Ares V Rocket Bigger and Stronger For Moon Mission 295
wooferhound writes "In a move to make the heavy-lift vehicle more robust (predicting an increased launch thrust requirement) to send four astronauts, a lunar lander plus supplies, NASA has announced the
Ares V rocket will be beefed up to cater for our future needs to get man back to the Moon. This huge vehicle is now designed to carry payloads of over 156,600 lb (71,000 kg), some 15,600 lb (or 10%) more than the original concept. Ares V was originally designed to be approximately the same length as the original Saturn V lunar rocket (361 feet or 110 metres long), but to accommodate an extra booster engine and extra payload volume, Ares V will be 381 feet (116 metres) long. This upgrade will be capable of sending far more instrumentation into space, an extra 15,600 lb (7,000 kg, or the equivalent mass of a male African elephant)."
Re:Video (Score:5, Interesting)
Am I the only one? (I should have learned my lesson about asking at /. for video but I haven't.) I don't care *what* the video is made of really. I just really want video with my space stories. When something launches, when something crashes, when something oh, lands on Mars or something... I want video. I don't care if it is computer generated, you (and I) know that the NASA folks made a video to present to someone somewhere.
Here you go:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=5PMvS1hQKxM [youtube.com]
(Computer-generated video from last year of Ares V concept)
Re:Bigger and stronger? (Score:4, Interesting)
The fallout from a launch would be similar to that of a ten-megaton nuke, of which the Soviets and the US detonated quite a few. Seriously, if you had the chance to put an eight million ton starship in orbit in exchange for one random death, would you say no? The chance to set up a self-sustaining moonbase in one move? To visit the entire solar system in short order?
Cool, but not so good for access to space (Score:5, Interesting)
The Ares V is certainly cool from a "bigger, shinier" perspective, but not so good from the perspective of wanting to reduce our immense launch costs to something even marginally more manageable. A big part of the (somewhat shoddy) reasoning for going with a shuttle-derived system was that it would be able to make use of currently-existing facilities and infrastructure. It's now looking like the Ares V is getting to be too large to use those facilities, so NASA will have to revamp its facilities, raising the cost even more.
In general, it was pretty peculiar of NASA to not devise a launch system which would take advantage of what we've learned (the hard way) from the ISS and use in-orbit assembly, which would've allowed NASA to use the already-existing launchers available from the private sector. Instead, NASA decided to compete against the private sector and create a new family of Ares boosters, basically from scratch.
Here's some interesting commentary from a couple of knowledgeable folks within the aerospace industry:
http://chairforceengineer.blogspot.com/2008/06/directly-seeing-light.html [blogspot.com]
In a recent post, I discussed the weight issues associated with Ares V (probably to be renamed Ares VI if the extra RS-68 engine is slipped in.) The rocket is growing to address performance shortfalls, but it has become too heavy for the existing crawlers, too heavy for the existing launch pad, and too heavy for the hard stand on which the mobile launcher sits. I suggested that NASA should have initially determined weight and size limits on their rocket, based on the existing infrastructure, and limited the weight and size of Ares V to fit within those requirements. If that rocket were insufficient to meet the lift requirements for Project Constellation, use two heavy-lifters instead of one heavy-lifter and one crew launcher.
http://www.transterrestrial.com/archives/2008/03/out_takes.html [transterrestrial.com]
As noted, the vehicle has come a long way from the originally advertised "Shuttle-derived" system that was supposed to save us so much money and time, and utilize the existing Shuttle infrastructure (though the latter was always a politically-induced pork-driven bug, not a feature, if one wanted to actually lower launch costs). It (like Ares I) is now essentially a new vehicle, including components, though if Ares I ever comes to fruition, Ares V will probably be at least in part derived from it. ...
So, they're going to launch the Orion, with crew, on an Ares I, and hope that they can get a successful Ares V mission off within four days, because they can't afford the duration. They build this mondo grosso launch vehicle to avoid having to do multiple launches, and yet, they not only have dual launch, but it's one on a tight window. And if they can't get the launch off on time, the lunar mission is scrubbed, and the crew comes back home from LEO, having wasted the cost of an Ares I launch (and an Orion, if they end up not making it reusable).
This is an affordable, resilient, sustainable infrastructure?
http://www.transterrestrial.com/archives/2008/06/thoughts_on_the.html [transterrestrial.com]
The rationale for the heavy lifter has always been to avoid the complication of orbital assembly (apparently, the false lesson learned from our success with assembling ISS is that we should throw away all that experience, and take an entirely different approach for VSE). But it's already a "launch and half" mission, needing both Ares 1 and Ares 56, so they're not even avoiding it--they're only minimizing it. And even if the lunar mission doesn't outgrow the Ares 6, it won't be able to do a Mars mission in a single launch. So if we need to learn to do orbital assembly (and long-term
Re:Bigger and stronger? (Score:3, Interesting)
I find that question so incredibly fucking hypocritical, it borders on insanity just to comprehend it.
Americans are the most unhealthy people on the planet. Shoving fast food, dioxins, heavy metals, high fructose corn syrup, and god knows what else in shitty prepared foods into their bodies every single day.
I tried to clean up my act and just ate Tuna as protein with fresh vegetables for 6 months. I now have mercury poisoning since I was not aware that the FDA actually allows small amounts of mercury to be sold in fish. The CA attorney general sued them, but he ended up losing since federal authority overruled him. Fucking bastards. If they had a label, I would not have eaten it.
In any case, considering the absolute crap we stuff down our pie holes EACH AND EVERY DAY at a future burden of billions upon billions of dollars to health care, I don't see what the big deal is with a little more radiation. I mean seriously, I know that I sound upset (which I am a little) and trolling here, but since when have we really demonstrated a real commitment to either our health or the environment?
Fuck it all people, seriously, just fuck it. If we can take that risk and actually get a craft like that in orbit that will allow us all to explore the solar system together, let's do it. I would love to see a real manned mission to Mars in my lifetime. Maybe even farther. 8 million tons is a LOT of spaceship. We can take more than enough supplies and energy for manned missions even further out.
If you told me that I was one of ten people in the room, and one of us had to die, but that death would make such a profound contribution to the human race... I would be one of those 10 people. No question, no hesitation. I honestly believe you take a greater risk eating prepared foods loaded with high fructose corn syrup, so sign me up for the dose of radiation.
Re:Interesting dichotomy (Score:5, Interesting)
Re:ESA's Launcher Program (Score:4, Interesting)
Dreams (Score:3, Interesting)
First, dear NASA: Permitting whatever mission creep that has led to this embiggining of Ares V is a fatal mistake. Driving up the cost only provides a larger surface on which to paint a bullseye.
Ares V is a pipe dream. Learn why by reading this [orlandosentinel.com].
US citizens generally elect the young shiny guy in any given election. McJowls doesn't stand a chance against Obama by that criteria. That means Ares V will whither on the vine after it's defunded to pay off Obama's NEA campaign support (a.k.a 'education').
Yes, I know Obama's current (dramatically revised) position only threatens 'later stages' of the Constellation program. Ares V is the later stage, because no Moon and no Mars means no need for heavy lift. He'll let NASA build Ares I to replace some fraction of the Shuttle's capability and send the rest of the money off to whichever interest group will deliver the most votes in 2012.
Re:Meh. Nuclear is not the solution to everything. (Score:3, Interesting)
The one with the quartz. If one's to use the open-cycle, it'd have to be in space - the velocity of the gas would bring it far away as long as the engine isn't pointed at the Earth. And if one's in space, perhaps the salt-water rocket would work better -- that is, if its particular neutron-absorbing (near?) unobtainium actually exists.
What are the main engineering problems with the closed-cycle GCNR? As far as I know, the continuous reaction will be outputting EM in a range to which the quartz is transparent. This leaves the material reaction on the inside of the vessel. I thought the ablation would be manageable - does it happen too rapidly?
This architecture is flawed and will never fly (Score:5, Interesting)
Meanwhile, the Ares I is
So, instead of designing two badly sized, expensive rockets that has almost no hardware re-used from the Shuttle, NASA could be building a direct evolution of that hardware. Luckily, such a design already exists. It's been proposed by NASA engineers twice in the past - after the fatal Shuttle accidents. The idea is simple: Retain the existing Shuttle tank and solids. Place engine on the bottom of the tank. Place a payload on top of the tank. This concept has been around for years, but today it's being promoted as DIRECT.
http://www.directlauncher.com/ [directlauncher.com]
lots of discussion here: http://forum.nasaspaceflight.com/index.php?topic=12379.0 [nasaspaceflight.com]
This architecture will meet all the lifting requirements for getting back to the room whilst being: Cheaper (by many billions), and Sooner (the 'flight gap' after shuttle retirement is reduced from 6 years to 2. This retains all the technical staff that would otherwise be layed off. A similar brain drain after Apollo did massive damage to NASA and we don't want that to happen again
I could go on and on. It is obvious that DIRECT is the better option. They are actively lobbying congress and have plenty of support within NASA. In fact, an internal NASA study found that DIRECT was superior to Ares in every way, but this study was squashed by management. With DIRECT, the next president can have astronauts back in space in his administration. But only if his NASA administrator cancels Ares and Chooses DIRECT.
Re:Bigger and stronger? (Score:4, Interesting)
I assert that this entire thing is a waste of time money and cycles. A pound to a penny the supposed manned lunar landings are cancelled long before launch. I can believe the Ares-1 will fly, because without that there's no US manned launch capability so big political symbolism, but with the economy guaranteed to be in the toilet for the next five years and with oil permanently at least ten times more expensive than the historical average, "Apollo (slight reprise)" simply won't have enough domestic political support to avoid the axe. No doubt Dubya had something like that scenario in mind when he announced the ludicrous and engineeringly illiterate "first the Moon, then Mars" scheme but denied it the funding in the first place. And with the relative costs of fantastically amazing missions like MRO, MER and Phoenix compared to manned operations, then frankly I'm glad.
Yeah, I use to think that same way (Score:5, Interesting)
Going to the moon is not that bad of an idea.
Insane. (Score:2, Interesting)
Why does a country that could cripple the US economy or vaporize Washington DC need to be able to zap things in space? The sensible thing for them to do is wait for provocation and then use trade disruption as a weapon. If push comes to shove, they have the same "game over" card all the other nuclear powers have. Demonstrating star wars capability instead of peacefully developing space is a propaganda error.
Re:How about... (Score:2, Interesting)
Building and deploying a Saturn V equivalent
which you missed. NASA has no capability of doing even that right now. Obviously it will be different from the original Saturn V. Much lighter by using better materials for instance (the other important bit, better fuels, has not seen much improvement in 40 years). No one says they should copy it.
Still with "Von Braun's body ... a moulderin' in the ground" it turns out that the 1960's US has much stronger space hardware than the 2000 US.
Of course they should not try to emulate the old glory that has long since faded. But they should at least match it (using today's technology) before trying to build bigger stuff. Starting from specs we know are feasible offers a much better chance of a working plan. After all it was done in the 60s in less than 5 years. Can it be done again today in the same time frame? I hope so.
correction (Score:3, Interesting)
Atlas V already launches as much as the Ares I theoretically ever will.
My apologies, Atlas V launches less frequently than I recalled. For 2002-2006, it launched about 3 times every two years. In 2007, it launched 4 times. In 2008, it has launched twice and plans are to launch 5 more times this year. That probably means 5-6 times this year unless a significant accident postpones things. Delta IV has launched less frequently with 1 launch every year from 2002-2006. In 2004, they test launched the first Delta IV Heavy which was a partial success (it had a significant problem but was able to successfully deploy the more forgiving part of its payload). That rocket is a near direct competitor to the Ares I. All it needs is "man-rating" to become a direct competitor.