View Full Version : Man Rating Atlas V or Delta IV?
JimMcDade
07-10-2008, 08:42 AM
The carryover of the Space Shuttle SRBs in the Ares designs seems to bother some people. I don't know why some people insist that liquid propulsion engines are superior to solids for getting off the launch pad.
NASA is saving a lot of time, money, and jobs, by using the proven SRB components. SRBs are extremely simple in comparison to liquid engines, a feature which greatly enhances reliability.
You can't throttle or shutdown a solid, but that is about the only disadvantage unless you spring a plasma leak at one of the segment joints as happened with Challenger. A leak such as that could cause an abort for an Ares I launch, but the post-Challenger accident redesign appears to have eliminated that problem. The Ares I SRB will not have an ET mounted beside it, so it is unlikely that such an event would be fatal for a crew.
NASA is wisely to taking advantage of the best transferable Space Transportation System components for the next-generation of Space Vehicles. I can recall Buzz Aldrin proposing an Atlas-based Space Shuttle replacement system about ten years ago.
Here is an interesting blog post from WIRED commentator Loretta Hidalgo Whitesides.
http://blog.wired.com/wiredscience/2008/07/why-nasa-isnt-t.html
Some commenters have raised a very reasonable question: Why doesn't NASA just human rate an expendable launch vehicle like the Atlas V or the Delta IV? It seems reasonable because they fly all the time, they are big, they are reliable and they are already built. So what is the problem?
Weight- The Orion Crew Exploration Vehicle is too heavy for the Atlas V and the Delta IV (I will deal with other capsules after the jump). You also have to account for other mission constraints. For example, you have to include the loss of performance you get from going to the high inclination orbit of the International Space Station. ISS doesn't just fly directly over the equator but at an angle that allows it to pass over Russia. That orbit takes more energy to get to. In addition you will also lose performance because you have to fly a less aggressive launch profile. The current profile subjects payloads to 6 G's (Space Shuttle is 3 G's). Human payloads don't respond well to sustained 6 G loads. Flying a less aggressive profile will mean you will be able to lift less.
So all in all, you would need to develop a "triple-core" (three Atlas' strapped together) to be able to lift Orion. A triple core Atlas has never been flown. You would also need a new upper stage for an extra bit of kick at the end of the flight. The Delta IV, although larger and more mature, would also need a new upper stage.
Triple Redundancy- All human-rated vehicles are designed to be triply redundant. If something fails, there has to be two other options for the crew. It's like when the power goes out at your house, you have a back-up system which is a flashlight. If the flashlight fails, you have a second back up system which is a bunch of candles and matches. Now, to be stuck in the dark you would need to have all three systems fail. Cargo rockets are not designed with that much redundancy in their systems. Adding in that kind of redundancy after the fact would be like getting under the hood of your car and installing a back-up set of brakes. You have to create feed throughs for the wires, try to figure out where you will put the extra brakes etc.
Now to be fair, you could launch a smaller human vehicle on a current expendable rocket...(Orion does seat six).
In fact, before the Columbia disaster NASA teams were working on an Orbital Space Plane (OSP) designed to do just that. At the time, OSP was maligned (http://www.spaceref.com/news/viewnews.html?id=870) for being small and limited in capability. (It is ironic that the Orion is now being maligned for being too large and capable.) OSP was a smaller vehicle designed to launch on an Atlas V or a Delta IV and seat "no less than four" crew members. It was eventually overcome by events when Constellation and the Moon, Mars, and beyond program kicked off and NASA transferred the knowledge gained on the OSP to the development of Crew Exploration Vehicle.
Then there is Robert Bigelow, a self made millionaire, who is building an inflatable space hotel (they already have a scale model on orbit now). He is converging on a deal with Lockheed Martin to human-rate a version of the Atlas V. This is plausible, given that they are looking for an OSP-class capability. Bigelow's main interest is getting clients to and from his future orbiting facilities.
SpaceX is also building a small capsule that could launch people to ISS or Bigelow's space hotel. Their Dragon capsule, being built to take cargo to the International Space Station, will fit on their Falcon 9 rocket and be able to launch humans. Although it will not fly on an Atlas or a Delta, it is in that same class of vehicles.
Perhaps in the end it is a good idea for NASA to focus their efforts on building the new, heavier Orion capsule and the Ares I and V. These vehicles are suitable for the longer, more demanding trips to the moon. Then NASA could leave the lighter, smaller low Earth orbit capsules to commercial space to work out. That would serve both the goal of NASA being an exploration agency and of evolving our commercial space sector.
So the short answer is: NASA is not human-rating an Atlas V because that system will not be sufficient for exploration beyond low Earth orbit (though Bigelow Aerospace is looking at human-rating the Atlas V).
J.McDonald
08-31-2008, 01:01 PM
Hi Jim, interesting post.
Triple Redundancy- All human-rated vehicles are designed to be triply redundant
surely this must have its limits! I'm no rocket scientist, but how does, e.g., the shuttle's TPS fair in a 'triple redundancy' analysis? There must be other critical areas too, perhaps in the first two minutes of ascent when there is no abort option.
Thanks
John
JimMcDade
09-01-2008, 04:51 AM
Hi Jim, interesting post.
surely this must have its limits! I'm no rocket scientist, but how does, e.g., the shuttle's TPS fair in a 'triple redundancy' analysis? There must be other critical areas too, perhaps in the first two minutes of ascent when there is no abort option.
Thanks
John
John, There are some people who claim that the Apollo Saturn V Launch Escape System could not have saved the astronauts if it had never been needed. The emergency parachute that was crammed inside Freedom 7 was also widely considered to be useless. For that matter, the entire Apollo lunar biological isolation was probably a waste of many millions of dollars. When the Navy divers opened the Apollo hatch and tossed in the BIGs, sea-spray and raw moon dust were liberally mixed.
Triple-redundancy and emergency procedures are, in reality, sometimes little more than a nice gesture. Spaceflight is a dangerous profession.
This is not directly related, but the early version of the USAF F-104 fighter jet utilized a downward-firing ejection seat design that killed a total of 21 pilots when the 104 experienced low-altitude failures. Ironically , that downward-firing was intended to save pilots from being killed by the big tail of the 104 when ejecting at supersonic speed. As you know, many aircraft incidents occur at low altitude during either takeoff or landing. The 104 had a pretty high stall speed and it could be a bear to land for the newer pilots. The 104 also had a fairly short range (730 miles) without the drop tanks and you did not want to run out of gas and have to make a dead-stick landing. The downward firing seats were quickly abandoned after so many pilots were fired directly into the ground.
J.McDonald
09-01-2008, 05:48 AM
John, There are some people who claim that the Apollo Saturn V Launch Escape System could not have saved the astronauts if it had never been needed. The emergency parachute that was crammed inside Freedom 7 was also widely considered to be useless. For that matter, the entire Apollo lunar biological isolation was probably a waste of many millions of dollars. When the Navy divers opened the Apollo hatch and tossed in the BIGs, sea-spray and raw moon dust were liberally mixed.
Triple-redundancy and emergency procedures are, in reality, sometimes little more than a nice gesture. Spaceflight is a dangerous profession.
This is not directly related, but the early version of the USAF F-104 fighter jet utilized a downward-firing ejection seat design that killed a total of 21 pilots when the 104 experienced low-altitude failures. Ironically , that downward-firing was intended to save pilots from being killed by the big tail of the 104 when ejecting at supersonic speed. As you know, many aircraft incidents occur at low altitude during either takeoff or landing. The 104 had a pretty high stall speed and it could be a bear to land for the newer pilots. The 104 also had a fairly short range (730 miles) without the drop tanks and you did not want to run out of gas and have to make a dead-stick landing. The downward firing seats were quickly abandoned after so many pilots were fired directly into the ground.
I'm not sure where you're going with this.
On the one hand, you appear to agree with the statement that triple redundancy is required for any manned vehicle. Yet on the other hand you are happy to accept that many 'safety' system used in the past have been virtually worthless. Your description of some of these systems is frightening- surely it would make more sense to use the mass/funding wasted on these systems to shore up the weak points of the design.
I presume that I was correct in identifying that the shutle TPS is a single-point failure risk?
I do find the EELV argument a strong one. Danny Deger has written some interesting comments refuting the supposed 'black zones' for EELV aborts.
Perhaps I've spent too long over at NSF, but I can see how a 5-seg SRB plus a new US is a completely new vehicle. NASA reckon it's got excellent reliability, but they've not flown one yet. Apparently the shuttle was supposed to have a failure rate of 1:10,000! Look how wrong they were with that one.
The SRB cannot be terminated- what are the impacts of this on the LES? Must it be much more powerful to lift Orion cleanly away from the still-thrustin booster?
In any case, given that Ares-I is supposed to be the first step on the journey to the moon, I'm surprised that NASA is so worried about its reliability. There are plenty of other phases of the mission where the crew are in danger, and a chain is only as strong as its weakest link. If they have LOC/LOM numbers for Ares launch, presumably they have them for all phases of the lunar mission- can these be accessed anywhere?
The main advantage of the EELV, to me (other than schedule/cost concerns) is that it is already flying. We know how reliable they are, from actual flights, not from calculations. We entrust them with billion dollar national security payloads. And they would certainly be safer than the shuttle, or perhaps any previous NASA manned space vehicle.
J.McDonald
09-02-2008, 04:25 AM
<meta http-equiv="CONTENT-TYPE" content="text/html; charset=utf-8"><title></title><meta name="GENERATOR" content="OpenOffice.org 2.3 (Win32)"><style type="text/css"> <!-- @page { size: 21cm 29.7cm; margin: 2cm } P { margin-bottom: 0.21cm } --> </style> Three fault tolerance.... is a hoax! I quote: "The space system shall provide failure tolerance to catastrophic events (minimum of one failure tolerant)"
from http://nodis.gsfc.nasa.gov/displayDir.cfm?t=NPR&c=8705&s=2B para 3.2.2
1. NASA is saving a lot of time, money, and jobs, by using the proven SRB components. SRBs are extremely simple in comparison to liquid engines, a feature which greatly enhances reliability. .
2. Weight- The Orion Crew Exploration Vehicle is too heavy for the Atlas V and the Delta IV (I will deal with other capsules after the jump).
3. So all in all, you would need to develop a "triple-core" (three Atlas' strapped together) to be able to lift Orion. A triple core Atlas has never been flown. You would also need a new upper stage for an extra bit of kick at the end of the flight. The Delta IV, although larger and more mature, would also need a new upper stage.
4. Triple Redundancy- All human-rated vehicles are designed to be triply redundant. If something fails, there has to be two other options for the crew. .
5. Now to be fair, you could launch a smaller human vehicle on a current expendable rocket...(Orion does seat six).
6. In fact, before the Columbia disaster NASA teams were working on an Orbital Space Plane (OSP) designed to do just that. At the time, OSP was maligned (http://www.spaceref.com/news/viewnews.html?id=870) for being small and limited in capability. (It is ironic that the Orion is now being maligned for being too large and capable.) OSP was a smaller vehicle designed to launch on an Atlas V or a Delta IV and seat "no less than four" crew members.
7. So the short answer is: NASA is not human-rating an Atlas V because that system will not be sufficient for exploration beyond low Earth orbit .
I am going to throw the BS card and refute everyone of your bogus claims.
1. Wrong and wrong. The stick is no longer safe, simple and soon. The bad decision to select the stick has delayed the first flight by 2 years. Due to all the changes, the 5 segment is no longer the same as the 4 segment. The only thing that is common is the casings themselves and NASA might even change that by going to composites. The argument that the 1st stage booster is safe no longer applicable. The Stick SRB was to be only safe when they have large amounts of flight experience which doesn't apply any more
2. Orion is too heavy for Ares I also. The ISS crew has been cut from 6 to 4. What is good for the goose is good for the gander, NASA can adjust Orion requirements so that EELV's can fly it.
3. The triple core Atlas has already been designed. It went all the way to CDR. It could be ready in less than 30 months. Also, the Delta-IV is going to have an engine upgrade that will make it more powerful than the Stick. New upperstages are not needed, the vehicles can be used as is. Also there is a version of the Atlas V called Phase 2, which would have a wider core, elminiating the need for the strap on cores. This could be a very good CLV. Any of the EELV's options would cost less than 2 billion to field which would include pad mods for crew access.
4, Wrong. Ares I never could meet this requirement and the requirement was actually relaxed to allow the Stick to be used
NPR 8705 "http://nodis.gsfc.nasa.gov/displayDir.cfm?t=NPR&c=8705&s=2B
5. wrong, the requirement for 6 has be changed to 4.
6. And the EELV's were fine for a crew at that time, so what changed that they are good enough for Orion.
7. Wrong. Orion only needs to get to LEO. The orion launch vehicle (stick or what ever) has nothing to done with the other mission. That is for Ares 5 or what ever.
The stick performance and redundancy card can't be used against EELV's since the stick can't meet the requirements either
JimMcDade
09-03-2008, 11:48 AM
I am going to throw the BS card and refute everyone of your bogus claims.
1. Wrong and wrong. The stick is no longer safe, simple and soon. The bad decision to select the stick has delayed the first flight by 2 years. Due to all the changes, the 5 segment is no longer the same as the 4 segment. The only thing that is common is the casings themselves and NASA might even change that by going to composites. The argument that the 1st stage booster is safe no longer applicable. The Stick SRB was to be only safe when they have large amounts of flight experience which doesn't apply any more
Jim says: You are clearly begging the question by assuming that any or all of these changes to the "stick" are BAD. You cannot know that these changes are bad because you don't have access to the engineering process flow that preceded the announcement of these changes. Your statement that, "The Stick SRB was to be only safe when they have large amounts of flight experience", is presumptuous, at the very least.
2. Orion is too heavy for Ares I also. The ISS crew has been cut from 6 to 4. What is good for the goose is good for the gander, NASA can adjust Orion requirements so that EELV's can fly it.
Jim says: Leaping to conclusions and the inability to tell good evidence from bad. All reports from Steve Cook and NASA management state that the "stick" is still well within margins. Perhaps the six crew plan was too ambitious, but so what? Does that mean Ares I is a bad design? The crew reduction decision is not good or relevant evidence for the primary DIRECT 2.0 hoax claim that Ares I will kill astronauts. All launch systems gain weight as they move from the drawing board to the launch pad. Stuff always gets either reduced or eliminated. They had to take the seats and the second docking port off of the Apollo LM. Did that make the LM a bad design? A crew of four still allows the USA to launch more astronauts per launch than any other nation.
3. The triple core Atlas has already been designed. It went all the way to CDR. It could be ready in less than 30 months. Also, the Delta-IV is going to have an engine upgrade that will make it more powerful than the Stick. New upperstages are not needed, the vehicles can be used as is. Also there is a version of the Atlas V called Phase 2, which would have a wider core, elminiating the need for the strap on cores. This could be a very good CLV. Any of the EELV's options would cost less than 2 billion to field which would include pad mods for crew access.
Jim says: The Atlas series is awesome. I love Atlas, but what you are dreaming about can't and won't happen. Man rating the triple-core Atlas is not so simple or cheap. You simply aint gonna see any new man-rated vehicle in 30 months.
4, Wrong. Ares I never could meet this requirement and the requirement was actually relaxed to allow the Stick to be used
NPR 8705 "http://nodis.gsfc.nasa.gov/displayDir.cfm?t=NPR&c=8705&s=2B
5. wrong, the requirement for 6 has be changed to 4.
6. And the EELV's were fine for a crew at that time, so what changed that they are good enough for Orion.
7. Wrong. Orion only needs to get to LEO. The orion launch vehicle (stick or what ever) has nothing to done with the other mission. That is for Ares 5 or what ever.
The stick performance and redundancy card can't be used against EELV's since the stick can't meet the requirements either
Jim says: Good to see that you have all of the answers. Are you intersted in replacing Steve Cook or replacing Michael Griffin with yourself? In summary, all of the changes to Ares I and Ares V are the result of engineering studies, sophisticated modeling and actual testing. That is what the NASA/industry team is paid to do.
All of the objections coming from the DIRECT 2.0 crowd are based upon a lack of understanding of the process that has been faithfully pursued under very trying budget conditions. The DIRECT 2.0 PowerPoint presentation is backed by little more than raw, unstudied, opinion. The objections that you and your friends keep listing here and elsewhere have been addressed and yet you guys keep coming with your stock reponses and relentless naysaying.
After soliciting for engineers who have a problem with ARES I, I finally received a reply from a person who may actually be a qualified engineer who says that he has some problems with Ares I. He has agreed to have a calm dialogue with me after I confirm his credentials and experience. I am hoping that he has some substantial objections and numbers to share with me. It will be nice to hear some reasonable objections as opposed to the unfounded claims, insults and ostracism that the DIRECT 2.0 folks have tossed at me when I question their wildest claims in their classic hoax conspiracy style. I can be converted if verifiable facts are presented. The DIRECT 2.0 advocates are seeming stuck in some kind of a tail-chasing routine that leaves them with no way to gracefully exit the public stage. Sad.
J
1. All of the objections coming from the DIRECT 2.0 crowd are based upon a lack of understanding of the process that has been faithfully pursued under very trying budget conditions. The DIRECT 2.0 PowerPoint presentation is backed by little more than raw, unstudied, opinion.
2. The objections that you and your friends keep listing here and elsewhere have been addressed and
3. yet you guys keep coming with your stock reponses and relentless naysaying.
1. What does this have to do with Direct? This thread is about manrating EELV's. I have said nothing about nor made any reference to Direct here.
2. You have not address the objections with anything of substance.
3. Look in a mirror. You are the one with the stock responses. Any thing that goes against the Stick, you have to come back with the relentless cheerleading. You have nothing to base your beliefs except PR spin.
1. Jim says: You are clearly begging the question by assuming that any or all of these changes to the "stick" are BAD. You cannot know that these changes are bad because you don't have access to the engineering process flow that preceded the announcement of these changes.
2. Your statement that, "The Stick SRB was to be only safe when they have large amounts of flight experience", is presumptuous, at the very least.
3. Jim says: Leaping to conclusions and the inability to tell good evidence from bad. All reports from Steve Cook and NASA management state that the "stick" is still well within margins. Perhaps the six crew plan was too ambitious, but so what? Does that mean Ares I is a bad design?
4. The crew reduction decision is not good or relevant evidence for the primary DIRECT 2.0 hoax claim that Ares I will kill astronauts.
5. All launch systems gain weight as they move from the drawing board to the launch pad. Stuff always gets either reduced or eliminated. They had to take the seats and the second docking port off of the Apollo LM. Did that make the LM a bad design?
6. A crew of four still allows the USA to launch more astronauts per launch than any other nation.
7. Jim says: The Atlas series is awesome. I love Atlas, but what you are dreaming about can't and won't happen. Man rating the triple-core Atlas is not so simple or cheap.
8.You simply aint gonna see any new man-rated vehicle in 30 months.
1. They are bad by definition because the "change" means the current booster is no longer related to the shuttle SRB flight experience. How do you know I don't have access? I have access.
2. It is not presumptuousbut a fact. It is basic rocket science. SRM reliability is based on a large experience base which is obtain by many flights and static burns.
3. The Stick is NOT within margins if the payload has to be reduced. By your same argument against Direct, it doesn't "meet the requirements of the VSE" which is 6 crew to ISS. And yes, it does mean Ares I is a bad design. It doesn't meet the requirements
4. Who said it did?
5. Wrong and bad analogy. The stick could never do the mission. It was a bad choice in the first place. As for the LM, it could still carry the crew members that it was required to unlike the stick. There was no requirement for seats or a second docking port. The requirements were a method for restrainng the crew and the ability to see the CSM during docking, which were met by a "harness" in the crew suits and a window on the ceiling of the LM
6. So? What does that have to do with this topic
7. It is simple, the process is known, and it would be cheaper than the cost of the Ares I-X test.
8. Yes we will. It will be the Falcon 9, with an Atlas close by. It definitely won't be the Ares I. A. Its first launch is in 2012 and B. Ares I will be canceled
J.McDonald
09-07-2008, 05:52 AM
Jim: it would appear that Loretta has effectively retracted her article; you may wish to reconsider citing it, to avoid embarrassment.
JimMcDade
09-07-2008, 03:49 PM
I have noting to be embarrassed about. My preceding comments about Ares I remaining within all required margins still hold up. I passed on the WIRED blogger's story for the benefit of this discussion. Loretta's recent education about triple-redundancy and the other blogger's comment about Orion executing a "significant burn to just get to orbit" are neither here nor there when it comes to the overall flight-worthiness of Ares I.
BTW- The DIRECT 2.0 Level 2 expert that contacted me is unable to offer any numbers to support the key DIRECT 2.0 claims. (I will refer to the expert as he, although it could be a she.) I agreed to protect his identity.
He can't offer the supporting numbers due to the fact that the pertinent documents are not cleared for distribution outside of the NASA/contractor circle. It is not that he is not trying to dialog, it is a matter of legal constraints on that discussion. It is currently impossible to substantiate the DIRECT 2.0 claims due to this lack of verifiable, evidential documentation. This source may or may not be an expert in space vehicle development but since his his stated objections are not evidential in nature, so I still cannot switch over to the DIRECT 2.0 side. It is clear that he does not like either Michael Griffin or George Bush but he cannot give me the numbers that would support the key technical claims against Ares I:
1) Lack of lift performance
2) Column buckling
4) Thrust Oscillation
5) LOM and LOC probability numbers
The non-technical claims against Ares I round out the complete list of 8 DIRECT 2.0 allegations:
6) Cost (more than doubled in the past two years)
7) Long developmental time (slipped three years in the last two years)
8) Ares I is no longer; as simple as they first thought, is not as safe as they thought it would be, and will be no where as soon as they thought it would be.
Stay tuned for more details. There is much more to this story. Some fascinating details are coming soon.
Again, what does Direct have to do with this thread? It is about manrating the EELV's. Also what does Ares I short comings have to do with Direct, they are independent of Direct.
Anyways, claims, 6, 7 & 8 are self evident.
6 Cost. Ares I was suppose to be an 4 segment SRB with SSME. The 5 segment SRB and the J-2 are more expensive
7. Ares I was to be fielded in 2011 or so, now it is 2014/15
8. 6&7 knock off soon and simple. The need for TO mitigation eliminates "safe" (it is no different from the EEE's)
JimMcDade
09-08-2008, 05:59 PM
Me2, This is the DIRECT 2.0 forum. Do you think that we should create an Atlas/Delta forum so that we don't get things mixed up?
As for 6, 7 & 8, those are more legitimate claims. Does cost growth in a federal program really surprise you? The USA does not cancel programs when they become more costly than expected. They just spend more money.
The safety claims about Ares I are possibly the result of two things: 1) a misunderstanding or misinterpretation of very conservative NASA project risk management approach at this stage in Ares I development. 2) A misunderstanding of how the NASA Risk assessment matrix is used. It is used to outline the criteria by which technical issues can be qualitatively and initially prioritized. The matrix score is a guidance tool, not an ax of finality. That matrix also takes into account that the Ares project is extremely risk averse. That aversion to risks translates into an extremely sensitive and conservative matrix scorecard.
This is what Griffin told SPACE NEWS about the perceived slips:
"I do want to comment when you say Constellation internal milestones have been slipping to the right. I do want to put that in context because I don't think that's been done yet. So I'd like you guys to listen up on this.
We maintained for several years — on purpose and at my direction — internal milestones for Constellation that were as early as could be credibly done. Some would have even questioned whether they even were credible. I maintained the earliest milestones that we could precisely because — and you guys were in these hearings — there was much consternation about the length of the gap between shuttle retirement and Ares and Orion deployment and many questions about how much money would be required to accelerate development of the new systems by so many months. We had questions like that at virtually every hearing and so in order to have the program appropriately positioned should the congress have decided to provide extra money to Constellation, I didn't want the issue to be moot."
J.McDonald
09-17-2008, 05:49 PM
I don't think this topic should slip. It's unfortunate that it's in the Direct section, but there you go.
Anyway, given that
1) The EELVs can meet the performance and safety needs of the CLV sooner than Ares
2) Ares I and V have diminishing commonality (diverging SRB designs)
what are the justifications for continuing the Ares-I program?
(not trolling here... genuinely curious!)
what are the justifications for continuing the Ares-I program?
Inertia is not a justification. Ares I is not too far along. Anyways, like all NASA programs it is due for the standard redesign. See SSF vs ISS, Lunar direct vs LOR, etc
what are the justifications for continuing the Ares-I program?
(not trolling here... genuinely curious!)
John,
As I have mentioned in more than a few posts, and now evidence exists that over 200 contracts are being implemented, its too late.
The end game is pretty clear in my opinion. :)
Inertia is not a justification. Ares I is not too far along. Anyways, like all NASA programs it is due for the standard redesign. See SSF vs ISS, Lunar direct vs LOR, etc
So are you saying that the Ares I-X is not going to launch eary next year?
If that is the case, please provide us with documentation to substantiate that please.
So are you saying that the Ares I-X is not going to launch eary next year?
If that is the case, please provide us with documentation to substantiate that please.
Never said anything about Ares I-X date, only that Ares I is not to far along for change. 200 contracts doesn't mean squat. NASA and DOD have canceled larger programs
But since you brought it up, it is the world's largest model rocket and a great waste of taxpayer's money. It is nothing about PR show and is a marginal test at best and certainly not worth the more than 1/2 Billion dollars it will cost. For that price, one of the EELV's could be manrated or a dedicated manned launch pad launch pad for one of them could be built *.
* this is from the OSP program
J.McDonald
09-18-2008, 05:02 AM
John,
As I have mentioned in more than a few posts, and now evidence exists that over 200 contracts are being implemented, its too late.
The end game is pretty clear in my opinion. :)
So the justification is that.... it was chosen. thus it is justified? Pretty self-fulfilling. If that's the case, will NASA develop it no matter whether it is tehcnically the best option or not?
I've watched the CLV design evolve through many changes. It started as a 4-seg wth SSME. The SRB has changed greatly, I hear rumours about non-recovery and new casings, new propellants, etc. The upper stage has also changed thanks to dropping the SSME. The TO problem is well publicised. Of course you wouldn't expect a deveopment to be smooth, but I'm starting to wonder would NASA ever give up on this rocket? Even if its cost, safety, and schedule all fell behind the alternative(s)?
So the justification is that.... it was chosen. thus it is justified? Pretty self-fulfilling. If that's the case, will NASA develop it no matter whether it is tehcnically the best option or not?
No, I never said that John. All I mentioned were facts. There is no proof that I have seen, other than Directs inability to release a study to disprove NASA's decisions. Be that as it may, I'd also like to see proof that NASA's decision to go with Ares is wrong, and its not technically the best option, other than a group of people who are burning yet to be built bridges with the space agency, who insist NASA is covering up facts, and the NASA management is near 'criminal'.
That's not my cup of tea, and evidentely I have more faith in NASA's engineers than those who oppose Ares and NASA itself.
Andrew
09-18-2008, 09:40 AM
I hear rumours about non-recovery and new casings, new propellants, etc.
Honestly, that might be part of the problem. Good news or bad; avoid the rumors!
-Andrew
J.McDonald
09-18-2008, 10:18 AM
No, I never said that John. All I mentioned were facts. There is no proof that I have seen, other than Directs inability to release a study to disprove NASA's decisions. Be that as it may, I'd also like to see proof that NASA's decision to go with Ares is wrong, and its not technically the best option, other than a group of people who are burning yet to be built bridges with the space agency, who insist NASA is covering up facts, and the NASA management is near 'criminal'.
That's not my cup of tea, and evidentely I have more faith in NASA's engineers than those who oppose Ares and NASA itself.
Apologies if I misinterpreted you, Rick, but the facts you mentioned were somewhat tangential to what I was asking. And yet again we have veered back towards Direct when this whole topic (EELV vs. Ares-I) should be almost free of that 'other' launcher.
As I said before, I'm not trolling, I'm genuinely curious: given that EELV could do the job sooner, cheaper, and with the same performance and safety that Ares-I now has, why continue with it? The argument used to be that it would develop most of the Ares-V hardware, yet that's becoming less true as well, with no SRB commonality any more.
Or do I have the wrong idea about the capabilities of the EELV?
Honestly, that might be part of the problem. Good news or bad; avoid the rumors!
-Andrew
not rumors, documented facts. They are on the unmentionable website, in the non direct tainted sections
Apologies if I misinterpreted you, Rick, but the facts you mentioned were somewhat tangential to what I was asking. And yet again we have veered back towards Direct when this whole topic (EELV vs. Ares-I) should be almost free of that 'other' launcher.
As I said before, I'm not trolling, I'm genuinely curious: given that EELV could do the job sooner, cheaper, and with the same performance and safety that Ares-I now has, why continue with it? The argument used to be that it would develop most of the Ares-V hardware, yet that's becoming less true as well, with no SERB commonality any more.
Or do I have the wrong idea about the capabilities of the EELV?
Hi John,
No problem at all. I think I am going to create an EELV forum, as this discussion is under DIRECT 2.0 forum area.
I know you're not trolling, and if my comments indicate that, my apologies to you.
I think the point I am trying to get across is, whether it is an EELV alternative, or that other :) rocket, my personal opinion is that it doesn't matter at this point. I say that because, there is no real. solid evidence that has been officially released, other than subjective data by arm chair engineers. If there WAS information that I could trust that EELV could/would do a better job for whatever reason, I'd not be opposed to changing my mind.
Remember, my job too is in the balance here, which I do not casually concern myself with.
I do not think you've got the wrong idea about EELV capability. It's just that there is nothing out there officially that indicates that there should be a change as to what is going on now with Ares.
not rumors, documented facts. They are on the unmentionable website, in the non direct tainted sections
So, they are on NSF. Why are they not made public? Grab them and attach them to a post here. It would help your case immensely Me2.
I think I am going to create an EELV forum, as this discussion is under DIRECT 2.0 forum area.
Okay, I created an EELV forum, along with the existing DIRECT 2.0 forum. They've been made 'sub-forums' of "Alternate Launch Vehicles.
I hope this lessens some of the confusion in posting. :)
So, they are on NSF. Why are they not made public? Grab them and attach them to a post here. It would help your case immensely Me2.
Pay the money and see for yourself
Pay money to see what? Public domain material? Heh, no thanks.
Andrew
09-18-2008, 03:28 PM
not rumors, documented facts. They are on the unmentionable website, in the non direct tainted sections
No, Me2, they are rumors that J.McDonald was talking about. I know that because he said the word "rumors" in his posting.
You seem like a very unhappy person. Is that a wrong assessment, I hope?
-Andrew
J.McDonald
09-18-2008, 04:48 PM
I used the term 'rumours' because I can't keep track of what is real and what is speculation, some of the time. Perhaps its time to clear that up. So, to the best of my knowledge:
- Ares I SRB is currently, officially, a 5-seg steel casing PBAN with full recovery and reuse.
- Ares V SRB is currently a 5.5seg booster. Is it recoverable? Is it steel or composite? Is it PBAN or HTPB (do I have that right?).
The problem is that Ares-V's spec is changing; I've been getting most of my news/info from NSF's news pages but am reluctant to cite that here in case it's incorrect or deemed 'unofficial'.
Anyway, the point is, it looks like the SRB designs are diverging. This seems like an argument against Ares-I, because it was supposed to be a stepping stone to Ares-V. Couple this with the debunking of the original article with which Jim McDade started this thread, and you see why I'm asking the question: why Ares-I, rather than EELV?
I used the term 'rumours' because I can't keep track of what is real and what is speculation, some of the time. Perhaps its time to clear that up. So, to the best of my knowledge:
- Ares I SERB is currently, officially, a 5-deg steel casing PBAN with full recovery and reuse.
- Ares V SRB is currently a 5.5seg booster. Is it recoverable? Is it steel or composite? Is it PBAN or HTPB (do I have that right?).
The problem is that Ares-V's spec is changing; I've been getting most of my news/info from NSF's news pages but am reluctant to cite that here in case it's incorrect or deemed 'unofficial'.
Anyway, the point is, it looks like the SRB designs are diverging. This seems like an argument against Ares-I, because it was supposed to be a stepping stone to Ares-V. Couple this with the debunking of the original article with which Jim McDade started this thread, and you see why I'm asking the question: why Ares-I, rather than EELV?
John, I do not believe that Ares I was to be a stepping stone to Ares V at all. They are two completely different vehicles for distinctly different missions, so to speak.
I don't know of one space vehicle or launch vehicle that specs haven't changed during development or testing.
There's really nothing unusual about that.
NSF news is good, but it wouldn't hurt broadening ones horizons. It appears that NASA news releases these days are quickly dismissed by those who are anti-NASA/anti-stick/anti-Griffin.
That's not a good thing.
JimMcDade
09-18-2008, 05:27 PM
The question is: Why human-rate an EELV when Ares I is so far along? The decision to not use an EELV for Project Constellation was made back down the road. The Exploration Systems Architecture Study team of capable engineers evaluated a human-rated EELV. The EELV was rejected for reasons of cost, safety, and reliability. That's all that needs to be said, cause it's too late to change anyway.
If Buzz Aldrin or any of his friends want to human-rate the Atlas V, then power to them. If the EELV folks are so confident, then they should put their money where their mouths are. They can find the money to earn the human-rating on their own and sell ISS rides to NASA during the much dreaded gap. I am sure Washington would much rather buy rides from a private venture than buy tickets from the Russians. Otherwise, all of this whining about EELV is just so much sour grapes.
JimMcDade
09-18-2008, 05:36 PM
Here is the EELV excerpt from NASA's Exploration Systems Architecture Study Final Report:
6- Launch Vehicles and Earth Departure Stages
"After thorough analysis of multiple Evolved Expendable Launch Vehicle- (EELV-) and Shuttle-derived options for crew and cargo transportation, Shuttle-derived options were found to have significant advantages with respect to cost, schedule, safety, and reliability. Overall, the Shuttle-derived option was found to be the most affordable by leveraging proven vehicle and infrastructure elements and using those common elements in the heavy-lift CaLV as well as the CLV. Using elements that have a human-rated heritage, the CaLV can enable unprecedented mission flexibility and options by allowing a crew to potentially fly either on the CLV or CaLV for 1.5-launch or 2-launch lunar missions that allow for heavier masses to the lunar surface. The Shuttle-derived CLV provides lift capability with sufficient margin to accommodate CEV crew and cargo variant flights to ISS and potentially provides added services, such as station reboost."
J.McDonald
09-18-2008, 06:08 PM
John, I do not believe that Ares I was to be a stepping stone to Ares V at all. They are two completely different vehicles for distinctly different missions, so to speak.
Overall, the Shuttle-derived option was found to be the most affordable by leveraging proven vehicle and infrastructure elements and using those common elements in the heavy-lift CaLV as well as the CLV. Using elements that have a human-rated heritage..Hard to reconcile these two statements. Apologies if the two posters are not in agreement, of course.
The question is: Why human-rate an EELV when Ares I is so far along?
Because it might still be quicker? Ares-I is going to take so long that the 'too late' point isn't going to happen for quite some time, AFAIK.
The Exploration Systems Architecture Study team of capable engineers evaluated a human-rated EELV. The EELV was rejected for reasons of cost, safety, and reliability.
Evaluated an existing vehicle against a paper one. At this point in time, though, Ares- seems to have lost some of its advantages. Three fault tolerance, for example. Other problems, like TO, have entred the picture too.
By the way, can someone correct me on my knowledge of Ares SRBs, in my previous post?
"The Exploration Systems Architecture Study team of capable engineers evaluated a human-rated EELV. The EELV was rejected for reasons of cost, safety, and reliability."
No, the ESAS team was given an answer and was told to build a study around it
http://www.planetary.org/programs/projects/aim_for_mars/study-report.pdf
"At this point, SDV designs including both an SRM-based vehicle for CEV
services and an in-line heavy-lift configuration appear to be very attractive options"
As for the cost, safety, and reliability, Ares I is worse than the EELV's in all three categories.
Cost is obvious, reliability is worse since the stick no longer maintains the legacy of the Shuttle SRB's and therefore is assigned reliability numbers associated with unflown hardware. Same applies to the safety numbers. A liquid booster is safer than a SRM with no flight experience
Because it might still be quicker? Ares-I is going to take so long that the 'too late' point isn't going to happen for quite some time, AFAIK.
Not now. Not four years into Ares.
Not now. Not four years into Ares.
Wrong. You have experience to base that answer on. Ares I is still not going to fly for more than 4 years. An EELV could launch an unmanned Orion in less than 2.5 years (standard EELV integration template).
Pay money to see what? Public domain material? Heh, no thanks.
It is not public domain material
jkumpire
09-22-2008, 08:31 PM
ME,
C'on now. I have read a lot of stuff on man rating Atlas and Delta on NSF too. It is not as cut an dried as you posit here.
1. Congress says no RD-180, which frankly I think is a good idea. If we were the scum Chinese communists, we would just reverse engineer the engine, put "made in the USA" on it, then start to man-rate the Atlas. but we don't do things that way.
2. Everyone pro-EELV says we can do this in x months at less x millions/billion of dollars. If so, then why hasn't the EELV guys started the process of building and man-rating hardware? The obvious arguement has always been, NASA will cut the EELV guys out of NASA contracts forever if they don't shut up and not man-rate their booster. But Boeing went public over their loss of the new AF tanker contract, even taking on John McCain over it, and now the whole competition is being re-evaluated.
If Atlas or Delta is better in fact, vs. better on paper, then let them start the work and then fight the fight with NASA starting in Jan. 2009.
3. NASA is full of politics, for worse, or worse. But geezelouise, if EELV was viable to get us back to ISS and to the moon quicker than Ares, something would be working there. Griffin is not insane. He would not crush EELV like so many people say he would, it is not logical. Sometimes it seems like the anti-Griffin people think that he will/can send engineers to the Gulag unless they make the data fit the bosses pre-concieved notions. If you know that for a fact, please let us see it. I have not seen anything that proves it.
4. DIV H is a great rocket, it looks like it can be a workhorse for years. How many successful launches does it have? How many Altas Heavy models have been fired up? How many Space X liftoffs have put a payload in orbit? If these guys were putting up big payloads with man-rating around the corner, you have a point. but not at this time IMO.
Ares may not be a great rocket, but it is very close to having a prototype fly and NASA thinks it will work well over the long haul. NASA is the organization on the hotseat, and if Ares 1X goes up in smoke in April 2009, then EELV might be the next step. But you are making a lot of assumptions to say now that EELV owns Ares, or even Direct owns Ares.
ME,
1. Congress says no RD-180, which frankly I think is a good idea. If we were the scum Chinese communists, we would just reverse engineer the engine, put "made in the USA" on it, then start to man-rate the Atlas. but we don't do things that way.
2. Everyone pro-EELV says we can do this in x months at less x millions/billion of dollars. If so, then why hasn't the EELV guys started the process of building and man-rating hardware? The obvious arguement has always been, NASA will cut the EELV guys out of NASA contracts forever if they don't shut up and not man-rate their booster. But Boeing went public over their loss of the new AF tanker contract, even taking on John McCain over it, and now the whole competition is being re-evaluated.
If Atlas or Delta is better in fact, vs. better on paper, then let them start the work and then fight the fight with NASA starting in Jan. 2009.
3. NASA is full of politics, for worse, or worse. But geezelouise, if EELV was viable to get us back to ISS and to the moon quicker than Ares, something would be working there. Griffin is not insane. He would not crush EELV like so many people say he would, it is not logical. Sometimes it seems like the anti-Griffin people think that he will/can send engineers to the Gulag unless they make the data fit the bosses pre-concieved notions. If you know that for a fact, please let us see it. I have not seen anything that proves it.
4. DIV H is a great rocket, it looks like it can be a workhorse for years. How many successful launches does it have? How many Altas Heavy models have been fired up? How many Space X liftoffs have put a payload in orbit? If these guys were putting up big payloads with man-rating around the corner, you have a point. but not at this time IMO.
5. Ares may not be a great rocket, but it is very close to having a prototype fly and NASA thinks it will work well over the long haul. NASA is the organization on the hotseat, and if Ares 1X goes up in smoke in April 2009, then EELV might be the next step. But you are making a lot of assumptions to say now that EELV owns Ares, or even Direct owns Ares.
1. Congress has not said no to the RD-180. We don't have to reverse engineer it because PWR has all the rights and data to it already and has done some manufacturing tests
2. Why would they without a contract? There is no business case to fight NASA
3. He put a gag on his own ELV program office and discounted their OSP EELV work and didn't consult them during the ESAS
4. D-IVH is not the only vehicle. Also, most of the D-IVH delays have been due to the payload. There have been 22 EELV flights.
Atlas V has launched a payload with nuclear material onboard, which means the rocket has to be more reliable than a manned launcher. A manned launcher only risks a few crew members, a launcher with nuclear material risks the local population.
Additionally, Spacex may launch a capsule to the ISS long before Ares I. This too is a NASA project
5. Cally Ares I-X a prototype makes mockery of the prototype process. And also, this vehicle is going to use Atlas avionics. Ares I-X is a huge waste of the taxpayers' money, it provides very little data for the 3/4 billions that it will cost. It is more of a PR stunt than a legitimate test.
Not making any assumptions that EELV's own Ares, it is a fact. If it wasn't for a fictitious study called the ESAS, the US was going to have a fly off of 2 CEV prototypes on EELV's within the next two years. That was NASA's plan and EELV's were good for OSP and for the CEV before Griffin took office. Even before Griffin took office, he even said ELV's were good enough for a manned spacecraft
http://www.thespacereview.com/article/339/1
Wrong. You have experience to base that answer on. Ares I is still not going to fly for more than 4 years. An EELV could launch an unmanned Orion in less than 2.5 years (standard EELV integration template).
Sorry, I am not wrong Me2. How many years would it take to man rate a EELV? Do you know? How many years would it take to redo the entire Orion launch vehicle selection process? Do you know? How many years and how many dollars would NASA have to shell out to rebid contracts? Do you know?
Tell you what, I'd be glad to discuss this with you over lunch this week, if you can handle Lackman food.
Pick a "Cafe'", SSPF or O&C. The lunch is on me. :)
Me2,
Again, please provide any proof of your sometimes, well, outrageous statements.
So far, you have not, save a blog post or two.
J.McDonald
09-23-2008, 06:34 AM
Me2's source (a blog) may not be the best, but Griffin DID make those statements. In fact, it was interesting to recall some of Griffin's older statements, e.g:
Griffin noted that the term “man rating” dated back to efforts in the 1950s and 1960s to modify ICBMs to carry capsules. “This involved a number of factors such as pogo suppression, structural stiffening, and other details not particularly germane to today’s expendable vehicles. The concept of ‘man rating’ in this sense is, I believe, no longer very relevant.”
Me2 also raises a point about Ares-IX. Atlas avionics, a dummy upper stage, and a 4-seg booster... is ANY part of this vehicle an actual piece of Ares-I hardware??? If not, then what on earth is the point of the exercise??!
J.McDonald
09-23-2008, 06:43 AM
Me2,
Again, please provide any proof of your sometimes, well, outrageous statements.
So far, you have not, save a blog post or two.
Not attempting to answer for Me2 here, but I'm curious about which of these statements you feel is unproven. And, further, if some of them are in fact true, then what do people make of them?
1. PWR has the right to produce RD180
2. EELVs were acceptable for OSP
3. EELVs have an excellent flight record and are entrusted with the most valuable unmanned payloads including national security craft, and RTGs.
4. Ares-IX is just a big model rocket built from hardware that will not be flown on Ares-I.
Sorry, I am not wrong Me2.
1. How many years would it take to man rate a EELV? Do you know?
2. How many years would it take to redo the entire Orion launch vehicle selection process? Do you know?
3. How many years and how many dollars would NASA have to shell out to rebid contracts? Do you know?
1. Yes, I know. It was going to be done for OSP. It could be done before there is an Orion available to fly
2. 1-2 years. (do
3. Don't have to rebid contracts, they just would be canceled, like many others before
Me2's source (a blog) may not be the best, but Griffin DID make those statements. In fact, it was interesting to recall some of Griffin's older statements, e.g:
Griffin noted that the term “man rating” dated back to efforts in the 1950s and 1960s to modify ICBMs to carry capsules. “This involved a number of factors such as pogo suppression, structural stiffening, and other details not particularly germane to today’s expendable vehicles. The concept of ‘man rating’ in this sense is, I believe, no longer very relevant.”
I find these words of Mike Griffin more telling:
" “What, precisely, are the precautions that we would take to safeguard a human crew that we would deliberately omit when launching, say, a billion-dollar Mars Exploration Rover (MER) mission?” he asked. “The answer is, of course, ‘none’. While we appropriately value human life very highly, the investment we make in most unmanned missions is quite sufficient to capture our full attention.”"
Me2,
If that is the case, why was this line of thinking not pursued?
Me2,
If that is the case, why was this line of thinking not pursued?
So Mike Griffin can get his big booster. Without the shuttle or the stick to sustain the SRM program, there would be no big booster (Ares -V). The stick is to keep ATK and Ogden, UT busy until the Ares V can be funded. If there was no stick and the shuttle ends in 2010, ATK would shut down the SRM production capability, since it would not be needed until after 2016. The stick also keeps the KSC infrastructure and labor busy during gap between shuttle and Ares V(hence it is a jobs program).
The Ares I is fundamentally a poor design for a launch vehicle, basically a kludge. The velocity split between the two stages is sub optimal. The upperstage does too much of the work. The use of the SRB means that its total impulse contribution is fixed and can't be adjusted to make up performance shortfalls inherent in a new vehicle design. This means that all enhancements have to be on the second stage, which reaching an asymptote and also means it will be more complex and expensive. The single SRM has TO which is going to require an active suppression system which will reduce reliability and increase costs.
Ares I is not a good design for put crew or even a payload into LEO. Ares I only good design for preserving the SRM production base
jkumpire
09-24-2008, 04:55 PM
ME,
I am not going to argue with your interpretation of the situation here. I just don't buy what you are selling. What you say, other than the quote from Griffin, is an interpretation of events. Maybe right, maybe wrong. What you are trying to imply is that NASA is running with Ares I as a program to help ATK and a jobs program for Brevard County. That is hard to swallow.
As to the RD-180, unless all the posts about it I read are wrong on NSF, or I am showing sign of mental illness, NASA can't use the RD-180. I would like to see something to the contrary, if you can post a url.
Ares is not owned by EELV. Sorry. As of now, there is no Atlas that can launch any flavor of the new capsule to orbit. There may be one on paper or disk, but nothing in hardware. D-IV H also would need work before it can lift a Capsule, as i understand it. It has a pretty slow flight rate, and it needs to show a little more staying power before it is a viable manned launcher. If it is a payload problem, okay. But that does not IMO answer the central question for it: Even Saturn had more test flights before it was lifting Apollo, and while D-IV comes from a great family of ELV's, it has not flown a man in any flavor, and even Redstone, Atlas, and Titan were known, reliable boosters before man flew on them.
And while Ares I is an SRB, with its inherent disadvantages, it also has advantages too, in ease of preperation, relaibility, and servicing.
Right now, the score is 0-0-0-0. No Ares I vs. No Atlas Heavy vs. Delta IV Heavy that is still not toally proven or capable vs. questionable Falcon 9.
Look, if Ares IX goes up like a Roman candle, or the upcoming shuttle data or Ares I Data shows the concept is not doable, then EELV has to be looked at again.
But, if EELV becomes the standard for the manned program, are we not also killing Ares V, and the long term goal of the program: Mars and the Moon? How does Delta and Atlas help get us to where we really want to go? Before you answer Direct, remember that it has big holes too, like pretty tough data that shows it does not do the job it's proponnents believe it can.
J.McDonald
09-24-2008, 05:15 PM
If you are trying to defend Ares-I, I'd be wary of using any argument that says 'EELV hasn't flown in X or Y configuration yet...' because any argument along those lines applies with much, much greater validity to Ares-I as well. You'd be shooting yourself in the foot.
Secondly, what would an Ares-IX failure prove? It isn't an Ares-I, it's a one-off model rocket. I've asked on this forum a few times now but nobody has yet given me any reason for the flight to take place.
jkumpire
09-24-2008, 05:38 PM
If you are trying to defend Ares-I, I'd be wary of using any argument that says 'EELV hasn't flown in X or Y configuration yet...' because any argument along those lines applies with much, much greater validity to Ares-I as well. You'd be shooting yourself in the foot.
Secondly, what would an Ares-IX failure prove? It isn't an Ares-I, it's a one-off model rocket. I've asked on this forum a few times now but nobody has yet given me any reason for the flight to take place.
J Mac:
I am neither qualified or in agreement that ARES I is the answer, and EELV is not. But as Bill Parcells said: "you are what your record is." Right now NASA says ARES is their choice, for good reasons according to NASA. Unless Ares IX blows up, showing NASA is wrong, or the upcoming Shuttle data shown ARES is bad, it is the best choice in NASA's eyes. Atlas and DELTA are not the first choice of NASA. and unlike Me, who IMO seems to think that someone can snap their fingers and make some version of an EELV into a perfect manned booster in a microwave oven, NASA may have a point.
I agree that Ares IX is is not a perfect mission. But as I understand it, it is seen by NASA as enough of a "proof of concept" mission that they want to fly it. It is in the same boat as the early Altas A launches, the early Saturn I launches, and other developmental flights. Proof that the concept works is a reasonable point, even if you are not flying the exact hardware of a pure Ares I.
I'd rather see Ares IX fly then wait until we have a ton of Ares I parts put together and find out when Ares IY "goes boom" the thing won't fly.
AFAIC, fly Ares IX, have the elections, and see where go from there. But don't kill Ares I or V on the way to a possible pot of fools gold of manned LEO forever.
1. NASA can't use the RD-180.
2. there is no Atlas that can launch any flavor of the new capsule to orbit.
3. D-IV H also would need work before it can lift a Capsule, as i understand it. It has a pretty slow flight rate, and it needs to show a little more staying power before it is a viable manned launcher.
4. Even Saturn had more test flights before it was lifting Apollo, and while D-IV comes from a great family of ELV's, it has not flown a man in any flavor, and even Redstone, Atlas, and Titan were known, reliable boosters before man flew on them.
5. And while Ares I is an SRB, with its inherent disadvantages, it also has advantages too, in ease of preperation, relaibility, and servicing.
6. Delta IV Heavy that is still not toally proven or capable
7. But, if EELV becomes the standard for the manned program, are we not also killing Ares V, and the long term goal of the program: Mars and the Moon? How does Delta and Atlas help get us to where we really want to go?
1. That is incorrect. NASA had no such rule or policy
2. Who says Atlas can't launch a capsule? there is nothing preventing it
3. What work? So what about the flight rate. Orion is only going to launch twice a year. The current D-IV payload has been causing the delays
4. Ares I is only going to have one full up test flight before it is manned. D-IV will have many more before Orion is ready. Anyways D-IV was going to be used for OSP. What changed that said it can''t be used?
5. SRB does not have ease of preparation. It is more hazardous than a liquid booster. It involves lifts of over 100 tons, dealing with live propellant and a finicky mating process. The 5 segment SRM can not draw upon the legacy of the shuttle SRM for reliabity since it has too many changes.
6. The D-IV Heavy is proven and has had one operational mission and another one by end of year.
7. Who says Ares V is a given? The cost and issues of Ares I are not helping. The next administration may not go to the moon. We need a reliable and cheap method to get into LEO to replace the shuttle.
The VSE existed before the Ares vehicles and there were other architectures that met the requirements, some involve onorbit refueling and use existing vehicles.
ME,
What you are trying to imply is that NASA is running with Ares I as a program to help ATK and a jobs program for Brevard County.
No need for SRBs, then no need for the most of the remaining* of LC-39 workforce. The SRB's are manpower intensive to process and refurbish for flight. The Ares upperstage is the antithesis of the booster, much like other ELV's. It won't employ very many people. It comes from the factory flight ready and only needs to placed on the stack, connect umbilicals and a electrical test
* - the orbiter people are going to lose their jobs regardless
J Mac:
1. unlike Me, who IMO seems to think that someone can snap their fingers and make some version of an EELV into a perfect manned booster in a microwave oven,
2. NASA may have a point.
3. It is in the same boat as the early Altas A launches, the early Saturn I launches, and other developmental flights.
4. Proof that the concept works is a reasonable point, even if you are not flying the exact hardware of a pure Ares I.
1. We, NASA, were going to do it for OSP.
2, NASA was going to do it for OSP. What change? (administrator and his love of big rockets, Mike wanted the Stick before he was administrator )
3. Bad analogy. Back then, the US was learning rocket science. We are past that point. Just like Saturn V, all up testing is the way to go.
4. Ares I-X violates "test like you fly". Also the proof shouldn't cost 3/4 billion dollars
Mike wanted the Stick before he was administrator
"Mike" is a very smart man. Look at his degree's.
This fact alone should not negate his intelligence in LV selection.
P.S. I like big rockets too. Ever seen a Saturn V lift slowely off Pad 39A? :)
"Mike" is a very smart man. Look at his degree's.
This fact alone should not negate his intelligence in LV selection.
That is not his job, his job is to administer NASA and not be the chief engineer. And it should not be a one person decision nor one person should be so arrogant to think he can. No one had done it before. Von Braun wasn't even the designer of the Saturn V, he was just the leader of the team
jkumpire
09-24-2008, 08:40 PM
1. That is incorrect. NASA had no such rule or policy
2. Who says Atlas can't launch a capsule? there is nothing preventing it
3. What work? So what about the flight rate. Orion is only going to launch twice a year. The current D-IV payload has been causing the delays
4. Ares I is only going to have one full up test flight before it is manned. D-IV will have many more before Orion is ready. Anyways D-IV was going to be used for OSP. What changed that said it can''t be used?
5. SRB does not have ease of preparation. It is more hazardous than a liquid booster. It involves lifts of over 100 tons, dealing with live propellant and a finicky mating process. The 5 segment SRM can not draw upon the legacy of the shuttle SRM for reliabity since it has too many changes.
6. The D-IV Heavy is proven and has had one operational mission and another one by end of year.
7. Who says Ares V is a given? The cost and issues of Ares I are not helping. The next administration may not go to the moon. We need a reliable and cheap method to get into LEO to replace the shuttle.
The VSE existed before the Ares vehicles and there were other architectures that met the requirements, some involve onorbit refueling and use existing vehicles.
Thanks for the great posts, it is nice to have a real and serious discussion:
1. I'm sorry I have to disagree here. I will bring up some posts about this issue.
2. Let me say it slowly: I assume there is something somewhere that shows plans to build an Atlas Heavy model. But, there is no active development or building program for an Atlas Heavy, or any other Atlas powerful enough for manned ISS missions. Please correct me if I am wrong.
3. Ares I flies only twice a year? IMO, not over the projected 30-40 year life of the program it won't fly twice a year. Is no ther Ares I booster going to be part of a long-term program? Maybe early on it will only fly that often, but, if you have an active ISS program, and an active Moon program, I would be willing to gamble the launch rate will go up, just as it will with any EELV used as an ARES I replacement.
4. We will see about that, and last time I checked, didn't the D-IV H have to have a more powerful 2nd stage to orbit a manned ISS or other LEO mission? That costs time and money right?
5. I never said SRB has easy preparation. It is not easy to make an SRB. But they are easy to fly once made, are they not? The Shuttle SRB's have had one catastrophic failure over the years of the Shuttle program, and it is a proven engine. And are not SRB's in all kinds of sizes used by almost all nations that launch these days? If everyone uses them, and they rarely fail, doesn't that lead to the conclusion that NASA made a reasonable decision to use them? It may not be right, but it is a reasonable thing to try if they believe in it.
Yes, it has problems, but it does have a great record of reliability and safety. Liquid boosters have their problems too, like the first D IV Heavy launch proved....
6. The D IV Heavy is 1 for 2 in completed missions, right? The first one was not a complete failure, but it did not do its job. I agree, the DIV H is a great booster, but right now, it can't lift a manned capsule to orbit. If I am wrong, let me know.
7. All this might be true. And if we are locked in LEO for 10 or 20 more years because we killed Ares V over Ares I, the consequences are disasterous for all of us. Yet, I was wondering when you would bring Direct up, and so you did. Don't get me wrong, Direct is a neat idea, as it seems to me. But NASA found a bunch of holes in Direct, did it not? It said that Direct did not do the job, did it not? And NASA are they guys on the hot seat here.
I would love to see or hear somebody come out with an EELV plan now that helps get us beyond LEO. I would love to hear an industry rumor about an upgraded D IV H, or an upgraded Atlas 552+ that can do the job. Until I see it, or read about it, EELV is nothing but vaporware for manned flight. Ares I is past the Vaporware stage, FBoW.
More coming...
jkumpire
09-24-2008, 08:50 PM
No need for SRBs, then no need for the most of the remaining* of LC-39 workforce. The SRB's are manpower intensive to process and refurbish for flight. The Ares upperstage is the antithesis of the booster, much like other ELV's. It won't employ very many people. It comes from the factory flight ready and only needs to placed on the stack, connect umbilicals and a electrical test
* - the orbiter people are going to lose their jobs regardless
SRB's are hard to handle, I'll accept that. Liquid LV's are not?
I keep reading where people are ripping Space X because they don't have enough manpower to prep Falcon I's for flight.
I know it is 2007, but if you are flying men on rocket in the view of the public, as opposed to an unmanned payload, there are going to be a lot of guys working the program at KSC. The manned payload wil take up a lot of worker's time right?
I guess I also read your post here as saying that an EELV is all that is flying from the Cape. Let me ask a more general question: Can an EELV get us anywhere close to the moon? Ares I/V has the goal of the Moon and Mars. Are you saying that we are not going, so we can use EELV to take care of our stale LEO manned program?
That is not his job, his job is to administer NASA and not be the chief engineer.
It well might not be his job, although he IS an accomplished engineer.
The fact that it's not his job, as you mention brings up the situation where Dan Goldin's 'Faster, Better, Cheaper" was NASA's mantra during his reign as Administrator.
That philosophy didn't really turn out well did it?
It kind of reminds of Ares alternatives. All I hear is those proponants say that an alternative will be better, cheaper and be able to do the job faster.
Scary.
jkumpire
09-24-2008, 09:03 PM
1. We, NASA, were going to do it for OSP.
2, NASA was going to do it for OSP. What change? (administrator and his love of big rockets, Mike wanted the Stick before he was administrator )
3. Bad analogy. Back then, the US was learning rocket science. We are past that point. Just like Saturn V, all up testing is the way to go.
4. Ares I-X violates "test like you fly". Also the proof shouldn't cost 3/4 billion dollars
1. I wish you/NASA would have done it for the OSP. The thing should be flying now IMO. But in the context of our discussion here, it doesn't matter. Delta is not man-rated, and it can't lift the current planned capsule to orbit. Maybe it can if we started now to get it ready, and spend more money on it, but NASA isn't going that route.
2. The NASA suits love big rockets, that is not a bad thing in my book. I want to see us on the Moon and going to Mars before I die, or you die. Can you show me a development path using EELV's that get us there that isn't some pie-in-the-sky dream? Please do. It isn't anywhere I have seen it.
3. You are 100% right, but I submit the analogy is still valid. Rockets flew before Atlas A, parts of Saturn I flew years before the whole thing did. All up testing is the way to go, but NASA has no $$ to do it, so let's run with ARES IX and go from there. We may just have to agree to disagree here.
4. You are 100% right here too. But NASA chose to fly anyway. I can see why they chose to fly it, as they have stated in public. I won't assign underhanded motives to the suits at NASA for choosing to fly this mission. Not that you are either, IMO, they are not sure the concept works. Then fly the thing and let's see. If Ares IX tanks, then the suits look bad, EELV and Direct are back on the table, and we all live more or less happily ever after.
Thanks for the discussion.
Delta is not man-rated.
It is as far as NASA is concerned
http://insideksc.com//showthread.php?t=3012
jkumpire
09-24-2008, 09:14 PM
It is as far as NASA is concerned
http://insideksc.com//showthread.php?t=3012
ME,
Nope. Nice try, but at least for now, it is not man-rated. It may have changed requirements, but that does not mean the think is officially manned rated. But so what? Can it lift a capsule to orbit as it is? I think not. Please tell me if I am wrong.
ME,
Nope. Nice try, but at least for now, it is not man-rated. It may have changed requirements, but that does not mean the think is officially manned rated. But so what? Can it lift a capsule to orbit as it is? I think not. Please tell me if I am wrong.
There is no formal NASA processing called manrating. Add an abort sensing system to Delta-V and it meets NPR 8705.2A.
It can lift Orion. Orion is reducing the crew to four since Ares I can't even lift it. Additionally, just as Orion's requirements are being changed to Ares I can lift it so can they for Delta-IV. Also there is an upgraded Delta-IV in the works that will be ready before Ares I
J.McDonald
09-25-2008, 06:14 AM
J Mac:
Right now NASA says ARES is their choice, for good reasons according to NASA.
You are blinkering yourself. Are you not even interested in looking at the pros and cons of the decision? I've always assumed that the people who use these forums are actually intruiged by how all the nuts and bolts of spaceflight works.
Unless Ares IX blows up
Again, why ahouls an Ares-IX failure be of any real significance? IMO a success would be of no significance either. What is the flight actually going to prove- that a stick-shaped rocket can fliy? Is that really it? Isn't that what wind tunnels are for?
you are not flying the exact hardware of a pure Ares I.
And then some. The SRB is totally different. The avionics are from an Atlas. And everything else is just dummy components. Since a 4-seg SRB, and Atlas avionics, are already know to work, what on Earth is the point of testing them in this one-off configuration? Especially when neither components ia actually part of Ares-I?
J.McDonald
09-25-2008, 06:54 AM
Apologies to M2 for jumping in here
2. Let me say it slowly: I assume there is something somewhere that shows plans to build an Atlas Heavy model. But, there is no active development or building program for an Atlas Heavy, or any other Atlas powerful enough for manned ISS missions. Please correct me if I am wrong.
AFAIK the 3-core Atlas is advertised as being available 30 months after the customer orders it. Since nobody has needed one yet, none have been built. But the currently flying Atlas-V and facilities are completely compatible with the 3-core version.
http://www.globalsecurity.org/space/systems/atlas-v.htm
3. Ares I flies only twice a year? IMO, not over the projected 30-40 year life of the program it won't fly twice a year. Is no ther Ares I booster going to be part of a long-term program? Maybe early on it will only fly that often, but, if you have an active ISS program, and an active Moon program, I would be willing to gamble the launch rate will go up, just as it will with any EELV used as an ARES I replacement.
Current launch manifest through to 2022 shows four Ares-I launches per year once operational. Still well within the unused capabilities of either EELV.
4. We will see about that, and last time I checked, didn't the D-IV H have to have a more powerful 2nd stage to orbit a manned ISS or other LEO mission? That costs time and money right?
Can't answer definitively, but many people do say no. See for example the the comments at the foot of the article originally cited by Jim McDade at the start of this thread.
Of course, even if a new upper stage were needed for either EELV, this effort pales in comparison with the Ares-I upper stage. Again, you can't really win with that sort of argument.
5. I never said SRB has easy preparation. It is not easy to make an SRB. But they are easy to fly once made, are they not? The Shuttle SRB's have had one catastrophic failure over the years of the Shuttle program, and it is a proven engine. And are not SRB's in all kinds of sizes used by almost all nations that launch these days? If everyone uses them, and they rarely fail, doesn't that lead to the conclusion that NASA made a reasonable decision to use them? It may not be right, but it is a reasonable thing to try if they believe in it.
AFAIK, SRMs have certain key advantages over liquids: they are compact, they can provide very high thrust, and once a particular design is chosen it tends to remain very reliable, always igniting (and igniting instantaneously, too), never shutting down early, basically doing what it says on the tin.
For all of these reasons, SRMs are used in many different applications, such as the Soyuz landing rockets, all manned launch abort systems, ullage motors, ejector seats, and as supplementary strap-on boosters providing additional thrust at lift-off. Some smaller vehicle have used them as complete stages in themselves, but never before on the scale of Ares-I.
The disadvantages of this new way of using an SRM are interesting: no thrust termination is possible, resulting in a very powerful launch abort system, which is thus heavy and subjects the crew to high acceleration as it propels them away from the still-burning SRB. Secondly, SRMs are very inflexible: you cannot easily specify different burn times, thrust, thrust pattern through the burn, and total impulse. All of these factors are inter-related. I get the impression that successfully building an SRM is something of a black art, with all of the variables involved. The 5-seg SRB cannot be easily/cheaply altered at all, so if some change is needed in the LV, it has to come from the upper stage- and that risks a compromised design. The Ares-I US already has a very low T:W of 0.6, IIRC.
6. The D IV Heavy is 1 for 2 in completed missions, right? The first one was not a complete failure, but it did not do its job. I agree, the DIV H is a great booster, but right now, it can't lift a manned capsule to orbit. If I am wrong, let me know. That Delta-IVH launch wouldn't have endangered its crew. In fact, an Orion could probably have used its own SM to complete an ISS mission. It was also the first launch of that configuration so I think you need to cut it a little slack- that's what a test flight is for.
7. All this might be true. And if we are locked in LEO for 10 or 20 more years because we killed Ares V over Ares I, the consequences are disasterous for all of us. Yet, I was wondering when you would bring Direct up, and so you did. Don't get me wrong, Direct is a neat idea, as it seems to me. But NASA found a bunch of holes in Direct, did it not? It said that Direct did not do the job, did it not? And NASA are they guys on the hot seat here.
I would love to see or hear somebody come out with an EELV plan now that helps get us beyond LEO. I would love to hear an industry rumor about an upgraded D IV H, or an upgraded Atlas 552+ that can do the job. Until I see it, or read about it, EELV is nothing but vaporware for manned flight. Ares I is past the Vaporware stage, FBoW.
Erm, when did Me2 mention the 'D' word? Have I gone blind, because I didn't see that.
This discussion is looking at EELV in place of Ares-I.
I know that EELV variants have been proposed for very heavy launches, and there is a clear development path by use of more cores, and in Delta's case, uprated RS68s, plus cross-flow propellant systems and Al-Li tanking to increase performance up to about 75t. After that you need new upper stage developments. There is an argument, of course, for putting all the Ares-V development money into more exotic technologies such as on-orbit propellant transfer, solar electric propulsion, etc, enabling lunar missions with smaller launchers, but that's starting to get OT.
It well might not be his job, although he IS an accomplished engineer.
The fact that it's not his job, as you mention brings up the situation where Dan Goldin's 'Faster, Better, Cheaper" was NASA's mantra during his reign as Administrator.
That philosophy didn't really turn out well did it?
It actually did, once it was tweeted . NASA had flown more missions because it started looking at smaller spacecraft.
ME,
Nope. Nice try, but at least for now, it is not man-rated. It may have changed requirements, but that does not mean the think is officially manned rated. But so what? Can it lift a capsule to orbit as it is? I think not. Please tell me if I am wrong.
There is no baptism or magic word that changes a launch vehicle to manrated.
And yes it can lift a capsule. Also, the process of integrating the capsule on to the launch vehicle would be qualified as manrating
Thanks for the great posts, it is nice to have a real and serious discussion:
1. I'm sorry I have to disagree here. I will bring up some posts about this issue.
2. Let me say it slowly: I assume there is something somewhere that shows plans to build an Atlas Heavy model. But, there is no active development or building program for an Atlas Heavy, or any other Atlas powerful enough for manned ISS missions. Please correct me if I am wrong.
3. Ares I flies only twice a year? IMO, not over the projected 30-40 year life of the program it won't fly twice a year. Is no ther Ares I booster going to be part of a long-term program? Maybe early on it will only fly that often, but, if you have an active ISS program, and an active Moon program, I would be willing to gamble the launch rate will go up, just as it will with any EELV used as an ARES I replacement.
4. We will see about that, and last time I checked, didn't the D-IV H have to have a more powerful 2nd stage to orbit a manned ISS or other LEO mission? That costs time and money right?
5. I never said SRB has easy preparation. It is not easy to make an SRB. But they are easy to fly once made, are they not? The Shuttle SRB's have had one catastrophic failure over the years of the Shuttle program, and it is a proven engine. And are not SRB's in all kinds of sizes used by almost all nations that launch these days? If everyone uses them, and they rarely fail, doesn't that lead to the conclusion that NASA made a reasonable decision to use them? It may not be right, but it is a reasonable thing to try if they believe in it.
Yes, it has problems, but it does have a great record of reliability and safety. Liquid boosters have their problems too, like the first D IV Heavy launch proved....
6. The D IV Heavy is 1 for 2 in completed missions, right? The first one was not a complete failure, but it did not do its job. I agree, the DIV H is a great booster, but right now, it can't lift a manned capsule to orbit. If I am wrong, let me know.
7. All this might be true. And if we are locked in LEO for 10 or 20 more years because we killed Ares V over Ares I, the consequences are disasterous for all of us. Yet, I was wondering when you would bring Direct up, and so you did. Don't get me wrong, Direct is a neat idea, as it seems to me. But NASA found a bunch of holes in Direct, did it not? It said that Direct did not do the job, did it not? And NASA are they guys on the hot seat here.
I would love to see or hear somebody come out with an EELV plan now that helps get us beyond LEO. I would love to hear an industry rumor about an upgraded D IV H, or an upgraded Atlas 552+ that can do the job. Until I see it, or read about it, EELV is nothing but vaporware for manned flight. Ares I is past the Vaporware stage, FBoW.
More coming...
Missed this one.
1. I know there is no NASA rule about RD-180. just some "excuses" which were no more valid than the 1.4 factor of safety or 2 fault tolerance. Anyways, use of the RD-180 no more different than the use of the Soyuz.
2. Atlas V Heavy went through CDR and it 30 months from flight if there was a customer
3. God help us if Ares I is still flying even after 20 years. 30-40 years is just plain BS, and used to provide a false business case
4. It doesn't need a more powerful 2nd stage.
5. NASA only chose specifically the Shuttle SRB. SRMs as a whole are not as safe and NASA used this as a case against Atlas with SRM's
6.The D-IV first flight was a graceful failure and wouldn't endanger the crew. And it could lift a capsule
7. I never brought Direct up and actually avoided it. Existing vehicles meaning EELV's
It actually did, once it was tweeted . NASA had flown more missions because it started looking at smaller spacecraft.
Too late possibly, to not consider Goldin's philosophy a failure as history is recording it.
My fear is, that the same type of mentality would doom future spacecraft, if for some VERY unlikely reason that Ares is replaced.
Sorry for pushing the envelope as far as the subject title of this thread indicates.
Too late possibly, to not consider Goldin's philosophy a failure as history is recording it.
History records TBC as failure (you can only get 2 of 3) but got the intended results, more missions. The Space Scientists are very happy
InTheKnow
09-25-2008, 11:39 PM
2. Everyone pro-EELV says we can do this in x months at less x millions/billion of dollars. If so, then why hasn't the EELV guys started the process of building and man-rating hardware? The obvious arguement has always been, NASA will cut the EELV guys out of NASA contracts forever if they don't shut up and not man-rate their booster. But Boeing went public over their loss of the new AF tanker contract, even taking on John McCain over it, and now the whole competition is being re-evaluated.
If Atlas or Delta is better in fact, vs. better on paper, then let them start the work and then fight the fight with NASA starting in Jan. 2009.
3. NASA is full of politics, for worse, or worse. But geezelouise, if EELV was viable to get us back to ISS and to the moon quicker than Ares, something would be working there. Griffin is not insane. He would not crush EELV like so many people say he would, it is not logical. Sometimes it seems like the anti-Griffin people think that he will/can send engineers to the Gulag unless they make the data fit the bosses pre-concieved notions. If you know that for a fact, please let us see it. I have not seen anything that proves it.
2. Atlas is currently being Human Rated for sale to Bigelow. Just because you don't see anything out in the Press, it doesn't mean that it's not happening. Real money is being spent to meet Bigelow's 2012 ILC. It's being done and it's NOT nearly the magnitude that ESAS said that it would be. I'd trust the EELV guys to figure out how to safely fly people long before I'd trust the NASA bureaucrats.
3. Griffin may not be insane, but he is certainly unethical. I can speak with certainty from PERSONAL experience that he has used his influence to silence the EELV guys when they were promoting commercial human rating of their products.
jkumpire
09-26-2008, 09:14 AM
The discussion has been very interesting, and I appreciate having it.
Four quick points before I go back to lurking:
1. JMac, I care about how the process was done, but EELV was not chosen by NASA, Ares was. The reasoning NASA used has been laid out, and picked over. NASA made a call. It can be justified, and so can EELV, but there is an awful of nasty personal stuff being said about the people making the decision. I have a problem with that, and sadly since I am not working in the industry I have no knowledge base to say NASA is wrong, and unjustified in choosing Ares.
And as I understand it, there is no EELV path or plan to get us back to the Moon, or Mars, that is viable. EELV gets us back to LEO with Orion. Ares has a laid out plan to get us to the Moon and to Mars. That is the important goal, and what matters.
I also must say that EELV (and Direct) people always say the their plan is cheaper and better than Ares. I have no doubt that you believe it, and you may be right. The problem is NASA does not agree, and they have the data and experience in front of them to know. They (NASA) also are not perfect either, and just as human as we are. So politics and other stuff may be involved here in the decisions NASA makes.
2. ME2, good guy that he is, did indirectly bring up Direct in the discussion by talking about propellant depots, and other features of Direct that the EELV folks have not brought up. I am not saying Direct and EELV are joined at the hip. They are not. But they both have a desire to grade down Ares down since their choice was not chosen by NASA. that also needs to be kept in perspective here.
3. My hope would be that in the near future COTS handles the ISS stuff, and NASA can get Ares/Orion pointed to the bigger goals. I would love to see private interests handle the ISS stuff, be it Space X, or Bigelow with EELV (Atlas) boosters as the launcher. Let's find a way to make money in space, and really start to open up the last frontier. But until COTS or some other private endeavor works, we have NASA.
4. Look guys, everyone is looking at Ares I-X as a rented mule. You can beat on it all you want, but it is flying next April (as of now). It seems incongruent, we want "all up testing", but we don't have all the hardware yet. NASA thinks this new booster will work best for its purposes, and we have something that is close to the finished product, and can prove we are on the right track. But, to so many people the launch is just an expensive side show publicity stunt. To me Ares I-X is like a Little Joe/Mercury bolierplate flight. In hindsight, many people thought these things were a waste of time too, but they served their purpose. Ares I-X will not be perfect, but as a demonstration of concept flight, it will serve a legit purpose. Let it go.
J.McDonald
09-26-2008, 09:53 AM
The discussion has been very interesting, and I appreciate having it.
Two quick points before I go back to lurking:
1. JMac, I care about how the process was done, but EELV was not chosen by NASA, Ares was. the reasoning NASA used has been laid out, and picked over. NASA made a call. It can be justified, and so can EELV, but there is an awful of of personal stuff being said about the people making the decision. I have aproble with that, and sadly since I am not working in the industry I have no no knowledge base to say NASA is wrong, and evil to choose Ares.
Well, I'd rather not see you return to lurking, but that's your call :p
I dispute your claim that the reasoning has been 'laid out'. A long time ago, in a report called ESAS, everything was laid out (especially WRT EELV vs. Ares), but things have changed an awful lot since then so it is no longer valid. Further, NASA have released a report debunking Direct, which I simply do not understand. They claim higher near-term costs than Ares amongst other things. Somebody please explain that to me, because the whole point of Direct is to take hte Ares architecture and remove most of the expensive developments and infrasturcture changes. So on what grounds can NASA claim that such a plan can cost more in the near-term?
And as I understand it, there is no EELV path or plan to get us back to the Moon, or Mars, that is viable. EELV gets us back to LEO with Orion. Ares has a laid out plan to get us to the Moon and to Mars. That is the important goal, and what matters.
This depends on your viewpoint. As a family of rockets, then, yes the point of Ares is to give us little and large, and large is the big moon rocket. Originally, there was plenty commonality between the two, so they were really in the smae family. A few years down the line, though, Ares-V has different engines and SRBs from Ares-I, so are they really related anymore? If Ares-I goes away, what is stopping Ares-V being built, especially if an EELV replacement for Ares-I can free up some funding and time?
Secondly, there is a strong argument in favour of developing something more interesting than a huge rocket, e.g. SEP tugs, propellant transfer, etc. Not cheap, nor is it easy, but it is probably necessary for Mars anyway, and could be a good use of the Ares-V budget.
Thirdly, the EELVs could be scaled up. Multiple clusters don't do wonders for LOM numbers, but you wouldn't be putting a crew on top.
Don't get me wrong, when it comes to a Saturn-V class LV, the Ares-V is pretty impressive. But it is also going to be really, really expensive. It might suck up so much of the budget that there's nothig left for the exciting stuff- like Mars. And that would be really sad.
I also must say that EELV (and Direct) people always say the their plan is cheaper and better than Ares. I have no doubt that you believe it, and you may be right. The problem is NASA does not agree, and they have the data and experience in front of them to know. They (NASA) also are not perfect either, and just as human as we are. So politics and other stuff may be involved here in the decisions NASA makes.
I don't like to believe people; I like to believe facts. As I said above, NASA claim that Direct would have higher near-term costs. I do not understand that claim, and it makes me suspicious that they feel that Direct must be shown to be completely, 100% without merit, regardless of whether that is the case.
I do not believe that there is some big conspiracy, but I do believe that the power of inertia is tremendous. It can be hard to be objective sometimes. I've watched the Ares/Orion development go through some sticky patches, and have wondered just how bad it would have to get before NASA would change plan.
It reminds me a bit of when I had an old beaten up car that I refused to replace, pouring money and time into keeping it going. If somebody had tried to sell me that car, I would have run a mile. But it was my car, and I staunchly believed in 'better the devil you know'. Each time it went into the garage for another repair I thought that it was finally fixed. And when you've invested so much into something it becomes really hard to walk away. Eventually I realised that I had become blinkered, and that there were better alternatives- and I've never looked back!
2. ME2, good guy that he is, did indirectly bring up Direct in the discussion by talking about propellant depots, and other features of Direct that the EELV folks have not brought up. I am not saying Direct and EELV are joined at the hip. They are not. But they both have a desire to grade down Ares down since their choice was not chosen by NASA. that also needs to be kept in perspective here.
That's your interpretation. Just because something involves propellant transfer doesn't mean it's got anything to do with Direct. They don't own the concept.
I think you'll find that EELV-advocates want to see a cost-effective launch solution, whereas Direct advocates are concerned with job retention.
You need to look again at your idea of each camp's motives. The common theme shared by Direct and EELV fans is that they both think Ares is too expensive. They want to see a cheap LV program so that NASA can actually get on with the job of flying missions on it.
Technically, as I'm sure you know, EELV and Direct have nothing in common.
3. My hope would be that in the near future COTS handles the ISS stuff, and NASA can get Ares/Orion pointed to the bigger goals. I would love to see private interests handle the ISS stuff, be it Space X, or Bigelow with EELV (Atlas) boosters as the launcher. Let's find a way to make money in space, and really start to open up the last frontier. But until COTS or some other private endeavor works, we have NASA.
Here's an idea for making money in space: get NASA to buy their launches from someone.
1. That's your interpretation. Just because something involves propellant transfer doesn't mean it's got anything to do with Direct. They don't own the concept.
2. Here's an idea for making money in space: get NASA to buy their launches from someone.
1. Propellant Depots are central to an EELV architecture. The EELV studies were done long before Direct and the ESAS came around.
http://www.nasa.gov/missions/solarsystem/vision_concepts.html
2. NASA does for all the unmanned missions
For curiosity sake, has anyone brought up their objections to Ares in a formal channel?
I'm "In The Know" (sorry InTheKnow) as well, and have not heard anything remotely official in regard to an EELV alternative.
It's reasonable to promote an alternative, but doing it 'under the radar' probably won't get you anywhere.
Spacenut
10-10-2008, 09:01 PM
no answer again Rick!!! It is interesting that the selection of post responses are so .... specific.
Pick & choose :rolleyes:
mike_j
10-15-2008, 11:31 AM
Just to stop my own lurking and pose a question from the ignorant masses, how would Delta IV or Atlas V become approved as man-rated? I can understand the need to mitigate pogo, etc., but Redstone, Atlas, and Titan were all developed as ICBMs and did not begin life as man-rated EELVs - correct? Were the same requirements made at their inception to protect their nuclear cargo as what would be required for future astronauts, or were there substantial modifications made to those LVs prior to their first flights carrying astronauts? Maybe it's just showing my own lack of knowledge, but what processes would be followed to ensure a vehicle is safe to ride? I understand the necessity of redundant backups, but the aforementioned vehicles did not initially have them, is that correct?
Just trying to understand what's involved...
Thanks
JimMcDade
10-15-2008, 03:29 PM
Mercury-Redstone, Mercury-Atlas, and Gemini-Titan all put a beating on astronauts. The Space Shuttle is tender by comparison, but a few of the non-pilot astronauts have told me that they expected to die at any second during a Shuttle launch. Those Space Race missiles were weapons systems and they were made to get off of the ground in a big hurry. Test pilots were the ideal candidates to ride those flying terrors. Most of us would probably scream for mama and wet our britches if we had to ride one of those beasts.
Aside from the "comfort factor", man-rating is not really a precisely standardized process. Man-rating generally covers assuring, as much as is possible, astronaut safety and mission success. It is a expensive and rigorous mix of processes that includes heavy documentation, severe quality control, risk management, failure modes analysis, extreme component testing (even testing-to-destruction).
The ability to safely abort or possibly shut-down safely is another aspect of man-rating that complicates matters considerably. Wally Schirra had some exprience with that when his Gemini-Titan suddenly shut down and teetered on the pad. Remember the film of that champagne cork Mercury-Redstone tests (MR-1)?
There are many other man-rating challenges, many of which are specific to a particular launch system. There have been a few good treatises published on man-rating. Your local university library may have some of those documents available for reading.
Some engineers believe that it is just easier and ultimately cheaper to man-rate if you design and build from scratch as opposed to man rating an existing payload carrier. That is an interesting debate, but the simple fact of history is that NASA made the decisions that they did with Ares I and Ares V, and they are married to that decision for better or worse.
The EELV folks make some good arguments, but EELV is a moot point---UNLESS---> Ares I does turn out to be the major disaster that so many people are hoping that it will be. Personally, I expect Ares I will get the job done. Stay tuned...
1. Mercury-Redstone, Mercury-Atlas, and Gemini-Titan all put a beating on astronauts.
2. Those Space Race missiles were weapons systems and they were made to get off of the ground in a big hurry.
3. It is a expensive and rigorous mix of processes that includes heavy documentation, severe quality control, risk management, failure modes analysis, extreme component testing (even testing-to-destruction).
4, The ability to safely abort or possibly shut-down safely is another aspect of man-rating that complicates matters considerably.
1. Not really, no different than what is planned for Ares I
2. Incorrect, Atlas and Titan actually had slower liftoffs than the shuttle. It was the Minuteman that had the quick launch.
3. No different than what is required to launch a nuclear powered spacecraft or a billion dollar DOD satellite
4. This capability already exists in current EELV's. It is not a complication. EELV's will shutdown their engines on the pad if certain parameters are not met before liftoff (just like what happened to spacex a few times). The ability to shutdown during flight still exists in another form, it happens when a range destruct signal is sent. The ability to shutdown down engines for aborts, just requires the addition of a LV health monitoring system, which has alway been a requirement for manrating
JimMcDade
10-16-2008, 01:46 PM
There are a number of interviews and articles where astronauts talk about how rough those early space rides were in comparison to Apollo-Saturn and the Space Shuttle. They weren't just talking about g levels, but we generally look at max g as an indicator of astronaut comfort.
Mercury-Redstone boost placed about 6 g on the astronauts. I don't recall the precise max G on a Mercury-Atlas boost, but I think that it was around 5 or 6 g. Space Shuttle max G-forces are around 3 g during the boost phase. GT hit astronauts with a staggering 8 g force at second-stage shutdown. Apollo-Saturn V maxed out at about 4 g.
Ares I will get off of the ground in a hurry. You don't have to wait on an SRB to run up to 100% thrust as you do with liquids.
MA-1 registered 25 g just before it broke up. There are lot more things can go wrong with liquids with all of those moving parts. Solids are extremely reliable and less costly in comparison. I think that is is inevitable that solids will be used as the sole propulsion technology on all almost all future rocket designs. That's just an opinion, but no better than yours. The only cheaper and more efficient way to get into space is to take-off from a runway with air breathing engines and then releasing the orbital stage from altitude. I have seen those numbers. (That was the original Shuttle concept)
Back to man-rating: Man rating is a process that inevitably adds costs, weight,and complexity to a design. NASA looked at man-rating existing launch systems and rejected that idea. Perhaps the cost and weight penalty projections made that option undesirable. I may be that decision makers were given bad numbers, but it's too late to do anything about that. Ares I-X is coming down the river.
J.McDonald
10-17-2008, 05:52 AM
Ares I will get off of the ground in a hurry. You don't have to wait on an SRB to run up to 100% thrust as you do with liquids.
I think this is talking at cross purposes. The speed of lift-off (as in the actual acceleration) has got nothing whatsoever to do with how long it takes to spin up an engine, because you wait for it to reach full thrust before releasing the vehicle. So solids give no advantage in that particular case.
There are lot more things can go wrong with liquids with all of those moving parts. Solids are extremely reliable and less costly in comparison. I think that is is inevitable that solids will be used as the sole propulsion technology on all almost all future rocket designs. That's just an opinion, but no better than yours.
My opinion, then, is that it is better to use liquids because the failure modes are usually quite graceful and, in the case of a manned payload, would allow time for an abort system to be activated. By contrast an SRM failure is going to be catastrophic and not give the payload much chance of survival. A related disadvantage of SRMs is that they cannot be practically shut down in a hurry, and that means that the launch abort system must be more powerful than for an equivalent liquid vehicle, which could termiante thrust almost instantly. Another disadvantage of SRMs is that they appear to be something of a 'black art', and getting a design that works reliably with the required thrust profile and total impulse is, well, tricky; once you've got one that works you don't generally want to mess around with it. As well as making them expensive to develop, this also means that incremental upgrades are almost impossible. Contrast with liquid rocket stages which can take advantage of tank stretches and engine upgrades with comparative ease. A further point against the upgradability of SRM-based boosters is tha they have massive roll-out weight; had STS used LRBs rather than SRBs, perhaps Ares-V woudl have sported multiple pairs of them, whereas the massive weight of the SRBs is overloading hte crawlers and cralwerway and impeding further vehicle growth.
Finally, pouring, transporting, and assembling large segmented SRMs is a major health and safety worry. Is it really cheaper than handling a big, inert, empty vehicle, and then tanking it up with kerosene and oxygen?
NASA looked at man-rating existing launch systems and rejected that idea.Not in OSP they didn't. Maybe STS107 made everybody more risk-averse? And, whilst they may have laid down requirements at the time of ESAS which excluded EELVs as an option, problems with Ares/Orion have forced them to back down from those requirements. It would appear that building a safe and powerful rocket is quite hard, and NASA are not doing as good a job of it as they'd hoped. Luckily they can keep on prattling on with Ares-I for another three or four years and still come out ahead by switching to EELV.
it's too late to do anything about that. Ares I-X is coming down the river.Ah, is this, at last, the real justification for Ares-IX? Flying a dummy upper stage atop an SRB, roll-control system, and avionics which are all taken from donor vehicles and which are not Ares-I hardware. It makes it look like something is happening; when you say 'first test flight is next year!' does it not seem a bit odd that first operational flight won't follow it for another six or more years??
Powered by vBulletin® Version 4.1.12 Copyright © 2012 vBulletin Solutions, Inc. All rights reserved.