upper stage (or without requiring too many modifications to what is currently flying) and while changing trajectory to close most if not all major concerns related with ‘black zones’ plus with performance margins equivalent or greater than AresI.

I have made some first order studies in Orbiter (summary in this NSF forum thread: http://forum.nasaspaceflight.com/index.php?topic=18801.msg478971#msg478971) but please do not take my - admittedly non-professional - word for it: do your own possible research, for example, regarding Aerospace studies about Delta IV Heavy (some stuff available in Augustine Public Meetings related materials and transcripts) or United Space Alliance references, etc.


What I really wish to say is that things might not be so black and white when comparing AresI conceptual design to the concept of modifying something like the operational DeltaIV Heavy (or even when comparing with an order to field the past-CDR AtlasV Heavy configuration).



As an ending note, of course that it would help - for all eventual possible CLV options (including AresI) - if the 4 crew 5m diameter Orion Command Module didn't have a mass that is greater than an entire Shenzhou spacecraft (and a mass that is very close to the ESAS estimation for a 5.5m diameter CEV CM!), but that would be other story.





Anyway, this is becoming really off-topic (can we leave this thread for AresI-X updates?): independently of all considerations, AresI-X will be interesting to watch, rollout on 19th for launch on 27th October (must check).



António

Well, part of the man rating is changing the infrastructure of the launch pads and have emergency procedures, which is not done in a day. Also your redundancy in the subsystems has to change, unmanned rockets are usually maximal "one failure tolerant" in their design, manned rockets are "two failure tolerant" for the critical systems.

But the key thing is, the redesign is still simpler than the new design.

The problem is more, that the USA have no EELVs, that can lift the CEV as whole. Even the Delta IV Heavy is not strong enough.

 

[T.Neo]

But a little web-based research does not enable us to assess that those who manage NASA are idiots,

Yes, it does. What they do, is not the best decision.

 

[Hielor]

Yes, it does. What they do, is not the best decision.

Sorry, but a little web-based research does not substitute for having a degree and/or actual experience.

Or, if you think it does, you should go apply to NASA and tell them that you'd be a great administrator because you did some web research.

 

[Moonwalker]

Yes, it does. What they do, is not the best decision.

It's your right to say your opinion and to believe being able to call the NASA mangement idiots.

---------- Post added at 06:50 PM ---------- Previous post was at 06:49 PM ----------

Or, if you think it does, you should go apply to NASA and tell them that you'd be a great administrator because you did some web research.

And he'll get an appropriate answer, if he gets an answer at all

 

[T.Neo]

Sorry, but a little web-based research does not substitute for having a degree and/or actual experience.

As I said before- degrees count for little in the real world. And I never said "a little web research". Some of us (granted, not particularly me) have been researching the subject for years. Saying that we have only done "a little web research" is like going up to a professional person and saying they got their degree in a preschool sandbox.

Or, if you think it does, you should go apply to NASA and tell them that you'd be a great administrator because you did some web research.

No. Why? Because I have better things to do, then bother with nonsense like that. Or your arguments, for that matter.

 

[Urwumpe]

As I said before- degrees count for little in the real world.

In which world do you live? And why is it opposite of the real world? degrees are all that matters. You may be the smartest guy on the planet, but without a degree, you will be just a talented guy with strange ideas. If you are really smart, you have a degree.