Augustine commission/Ares alternatives

[Orbinaut Pete]

Orginally posted by me on Ares I-X thread:

For the first time in more than a quarter of a century, a new space vehicle stands in the VAB!

I got a feeling it might be the last time too! :rofl:

 

[Insane]

So, in layman's terms, they've decided that without raising their budget, NASA isn't going to accomplish a damn thing within any reasonable timeframe.

Yes. The panel will be presenting the option of the current Constellation program with the current budget as a reference point, to demonstrate what will end up happening with the current budget.

I think the timeframe was something like Orion on Ares I in 2016 or after (with no ISS to go to...), Ares V up and ready 2028, and by that time Altair still hasn't been developed yet. To be honest though, that is assuming the current budget remains the same for 20+ years, which I doubt is likely.

But the point remains the same. Under the current budget, there isn't going to be human exploration from NASA. I think the budget will be upped though.

 

[Moonwalker]

It might not be too bad that the commission is that much pessimistic. It could result in a budget boost... or in a disaster for NASA (while in my point of view NASA is in a disaster since cutting Apollo anyway). But I can't imagine that the government would give up the leading role of space achievements.

If mars is the next goal, which should be, otherwise I see no sense of manned space exploration for another decades in LEO; and if I would be responsible for a long term NASA program in a hypothetical scenario, this is what I would do:

- to significantly increase budget (the current budget is a joke)
- to cut STS and lots of dependant jobs as soon as possible
- deorbit ISS no later than 2016, and do not support it by Orion at all
- fully concentrate on developing the Ares launchers
- starting the manned moon program still in 2016-2018
- finishing the moon program in the early 2030's and launch the mars program

It's not possible to return to the Moon in 2016-2018? Wrong. With the proper bugdet everything is possible. It took only 8 years and two month to go from Mercury-Redstone 3, with almost no experience, down to the lunar surface by Apollo 11. That happened more than 40 years ago.

Of course I'm aware that my scenario is not realistical and quite fanatic. But without strong inspiration, fanatism and a lot of money, we won't go anywhere beyond LEO. And if we don't go beyond LEO, I do not see any purpose of manned space flight (which is why NASA IMHO is in a disaster for decades). We either try to get out there into space, or we call manned space flight a day and let cheap probes and robots to the job of exploring outer space. Then we should better spend the manned space flight budget for something down here on Earth rather than in LEO.

If Obama does not increase the budget and does not put NASA on a poper way, he will be another sissy just like the others for decades. If NASA does not return to the moon and tries to go beyond, nobody does and the days of real manned space exploration are numbered. In such a case I'll look for another hobby and stop wasting my time waiting for deep space manned missions for another decades. You wouldn't see me anymore

 

[Insane]

Still can't for the life of me work out why you'd want to persevere with the Ares rockets. Calling for huge budgets is all well and good (I realise you weren't saying it'll happen, I'm just being pragmatic), but completely unsustainable. The program will get cut. Dr Ride's presentation showed some sand charts for CxP as was planned, and the amount of money Ares took up compared to everything else was ridiculous. About $7bn per year. For the launchers alone. This wasn't development money either, this was what they cost to operate. Just because you have a higher budget doesn't mean you should spent recklessly. Keep those Shuttle workers, keep those Shuttle elements. More cost effective, more money to spend elsewhere.

If you want regular human exploration, the architecture has to be sustainable and progressive. This is why I'm actually liking the "deep space" idea. There's no flags, no footprints, but it's exploration, it's sustainable, it's a step forward and it should lead to better things. It's also slow, but we don't live in a perfect world, sadly.

Fanaticism did bring humans to the moon, yes, and quickly. Wore off even quicker though. One step forward, two back.

 

[Moonwalker]

The only step backward in my point of view was to cut Apollo and operate the Shuttle for as long as I live. It's 8 years of real progress, versus 30 years of going around in circles.

Still can't for the life of me work out why you'd want to persevere with the Ares rockets.

I like its design, especially the Ares1. I just like the whole concept. It's actually something that already was in my mind in the midd 1990's when I dreamed about that NASA would retire the Shuttle and keep on going to explore the universe.

 

[Insane]

Exactly, after Apollo gets cut, you've gone backwards! It was designed to get humans to the Moon as quickly as possible. Much money was spent on achieving this. That is never going to be maintained. The response was to try make access into space itself affordable, resulting in the Shuttle. We get stuck that way for a few decades, but now there is the chance to evolve that shuttle system into a step forward again. Why then, WHY (!!!) is there a desire to repeat the exact same mistakes again??

To really get involved in space exploration, you have to plan for just that, exploring space. Not locking onto one particular destination, and designing purely for that. It is not cost effective to build and design an entire new system for every place you want to visit.

As to Ares I, it's an interesting design, and I believe in it's ORIGINAL incarnation, it might have been more viable, i.e. having the same sized SRB as Ares V, the same engine (SSME), but even then it needed an entirely separate infrastructure for NASA to fund and manage. Since the only commonality it now shares with its bigger brother is orange foam, it ceases to be realistic. That's without even looking at the performance problems again.

 

[Donamy]

I think lunar orbit should be next.

 

[T.Neo]

I think lunar orbit should be next.

Why? Why lunar orbit, vs the lunar surface or LEO?

 

[Zatnikitelman]

Because once you're there, it's not a big giant leap down to the surface. I posted the station vs. base thread to get the pros and cons of each. Though good points were made for the base, I still support a station. If it's in a low equitorial orbit around the moon, it's only a 3 days or so flight back to Earth if anything goes wrong AND maintaining a "deep space" station outside our Magnetosphere will give us long-term research to enable Mars and other truly deep space missions.

 

[Orbinaut Pete]

The only step backward in my point of view was to cut Apollo and operate the Shuttle for as long as I live. It's 8 years of real progress, versus 30 years of going around in circles.

Well, I don't know where you've been for the last 30 years, but I think we have done far more than just "go around in circles". ISS, HST, Spacelab research missions, numerous satellites are to name just a few. We understand far more about how to live & work in space now, than we did at the end of Apollo.

Space exploration is about more than simply going somewhere. It's about developing technologies to get there & live there. It was possible to travel from London to Sydney in the year 1800. But it took a few months in a smelly, dirty, slow ship, crossing many dangerous oceans. Today it takes 24 hours in a comparably comfortable airliner, travelling at 35,000 feet at 500mph.

I like its design, especially the Ares1. I just like the whole concept. It's actually something that already was in my mind in the mid 1990's when I dreamed about that NASA would retire the Shuttle and keep on going to explore the universe.

Nobody is questioning its design. As a rocket to launch humans into LEO, it is very good (ignoring the few problems it is currently experiencing, which could be fixed with expertise, time & money). What people are questioning is it's need. Why do we need it when, by the time it comes into service, there will only be 3 years max left in the ISS (if it hasn't already been de-orbited by then), and we will also by then have other methods of launching crews to the ISS anyway (ESA ATV, SpaceX Dragon, Orbital Cygnus). And as for its use in the Lunar program (if that even happens now), then, as Ares V would be needed anyway, would it not be much easier, simpler, quicker & cheaper just to put Orion atop Ares V, and that way you only have to pay for & support one launch, instead of two?

It does not matter whether you like its design or not. What matters is whether it is worth building or not.

 

[T.Neo]

Though good points were made for the base, I still support a station. If it's in a low equitorial orbit around the moon, it's only a 3 days or so flight back to Earth if anything goes wrong AND maintaining a "deep space" station outside our Magnetosphere will give us long-term research to enable Mars and other truly deep space missions.

Lunar orbits are unstable. You're not going to get a station in orbit for long without expending plenty of propellant.

Nor do I buy the "we need a station oustide the magnetosphere" angle. Shielding techniques, materials and other testing we can do using unmanned vehicles.

 

[Zatnikitelman]

Lunar orbits are unstable. You're not going to get a station in orbit for long without expending plenty of propellant.

Nor do I buy the "we need a station oustide the magnetosphere" angle. Shielding techniques, materials and other testing we can do using unmanned vehicles.

Sure, but what about the psycho-physical component? We can "simulate" the human body with computers and sensors, but only to a point. The last thing we need to do is take the same stance on space that we take to wars. No matter who you're fighting, if you want to finish the job and do it right, you gotta put boots on the ground. You can unmanned things till the sun burns itself out, but ultimately, it's humans that will be needed.

Think about the Mars rovers. Opportunity is stuck in the dirt right now. What would have happened if it got stuck 30 seconds after rolling off the carrier? If it's a manned vehicle, a human coulda gotten out and pushed a bit. As it stands now, we're fortunate the MERs have lasted this long and not encountered a major incident that could be solved with a few commands from Earth.

 

[dougkeenan]

^ I believe Spirit is stuck, not Opportunity.

 

[T.Neo]

Sure, but what about the psycho-physical component? We can "simulate" the human body with computers and sensors, but only to a point. The last thing we need to do is take the same stance on space that we take to wars. No matter who you're fighting, if you want to finish the job and do it right, you gotta put boots on the ground. You can unmanned things till the sun burns itself out, but ultimately, it's humans that will be needed.

You have LEO stations for that. Easier to get to and safer if something happens to go wrong.

Or, for that matter, you can do the long-term psychological component on the lunar surface, where you have the bonus of having the ability to do real science at the same time.

 

[Andy44]

Not to mention the lunar surface provides better means for taking shelter against radiation. Just dig a hole or pile it on top of the hab. In any case, all this dreaming is just pie in the sky. I predicted two years ago the Ares V would get canc'd before it ever gets built, which was more optimistic than this panel.

 

[Urwumpe]

You can also reduce the amount of resupplies needed on the moon, if you could really produce oxygen and water from lunar soil.

 

[Chode]

Lunar orbits are unstable. You're not going to get a station in orbit for long without expending plenty of propellant.

Not all lunar orbits are unstable. A few orbital inclinations give stable orbits.

http://science.nasa.gov/headlines/y2006/06nov_loworbit.htm

Regards

 

[Donamy]

It would be nice to have a rescueboat, in orbit around the moon too.

 

[Hielor]

The program will get cut. Dr Ride's presentation showed some sand charts for CxP as was planned, and the amount of money Ares took up compared to everything else was ridiculous. About $7bn per year. For the launchers alone. This wasn't development money either, this was what they cost to operate.

I'd be curious as to where that $7bn number comes from. I'd wager it's way, way, *way* off base, considering that the shuttle program is something like $3bn/year currently and it's rather more expensive to operate a shuttle than an Ares I...

 

[Insane]

I'd be curious as to where that $7bn number comes from. I'd wager it's way, way, *way* off base, considering that the shuttle program is something like $3bn/year currently and it's rather more expensive to operate a shuttle than an Ares I...

The $7bn a year figure refers to both Ares rockets, I and V. Ares I on its looks around $2bn a year (if you want to get an idea for yourself, you can find the powerpoint with the charts at http://www.nasa.gov/offices/hsf/related_documents/index.html, scroll down to the bottom of "meeting presentations", it's called "affordability analysis"). The other options aren't exactly cheap, but saving a couple of billion a year is big when the budget isn't huge anyway.

The numbers themselves can be trusted as much as any, they've been done independently by Aerospace.