DIRECT Post-Shuttle Plan Pitched To Obama Team 189
FleaPlus writes "Popular Mechanics reports that a 'renegade' group including NASA engineers has met with President-Elect Obama's space transition team to present information on the DIRECT architecture for launching NASA missions after the Space Shuttle is retired. According to the group, DIRECT's Jupiter launch system will be safer, less expensive, better-performing, and be ready sooner than the Ares launch system NASA is currently developing, while still providing jobs for much of the existing shuttle workforce. Meanwhile, it's expected that current NASA head and adamant Ares supporter Michael Griffin will be replaced by a new NASA administrator."
Renegade Space Vehicle designers (Score:2, Funny)
A group of renegade space vehicle designers, including NASA engineers bucking their bosses, today got their chance to make their case to the next presidential administration.
So, they ride Harleys and put pocket protectors in their leather jackets? Their calculators say "Bad Mother Fucker" on them?
See what happens when you use hyperbole in descriptions?
Re:Renegade Space Vehicle designers (Score:4, Interesting)
They are 'renegade' engineers, and they are 'bucking' their bosses. I'm not sure what part of the factually-correct description you have a problem with.
And knowing the kinds of engineers who work at Marshall Space Flight Center, I wouldn't be surprised if some of them did ride Harleys.
Re: (Score:3, Funny)
Re: (Score:2)
That's MAVERIC without the "k".
-- Subaru-driving Marshall engineer.
Re: (Score:3, Funny)
They wanted to use it, but were told "Negative, the pattern is full" :-p
Re: (Score:3, Informative)
If I remember correctly, the original 'renegades' were Christians who had joined the Muslim Barbary pirates and gone into business as white-slavers. For the metaphor to hold, these engineers ought to have left NASA and gone to work for a rival. If any ex-NASA people are now at SpaceX, they might well be considerer renegades, but not if they're still within the organisation.
Re:Renegade Space Vehicle designers (Score:4, Insightful)
If I'm not mistaken, most people accept that the meaning and use of words change over the centuries, so no, it doesn't matter if they're working for another employer or not.
Re:Renegade Space Vehicle designers (Score:5, Funny)
If I remember correctly, "nice" originally meant "stupid". Nice try.
Re: (Score:2)
Well, it hasn't been used that way since the 1400s, but you're definitely remembering correctly - from the OED:
1. A foolish or simple person; a fool.
a1393 GOWER Confessio Amantis (Fairf.) V. 4725 Fulofte he faileth of his game That wol with ydel hand reclame His hauk, as many a nyce doth. a1425 (?a1400) CHAUCER Romaunt Rose 5043 If it be ony fool or nyce, In whom that Shame hath no justice. c1450 in F. J. Furnivall Hymns to Virgin & Christ (1867) 42 Out of {th}e wey wole him lede And make
Re: (Score:2)
Of course not.
They say "Bad Mather Fucker", naturally.
First chance to see if Obama is a retard or not (Score:2, Insightful)
Of course DIRECT is "cheaper, quicker and safer" than Ares - because it is a paper project. All projects are cheaper, quicker, safer, happier, and will make your cock bigger etc etc until someone tries to implement them.
If any of the problems of developing a SDLV that have plagued Ares so far occur for Jupiter, then switching at this point will be a false economy.
Re:First chance to see if Obama is a retard or not (Score:4, Funny)
First chance to see if Obama is a retard or not
NASA-engineer: "So Mr. President, will you fund our project?"
Obama: "My Momma always said life is like a box of chocol..."
NASA-engineer: "FFS, not again!"
Re: (Score:3, Interesting)
How many Ares class rockets have been build and tested to date? I wasn't aware they actually build any yet.
=Smidge=
Re:First chance to see if Obama is a retard or not (Score:5, Interesting)
While not a NASA engineer, I am a rocket engineer, and I've worked indirectly with NASA. I've also been following Ares and the DIRECT plan in some detail. I believe I'm qualified to say that the DIRECT plan looks better now than Ares did at a similar point in its development. Even including sunk costs on Ares, it seems quite likely to me that DIRECT is cheaper, quicker, more reliable, and more capable. Ares is already overweight and behind schedule; I would rather bet that it will become more so rather than less so before development is done. DIRECT is not immune to the same effects, but it is a much wiser plan in that it has *much* more margin to work with at a comparable stage in development. Its engineers understand that rockets always get heavier as they get closer to completion, never lighter.
Oddly enough, the only way to compare the two projects is to actually look at the details. The fact that one is further along in development than the other does not automatically make it better, any more than it automatically makes it worse. It may take a little bit of effort to make a reasonable apples-to-apples comparison between the two programs, but it is by no means impossible. AFAICT, comparisons of that sort appear to either be products of bureaucratic inertia ("we've already decided on Ares, therefore it must be right") or they conclude that DIRECT appears to be faster, cheaper, safer, and more capable.
Re: (Score:2)
Given your understanding of the competition between ARES, and DIRECT, "Why is it that the Delta Clipper [nasa.gov] is not being considered for handling the payload logistics part of the project?" The damn thing looked like it could do the job till NASA decided to land it on its side...
Re: (Score:2)
Mostly because it doesn't exist (in a useful form), and couldn't reasonably be made to exist in the time required. For the record, they didn't "decide to land it on its side." It fell over after landing, as a result of a hydraulic line that was not properly reattached after some regular maintenance.
The DC-X was a very interesting project, but there is a lot more research and development that would have to be done to make it usable (even ignoring the question of whether it's the right answer -- I happen to
Re: (Score:2)
You're absolutely right. NASA killed the clipper because it was a threat to their employment-for-life guarantee, namely the Shuttle
Considering that the new prez owes votes to the Federal bureaucrats (93% of DC voted for him), it would be surprising to see him dismantle the NASA status quo. So any solution he'll consider will keep them employed and will not be cheaper.
Re: (Score:2)
evanbd,
Interesting posts, I regret that I don't have mod points right now.
Allow me to ask a question: what do you think of the statement "cheaper...while still providing jobs for much of the existing shuttle workforce"? If DIRECT is cheaper, won't it imply that most of the people employed by the Shuttle program will not be needed anymore? Or do they plan to keep these people and spread the salary costs on a very large number of DIRECT launches?
What's your BS-o-meter telling you there? Mine tells me that if
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Allow me to ask a question: what do you think of the statement "cheaper...while still providing jobs for much of the existing shuttle workforce"? If DIRECT is cheaper, won't it imply that most of the people employed by the Shuttle program will not be needed anymore? Or do they plan to keep these people and spread the salary costs on a very large number of DIRECT launches?
I think part of the difference is the expected time for completion of development. DIRECT's Jupiter-120 has a predicted maiden crewed flight date of 2013, 2016 for the uncrewed Jupiter-232. The Ares I has a predicted maiden crew date of 2016 (and has already had repeated schedule slips), while the Ares V is expected to be completed in 2018. Being finished sooner means that you have less overall development costs which have to be amortized over the life of the launch system. Much of the conversion work won't
Re: (Score:2)
Ares is already overweight and behind schedule; I would rather bet that it will become more so rather than less so before development is done. DIRECT is not immune to the same effects,
Low bidder syndrome.
SB
Not a fan of Direct, BUT (Score:2)
With that aside, the one thing that bugs me about Ares * is that Ares I is in the same class as many other launch vehicles, while Ares V is the absolute monster. OTH, Direct starts with a 50% bigger launch vehicle over the ares I, and then
Re:First chance to see if Obama is a retard or not (Score:5, Insightful)
Of course I can't make a perfect judgment on the matter. However, I think that for someone not directly involved in the projects in question, I'm quite well qualified. And yes, I'm aware that paper projects always look better. The thing is, Ares never looked all that good -- even on paper. The idea that an extended SRB is anything other than a new large solid is a fantasy; it was obvious to everyone with technical knowledge on the matter from the beginning that any nontrivial changes to the SRBs lost most of the advantages of keeping Shuttle hardware involved. Changes to the main fuel tank are less problematic, but still not wonderful. Using only a single (extended, and therefore new) SRB as the first stage of Ares I obviously had problems -- the performance characteristics meant it was being used in a highly suboptimal manner in that application.
To an observer who hasn't been paying attention since the early Ares proposals, I can see how this would look like jumping ship as soon as the paper project met reality, only to start a new paper project. However, that is not an apt description. Ares was based on a set of highly optimistic assumptions -- basically, that the designers knew how heavy the payloads would be, and could design to those targets. Unsurprisingly, the Orion capsule grew in mass and Ares I had to find extra performance to make up for it. In contrast, the Jupiter 120 has 40t of throw capability to LEO for a 20t capsule. The extra 20t is allocated to "extra payload." In the event that Orion gets heavier still (which it probably will do, though a lot of the weight gain has likely already happened), it's far, far easier to reallocate a few tons from "extra payload" to "capsule" than it is to pull those tons out of a hat. That sort of planning is what makes DIRECT better, even when comparing apples to apples. Any aerospace engineer who looked at early Ares proposals should have had warning flags going up in their mind as soon as they saw how small the gap between the target capsule mass and the lift capability of the booster was.
For the record, I think there is a lot less wrong with Ares V than there is with Ares I. The Jupiter is still a better choice, I believe, but the difference is less drastic. There is a middle ground that would cancel Ares I, and use Ares V to launch the capsule -- I think this would be an improvement over the current plan, but that the DIRECT plan would be better still. None of these are how I think the rocket *should* be designed, given ample time and budget -- but replacing the Shuttle is a project that doesn't have ample time. If NASA is to get anything flying soon, it will have to be a suboptimal design that has significant Shuttle heritage. Of such projects that I've seen proposed, DIRECT is the best compromise between doing the job well and something that could actually be built in time.
Re: (Score:3, Interesting)
The thing is, Ares never looked all that good -- even on paper. The idea that an extended SRB is anything other than a new large solid is a fantasy; it was obvious to everyone with technical knowledge on the matter from the beginning that any nontrivial changes to the SRBs lost most of the advantages of keeping Shuttle hardware involved.
Amen.
To clarify for the non rocket engineers, in a solid rocket, the whole thing is your combustion chamber. The casing has to be designed to a certain operating pressure,
Re: (Score:2)
I also dread the "Mighty Mouse" charging in to save the day, yet it seems to me that the Aries systems are the magic bullets being shot by Mighty Mouse rather than the Jupiter systems. Jupiter also seems to allow evolutionary upgrades more readily, which would allow R&D expenses to be amortized over a longer period.
Re:First chance to see if Obama is a retard or not (Score:5, Informative)
But similar designs were looked at in the ESAS study and found to be less desirable than at least the initial Ares I and V configuration.
The ESAS is flawed. The solid rocket motors have not been demonstrated to have the reliability claimed for the Ares I. From the history of their use on the Space Shuttle, they have a failure rate of around 1 in 250. The Ares I is claimed to have a total loss of mission rate of 1 in 400. When your first stage is less reliable than you claim the entire vehicle is, then something is wrong. Similarly, it has been shown that the EELV profiles in the ESAS didn't take into account reasonable adjustments to the corresponding launch vehicles for manned missions.
Seriously, the Ares I has been through SRR, SDR and PDR and numerous other reviews.
IMHO, the Ares I shouldn't have passed the PDR due to thrust oscillation issues. It was given a waiver on that.
Three years ago Ares look fantastic on paper as well - then the reality of engineering development crept in and there are indeed challenges to overcome. Any other program (Direct, EELV, etc) will have the same unkown snags in their future. Oh, and the first Ares test launch is this summer.
No, the Ares I didn't look that fantastic. There are two glaring problem, ignoring the rest. The Ares I competes directly with commercial rockets, the Delta IV and Atlas V rockets. Private industry always gets screwed when that happens no matter how shoddy the NASA solution is. NASA doesn't develope the heavy lift vehicle till 2016 or later. That huge 11+ year delay is why the DIRECT design is so well developed now. Frontloading cost and backloading capability is a common source of failure in government projects. Even the Shuttle didn't do this.
No, the first Ares test launch is on or after 2013, when the Ares I-Y launches. The Ares I-X doesn't use a 5 segment first stage, doesn't have a real second stage, and doesn't have the avionics that will be used on the Ares I. The critical fixes for the thrust oscillation issues might not even be fully tested on the Ares I-Y and that's four years away! There are a few things that the Ares I-X can test (it'll have the right airframe and mass distribution, the right launch pad, and should be able to see thrust oscillation) so it isn't a complete waste.
Re: (Score:2)
Actually, after reading TFA and looking at the comparison chart [popularmechanics.com] it really looks like the Direct Jupiter design is better, if only because of the reuse of SST components.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Whether or not the design is better is largely irrelevant to this debate; what is relevant is the DIRECT team are failing to take into account the overhead of switching projects and switching managers at this stage. Regardless of which was the better approach, DIRECT lost the debate some time ago, and revisiting it now (even if it results in a better vehicle in the long run) isn't going to make anything either cheaper or quicker.
This is short-sighted thinking. If DIRECT would result in a better platform in
Re: (Score:2)
Whether or not the design is better is largely irrelevant to this debate; what is relevant is the DIRECT team are failing to take into account the overhead of switching projects and switching managers at this stage. Regardless of which was the better approach, DIRECT lost the debate some time ago, and revisiting it now (even if it results in a better vehicle in the long run) isn't going to make anything either cheaper or quicker.
Actually, if you look at NASA's budget documents [nasa.gov] only $2-3 billion has been spent on Ares so far, although that annual rate will increase over the next few years. If we're going to switch architectures now is the time to do it, particularly since DIRECT estimates a savings over Ares in the tens of billions.
As an added bonus, Orion capsule development will also be benefited, since they won't have to spend so much time trying to figure out what to cut and what safety systems to get rid of to squeeze onto the
Re: (Score:3, Informative)
Ares V isn't quite as bad as Ares 1, but that's only because they share very little in common.
Actually, for manned missions Ares V is worse: it isn't even rated for manned missions! The humans would launch on an Ares I and then dock with whatever launched on the Ares V in orbit.
Re: (Score:2)
AFAIK, the reason the Ares V is isn't going to be man-rated (which BTW doesn't mean that it's less reliable, but they decided not to go through the testing) is because they intend to use the Ares I for launching the crew.
Re: (Score:2)
Top heavy is a good thing, when the center of mass is ahead of the center of aerodynamics, the motor has a strong tendency to stay under on the bottom! It's like the difference between a bottle rocket and a roman candle.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Look how you're talking to people, you see that in online forums, but not much in real life. Because in real life someone would leave their hand print on your face.
This isn't real life, go ahead and be an ass, but just know that you've given most of us here the image of a frustrated, spiteful, weak little man.
At this moment I'm not considering any points you make, I'm just laughing at you.
Your own fault btw.
Re: (Score:2, Funny)
Will you consider accepting the position of NASA Administrator for the new administration?
Re: (Score:2)
If the Ares I is bottom heavy then it would at very least switch to top-heavy mid-flight as more and more solid fuel is burned.
When applying a force to a body, you will want to be as close to center of mass as possible, to minimize unwanted torque.
As far as aerodynamics are concerned, it would only be advantageous to be top-heavy if the craft was decelerating, not when you're trying to accelerate it up to space. Certainly if you look at past rockets, they all seem to be very much bottom heavy.
Re: (Score:2)
The debate is about getting it done cheaply and quickly; So yes the 'better' design is not the question when one design is further along (and has some of its creases ironed out; we don't know what problems DIRECT might come across).
If it were about the best design for the job, there wouldn't be SDLVs at all.
Re: (Score:2)
Yeah, faster--better--cheaper worked out so well with the original Space Shuttle program and the robotic probes in the 90s.
Choosing slower, more expensive, and more dangerous (which seem to be the main features of the Ares I) isn't necessarily a good idea. There's no problem with faster-better-cheaper if that's actually the case.
Re: (Score:2)
You've got it backwards. The Jupiter rockets can do the job with a single launch, it is the Ares that requires two launches because the Ares V will not be safe enough for humans.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Also, in a lunar mission both the JUPITER and ARES platforms require two launches. The ARES-V is not used to launch people. So you need an ARES-V to launch the gear, and an ARES-I to launch the crew.
Re: (Score:2)
The Ares V looks pretty good. It's the Ares I that's the problem.
They were intending to use two rockets anyway, so instead of having 120000 kg plus 25000 kg, the Jupiter would allow two times a payload of 110000 kg to LEO.
And according to the DIRECT guys, this would be much cheaper than having to make the Ares I work and then design the Ares V.
Re: (Score:2)
Ares is no longer a Shuttle Derived Launch Vehicle. The fuel tank is now at 10 metres diamet
Re: (Score:2)
Really seems like to time to resurrect the Saturn V. Bigger, faster, more payload, and proven. Modern metalurgy and machining techniques would make it better and safer.
Problem? The Bush admin goons have been running around destroying the original plans and specs. My opinion is that none of the usual suspect contractors like Lockheed-Martin own the IP for the design and systems. How coul;d they possible charge 100 times what a part should cost if that part has been already made, and it's price is known.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
That would require 1960s style budgets ;)
And it would be wrong to assume that the engineering knowledge and expertise from making the Saturn V didn't go into the development of newer space technology. The Ares V actually looks like a better rocket than the Saturn V. It's just that designing one rocket is easier than designing two.
Re: (Score:2)
Of course DIRECT is "cheaper, quicker and safer" than Ares - because it is a paper project.
The Ares V is a paper project too.
If any of the problems of developing a SDLV that have plagued Ares so far occur for Jupiter, then switching at this point will be a false economy.
"Any", you mean "all". Here's some problems that are already fixed in the DIRECT design. Thrust oscillation is already mostly fixed because DIRECT will use the Shuttle design which succesfully dampens the oscillation before it gets to the external tank. A payload on the top of the vehicle may require some additional dampening, but it's going to be a lot weaken problem than the Ares I, which has no built-in mechanism for dampening this vibration. Second, payload capability.
Differently-abled? (Score:2)
The article's illustration includes an astonishing statement regarding the two J-2X engines: "NASA says the extra engine doubles the chance that something will fail". Wow! Applying that logic would really simplify most of our jobs. RAID? Don't waste your money; all those extra disks just increase the odds of failure.
Whoever said that leaves us with a conundrum: Does he actually believe it, in which case his academic credentials should be subjected to very close scrutiny? Or is he lying deliberately in order
Re: (Score:2)
THE POINT: you miss it.
Rocket engines aren't redundant, like disks in an array are. If a disk fails, you can replace it, and reconstruct the data from the redundant copies on the other disks in the array. If a rocket engine in a cluster fails, the launch aborts, and if you're very,
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Someone didn't see the Apollo 13 launch. The center engine of the 5-engine second stage cluster stopped early mid-launch. They ran the remaining four longer to make up for the loss of the fifth engine.
I'm not saying in the event of a catastrophic loss of one engine the other could take up the slack. If one engine blows up it doesn't matter how many you have it's time to hit the silk. But if one engine just stops you have the possibility of running one longer to get to a safer re-entry point or even to ME
SpaceX's Falcon-9 is supposed to be (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
I would assume that they're following logic similar to this: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Failure_rate#Additivity [wikipedia.org]
Re: (Score:2)
Let me summarize the situation. (Score:5, Insightful)
Then comes the Columbia disaster and the subsequent investigation which recommended [wikipedia.org] that shuttle be retired by 2010.
In 2004 Bush announces the Vision for Space Exploration [wikipedia.org] clearly defining our country's goal to resume our manned exploration of the moon and Mars.
NASA conducts an extremely detailed study into literally hundreds of architecture design alternatives known as the Exploration Systems Architecture Study [wikipedia.org]. It is a fantastic report - read it here [nasa.gov]. The study rejects using EELVs (due primarily to safety concerns)and recommends a shuttle-derived re-using shuttle and Apollo technology across the two launch vehicles (then called CLV and CaLV). The recommended architecture becomes the basis of the Constellation architecture. (Which later replaces Space Shuttle Main Engines (SSMEs) on the CaLV with RS-68 engines and extends teh CLV from 4-seg to 5-seg (which was actually in the original trade space). This configuration was chosen as it was both the safest configuration as well as having one of the lowest O&M costs (particularly compared with alternatives that leveraged SSMEs more heavily.) NASA is finally on a path to returning to a capability beyond LEO as well as dramatically reducing its workforce with the looming retirement of shuttle a somewhat simpler to maintain replacement
Therein lies the problem... as retirement looms and irreversible decisions begin to be made (reconfiguring pads, not-ordering certain long-lead items for shuttle, etc..) that huge workforce of shuttle support finally realize what Constellation means to their job security. Without shuttle and its extremely complex reusable sub-systems, many of these people will be out of a job and their pet projects in jeopardy.
Not surprisingly, there becomes no shortage of personnel at Shuttle-oriented NASA sites who begin advocating against Constellation and for an extension of Shuttle. Adding to the detractors are of course the disgruntled "establishment" consortium of launch providers, ULA, advocating using EELVs. Then there are the Direct guys [wikipedia.org] who are brilliant NASA engineers but this concept was in essence already considered in the ESAS study and deemed less favorable than the CLV approach.
Add to the mix the political baggage that comes with the program's genesis stemming from an unpopular president and the oncoming president's commitment to "change" at all levels of government and you have a perfect storm of opposition - much of it which has absolutely nothing to do with the actual merits of the current design.
People who have not worked on Constellation simply don't understand how much work has gone into it compared with any of the above mentioned alternatives. Of course they look good now. They have been studied by small groups of engineers for months. Compare with the thousands who have been working on Constellation for years. Despite what anyone says about their program being cheaper or faster - any change at this point will result in
Re: (Score:2)
NASA conducts an extremely detailed study into literally hundreds of architecture design alternatives known as the Exploration Systems Architecture Study. It is a fantastic report - read it here.
And for people who don't have time to read this 24MB pdf, here is the list of the members [nasa.gov] who redacted it. Feel free to find conflicting interests about these people. I used to think that Constellation was Griffin's little pet and that little people really had a say about the decision. I am now quite unsure. I think that getting a definite answer requires diving into both reports and checking their facts cautiously. It can easily take several weeks.
Re: (Score:2)
From what I've read over the years getting rid of the SSMEs sounds like a big plus in terms of operational cost. Those engines are true technical marvels, but they are also extremely expensive to turnaround after each flight. They're reusable engines that cost almost as much to reuse as to build from scratch.
I don't profess to be qualified to truly evaluate the proposals on the merits. However I've been involved with large IT projects both on the inside and the outside. Sometimes the renegades are right
Re:Let me summarize the situation. (Score:5, Insightful)
Ok, so there has been a lot going on with respect to constellation. Let me put some things in perspective. At the turn of the millennium it had become clear that tremendous expense of both shuttle and station had forced NASA human space flight out of the "exploration" business with all resources more or less locked up in LEO. Shuttle requires a veritable army of engineers and support personnel to maintain the vehicle and conduct operations and the costs to maintain this capability was crushing NASA. NASA felt "trapped" into their existing architecture with little hope for returning to an exploration role without significant additional funding. NASA needed to find a cheaper alternative to LEO that would free up the budget to being developing concepts beyond LEO.
This is the cost of a bad decision. 30 years of LEO. Stretching out the Space Shuttle decision (to the early 80's) by ten years, but getting a powerful space industry in the process would have been far better.
NASA conducts an extremely detailed study into literally hundreds of architecture design alternatives known as the Exploration Systems Architecture Study. It is a fantastic report - read it here. The study rejects using EELVs (due primarily to safety concerns)and recommends a shuttle-derived re-using shuttle and Apollo technology across the two launch vehicles (then called CLV and CaLV). The recommended architecture becomes the basis of the Constellation architecture. (Which later replaces Space Shuttle Main Engines (SSMEs) on the CaLV with RS-68 engines and extends teh CLV from 4-seg to 5-seg (which was actually in the original trade space). This configuration was chosen as it was both the safest configuration as well as having one of the lowest O&M costs (particularly compared with alternatives that leveraged SSMEs more heavily.) NASA is finally on a path to returning to a capability beyond LEO as well as dramatically reducing its workforce with the looming retirement of shuttle a somewhat simpler to maintain replacement
A path which depends wholely on whether someone in the 2016-2018 timeframe decides to support Ares V. If that gets cut, then there is no manned spaceflight past LEO. We can whine about how that future government is shortsighted, but it's just another shortcoming of the Ares plan. If you want the future to turn out a certain way, you lock it in now, not ten years from now (remember they started this in 2005).
Moving on, the ESAS has serious problems. First, the safety numbers are completely unrealistic for several reasons. First, they exaggerate the safety of the "stick". The Stick is claimed in this report to have a loss of mission (LOM) odds of 1 in 400 roughly. The first stage is the solid rocket motor. The problem is that the first stage on its own doesn't have the reliability to meet this LOM figure. There have been 123 launches of the Space Shuttle which uses two of this type of motor and one failure. Thus, the historical LOM failure rate is 1 in 246. I understand it gets worse when you consider test firings of the SRM.
Then we go to the unequal treatment of the EELVs. The relatively low LOM figure is due in part to "black zones" (parts of the launch phase where the mission cannot be aborted) and consideration of the launch vehicles using the 1.25 structural safety factors used in the launch vehicles now. A manned EELV would not have the black zones and would have a 1.4 structural safety factor.
Then we have to consider that NASA is going to compromise on safety anyway. That is what happened in the two Shuttle accidents and there's no reason not to expect it to happen again in my view. For example, they stripped out some of the redundancy of the Orion capsule for lunar flights. Transfering risk from space launch, which frankly is low risk to start with, to the higher risk portions of a lunar flight just doesn't make sense. But that's the sort of decisions you get. These will reduce the actually safety and reliability of the Ares I. My b
Re: (Score:2)
I believe they intend to use RS-68 motors (which are also used on the Delta IVs) which results in some performance hit over the SSMEs (Space Shuttle Main Engines).
That'll be taken care of by the time you get to the point where you could build one of these. You've got two choices:
1. Use the RS-68A engine, currently in development to upgrade the Delta IV heavy. Same basic engine, ~20% better performance.
2. Use the RD-180 design used on the Atlas V heavy. It is Russian designed, but Lockheed (now ULA) are working with the Russians to get them manufactured state-side. Better performance than either the RS-68 or 68A.
Either way, you reuse existing EELV technology, whic
Re: (Score:2)
I think it is a bit more complicated than this. Some of these flights used the original SRB, and some used the RSRM. Presumably saftety has improved with the redesigned motor.
The thing is there are plenty of ways to guess what the reliability of the SRB is and one way to find out by burning through a few thousand SRBs and seeing how many fail. The problem is that the probabilistic assessments used in ESAS simply aren't backed by the kind of data needed. They neither have enough data on the SRB nor enough data on rocketry in general to claim *anything* has a LOM of 1 in 400. Globally over the past 60 years, there have been somewhere under 10,000 flights to space either suborbital
Re: (Score:2)
Yah, and the CIA had an extremely detailed report describing why we knew Iraq certainly had WMDs. Lots of paperwork making a show of comparing the possible theories isn't worth squat if the process that produced that report isn't fair, objective and openminded. And there have been reasonable credible allegations that the NASA process that selected Ares was, like the CIA intelligence on Iraq, biased by a boss who already knew the "right" answer.
For instance I seem to remember hearing (but can't verify so t
Re: (Score:2)
For instance I seem to remember hearing (but can't verify so take with a grain of salt) that the selected proposal was very similar to the proposal Griffin himself advocated in one of his theses. Whether he did or not the credibility of the ESAS is already somewhat questionable given that it's rejection of the previously preferred approach coincided with Griffin's appointment. In this context the accusations made by people involved in the process that Griffin had already decided on the desired answer seem reasonably credible.
You're probably thinking of this report [planetary.org] which Griffin was co-leader of, which presented the inline SRB design which eventually became the Ares I, and concluded it was superior to all the other launch alternatives. The report came out in 2004, a year before Griffin became NASA Administrator.
The amount of space research and propulsion/vehicle research that NASA could finance if it abandoned the ISS or better yet put man space flight on hold until launch technology improved is enormous... Useful human presence in space requires cheaper launches and the money NASA wastes on manned exploration now could fund an amazing amount of research into new launch technologies.
I'm going to have to disagree on this one. In fact, it's looking like things like COTS missions to the ISS are going to do more for making launches cheaper than anything else NASA's done in the past 20 years.
Re: (Score:2)
NASA conducts an extremely detailed study into literally hundreds of architecture design alternatives known as the Exploration Systems Architecture Study [wikipedia.org]. It is a fantastic report - read it here [nasa.gov]. The study rejects using EELVs (due primarily to safety concerns)and recommends a shuttle-derived re-using shuttle and Apollo technology across the two launch vehicles (then called CLV and CaLV).
Actually, the ESAS is regarded by many to have had some pretty dubious assumptions built in from the get-go, which were pretty much devised to make sure the EELVs couldn't pass them. Also, much of what made the Ares-progenitor design look so good under the ESAS analysis doesn't really apply anymore, since the Ares design and components have been changed to much as to make it "shuttle-derived" only in the loosest sense of the term.
Re: (Score:2)
If EELV reliability was that bad, why are they now using components from EELV (namely RS-68 engines) in Ares V? One Ares V uses more RS-68 engines than a Delta-4 Heavy would. So how come it has better reliability? Any person with a small notion of statistics would smell the bullshit.
Re: (Score:2)
Call me cynical, but... (Score:3, Insightful)
I'm not a rocket scientist, but after reviewing the various on-line resources for DIRECT and Ares, DIRECT looks like the *obvious* better way to go -- reusing (and/or slightly modifying) many existing components and facilities.
Perhaps the problem is simply that DIRECT is less expensive. As any pointy-haired boss will say, "where's the fun in that?"
Re: (Score:2)
is there a chance that the NASA chiefs are pushing for Ares specifically because it will require a complete reworking of the infrastructure and launch support systems?
And, that's not necessarily even a bad thing if they are (aside from the ethical problem with it, of course), if the end-result is something that better meets the long-term needs of what we want NASA to be doing. The question of what we want NASA to be doing is, of course, the zillion dollar question, which is going to be reevaluated by the Ob
Re:Oh yeah that sounds great (Score:5, Interesting)
And yeah, Griffin does come off as a real jerk, esp. when discussing the Shuttle accidents.
Re:Oh yeah that sounds great (Score:5, Informative)
That's part of it. Having the capsule mounted on top of the fuel tanks also tends to add extra safety. And because of the relatively low weight of these capsules, you can afford to stick extra safety equipment on them. The DIRECT folks are even talking about possibly putting a tank of water between the fuel tank and the crew module, in order to absorb blast and fragmentation. That has the added benefit of providing a lot more water for use in space than the crews would normally have.
The DIRECT system is estimated to have a Loss-of-Crew rate of 1 in 1100-ish, which is something like 10 times better than the shuttle fleet. It seems like a really good idea, but then IANARS, so don't quote me.
Re:Oh yeah that sounds great (Score:4, Informative)
Having the capsule mounted on top of the fuel tanks also tends to add extra safety. And because of the relatively low weight of these capsules, you can afford to stick extra safety equipment on them.
Yes, the capsule designs have a Launch Abort System. It's the thing that looks like a tower at the top of the stack. It is a rocket motor that can yank the capsule away from the rest of the system if something goes terribly wrong.
cynisms (Score:2)
Having the capsule mounted on top of the fuel tanks also tends to add extra safety. And because of the relatively low weight of these capsules, you can afford to stick extra safety equipment on them.
Yes, the capsule designs have a Launch Abort System. It's the thing that looks like a tower at the top of the stack. It is a rocket motor that can yank the capsule away from the rest of the system if something goes terribly wrong.
Why is it that I can't see that thing mentioned without immediately thinking that it will someday go horribly wrong by firing at the wrong time?
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
Because you're being a silly bugger?
Do you have the same fantasies about ejection-seat systems? Or aircraft fire-suppression systems?
If I were you I'd be more worried about your airbag going off in your face while you're booting along at 90mph, shaving, and drinking a coffee all at the same time.
Re: (Score:3, Interesting)
I'm no expert, but on a general reading, it sounds like Aries was designed by people trying to meet the specs on paper and this was designed by people who know the astronauts and know what they're doing and want to protect the people and do their job -- not just meet the specs and make a profit.
But I have to admit, calling any spacecraft a Jupiter makes me uneasy. I'd risk a ride in the first one and anything from the third on, but there's no way I'd trust any vehicle referenced at all as the Jupiter II.
Re: (Score:2)
calling any spacecraft a Jupiter makes me uneasy
On the other hand, naming a "civilian" rocket after a god of war makes me QUITE suspicious.
Re: (Score:2)
Of course, its' name could have come from something more benign. Like, say, a celestial body somewhere deep in space.
Or in our own solar system.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Greek Ares is Roman Mars.
Thank you, Captain Obvious!
Re: (Score:2)
I'm no expert, but on a general reading, it sounds like Aries was designed by people trying to meet the specs on paper and this was designed by people who know the astronauts and know what they're doing and want to protect the people and do their job -- not just meet the specs and make a profit.
But I have to admit, calling any spacecraft a Jupiter makes me uneasy. I'd risk a ride in the first one and anything from the third on, but there's no way I'd trust any vehicle referenced at all as the Jupiter II.
First of all, you have no idea how bad it is that Ares has been designed to spec. So much so that with problems in the basic design of the Ares I, rather than trying to fix the problems they are shaving off payload mass and forcing a redesign of the capsule. Ask about the "pogo stick" problems (where the main engines give an incredibly bumpy ride... much worse than the Saturn V ever did). I'm sure a couple billion dollars will eventually fix the Ares I rocket, but for that price they might as well do a f
Re:Oh yeah that sounds great (Score:5, Interesting)
Ares I is an abortion, and Ares V is being made without specific applications in mind. With the specs changing so often, I doubt either will ever fly.
Why, oh why, did NASA drop funding for SLI which was supposed to develop new generation staged combustion engines? Developing new engines is the first step in developing any new space transportation system. If we had RS-84 [astronautix.com], or something like it, it would change the game. We need to develop technologies for reliable and cheap access to orbit dammit, not gigantic White Elephants made of old tech, that is fitter for launching nuclear warheads than people.
Then there is the fact that they dropped landing, like the Russians have done for yonks, in favour of dropping into the ocean. What a retrograde step! If they couldn't make the stupid air bags light enough, they just needed to add retrorockets like the Russians. That capsule is too damn big anyway. They should shrink it into something that can fit an EELV.
Re: (Score:2)
I'm not sure if you are serious, at least about space projects, but isnt it called an ICBM for a reason? ie: that's all its capable of?
According to the wiki [wikipedia.org], it might be good at launching some sort of weather balloon *really* quickly, but thats about it for its effective altitude.
Comment removed (Score:4, Informative)
Re: (Score:2)
Because it will have to carry payloads far greater than satellites, most satellites are about 1,000KG or less, when a suitable replacement for the Shuttle, needs to be able to deal with 10,000 to 25,000KG (22,700KG is what the Shuttle can carry).
As an example, Hubble, is 11,000+KG, how exacly would you plan on getting something like that up there with some ICBM's?... strap 10 of them together?
Re: (Score:2)
In my rather limited understanding of it, I don't think its possible, because the concept reallies fairly heavily on the rotation of the earth/planet to keep the counter weight 'out there' something that the moon doesn't have.
Plus, it just doesn't seem practical, as like you said no (or *extremely* thin) atmosphere, so no worries there, and far less gravitational pull, so its probably far more practical to stick with standard/typical rocket landing and launching.
However, 200 years from now, an elevator dire
Re: (Score:2)
However, there is no need for an elevator on the moon. Because there is no atmosphere, you can launch things horizontally using a maglev system.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Yes.
Re: (Score:3, Informative)
Going to the Moon with chemical fueled rockets is like building computers with vacuum tubes. Both were done 40-50 years ago. Where would computing be now if we had relied on building better vacuum tubes rather than investing in the research the lead to the transistor?
The problem is that despite of decades of effort, they still haven't figured out how to get nonzero thrust out of solid-state rocket engines.
Re: (Score:2)
The problem is that despite of decades of effort, they still haven't figured out how to get nonzero thrust out of solid-state rocket engines.
We have, but thrust is currently too low for manned missions, For example:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ion_thruster [wikipedia.org]
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Magnetoplasmadynamic_thruster [wikipedia.org]
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Variable_specific_impulse_magnetoplasma_rocket [wikipedia.org]
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
We have, but thrust is currently too low for manned missions, For example:
I wouldn't call any of your examples "solid state", in the electronics sense the parent jokingly suggested. They're all basically very large vacuum tubes without the tube.
Re: (Score:2)
That doesn't even make sense!
Anything that ejects mass has a non-zero thrust by Newton's ? law. Perhaps you mean they don't have enough thrust to weight ratio to escape earth's gravity? I believe that is still false but you are correct that a fully solid fueled approach would require prohibitively large rockets with currently available technology.
Re: (Score:2)
I meant solid-state as in trying to build rocket motors out of doped silicon crystals.
Re: (Score:2)
Yeah, but the NIMBY folks won't let us play around with nuclear rockets. So, we're stuck with chemical.
Re: (Score:2)
Hey, you stole my metaphor!
But I would take it farther and say that sending men into space now is like investing in OS research by building giant vacuum tube computers instead of investing in transistor research.
First create a decent way to get men into space then send them there not the other way around. We gain very little continuing to send men up into space the same way we have been doing since the 60s.
Re: (Score:2)
You do realize that the cost of the "chemical fuels" are less than 1% of the cost of a modern rocket, right? Chemical fuels are very far from being the limiting constraint.
Re: (Score:2)
"Just wait until Obama and congress start blowing their wads on domestic spending (buying votes)."
I think you should mention here how much money Bush spent "buying votes" by sending out all those millions of worthless little checks to American households.
"NASA's budget will look like a piggy bank."
It already does. Oddly enough, the number you mentioned (700 billion) is just about exactly what has been spent on NASA in total. Ever. That means since its inception in 1958.