NASA Shuttle Replacement's Problems Are Worsening 344
ausoleil noted that NASA's replacement for the shuttle, the Orion, is slipping behind schedule "'We're probably going to have to move our target date,' NASA exploration chief Doug Cooke told The Associated Press on Wednesday after Nasawatch.com posted the 117-page internal status report (PDF) on the moon program. The cost problems include an $80 million overrun on a motor system. The Orion spacecraft's design remains too heavy for the proposed Ares 1 rocket. Software development, heat shield testing and other complex work remain behind schedule or over budget. There are dozens of such serious challenges, many of which are 'worsening.'"
Fortunately for NASA (Score:5, Insightful)
Look, does this news really come as a surprise? NASA's been over-budget and behind schedule since the last Apollo flight. Without the unlimited checkbook that Mercury/Gemini/Apollo had, this should be expected.
Unlimited budgets have a way of clearing all obstacles in their path.
Gap? (Score:5, Insightful)
How long will there be no active US manned spacecraft - and will this get longer?
I am reminded of the gap between Apollo and the Shuttle - and look at what happened to Skylab...
What has happened to us? (Score:5, Insightful)
We seemed more adventurous and capable in the 1960s than we are in 2008. Is this what has become of the great spacefaring nation that so many before us had envisioned? Despite serious technological advancements, have we lost our momentum? Maybe it was a passion for the unknown that enabled us before. I fear it has been replaced by disinterested private contractors, underfunding, and ambivalence. More so if this shuttle replacement isn't successful.
Re:Did we really make it to the moon? (Score:5, Insightful)
Sure sure. Sounds great.
Now, just initial here that the 2008 mandatory stress testing has been done on each component, OSHA has approved the ergonomics of the seats, all modern safety systems are in place...and...hello? Where are you going?
No one (with power in NASA or gov't) is interested in getting back to the moon without a billion rules, regulations, and safety measures.
Just about what I expected (Score:3, Insightful)
I've given up on any hope for a manned successor to the shuttle, at least as far as NASA is concerned. I've gotten my geek hope burned too many times on the hype.
If this thing ever gets off the ground, I will be surprised. But even if it does at that, I imagine the design will be as flawed and compromised as the shuttle's.
Re:Did we really make it to the moon? (Score:1, Insightful)
you get what you pay for (Score:5, Insightful)
Re:What has happened to us? (Score:5, Insightful)
1. Less funding. For as much as we use it as a dick wagging competition neither party has a real interest in seeing a very robust space program when those dollars could go to buying off voters with more useless ventures that put cash in the right pockets.
2. Speaking of dick wagging competitions, we've lost our main rival. While the argument could be made that the Chinese are going to beat us up in the space race in another couple of decades, most people just aren't that interested. The space race is no longer a spectator sport since Crazy Ivan is now regarded as either friendly or impotent. The same Joe Sixpacks who shell out hundreds to thousands of dollars each year on their favorite football team were keeping interest in the space program alive when it was competitive. They love The Right Stuff, they yawn at 2001.
Meh. (Score:5, Insightful)
You should see the contortions Grumman had to go through, to get the Lunar Module under the mission weight budget, well into the Apollo Program.
I figure the only thing that's changed between now and then is the Internet makes it much easier for the lay public to form entirely the wrong impression about highly complex and technical works-in-progress.
Re:Fortunately for NASA (Score:2, Insightful)
NASA's been over-budget and behind schedule since the last Apollo flight.
Please remind me which USG agency has not been? (Other than the post office)
Re:Gap? (Score:3, Insightful)
How long will there be no active US manned spacecraft - and will this get longer?
I am reminded of the gap between Apollo and the Shuttle - and look at what happened to Skylab...
This is expected, though. Since when do projects half this scale go as planned? I just hope the Americans get their shit together and give Orion the funding it needs.
Re:yeah, that's right. i'm not a rocket scientist (Score:5, Insightful)
Cost plus is always likely to see cost overruns and major delays. The more expensive and the longer it takes, the more the contractors make. There's no motivation to be on time and under budget.
Re:Did we really make it to the moon? (Score:5, Insightful)
Also consider that astronauts were looked on as rough and tough guys doing their national duty in the days of Apollo. Today they're seen as geeks wasting cash on expensive toys.
project rule: double estimated time (Score:4, Insightful)
Re:Did we really make it to the moon? (Score:4, Insightful)
Now, just initial here that the 2008 mandatory stress testing has been done on each component, OSHA has approved the ergonomics of the seats, all modern safety systems are in place...and...hello? Where are you going?
Actually, the real problem is the toxic fuels that were used, and a few other toxic components. It's the _environmental_ issues that prevent Apollo-era technology from flying today, not the safety issues.
Why the Ares I? (Score:5, Insightful)
There are existing commercial launch vehicles such as the Delta IV or Atlas V rockets that can be man rated or the potential upcoming commercial launch vehicles such as the SpaceX Falcon 9 that could replace Ares I. Although man rating isn't trivial it's insane for NASA to create a new rocket to compete with existing commercial launch vehicles. NASA should encourage making manned access to low Earth orbit a low cost commercial commodity rather than using government resources to discourage such access.
In fact, NASA should contract with two independent suppliers capable of lifting the CEV to low Earth orbit and buy launch vehicles from each supplier in near equal quantities. This would add some expense, but it would make sure that should a launch accident occur our manned space program isn't grounded for years as complex accident investigations occur and fixes are implemented on the failed launch vehicle.
The Ares I is an albatross that only exists because of pride and politics. It is harmful to the exact type of space development that this nation needs. In the early 60's NASA didn't lose any face by choosing to re-purpose ICBMs for the Mercury and Gemini programs. Instead, out of necessity, NASA it's rocket building teams on the Saturn series of rockets. It was the practical decision then and it is the practical decision to re-purpose existing vehicles now for LEO access.
If NASA wants to build a launcher (and whether they should be building any is a very debatable) then they should be concentrating exclusively on the Ares V/VI which actually goes somewhere and does something that commercial space companies may not be able to do economically today.
Re:Gap? (Score:5, Insightful)
Actually this kind of cost overrun is absolutely planned.
You'd do it too, if faced with this alternative:
If you cared *nothing* for your country but just wanted to run a big project, then you would lie, get the money, and do the project. On the other hand, if you cared *dearly* for your country, and knew it needed a space program, then you would lie, get the money, and do the project.
Ah well.
I am finally at peace with this. What I will never be at peace with, however, is the fact that the space program is a mere drop in the bucket of market-distorting federal transfer payments.
Re:Did we really make it to the moon? (Score:2, Insightful)
> Just use the equipment from the Apollo
> program...problem solved.
This would be going back to vacuum tube technology.
It would also be quite expensive to do. Not only are the required vacuum tubes not in stock anywhere, the factories and machines that made the vacuum tubes no longer exist. And the tools to make the machines to make vacuum tubes no longer exist, and nobody makes the tools any more.
Now multiply this problem with every part -- from electronics to literally nuts and bolts -- of the rockets, engines, ground segment, etc. The industrial infrastructure that created Apollo parts went the way your neighborhood horse whip factory did.
Re:Gap? (Score:5, Insightful)
Somebody-or-others-law:
A poorly planned project takes three times as long to complete as scheduled.
A well planned project only takes twice as long.
Re:What has happened to us? (Score:5, Insightful)
Let's also be clear that the need to put humans in space seems not so obvious any more. We have fleets of robots exploring other planets with less cost and less risk. To me, human exploration of space at this time seems like a waste. Right now the human space program seems more like a corporate boondoggle than anything else. Of course it is over budget, that is the whole point - to spend a lot of taxpayer money!
With robots you can take more risk and spend more money. And, I'm not saying that humans shouldn't go into space, it just seems like right now we should be focused on exploration, which is better served with robots.
Re:Did we really make it to the moon? (Score:1, Insightful)
That's an urban myth. NASA has a complete Apollo rocket suspended in pieces from the ceiling in its tourist center. I have pictures.
Re:Why the Ares I? (Score:2, Insightful)
Re:Did we really make it to the moon? (Score:2, Insightful)
Re:Did we really make it to the moon? (Score:4, Insightful)
The Apollo astronauts _were_ tough guys doing their national duty.
Besides that. JFK was buried the day Armstrong set foot on the Moon. The goal set by him was accomplished, the Russians defeated and, thus, Joe Sixpack lost interest. There seemed to be a can-do attitude, a willingness to blow stuff up and to take risks that is no more.
It's really tragic thing. Maybe we don't deserve to be a spacefaring race.
Project Orion... oh, rats... (Score:3, Insightful)
Damn, I thought they were talking about Project Orion [wikipedia.org].
Re:you get what you pay for (Score:5, Insightful)
I'm astounded at the number of people on a nerd site (of all places) who take "old sayings" unquestionably.
Whoever believes that "you get what you pay for" has never prepaid for sex, or used an unlicensed contractor for home repairs. You usually pay for what you get, but you don't always get what you pay for. Often a higher priced item will be inferior to a lower priced item. Only a fool buys item A because it costs more than item B. Seller B may be trying to get market share.
Money doesn't grow on trees, you know. Oh wait - yes, it does. It not only grows on trees, it grows on cornstalks and soybean bushes and all sorts of other plants.
There's no such thing as a free lunch... excuse me, grandma's calling. What, grandma? Sure, I'll come over for lunch.
Nothing free is worthwhile. Except maybe air. And rain. And those dandelion leaves in that expensive salad you just bought. Someone gave me some tomato plants, and guess what? Home grown tomatos are vastly superior to the ones I bought. Yes, It took fifteen minutes physical labor to plant them and I'll have to pick the tomatos, but that's not a cost, it's a benefit. I work at a desk job and don't get much exersize. Meanwhile I pay a fee for the gym.
My dad always said "don't believe anything you hear, and only half of what you see". I think he's right, and I think it goes double for those incredibly stupid old sayings. Don't take anything on face value; at least give it half a thought.
Inefficiency (Score:3, Insightful)
I'm sure there are a lot of smart people at NASA who can do quite a lot on their modest government regulated salaries.
But I'm equally sure they are vastly outnumbered by mediocre and downright incompetent talent that waste tax payer dollars doing little, nothing or actually counter-producing by dragging the aforementioned smart people into their screwed up projects on last-minute, emergency fix-this sessions.
It's the nature of government employment methodology: "keep the fat."
Thank god we have some rich billionaires developing the commercial space program.
Re:Did we really make it to the moon? (Score:3, Insightful)
Well unless you count LEO...we're not. The ISS is what, about 220 miles up? Shuttle makes it a whopping 500-ish at most? what a sad state.
Re:Fortunately for NASA (Score:4, Insightful)
There are alternatives [spacex.com].
Yeah, including some real alternatives, that can actually get into the orbits NASA needs to get to, rather then just barely out of the atmosphere (where you can tell a tourist that they are 'in space'. Like this [ulalaunch.com] or this [ulalaunch.com].
The US Government has already funded the development of not one, but two rockets with the kinds of capabilities they need. They are flight proven, expandable to handle all sorts of loads, and available right now, not whenever Ares will slip out to. Add a little redundancy in a couple of systems, and have them ready to launch American astronauts into space in two years.
SpaceX is cool, and is probably the direction that the future of American space exploration needs to go. But it is not ready, it is not proven and it doesn't come close to the kinds of payload capacity or reliability that we need now. Check back around the time when Ares is supposed to be done to see what SpaceX is up to. In the mean time, quit screwing around developing a rocket similar, but slightly different from, the two perfectly good commercially available ones that are already up and running.
Re:Why were they so good in the 60's? (Score:2, Insightful)
Re:Did we really make it to the moon? (Score:5, Insightful)
Damn it, I *JUST YESTERDAY* posted to correct this fallacy. When will the Internet learn?
The blueprints for everything, down to the last nut and bolt, are on file at MSFC. Source. [space.com]
Further, rebuilding a Saturn from them won't work. You can't get the parts made any more, nor would you want to. You can't duplicate IBM's work and make another Instrument Unit [wikipedia.org]--two tons of 1960s-vintage analog computers and gyroscopes, including equipment designed to determine the rocket's launch azimuth based on star sightings, not GPS like we'd use today. Then there's all the other analog and early digital equipment that's integral to the design. Remember, it's not just a giant fuel tank and some engines--it's a launch vehicle. It's got a flight manual [nasa.gov], and it's designed to be used in conjunction with an Apollo command and service module pair flying it.
Re-design the rocket to use new technology? By the time you've de-Apollo'd Saturn, you've made a whole new launch vehicle. Which is exactly what Ares is.
The Saturn V is an awesome piece of technology, yes. An awesome piece of 1960s technology. Rebuilding it today would not work, period, no matter how cool it might be.
Man rated (Score:4, Insightful)
Look through the discussion, and the term "man-rated" comes up, a lot. It's probably a good thing it does too, because it's generally a bad idea to lose life during launches, or any other time during the flight, for that matter.
But I question the path to man rating. For the US space program, as far as I can tell, only Mercury and Gemini turned previously designed boosters into man-rated. Everything else has been designed from the get-go as man-rated. It seems to me that though it can be done that way, it's a bit of a fallacy in the making. To some extent, parts is parts, and it should always be possible to tighten the specs on some number of parts to improve the reliability of an existing booster. For that matter, existing non-man-rated boosters likely have a much longer track record, more launches, etc. They really don't want to lose *any* of these things, because even if human life isn't on top of the stack, typically tens of millions of dollars are.
So I don't understand why we don't start with a non-man-rated booster with a large number of launches and study its track record, failure modes, etc. Then start work on a man-rated version of that same booster with the necessary spec and reliability tweaks. Seems to me that it would be faster and cheaper. It likely wouldn't have the launch capacity, but at the moment that's a separate issue. Even in the Aries program there's the Aries-I with relatively low launch capacity, and the Aries-V with much greater capacity. Better heavy launch programs would still need to go forward, but why have a new light-launch program?
This isn't a technical issue (Score:4, Insightful)
Its an organisational one. They themselves are already complaining about their budget and they haven't even got a rocket off the ground yet. They've got teams off their own engineers who disagree so strongly with the direction NASA is taking they are designing an alternative rocket on their own time (DIRECT/Jupiter/Ares 2 or 4 or whatever). They've got staff airing their complaints to the press rather than their supervisor. I'd say the wheels have come off the plan to return to the Moon, buy NASA probably haven't even settled on what size wheels those would be yet.
I've mentioned this before. We can't do scale. Everyone is so invested in the orthodoxy of competition that cooperation automatically falls flat on its face. The idea of man as selfish and rational is a self fulfilling prophecy - if you believe that about other people it makes it almost impossible for you to trust and work with them.
So, in my humble opinion, neither the Americans nor anyone else is getting back on the interplanetary horse until we figure out the systemic, structural problems in our societies.
Re:project rule: double estimated time (Score:3, Insightful)
I generally follow Hofstadter's Law [wikipedia.org]:
It always takes longer than you expect, even when you take Hofstadter's Law into account.
Re:Gap? (Score:5, Insightful)
The war is not about sunk cost. It hasn't been since we defeated the Iraqi regular army.
It's about power gaps. Which, having taken over the country and destroyed their existing government, it would be irresponsible for us to simply leave the Iraqis to fend for themselves.
I am a Rocket Scientist (Score:4, Insightful)
The problem is, this project is massive. It was obvious from the beginning that their time estimates were basically based on everything working perfectly the first time and optimization studies showing that they'd already picked the most efficient design. There are always going to be problems, and the bigger the project the more you're going to have.
If they're serious about replacing the shuttle with only a couple years of downtime, they should already be gearing up to test the system as a whole. I'm not personally involved in the project, but it doesn't even look like they're ready to test big pieces yet. Maybe 2020 is a more reasonable date to actually begin flights.
Re:Man in Space? Or WWIII in Space? (Score:2, Insightful)
Isn't it ironic that all these debates about space launchers and exploration, are always restricted to one nation's nationalist efforts?....Why not champion any and every side who is willing and able to explore space?
Simple. Manned exploration is mostly about glory, NOT science. Robots are far cheaper for collecting science and samples. (And please don't start the argument about on-the-spot geologists. It doesn't hold up to scrutiny.)
Thus, if its only about glory, then nationalism must come into play. Otherwise, nobody will care enough to pay.
Re:yeah, that's right. i'm not a rocket scientist (Score:3, Insightful)
Plus usually there are follow on contracts you're interested in (to qualify for a new fee), so you have an incentive to finish in time, and even under cost since it's a FIXED fee. As for buying from subsidiaries or other subcontractors - they are subject to the same rules as the prime, so there's no hidden way of generating profit on that end either.
Re:Just wait (Score:5, Insightful)
The difference is that the Saturn V stats reflect real performance, the Ares V figures are still hypothetical. Shuttle never got much more than about 80% of its originally advertised payload capacity.
And of course, Saturn V is 45 year old technology. Just replacing the Instrument Unit (guidance system) with modern avionics would add about 2000 kg to the payload.
Use the Russian Rockets (Score:3, Insightful)
Here's another thought. The Russian have some huge heavy lift rockets that are tested and reliable. Use the Russian rockets to do the heavy lifting and concentrate on developing the manned equipment. Actually if you tell the Ares V contractors this is the plan then they may just find a way to get things done on time and on schedule for a change.
Re:Just wait (Score:2, Insightful)
Shuttle never got much more than about 80% of its originally advertised payload capacity.
You are wrong here in a way. I do not know the original advertised payload capacity, however, when they were during launch trajectory analysis they found out that when they used the upside down trajectory, it increased payload by almost 20%, so I can guarantee that the payload they carried up was more than what they originally thought it would be, if not the full extra 20%. I hope that made sense.
Re:Did we really make it to the moon? (Score:3, Insightful)
"Just use the equipment from the Apollo program...problem solved."
Even if this could be done there are problems...
1) Why bother. The Apollo can only support a VERY high risk "plant the flag" type mission. We do not want to do that mission.
2) Many people just don't realize how risky and shoe string the Appollo design was. I think if we started it up we could expect to loose one in ten missions. NASA did 6 missions and almost lost one. It was also a very expensive design. The expense was the reason NASA went for the shuttle, they thought it would be cheaper. It would have been cheaper had they been able to run as many missions per year as were planned. But the first accident caused the major user the Air Force abandon the program. With most flights now canceled the cost per flight went through the roof.
Bottom line is that Apollo was risky and expensive and could only do one very limited mission. That is NOT what we want now. Now the idea is to build a robust transportation system that can support a range of missions