NASA studies Ares rocket alternatives

Kurt M. Weber

New member
Joined
Dec 7, 2008
Messages
98
Reaction score
0
Points
0
Location
Riverside
The correct alternative, of course, is "nothing," since space flight for anything other than bona fide military purposes is not a morally legitimate function of government.
 

garyw

O-F Administrator
Administrator
Moderator
Addon Developer
Tutorial Publisher
Joined
May 14, 2008
Messages
10,485
Reaction score
209
Points
138
Location
Kent
Website
blog.gdwnet.com
The correct alternative, of course, is "nothing," since space flight for anything other than bona fide military purposes is not a morally legitimate function of government.

Why isn't space exploration the purview of a Government agency? Why must Government be military only? Sure, much space technology grows from millitary research but NASA is a civillian agency. Your statement doesn't make much sense to me.
 

Hielor

Defender of Truth
Donator
Beta Tester
Joined
May 30, 2008
Messages
5,580
Reaction score
2
Points
0
The correct alternative, of course, is "nothing," since space flight for anything other than bona fide military purposes is not a morally legitimate function of government.
The problem is that with new technologies (such as those required for spaceflight), if the government doesn't do it (or at least subsidize it), it won't happen.

Given the choice between human spaceflight sponsored by the government and none at all, I think the former is preferable.
 

Urwumpe

Not funny anymore
Addon Developer
Donator
Joined
Feb 6, 2008
Messages
37,588
Reaction score
2,312
Points
203
Location
Wolfsburg
Preferred Pronouns
Sire
The correct alternative, of course, is "nothing," since space flight for anything other than bona fide military purposes is not a morally legitimate function of government.

Depends on your set of morals. I won't subscribe to Neoliberalism.

Basic and high risk research is also a valid government task, just like supplying the infrastructure for economic advances by private enterprises (for example Russia's nuclear ice breaker fleet, which is not at all military)...and I bet: My kind of doctrine is economically more successful as a flawed "ultra-lean government" concept, that is basically a return to "might makes right".
 

Ghostrider

Donator
Donator
Joined
Feb 16, 2008
Messages
3,606
Reaction score
2
Points
78
Location
Right behind you - don't look!
The correct alternative, of course, is "nothing," since space flight for anything other than bona fide military purposes is not a morally legitimate function of government.

Then what's the problem? Join up now!


Service guarantees citizenship. Do you want to know more?[nomedia="http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=KIsv1YO"]YouTube- Broadcast Yourself.[/nomedia]
 
Last edited:

Ark

New member
Joined
Jan 31, 2009
Messages
2,200
Reaction score
0
Points
0
NASA can spend time looking at all the alternatives they want, but the overwhelming fact still stands: Once the Shuttle is retired, we have no manned access to space, and likely won't for a very long time. NASA needs a huge increase in budget, they've been forced to run on thinner and thinner budgets every year, and now they've reached the critical point where they simply can't afford to do a bloody thing except come to a screeching halt for five years. Unless Congress actually gets together and votes them more money, the US is out of the space game. They've been asked to perform the same feat as Apollo, including designing two whole launchers, for a tiny fraction of Apollo's funding. I don't see how anything can be done under those conditions.
 

Moonwalker

New member
Joined
Jul 6, 2008
Messages
1,199
Reaction score
0
Points
0
Well, I have to admit that I'm actually quite impressed by the sidemount concept meanhile. Wouldn't it be the most cost efficient and most gap-increasing concept? I mean, all they have to do is to develope the sidemount. The engines already exist and are more than flight-proven, just like the ET and SRB's which would remain unchanged I think. Launch complex 39A would remain nearly unchanged as well. Maybe they just have to adjust and modify the crew access arm and RSS. And in relation to payload, that concept offers a wide pallet of possibilities, even for future space station development and different payloads. Doesn't it?

 
Last edited:

Urwumpe

Not funny anymore
Addon Developer
Donator
Joined
Feb 6, 2008
Messages
37,588
Reaction score
2,312
Points
203
Location
Wolfsburg
Preferred Pronouns
Sire
Well, using the SSMEs would be too expensive, so the ground infrastructure and the ET would need to be changed for the RS-68 alternative.
 

Moonwalker

New member
Joined
Jul 6, 2008
Messages
1,199
Reaction score
0
Points
0
Well, using the SSMEs would be too expensive, so the ground infrastructure and the ET would need to be changed for the RS-68 alternative.

Wouldn't it be still less expensive than Ares or DIRECT?
 

Urwumpe

Not funny anymore
Addon Developer
Donator
Joined
Feb 6, 2008
Messages
37,588
Reaction score
2,312
Points
203
Location
Wolfsburg
Preferred Pronouns
Sire
Wouldn't it be still less expensive than Ares or DIRECT?

Depends. Likely yes, but the more performance you want, the more stuff will need to be tested again - if you want to launch with the SLWT, the payload mass will have to be significant less than the mass of the space shuttle orbiter. so, it would be too light on the chest for hauling the lunar lander and EDS, since both together will have to weight more than the Space Shuttle Orbiter - the conservative mass estimate is already way more than what NASA allocates for both and this number has approached the conservative value in the past years.
 

Andy44

owner: Oil Creek Astronautix
Addon Developer
Joined
Nov 22, 2007
Messages
7,620
Reaction score
6
Points
113
Location
In the Mid-Atlantic states
If you must choose an alternative, I agree that Sidemount looks like the best option for now. Best use of shuttle tech, nice heavy payload, less ground mods, etc. It has the disadvantages of using expendable SSMEs, but if you get the system flying you can develop a replacement for the SSME (RS68, maybe) in the background.

Either way NASA is in a bit of a pickle. Ares is proving to be troublesome, politically if not technically, but they've already committed to it and spent time and money on it. Changing course at this point would be just as troublesome, draw more criticism that NASA is rudderless, and by the time you get Sidemount up and running you'll still have a substantial manned spaceflight gap.

NASA needs a reasonable grown-up to pick the best long-term option and just take that bitter bite. Better to swallow the pill now then to find out you wasted another 30 years on a turkey.
 

Andy44

owner: Oil Creek Astronautix
Addon Developer
Joined
Nov 22, 2007
Messages
7,620
Reaction score
6
Points
113
Location
In the Mid-Atlantic states
Obama knows less about spaceflight than we buttheads know, and he can't give NASA money without Congress. (Unless he treats NASA like Goldman Sachs, GM, and Chrysler, anyway.)
 

Moonwalker

New member
Joined
Jul 6, 2008
Messages
1,199
Reaction score
0
Points
0
It's not a secret that I'm an Ares proponent. But the more I think about the sidemount concept, the more I think it seems to be the best solution in terms of budget but also multi usage. The STS stack is quite a flight proven and reliable system for decades. It is indeed a space transportation system. If we take away the unprotected thermal protection system, well, I couldn't think about another different thing to ride on "safely". And it's variable. You can actually use it to put into LEO almost whatever you want. The payload capability would be above 80 tons. Well, Ares V could carry as twice as much to LEO but who has got the money to make those blueprints become reality within the next 15 years?

The sidemount concept would be more useful than Ares I I think. This already could be a reason to change rather than to continue with Ares I. Even if Ares V will be never build, they'd have the new sidemount stack which could make it to the Moon anyway, probably even by less money than Ares V involved. Not to mention the time.

With Ares I in operation and a canceled Ares V, NASA would have a real turkey.
 
Last edited:

ijuin

Member
Joined
Apr 5, 2008
Messages
217
Reaction score
0
Points
16
But since we're speaking of Saturn, one of the things that made the Saturn family so appealing was its room for growth. Go to astronautix and look at all the stretched-stage and solid or liquid rocket boosted upgrades that were put on the drawing board for the Saturn V. Saturn IB would have been replaced with a "Saturn II" or something similar.

I actually LIKE the idea that it is made to have liquid strap-on boosters because of the flexibility it adds. You could remove the boosters and use a lighter second stage if you only needed to launch 30-40 tons for an ISS resupply mission, or you could use six or eight boosters for a superheavy configuration and lift at least 25% more payload to orbit than the baseline 2-booster configuration.
 
Top