Augustine commission/Ares alternatives

[Andy44]

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

Actually, for rescue from the lunar surface the best thing to have would be a rescue boat sitting at the base, warmed up and ready to fly at a moment's notice. Something like an Apollo CSM with an expendable descent stage. Use the base's power source to keep the electronics always on so the fuel cells or batteries are fresh, and in an emergancy hop inside and blast off. Direct return to Earth any time day or night, with no need to align orbits with a lunar orbiter.

 

[Moonwalker]

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.

Skylab could have been used and was already used to understand how to live in space longer. The Space Shuttle development caused to abandon Skylab, although there was plans to continue using it together with the Shuttle. Apollo, which includes Skylab, was on a way already for living in space and learn how to go to to Mars.

The HST: really required a Shuttle because it initially was a piece of useless space junk. It could have been launched without a Shuttle, but it would have been nothing more than a joke. But telescopes and satallites actually do not require a Shuttle. The Shuttle was not even used to carry satallites back to earth.

Spacelab and ISS: a lab that is being in space for as along as the Shuttle does not make big sense, and the science is very little. It was just a Shuttle justifier. Look: we have done science, we have done somthing within the huge payload bay. Same for ISS, which is a giant waste of money. Remember that the Russians and Europeans did already live in the Mir space station for long periods, which was being assembled without any Shuttle initially. Anyway, the science aboard the ISS is very little and also just a justifier. In terms of engineering the ISS is a big project. But in terms of science it's really a waste of money. The ISS required more than a decade for being assembled, to do little science to show the public and politics the money is "used", but probably being deorbited not so long in the future.

The Shuttle era should have come to its end already in the midd/end 1990's and Constellation should have taken place by then. But NASA sadly missed it. That was the second mistake which lead to the current problems. Not Ares is in a mess, the Shuttle program caused NASA being in a mess. It causes a big gap once again, after the Shuttle all in all already has caused a decade of not going into space manned.

Space exploration is about more than simply going somewhere. It's about developing technologies to get there & live there.

All we do for decades, manned, is ionosphere exploration but not space exploration. It's nothing more than in case Columbus would have played with a model ship in a pool...

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).

ISS is not the wide fufure of manned space flight. It is just a big temporary waste of money.

What is the need of Soyuz, ESA ATV, SpaceX Dragon and others once the ISS is history? Right. That all is going to become useless, while Constellation is looking farther into the future of manned space sxploration.

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?

Two launches are required because AresV does not have the capability to launch Orion, Altair and the earth departure stage into LEO altogether. Launching Orion on top of Ares1 makes absolutely sense. Launching Orion on top of AresV would be disproportional, like using DIRECT just to keep expensive jops and infrastructure.

Ares1 is the most perfect Orion booster. NASA is on the best way since Apollo. And if that gets ruined now, be sure we'll be able to say: that's it. No NASA in space, well manned, for ages.

 

[Insane]

Ares1 is the most perfect Orion booster. NASA is on the best way since Apollo. And if that gets ruined now, be sure we'll be able to say: that's it. No NASA in space, well manned, for ages.

If Ares V can't fit everything on one rocket, necessitating a completely new one purely for crew, that should demonstrate that it would be far more sensible to build one midsize launcher, launch it twice, stick Orion on one of them, and save tons on the development and maintainance of two separate launch vehicles. Whilst being able to send more mass into LEO at the same time.

Ares I is many things, perfect is most certainly not one of them. Your last sentence is a tad overdramatic, and I see no basis for it. The future of human spaceflight is by no means dependent on the existence of Ares I. Thankfully.

"like using DIRECT just to keep expensive jops and infrastructure."

This makes no sense at all. Ares I and V will cost BILLIONS more per year in jobs and infrastructure. People don't want to keep the shuttle systems out of fondness for it, you know. There are plenty of legitimate and logical reasons.

 

[Moonwalker]

If Ares V can't fit everything on one rocket, necessitating a completely new one purely for crew, that should demonstrate that it would be far more sensible to build one midsize launcher, launch it twice, stick Orion on one of them, and save tons on the development and maintainance of two separate launch vehicles. Whilst being able to send more mass into LEO at the same time.

You can develope one midsize launcher, but you still have to build and assemble it two times and to launch it two times. To me it does not make sense to carry Orion on an overpowered stack with the reasoning that it's the same one as for Altair and the Earth departure stage.

Ares I is many things, perfect is most certainly not one of them. Your last sentence is a tad overdramatic, and I see no basis for it. The future of human spaceflight is by no means dependent on the existence of Ares I. Thankfully.

NASA already is prepared building Ares. Machines and buildings already are prepared/converted. People at NASA all over the country already work on it. Plus Ares-1X is standing within the VAB soon ready for rollout.

It would be naive to scrap all that again, do something else and believe it would be cheap, would come with less efforts and no challenges during development, and last but not least would reduce the gap. Griffin and others prove right when they say the gap is not preventable under all circumstances. The only thing that can shrink the gap by a little is budget, a giant budget, which is unlikely to come. Anything esle is concepts, words and pipe dreams.

As I believe, cutting Ares now rather than to increase the budget, with the reasoning to save costs and time, will even extend the gap and make it almost gigantic. It won't work...

"like using DIRECT just to keep expensive jops and infrastructure."

This makes no sense at all. Ares I and V will cost BILLIONS more per year in jobs and infrastructure. People don't want to keep the shuttle systems out of fondness for it, you know. There are plenty of legitimate and logical reasons.

We've been already told that the Shuttle will be an amazingly cheap and reliable vehicle that would launch hundreds of times within its life time. And now people again claim that using the stack would be a good idea.

Cheap and reliable works in commercial aviation, but not in manned space flight. Not on paper and graphics, but in reality space flight will always be expensive and risky.

 

[T.Neo]

Plus Ares-1X is standing within the VAB soon ready for rollout.

Ares I-X has little in common with the real Ares I.
It's simply a 4-segment shuttle SRB with ballast and telemetry sensors mounted on top.

 

[Urwumpe]

I wonder what would happen if Ares I-X would explode...

 

[Moonwalker]

Ares I-X has little in common with the real Ares I.
It's simply a 4-segment shuttle SRB with ballast and telemetry sensors mounted on top.

Airplanes within wind tunnels also have little in common with the real Airplanes.

I wonder what would happen if Ares I-X would explode...

What happened when the Shuttles main engines exploded during test firing or when NASA had to realize that the thermal protection system gets almost lost during testing? They looked for the cause and did it right.

What happened when even humans -> Apollo 1, Challenger and Columbia got lost? They looked for the cause and did it right.

And what did not happen? Saying "that's it" and ending the program

 

[T.Neo]

Airplanes within wind tunnels also have little in common with the real Airplanes.

I fail to see your logic, I'm afraid.

 

[Moonwalker]

I fail to see your logic, I'm afraid.

That Ares1-X does have little in common with the Ares1 does not mean Ares1 won't work. Ares1-X is a one-to-one model if you will, that is capable to lift off and going to be tested within the real environment it is going to be used in. It already will tell a lot about thrust oscillation, no matter if it's a 4-segment shuttle booster with a mass simulator or the intended 5-segment Ares1 booster. The rest will tell and show us the Ares1-Y and following launches...

 

[T.Neo]

That Ares1-X does have little in common with the Ares1 does not mean Ares1 won't work. Ares1-X is a one-to-one model if you will, that is capable to lift off and going to be tested within the real environment it is going to be used in. It already will tell a lot about thrust oscillation, no matter if it's a 4-segment shuttle booster with a mass simulator or the intended 5-segment Ares1 booster. The rest will tell and show us the Ares1-Y and following launches...

Still, I fail to see your logic.

Ares I-X is nothing more then an expensive publicity stunt.

I honestly would not be surprised if sufficient thrust oscillation data could be developed from a computer simulation...

 

[Moonwalker]

Ares I-X is nothing more then an expensive publicity stunt.

Maybe in terms of a subjective point of view.

You might want to look what Ares1-X is about. Otherwise nobody can help you and other pessimists to see the logic

http://www.nasa.gov/pdf/249826main_aresIX_fs_61608.pdf1608.pdf

 

[T.Neo]

Otherwise nobody can help you and other pessimists to see the logic

I am not being pessimistic at all...

 

[Urwumpe]

It already will tell a lot about thrust oscillation, no matter if it's a 4-segment shuttle booster with a mass simulator or the intended 5-segment Ares1 booster.

It won't tell you anything useful, because the spectrum of the thrust oscillation vibrations will be completely different if you have just 5 segments.
Add a upper stage which is filled with superfluous hydrogen and oxygen propellants, and you again changed the vibrations.

Everything about the dynamic vibrations of the combination will not be useful and the static vibrations will be tested in an acoustic test stand.

It is just an expensive firework for making the progress appear faster.

 

[Insane]

You can develope one midsize launcher, but you still have to build and assemble it two times and to launch it two times. To me it does not make sense to carry Orion on an overpowered stack with the reasoning that it's the same one as for Altair and the Earth departure stage.

Ever heard of mass producing? Having one production line where you reel off the same thing say 100 times, is a lot cheaper than having two production lines where you produce two different things about 50 times each. The benefit of having excess payload on one of launcher with Orion means a) you can send up extra useful payload with it and b) you don't have to continually cut down Orion so it's not too heavy for your underpowered rocket.

NASA already is prepared building Ares. Machines and buildings already are prepared/converted. People at NASA all over the country already work on it. Plus Ares-1X is standing within the VAB soon ready for rollout.

This is just an awful, awful argument to continue with Ares I. It's too expensive, no exploration will be done with it, and the fact a rocket which bears superficial resemblance to it, and nothing more, is currently in the VAB should not be the reason you continue with it. It was designed so as not to be overpowered to send astronauts to the ISS. Since that isn't an issue any longer, there is no point for it to exist.

It would be naive to scrap all that again, do something else and believe it would be cheap, would come with less efforts and no challenges during development, and last but not least would reduce the gap. Griffin and others prove right when they say the gap is not preventable under all circumstances. The only thing that can shrink the gap by a little is budget, a giant budget, which is unlikely to come. Anything esle is concepts, words and pipe dreams.

The naivity I'm afraid is thinking that NASA will do everything right because they're NASA, and that because a rocket is already being designed means it may as well be continued with, despite many, many reasons not to.

We've been already told that the Shuttle will be an amazingly cheap and reliable vehicle that would launch hundreds of times within its life time. And now people again claim that using the stack would be a good idea.

You're twisting the argument. Who here is saying the Shuttle will be amazingly cheap and reliable? That was the hope when the conceptual Shuttle was began, 40 odd years back. No one here or anywhere is saying that Direct or whatever other alternative from Ares is going to be AMAZINGLY cheap and reliable. They're saying it'll be cheaper than Ares, and with proven components. The cheaper bit is validated by Aerospace, who independetly costed each plan for the commission. Shuttle currently costs $3bn a year, Ares I and V together would cost $7bn a year in running costs, and a sidemount would cost $5bn a year (Jupiter hasn't been published yet). Even the sidemounted option is more expensive that Shuttle, but still a whole $2bn cheaper than Ares. Over 5 years thats more than NASA gets in a year.

Cheap and reliable works in commercial aviation, but not in manned space flight. Not on paper and graphics, but in reality space flight will always be expensive and risky.

$3bn a year is expensive. Losing two Orbiters and their crews in a little over 100 flights is risky. What you seemingly fail to grasp is that just because all spaceflight is, as you say, expensive and risky, it doesn't mean you pay no heed to expense and risk at all when choosing a system. You minimize the risks and keep the costs down as much as possible.

This argument is pointless anyway, the commission aren't even going to be presenting a real option that involves Ares I to the president, it'll be there just for reference. Unless he wishes to go against the expertise of the panel he asked for, the panel that would be according to you pro Ares, then the "perfect" rocket is gone already. The only question is it's replacement.

Crew launch is more than likely going to be commercial now. Whether that's a good thing will have to be seen.

 

[Moonwalker]

The naivity I'm afraid is thinking that NASA will do everything right because they're NASA, and that because a rocket is already being designed means it may as well be continued with, despite many, many reasons not to.

The naivity actually is that in this topic even just mannd space flight fans instantly become experts and arrogate to know everything better than NASA and those who work on that stuff.

Crew launch is more than likely going to be commercial now. Whether that's a good thing will have to be seen.

That's still dreams of the future. SpaceX is anything but close to launch crews into orbit.

I have not enough time yet to respond to everything. But specualtions actually do not make sense anyway, less than ever on this place here, because I'm not more or less expert than anybody else here, or those who think to be. We'll see what happens. But I risk to prophesy that most likely a budget increase will take place. And in case Ares will be scraped, nothing is going to lift off from the KSC anytime soon...

 

[Urwumpe]

The naivity actually is that in this topic even just mannd space flight fans instantly become experts and arrogate to know everything better than NASA and those who work on that stuff.

of course, there could also be the naivety of thinking, that here are absolutely no spaceflight engineers taking part in the discussion and all criticism on Ares I-X is just foul talking...

You can't take a Fiat 500 and then claim you can make any reasonable predictions about the next seasons Ferrari Formula One racer.

 

[reject]

I don't know if many of you lurk on nasawatch, but there are three very interesting contributions to a comment thread by a user called "CornDog Rocket" (who claims to be a NASA employee) on Ares I. Since they are rather long and detailed I will just post the link:

http://www.nasawatch.com/archives/2009/08/congressional_p_1.html

Now of course on the Internet anyone can claim to be anyone, but if he is bluffing then he's doing a pretty convincing job of it.

 

[Moonwalker]

of course, there could also be the naivety of thinking, that here are absolutely no spaceflight engineers taking part in the discussion and all criticism on Ares I-X is just foul talking...

Rocket modeling, Orbiter addon development, reading a few books or visiting a few semesters of space / aerospace technology does ot make experts. I would be rather surprised if an experienced NASA engineer, who seriously works on Ares or the Shuttle for many years for example, would find the time for a little chit-chat in the Orbiter forums about Ares and the future of NASA.

You can't take a Fiat 500 and then claim you can make any reasonable predictions about the next seasons Ferrari Formula One racer.

You can use a Fiat 500 test vehicle to make reasonable predictions of the Fiat 500, just like Ares1X is used to predict Ares1.

 

[Andy44]

Always the same argument.

"Nobody here is a real engineer, so none of you are qualified to voice an opinion."

That is false. Many of us here are engineers or scientists, and many of us work in the space field (I can name at least 3 guys on this board). That doesn't make us experts on Ares (unless one of us works on the program, you ever know, do you?) but it does make us qualified to speak with some authority when we see flaws in the program managment and systems engineering. You may be no automotive engineer, but if you are any kind of mechanic or engineer it gives you an advantage when deciding whether to buy a new car.

And besides, I'm paying for it, so I will speak out if I don't like it, period.

 

[Moonwalker]

Now of course on the Internet anyone can claim to be anyone, but if he is bluffing then he's doing a pretty convincing job of it.

Yes. Even the guy cleaning the floor inside the VAB can claim and post anything across the web.

In case a real NASA person expresses concerns, which by far is not unusual, does not mean anything. Apollo had its opponents as well, at a time without the internet (luckily). Edgar Mitchell (Apollo 14) even talks about aliens and that NASA is hiding important informations and discoveries. Others who worked on Apollo even contribute to the Moon landing conspiracy theorie. Others who worked on STS in the past also said not too good things about NASA and the program in interviews.

I don't actually care. We'll see what the voices inside the White House will say not too long from now I think...