NASA recently released this cool picture of the Ares-1 rocket stack inside the assembly building:
 |
I have not yet reached a conclusion about my personal opinion on the Ares rockets… there is much controversy and speculation going on right now about whether NASA will even build these rockets en masse to replace the Shuttle. The Augustine Commission — a group of people asked to review NASA’s future of the Shuttle, Constellation, the space station, and going back to the Moon and on to Mars — released some of their results but I haven’t had time to review much yet. It’s a lot to read, and I have a lot to do. But I’m not exactly thrilled that this is happening this late in the game for NASA, when there are only six Shuttle flights left, and then the U.S. faces a gap in our ability to loft humans into space that will last at least four years (and I’m betting it’ll be a lot more).
Also, a static test firing of the motor for Ares was supposed to happen the other day, but was canceled due to a failed power unit, and the test has been postponed for an undisclosed amount of time. These things happen, but it’s not a great sign.
September 6th, 2009 at 8:44 am
A minor nit: This is the Ares “1-X” which as far as I have been able to tell by reading other equally unauthoritative sources, doesn’t actually contain any ‘real’ Ares or Orion hardware.
As I understand it, it’s supposed to somehow give us information about how the actual Ares stack will fly, but since it uses a four-segment booster plus a ‘simulated fifth segment’ instead of the five-segment booster, it’s not clear to me quite how, since the major sources of concern seem to involve the engine resonances, which I expect to be completely different for the different sizes of motor.
I’m as unqualified to judge this as I am to referee the ‘string theory’ wars, so I just sit back and watch…
September 6th, 2009 at 8:46 am
As it stands, the idea we’re going beyond LEO anytime soon is an impossible dream. Not so much because we can’t do it, but because we don’t want to fund it. I realize that economic times aren’t the best, but that’s all the more reason to invest in the future.
As for the Ares-1, and the rest of the constellation program its obviously doomed without more funding. Which will make me very angry, spending so much money and time on something that we’re not committed to funding and then increasing the gap further. That looks to be the case though, it certainly looks like its going to be longer then five years after the space shuttle is retired that we are able to put humans into space again.
That isn’t to say I mind paying the Russians, I don’t. The shuttle is done, leave it be as soon as ISS is complete. Not to mention paying 50 million per flight is cheaper than 450 million per flight (As is the case with the shuttle), which in theory anyway allows us to focus on the next launch system and reach for the next goal. So, can we please get something done?
Or are we going to let China, a nation that is 30 years behind us take the lead in human spaceflight?
September 6th, 2009 at 9:04 am
I was in Utah for the test and was gutted when it was scrubbed. I was with a couple of ATK engineers at the time and they interpreted the acronyms for me. Evidently a valve in the hydrazine system failed to open for some reason.
As far as Ares 1-X, I think the nozzle would have to be changed because I don’t think the shuttle version of the nozzle has enough range control properly by itself.
September 6th, 2009 at 9:13 am
The SRB test has been rescheduled for September 10.
September 6th, 2009 at 9:21 am
_If_ the Moon is scrubbed, Ares-1 & Orion both are *s-d* LEO systems. Better to scale back and do it right (i.e cheap). If NASA is concerned with political fallout and supply risks, why not buy into Space-X LEO launches?
@ Benjamin:
Good idea on comparing nations. But in 2010 China _will_ surpass US space capability, however temporary. (If a likely near decade is counted as temporary.) Wouldn’t that make them more like bridging 50 years (1961 – 2010)?
[Or more accurately US has now lost 50 years in which it could have made substantial progress in exploration. At least if you count the ISS as International and/or not much of LEO presence.]
September 6th, 2009 at 9:23 am
I didn’t realise the Ares was in such an advanced stage of construction. It isn’t just a huge mock up is it?
September 6th, 2009 at 9:23 am
Norman R. Augustine, who’s in charge of the Augustine Commission, wrote the humorous yet very serious Augustine’s Laws, about all the ways in which government R&D projects go wrong — overbudgeting, paperwork, government oversight, test failures, bloating. I hope that he is making everyone at NASA read it. The sad part is that it was written 25 years ago and none of these problems have been corrected.
It is dedicated “to those many individuals, in government and out, who through sheer ability and dedication have achieved so very much, too often in spite of the system intended to support them.”
Law XXX, incidentally, is “The optimum committee has no members.”
September 6th, 2009 at 9:31 am
I think that the Ares-1 program is wholly unnecessary. The Ares-5 rocket on the other hand will be awesome, if it ever gets built. There is *nothing* that previously existed, currently exists, or is in development that can match the Ares-5 rocket (including the Saturn-V).
The problem is that even though Ares-5 is very different from Ares-1 in many ways, it is an Ares-1 derived rocket. So many of the technologies that will be developed (and the engineering challenges that will be worked through) for the Ares-1 will also have to be developed (and worked through) for the Ares-5 program.
This means that canning Ares-1 and working solely on Ares-5 won’t save a whole lot of money:(. That was the whole rational behind the development of the Ares-1 in the first place. It isn’t necessary, but it provides a gateway to Ares-5 development.
However, even though canning the Ares-1 program wouldn’t save a bundle of money, it will save some money. Because of this my preference is to can the Ares-1 rocket and have NASA concentrate on something that no one else is bothering with: a super-heavy lifter (Ares-5). It’s looking like the functionality that would be provided by Ares-1 will be available from commercial lifters very soon (ie: human rated rockets that can carry 4-7 man capsules (depending on the company) into LEO without any problem).
September 6th, 2009 at 9:52 am
Buzz Aldrin as Terrence Hill in ‘the moon landing hoax’
http://www.dumpert.nl/mediabase/576331/26dbf517/the_right_stuff.html
September 6th, 2009 at 9:56 am
There is *nothing* that previously existed, currently exists, or is in development that can match the Ares-5 rocket (including the Saturn-V)
I’m reading Stephen Baxter’s new book, Ark, and he updates the 60′s nuke rocket Orion. Awesome tech that… except for kilometre wide hole it leaves in the ground.
September 6th, 2009 at 10:10 am
If NASA follwed today’s stereotyped corporate model, it would get done quickly but here where everything would be done:
Management: United States (a subsidiary of Canada, China, Germany, and Japan)
Science and Design: Outsourced to India
Software and IT: Outsourced to India
Rocket Constuction: Outsourced to China
Marketing: Outsourced to China and Singapore
Public Commerical Sales: Outsourced to the Philipines
Cheap Marketing handout crap: Outsourced to China
All other manufacturting: Outsourced to China
September 6th, 2009 at 10:19 am
The notion of going to the Moon or Mars while we lack routine and reliable access to LEO is a bit backward. The Shuttle was supposed to provide that kind of access, but that didn’t pan out. So, when Bush tasked NASA to go back to the Moon and Mars, not only did he neglect to fund the effort but he dumped onto NASA the requirement to, yet again, start from scratch to get people to and from LEO. Hence, Ares-1.
Meanwhile, the Russian have spent the last 40 years flying the same vehicle and the same orbiter to and from LEO. It’s small, cramped, and doesn’t carry much but they do have the right idea.
If I was on the Augustine Commission, I’d recommend deep-sixing Ares-1, continuing Ares-5 development, challenging (a prize?) the private sector to develop and fly a vehicle capable of delivering a 6-man version of the Ares vehicle to LEO within two years (and I’d allow them to exploit existing military EELV’s), and then I put all deadlines for the Moon or elsewhere in abeyance.
This country needs to build and maintain the private and public infrastructure needed to put people and cargo into LEO. That’s fundamental.
September 6th, 2009 at 10:31 am
Americans are too short sighted to care about any of this. Fortunately, much of the rest of the world is not. So it looks like we will have manned spaceflight without the American flag. That makes me a little sad, but not much…as long as someone does it!
September 6th, 2009 at 11:00 am
I totally agree with Glenn. Ares 1-X has very little to do with Ares 1 and yet it is delayed and has faced several budget overruns…
My opinion is this: We need cheap and relyable transport to orbit first, especially for crews. Build a cheap and relyable RLV. It does not need to have much payload. 4 people (or the equivalent in cargo) is IMHO enough. Heck, the russian Soyus only does 3 people, but the US will have to rent some of those to get to the ISS.
Anyway, a price for development of such an RLV would IMHO be the way to go. The COTS program has demonstrated that this can work and that it is possible to get results that way for very little money. COTS- D would be a good start, but only a start. Other programs need to follow and they need to focus on RLVs and cheap access to orbit.
Imagine what a transatlantic flight would cost, if we had to throw away the 747 after every flight! It is completely logical and obvious, that RLVs are the right way to do this.
Once going to orbit is cheap enough, then everything else is possible.
Anyway NASAs job should be to research the basic technologies and develop the enabling technologies that private companies will the use to build their entries into future COTS- like competitions. That way it is also guaranteed that research and tooling is documented sufficiently well to be usable past the end of a research program. I know of several instances where knowledge gathered during cancelled NASA programs was lost (e.g. RLV- development programs). This would not happen with an approach as I am describing, because the whole purpose then is reproducability for commercial exploit.
September 6th, 2009 at 11:33 am
@Elmar_M: “Imagine what a transatlantic flight would cost if we had to throw away the 747 after every flight.”
This is precisely the issue. Not being even vaguely aware of the limits of the relevant technologies, I don’t know if it really is possible to build a reusable ground-to-orbit-to-ground system with current technologies. If it is, then we should strongly encourage as many people as possible to do so (e.g., by means of programs like COTS and COTS-D.) If it is not, then the question becomes whether we can best develop the required technologies via NASA research or in the private sector.
Currently, NASA (or at least the previous leadership) seems to have decided that reusable isn’t possible, so they’re going back to Apollo. Either that, or they’ve gone senile and are regressing to memories of youthful success. Opinions vary…
September 6th, 2009 at 1:20 pm
NASA returning to the Apollo age technology (with better computers) looks more like a steampunk fetish… than a reasonable and sane technology.
You cannot beat Soyuz, when it comes to cheap and reliable LEO access… and I do not understand why NASA does not focus on those many new propulsion technologies, and craft ideas that had appeared since 1960.
Personally I really liked the Klipper project of the Russians… to bad it got axed.
Constellation program will take decades. I fear that I will have to wait more than 50 years before I see a man on mars, and I have my doubts that he will be an american.
September 6th, 2009 at 1:32 pm
Glenn, NASA chose the Ares 1/5 combination because Bush ordered them to do something, gave them no money to do it, told them to wind down the Shuttle to pay for it, and because no RLV exists or is remotely on the horizon.
People seem to forget that the key decisions about NASA’s crewed programs are always made at the White House. Every manned program to date required White House approval and support. When the support ended, the programs ended. While it makes a lot of sense to spend money on RLV technology, it has little political appeal.
I’d love to see an effective RLV, but I’m not holding my breath. The 747 analogy is imprecise because airplanes don’t risk burning up. If someone wants to boost the chances for an economical RLV, then let them invent a material that can withstand reentry without melting, burning, falling off, or otherwise needing extensive maintenance after every flight. Until then, cheap reliable vehicles on the Soyuz model make more sense.
September 6th, 2009 at 2:51 pm
Here’s a question that I’m sure has a reasonable answer that doesn’t seem so evident to me right now.
If so much of the hassle with re-entry is the tremendous heat, couldn’t a vehicle use thrusters to slow it’s re-entry such that the heat isn’t a problem? You use engines to get into orbit, couldn’t you use engines to get back?
The trajectory and technology to do so would be very different, but if enabling a re-entry that isn’t so thermally demanding would allow for true RLV technology, maybe we should re-think the “free fall” re-entry strategy.
I don’t think it would be practical to do exactly the reverse of what you did to get into orbit, but I’m wondering if we could be able to use thrusters to reduce the thermal effects of re-entry until the speed is low enough to switch to a traditional aeronautic flight and landing.
September 6th, 2009 at 3:12 pm
@Caleb:
The problem with using thrusters to slow down is most likely the amount of fuel/oxidizer it would take. Propellants have mass, it takes more mass to get them on orbit in the first place.
People talk about ‘propellant depot’ systems, but those are more geared towards using several small launchers instead of one huge launcher for missions beyond LEO.
September 6th, 2009 at 3:21 pm
Caleb -
The problem is it takes just as much fuel to stop a rocket as it does to get it going. This means you would have to get the entire enormous booster, fully fueled, into orbit, just so you could use it to slow down again. This would require an exponentially larger launch rocket to get the whole thing into orbit in the first place.
Suppose, as you proposed, you just wanted to slow it down sufficiently to reduce the heating during reentry. The X-15 could stand the heat at about Mach 5 for a while with just it’s titanium skin, but that’s around 3500 mph. Minimal orbital speed is 18,000 mph, or 5 times as fast, and because rockets have to carry their own fuel and oxidizer, this means that it would take about 95% of the initial fuel load to slow it down by 14,500 mph to reach the X-15′s speed. So you’re going to need a heat shield no matter what.
Actually, the shuttle heat shield works pretty well. The only problem is it is launched totally exposed to the elements and any debris or ice falling off the tank and boosters, and it’s pretty fragile. The obvious solution is to launch the reentry part of the space craft on top of the booster instead of next to it. One of the original shuttle designs worked like this, with the 1st stage of a Saturn 5 as the booster and the shuttle (larger the the current design, but with a smaller, reusable fuel tank inside it instead of the the large expendable tank next to it.)
Another solution is a much smaller shuttle (no or very small cargo bay) on top of a standard booster. There have been lots of designs like this, but none have gotten off paper. The X-20, the Russian Klipper, the European Hermes, and the CRV (crew rescue vehicle designed but never built for the ISS.) The problem with this is you lose one of the chief benefits of the shuttle, the ability to bring a large cargo back to earth.
September 6th, 2009 at 3:23 pm
@Caleb: If you’re burning fuel on the way down, that means you’ve spent a HUGE amount of fuel boosting that fuel into space (think about the Apollo lander missions). Also, on reentry, consider that the thrust has to counteract the effect of gravity on the mass of the craft (including fuel). You also have the dubious situation of flying through your own exhaust and this will heat up the vehicle. The scheme is just not considered practical for the return to earth even though it is essential for a moon landing.
September 6th, 2009 at 3:25 pm
I gotta say it, despite the fact 90% of you will hate me for it- manned space missions are a colossal waste of money and time. Unmanned probes do it better, faster and cheaper. Instead of sending people to Mars let’s send more probes. All the energy and expense that would go into life support systems could be channeled into more advanced robotics.
September 6th, 2009 at 3:27 pm
Yes, Caleb, that is the one of the solutions. However, thrusters require fuel and fuel requires tanks and that means a bigger, heavier vehicle that needs better engines, that again need more fuel.
There is 4 ways to do reentry, that I am aware off:
1. Bouyancy. You have a lighter bigger vehicle, it will descent slower. That means less friction and therefore less heat.
2. Better heatshields. There have been many advances since the shuttle. They are now less brittle, while keeping roughly the same weight. E.g. quite some progress was made with metallic heat shields for the development of the X33. From what I know though, much of it was lost when the program was cancelled. Hence my point, that I made earlier.
3. Reverse thrusters, to slow down the decent. As you had mentioned.
4. Body shape. An improved body shape can help manage heatloads and keep them confined to a smaller area. A smaller area needs a smaller heat shield.
I think that the ideal solution is somewhere in the middle.
The problem is not so much, that RLVs cant be done. The problem is that they would be big and have less payload than Ares1. Now for me this is not a problem. I would prefer many cheap flights over one expensive flights any day.
Also of course there is always to many cooks in the mix. The airforce wants a launcher that has a lot of downrange, so they can do their black ops and make sure the things lands on a friendly airport even in an emergency.
Downrange means wings or wide lifting body and that means disadvantages in at least one of the ares above.
In addition to this NASA tried to put to much new tech into the X33 to do science and new exciting stuff on top of building an RLV and they required it to be a heavy lift vehicle on top of that (Shuttle sized payload bay). Well it did not go to well and NASA then came to the (IMHO wrong and silly) conclusion that RLVs are undoable.
Now, had they instead just stuck with a small crew cabin as a payload, or a small cargo compartment of the same amount and size (like the European ATV), it would have been much easier already. Then you redude the downrange and it gets easier once again. Then you lessen the “new tech” requirements and it would get a little cheaper too. You can always improve on it in later iterations. Just get it to work for once!
Anyway, that is my perspective on the situation.
September 6th, 2009 at 3:28 pm
Has anyone looked at the combination of a small RLV to haul crews to and from LEO and an expendable cargo hauling/retrieval system?
September 6th, 2009 at 3:30 pm
Gepinniw, what you say is true only if you are not interested in human exploration of space. Doing science is only part of the motivation for being in space. Even then, the best way to do science in space is with scientists.
September 6th, 2009 at 4:04 pm
@Gepinniw-
What you said is exactly correct, if the only thing you see useful coming from space is scientific papers.
Luckily, ocean use started with cargo, travel and other activity before the scientific research of the depths started, otherwise we’d have the same argument about the oceans.
Reliable and frequent access to space is the key. Ares 1 (especially Ares 1-X) is not it. Ares 1-X is a four-segment solid booster (the actual Ares 1 is supposed to have 5 segments, and the concerns of harmonics takes place with the 5 segments) with a ‘dummy’ upper stage and Orion capsule on top. Some will argue that similar tests were done with the Saturn I test series, but the fundamental differences in 1st stage size renders such comparisons incorrect, in my opinion.
September 6th, 2009 at 4:06 pm
justcorbly, I am interested in human exploration of space, but through our robot proxies. We don’t have to physically transport a few human beings in order to explore a place. By doing exploration using our robot proxies (avatars?) we can actually do more and better exploration. Anyone care to dispute that assertion?
September 6th, 2009 at 4:53 pm
Geipinniw: Don’t forget there are places where we will never be able to put a human, but can put robots. The atmospheres of Venus and the gas giants spring to mind.
September 6th, 2009 at 5:57 pm
OFF TOPIC:
Topic: Skepticism
Today [Sunday, Sept 6, 2009 CE] the Doonesbury cartoon deals with ‘reasonists’
September 6th, 2009 at 6:18 pm
The funding woes for NASA are at least split between Congress and President Bush. I’m no fan of the previous administration, but prefer to keep my criticisms to things they had more control of. For more info Google “NASA continuing resolution” and insert the year 2007 and 2008.
September 6th, 2009 at 7:02 pm
@Gepinniw:
Sure I dispute that assertion. The robotic explores are incredible for sure and Spirit and Opportunity have done great work but guess what a human could have done the same exploration in a couple of days, surveyed much more ground, have many more tests that could be done, could see a much wider area and see rocks that aren’t visible from the rovers height. Human and robotic exploration will complement each other very well and both can have great discoveries.
Little Spirit is and has been stuck for quite some time now, a human could just go over and pick the thing up to free it. The robotic explorers will get more sophisticated but will still be limited by their computers. Remember the best problem solver on the planet is between a human’s ears.
Robots can definitely go places we can’t but those places when can go should get some footprints on them.
September 6th, 2009 at 7:56 pm
Buzz -
The X-15′s skin was Inconel-X, not titanium. For the fastest (not the highest) flights, a spray-on (pink!) ablative coating was applied over the whole aircraft.
Elmar_M -
You don’t want to concentrate re-entry heat loads on a small area; you want to spread them out over as large area as possible so as to keep the load/area low. There’s even an idea to use a relatively huge inflatable heat shield.
September 6th, 2009 at 9:51 pm
Nice. Great to see something tangible actually happening here. Love it! I can’t wait for them to “light this candle”* & watch it fly!
—-
* With credit to Alan Shepherd Jr, first US astronaut to fly in space, commander of Apollo 12 and Moon-walker.
September 6th, 2009 at 10:22 pm
Plutoid -
Make that Apollo 14.
September 6th, 2009 at 10:24 pm
There is *nothing* that previously existed, currently exists, or is in development that can match the Ares-5 rocket (including the Saturn-V).
Sort of. There was Project Orion.
http://www.en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Project_Orion_(nuclear_propulsion)
September 6th, 2009 at 10:26 pm
Off topic…..
This link has popped up on a couple blogs I read….
I think its more Antivaccers horse poop.
http://articles.mercola.com/sites/articles/archive/2009/09/01/214208.aspx
September 7th, 2009 at 1:52 am
@28 Woof : Did I say 12? Oops! (blushing) I meant 14 of course! D’oh!
Apollo 12 was Pete Conrad, Al Bean and Richard Gordon.
Alan Shepherd Junior was Apollo 14 alongside Edgar Mitchell and had Stuart Roosa as the CSM pilot.
Sorry.
September 7th, 2009 at 1:53 am
“You don’t want to concentrate re-entry heat loads on a small area; you want to spread them out over as large area as possible so as to keep the load/area low. There’s even an idea to use a relatively huge inflatable heat shield.”
From what I understand an inflatable heat shield would increase bouyancy most of all.
Of course you dont want to “concentrate” the heatload, but the less area you have to cover with a heavy duty (and therefore heavy) heatshield, the better. Some RLV- designs would have a conical vehicle that would do a base first reentry instead of a nose first reentry. The base first reentry means the heatload would be on the engines which are already built to withstand high temperatures. I think there was some additional shielding in the base too. In any case, the area was rather small.
As I said, it is a tradeoff of all 3 methods. You want to keep the heated area small, so you need to cover less area with a heavy heatshield. You want to have a bouyant vehicle so reentry is slower and you might want to use some other means to slow down, such as retro rockets.
Yes Ares 5 can bring a lot of cargo into space in one flight, but at what price? HLVs make more sense if they are reusable. The bigger the vehicle the more expensive it is to throw it away with every flight.
I would prefer to have an RLV that does many flights with less cargo per flight. Then things get cheaper with every flights as the system improves incrementally with every flight. Careful planning then would allow to build an infrastructure for space missions, rather than a single flight, then throw away approach like Apollo was. Heck even maintaining the ISS is to expensive right now and neihter Ares 1 nor V will change that. It is because space launches are to expensive, just launching the fuel to the ISS is to expensive. That cant be it.
September 7th, 2009 at 3:29 am
@ 9. Daffy Says:
Americans are too short sighted to care about any of this. Fortunately, much of the rest of the world is not. So it looks like we will have manned spaceflight without the American flag. That makes me a little sad, but not much…as long as someone does it!
And if the nation that does gain control of space is the totalitarian communist dictatorship of China? A nation currently menacing its neighbour Taiwan and brutally exterminating the peaceful population of Tibet and the slightly less peaceful Uighur population of Xinjiang?
Or the Islamofascist terrorist sponsoring West-hating theocratic dictatorship of Iran? A nation led by a vote rigging, Holocaust denying dictator which is executing homosexuals and denying their existence and blatantly threatening to annihilate Israel with the nuclear weapons it is secretly building?
Would you be okay with that? Really?
Frankly, I’m not. I believe in freedom and liberty and democracy. In tolerance and allowing free speech, freedom of expression, freedom to live as you choose.
There is a reason why Russia and the USA, Capitalism and Communism, the free world & evil empire faced off via the space race during the Cold War and why the US victory in theMoon landing arena really meant something.
I hate to think of a future where the ultimate “high ground” of space is run by those who hate us and oppose everything we stand for & value. That scares me. I don’t want China (or Iran or any other fascist/communist/Islamist dictatorship) to have the unchecked power to wipe us out or even to have more than the faintest military and scientific-technological superiority over the democratic, tolerant, free West.
The USA and Europe may not be perfect – we do have our flaws but our Western system of politics and civilisation, is light years ahead of any alternative system or civilisation so far proposed or witnessed.
Now I don’t mind *sharing* space with China or Russia or even, FSM help us, Iran but the prospect of not having the USA and Europe up there fills me with dread. I want the USA to be there playing a major role & to be ahead of the other nation inspacetechnologu-and capability.
Because if we give space up then we give up a considerable say over our own future lives – and future generations may well curse us for that.
——-
“I disagree with what you say but I will fight to the death for your right to say it.”
- Voltaire (the original.)
September 7th, 2009 at 3:49 am
PS. The Ares I rocket there looks awesome. I just want to see it blast off into the sky.
Sorry if I got too political there – it is just that this stuff actually does matter and sometimes we Westerners don’t appreciate just how very lucky we really are.
September 7th, 2009 at 5:22 am
China will be a free nation sooner or later, so will most of the other countries mentioned. On the timescale it will take anyone, including us, to serious consider manned exploration to other planets, it is almost guaranteed serious changes will have occured in their already-modernizing societies.
Westerners have got it good, but we’re aging populations content in our copious wealth and increasingly introspective. Time to let the kids have at it, they’ve got youth and energy we used up just to dip our toes into space. While their wasting their wealth and vitality on dead worlds beyond, maybe we can focus on fixing the living one we’re standing on.
September 7th, 2009 at 5:53 am
Politics do matter but over-simplified generalizations and fear-mongering paranoia born from ignorance, hypocrisy, and Gi Joe do not.
But anyway, speaking of re-entry – surely there’s some value in the design of the SpaceShipOne, which lifts it’s back wings up in a sort of shuttlecock configuration?
There’s also the Skylon spaceplane too check up on. Like the SpaceShipOne/Two, it will take off from a runway and enter into LEO.
September 7th, 2009 at 5:59 am
Gepinniw: By definition, exploring with robots is not exploring with humans. Remember, science is something to de done in space, it is not the reason for being in space.
Elmar: Reliable and cheap RLV’s are, I suspect, a long way away. The lesson learned with the first working RLV — the Shuttle — is that turn-around and launch costs stay high. I’m all in favor of developing RLV technology. But, in the meantime, cheap reliable expendables are fine. After all, it costs the Russians much less to put 3 people on orbit with Soyuz than the U.S. with the Shuttle. An RLV that isn’t cheap is pointless.
The proper perspective on space travel is to see getting to LEO as equivalent to taking a runabout out to the cruise ship. Missions will begin and end at LEO. We need a cheap way to get people to and from LEO, and a cheap way to get cargo to and from LEO. Those do not need to be via the same vehicle or even the same technology. And they sure don’t necessarily need to be based on the ‘airplane to space’ paradigm.
September 7th, 2009 at 6:31 am
It’s incredible to me how long it takes to get NASA projects “off the ground”.
September 7th, 2009 at 6:43 am
“Reliable and cheap RLV’s are, I suspect, a long way away. The lesson learned with the first working RLV — the Shuttle — is that turn-around and launch costs stay high. I’m all in favor of developing RLV technology. But, in the meantime, cheap reliable expendables are fine. After all, it costs the Russians much less to put 3 people on orbit with Soyuz than the U.S. with the Shuttle. An RLV that isn’t cheap is pointless”
The shuttle, like the X33 was a design that had to face to many compromises. It is a egg- laying- wool- milk- pig, as we say here.
Noone is transporting heavy goods in their Volkswagen Beatle, are they?
People are not building houses with it either and noone would think of using it as a camper. Nor are they using it to repair say mobile phone masts, or observatories (in lack of a better analogy). What it does very well though is bring people cheaply and relyaby from A to B.
The shuttle was another example of a” do it all”- vehicle. It has to do heavy lifting (entire space station parts). It had to serve as a camper (prolonged stay in orbit, spacelab, etc). It had to be able to capture, service and repair satellites. In addition to all this, it had the military requirement of a long downrange (it was the cold war, you remember and half of the world was unfriendly territory) so they could do their black ops with it.
These over the top requirements led to too many compromises in the design. These compromises in the design led to a vehicle that was expensive. Also, the shuttle is not really an Reusable Launch Vehicle. It is a Refurbishable Launch Vehicle at best, since it requires to much service time and part of it is destroyed (ET) with every launch.
Again these things are the result of bad design choices. A small vehicle, built for the single purpose of getting a small crew into orbit, would be very different from the shuttle.
Even disregarding everything I just said, technology has advanced so much since the shuttle was designed (70ies). That allone makes the whole “the shuttle did not work and therefore RLVs dont work” argument invalid.
redxavier: It is hard to compare the SUBORBITAL Spaceship One/Two (which requires a carrier plane to take off from a runway btw) with the much more ambitious ORBITAL Skylon.
When I am thinking of RLVs, I am talking about Orbital RLVs right now. A design like SpaceShipOne or Two would never reach orbit (though I love it and it is really cool and it serves its purpose very well).
The feathering configuration of the SpaceShipOne/Two is useful for reentry from suborbital speeds, which does not really put that much stress on the vehicle, compared to orbital reentry (SS2 barely needs any heat shield material).
I think that the configurations that Blue Origin and Armadillo have more potential for scaleability to orbital RLVs. They are both still a long way from that though. Well I am just assuming that in the case of Blue Origin, since noone really knows anymore what they are up to, as they have been in total block out mode for the last few years . For all I know they could be surprising all of us with a prototype of an orbital RLV tomorrow, but I somehow doubt that.
September 7th, 2009 at 7:45 am
Voltaire,
Please direct your anger to the Americans who are being so short sighted. I would love this country to expand our space efforts…but I see little evidence that it will happen.
And, yes, if it’s a choice between China and nobody at all, I would prefer it be China. They’re still humans; political systems come and go, but if we can colonize other worlds, that would be amazing. (Iran is not even worth talking about; they’re to busy with infighting to be a viable space competitor.)
September 7th, 2009 at 8:03 am
shane: Orion was never designed. It was never built. And if it was, it wouldn’t have worked with any technology remotely “current”. It is a (largely unworkable) concept for a far-future space vehicle, not a practical design.
September 7th, 2009 at 8:17 am
@gopher, shane -
If anyone is confused, they are talking about the 1960s Orion nuclear powered space ship concept, not the current Orion, which is progressing slowly, and whose biggest problem seems to be constantly changing requirements and lack of money. I’m sure the Augustine commission report will have much to say about this soon, but all the rumors I’ve seen is it supports the program.
September 7th, 2009 at 8:38 am
>>…“the shuttle did not work and therefore RLVs dont work” argument invalid…
Not really what I said, Elmar. Yes, the shuttle is a compromise design. However, it was not deliberately designed as a Refurbishable Launch Vehicle. It was designed to fly about once every two weeks or so at a cost dramatically less than comparable flights by expendable vehicles. That didn’t pan out, so we live and learn.
It is naive to expect big ticket NASA programs to be immune from political pressure, just as it is naive to expect big ticket defense programs to be immune from political pressure. Hence, ideal designs will always be compromised by reality.
I agree, and have said as much, that an RLV crew transport is a worthy goal. I do not expect to see it fly soon, for engineering as well as political reasons. I am not convinced that we need an RLV to put cargo in LEO. And, I am very much not convinced that we need an RLV to bring cargo back from LEO. Frankly, I’m not convinced we need to bring cargo back at all. Deal with the trash in orbit and if you need to study something, send up someone to study it. When we’re finally traveling around the solar system, are we going to be hauling big waste bins with us?
September 7th, 2009 at 9:11 am
@47:
Justcorbly, that’s exactly what COTS & COTS-D are supposed to avoid: By paying for ‘results’ and not controlling the process, they’re supposed to avoid the damaged caused by political considerations.
Which has a lot to do with why a certain Senator pushed to move the COTS money over to Constellation. (I’ve lost track of whether he succeeded. Anybody know?)
September 7th, 2009 at 9:15 am
Justcorbly, that is why I was saying earlier that NASA should get out of the business of designing and building LVs. Instead NASA should research and develop the technological basics for such vehicles and let private companies build the LVs.
Say NASA develops a new TPS and the private industry will then use it for development of their next gen LVs. NASA can then choose the best private competitor for the services it requires, e.g. crew transport to the ISS, or cargo to LEO, etc.
September 7th, 2009 at 9:33 am
Hehehe, Glenn you beat me to it.
September 7th, 2009 at 10:06 am
Hum. If the Shuttle had been just that – an orbital cargo boat – then it probably would have proven the RLV concept quite handily. Instead, it’s probably one of the finest examples of bloatware going. It would be beyond great for NASA to stop proving what an awful mixture hard science and politics can be, and just get back into the rocketship business.
As to Ares-1X going away, I honestly couldn’t say if it’s good or bad. It doesn’t look sensible to me. As a test stage, it fails to provide critical data on the fifth element (don’t pun!). As a delivery system, it seems not to have a mission per se. It’s not useful for the confusingly-named Orion capsule. Seems like a waste of time and cash. I don’t feel a need for NASA to always have a shiny rocket to show off – I’d rather they were getting their maths right.
As to whether human spaceflight is important or not, I’m afraid I get all shirty. I do care if China goes to the moon before we return. The statement that “Who Controls the Moon Controls the Earth” has not somehow become untrue. Whilst the Chinese government seems to be slowly improving it’s human rights record, it’s still not a political system I’d choose to live under. For all it’s faults, the ideals of America are those which suit me best, are those which seem most rational in terms of stimulating discovery, freedom, quality of life and all that good stuff. I consider it short-sighted and silly to think that any other regime would be all warm and fuzzy once the balance of power is irresistably tilted the other way, as any permanent base on the moon would do, and we as a species just haven’t gotten nice enough yet to not take advantage of that.
September 7th, 2009 at 11:32 am
“Whilst the Chinese government seems to be slowly improving it’s human rights record, it’s still not a political system I’d choose to live under. For all it’s faults, the ideals of America are those which suit me best, are those which seem most rational in terms of stimulating discovery, freedom, quality of life and all that good stuff. I consider it short-sighted and silly to think that any other regime would be all warm and fuzzy once the balance of power is irresistably tilted the other way, as any permanent base on the moon would do, and we as a species just haven’t gotten nice enough yet to not take advantage of that.”
So…what do you want to do? Attack China to prevent it?
“We came in peace for all mankind.” Maybe we should send a probe to remove that plaque.
September 7th, 2009 at 11:43 am
Glenn: Nothing paid for with tax money is free from political considerations. COTS is a fine way to go, but we shouldn’t believe people looking to win big federal contracts are unaware of the positions of the people who will decide who gets the contracts. E.g., of two comparable proposals, one of which promises to build a new facility and hire 1500 people in a committee chairman’s district, one of which makes no such promise, which one do you think will get that chairman’s support?
Elmar: I’ve no problem with NASA getting out of the vehicle building business. They aren’t really in that business, though. They are in the “awarding contracts to companies to build vehicles” business. I’d much prefer to see NASA doing cutting edge work, with the private sector coming in to handle what becomes commercially viable routine work. I am just not as sanguine as some that a private sector LEO infrastructure is commerically viable in short order. I’d love to see cheap RLV’s fly tomorrow. I don’t expect that, though, and I’m much more interested in the “cheap” than I am in what the vehicle looks like.
EDIT: If we had been using Apollo capsule variants and Saturn 1C and 5 variants to heft people and cargo to and from LEO for the last 40 years, we would have been amortizing vehicle and launch costs much as the Russians have done with their Soyuz configurations. I’m not necessarily arguing that we should have gone that route. I am saying that repeated use of proven hardware reduces costs, whether or not that hardware can be reflown as quickly as an airliner. The notion that wings on a spacecraft would make it reusable led us to the Shuttle. Regardless of what science and engineering might tell us, it will be difficult for some time to get funding for another winged spacecraft.
September 7th, 2009 at 11:58 am
Well, non RLVs (and later maybe partially reusable vehicles) will transport cargo to orbit soon. They will be by the private COTS awardee SpaceX.
That IMHO is a start.
As to the politics in contracts, yes there are. However they are not influencing design decisions so much. I was not really good in choosing my words btw, I meant “get NASA out of the LV- DESIGN business”.
As I said, I think that NASA can contribute to next gen launchers by developing technologies for the private companies to then use in designs made by the private companies. Ares1 and AresV were designed by NASA and NASA paid private contractors to build them. That has never really worked that well and that approach is always expensive.
It would be better to say: “We want to deliver cargo (or crew) to orbit, make your offers and then choose from the private offers what works best.
September 7th, 2009 at 12:15 pm
In response to your edit Justcorbly: Maybe I overread it, but I dont think anyone was talking about a winged RLV in particular. If you ask me, actually, I would rather drop those wings and do a DC-X like design. Those heavy wings are for downrange, which is something the military wanted back in the days, but is not something you need for a pure crew or cargo transporter.
September 7th, 2009 at 12:31 pm
Elmar, as I’ve said, I really don’t disagree with your basic argument. I just don’t think we will see it happen as soon as you’d like. For example, SpaceX has yet to fly any vehicle capable of reliably transporting a crew to and from LEO. I oppose abandoning an “in house” NASA capability until SpaceX, or somone else, demonstrates they can deliver that capability for fewer dollars.
My own long-term vision sees space missions built, fueled, launched, controlled and monitored from LEO. That LEO infrastructure will be supported by crew vehicles and cargo vehicles. I expect the crew vehicles to be essentially reusable, but probably not as fully as commerical alirliners. I expect cargo vehicles to be dirt cheap heavy lifters that may or may no be recoverable. I have no idea which, if any, parts of this will be profitable apart from government contracts.
September 7th, 2009 at 1:44 pm
Regarding depending on a heat shield to safely get from orbit to actually land safely:
In order to get from zero speed to orbital speed we need to get the vehicle up to the right altitude but also, give it a pretty insane speed “sideways” and as far as I can tell, most of the energy in the launch fuel is spent establishing the orbital speed (no, I have not made the math so feel free to shred my words because I’m too lazy for carry out calculations
. Get this acceleration of the vehicle, we simply need some powerful propulsion systems, with fuel and all. And that is an expensive piece of work there, dreadfully expensive.
When doing the reverse, getting from the insane orbital speed (ca 28 000 km/h aka ca 17500 mph) to a safe landing at zero speed, we can be quite thankful that we can get away with using air friction as a relatively cheap solution to get a HUGE change in our movement vector. Sure, the heat shield does not come for free, and it can be quite heavy, but in comparison with the fuel and rockets needed to get UP in orbit, I cannot imagine the heat shield cost more than a mere fraction (both in money as well as weight). Sure, I have not checked the facts on that (just using naive “common sense”) so again, enjoy some happy shredding…
Regarding Spaceship one: I were baffled to see it work with ‘just’ a feathered tail and no mention of heat shield. Not until a year after that flight I managed to figure out that it mainly is the orbital speed component, not the altitude component, of the energy the reentry need to cope with that raises the need for a reentry heat shield. I learned the physics necessary for doing the math for that over 20 years ago, still it took me until couple a year ago to understand why the shuttle has a heat shield and the Spaceship one does not. Sometimes one needs decades to realize simple things…
September 7th, 2009 at 2:32 pm
exactly IllvilJa, that is the reason.
You can- in theory have an orbit that is as low as a meter above ground, if the circumstances are right. Highly unlikely, but theoretically possible. The hight has nothing to do with achieving orbit. For our planet here, it is of course helpful since you will otherwise have to deal with the friction of the atmosphere at that speed – > heatshield and well slowdown of course
I am affraid, so too Justcorbly. The basic conditions are not set for this, both politically and financially. Maybe this will change in a few years. There is also always the hope for some technological breakthrough that will make things much easier. E.g. I am keeping an eye on FRC Fusion (Helion energy corp) and Mach Effect engines. Both very interesting, though underfunded projects. Maybe one of them will truly open space for us. We will see.
September 7th, 2009 at 3:29 pm
Daffy, that’s one way to hugely miss my point by three country miles. Going up there for all mankind is a great goal. I just distrust our intensions less than anyone else. I’m fairly dubious of anyone else who’s in arms reach of the capability of reaching the moon doing peaceful science and sticking to that.
September 7th, 2009 at 3:52 pm
What’s more threatening about having facilities on the Moon than having facilities in LEO? If it is a military threat you’re woried about, weapons on the Moon would be three days away. Weapons in LEO are a few minutes away, and considerably easier to target. I’m having a difficult time understanding how the Moon could be an effective military platform.
September 7th, 2009 at 6:06 pm
If this has not been mentioned before, a new test firing of the 5 segment SRM is scheduled for Thursday, Sept 10.
September 7th, 2009 at 7:01 pm
@gopher65
I meant the nuke bomb Orion from the 50s and 60s. From my limited reading apparently there were a number of designs and even some working models tested for various components. An Orion could have been built with 60s technology. Not all the problems had been sorted out before the project ended, not the least of which was the the hole in the ground and the fallout from an earth based launch, but we’re much smarter now.
I’m reading Ark by Stephen Baxter at the moment and coincidentally he has a modified Orion in the story. The TV show Virtuality, which sadly will only be a pilot, used an Orion too.
September 7th, 2009 at 10:53 pm
Why is apparently no serious consideration being given to this:
http://www.directlauncher.com/
September 8th, 2009 at 1:00 am
shane, I think that for launching payloads into LEO on an RLV, a NERVA based engine is good enough. Plus, you do not get as much problems with radioactivity. In fact you should not have any radioactive exhoust at all. The bigger problem is the fear that something might go wrong and the whole thing explodes. Quite unfounded, but still possible.
The Orion concept is politically impossible at the moment due to treaties that ban atmospheric nuclear explosions and nuclear weapons in space.
I like to quote Carl Sagan on that though “I cant think of any better use for nuclear bombs that this”.
September 8th, 2009 at 6:29 am
I’d wager a very large amount of money that an Orion-style vehicle will never be launched from Earth. Ditto any engine with the word “nuclear” in it. All the more reason for missions to begin and end in LEO. Even there, though, opposition will exist.
September 8th, 2009 at 9:21 am
I sadly agree with you justcorbly.
I do hope that we will see fusion engines one day though. There are several fusion concepts being worked on that might do the trick (I say might). There is Polywell and there then there is Helion and Tri Alpha with their FRC- fusion. Out of them unfortunately only Tri Alpha is fully funded. All 3 should be able to serve as fusion engines as well though. That is, if they work.
For a simple single stage to orbit crew transport, you dont need this though. This can be done with todays tech. I am fully convinced of that. And so were many others before me.
Take a look at this, article e.g. (written by none less than Gary C Hudson):
http://www.spacefuture.com/archive/history_of_the_phoenix_vtol_ssto_and_recent_developments_in_single_stage_launch_systems.shtml
September 8th, 2009 at 10:53 am
Shane: Yes, I knew which Orion you were talking bout;).
Elmar_M: I *really* hope Polywell works out. We should know in a little over a year whether or not that concept is practically possible with current technology… or not. It’ll be awesome if it works.
September 8th, 2009 at 1:31 pm
62. justcorbly Says:
What’s more threatening about having facilities on the Moon than having facilities in LEO? If it is a military threat you’re woried about, weapons on the Moon would be three days away. Weapons in LEO are a few minutes away, and considerably easier to target. I’m having a difficult time understanding how the Moon could be an effective military platform.
It’s mostly “retaliation” that’s the problem. Whereas we could send missiles to LEO and take out any launch platform in a few minutes (just as the LEO to Earth is only minutes), it would also take three days (or so) to ‘retaliate’ against a Lunar Launch Facility (and would take a lot more energy to get there… )
Also, both the Luna/Earth and Earth/Luna time scale would mean interception would be easier(?) because of the length of time required to reach between the two locations.
J/P=?
September 8th, 2009 at 2:24 pm
John, why would we want to retaliate against a facility on the Moon when the country that runs it is very much closer?
During the Cold War, until both sides had ridiculous numbers of weapons, it was assumed that any nation that launched a first strike would see retaliation directed against its civilian population because there is no point in attacking a missile site after the missile has launched. What’s left? Cities.
I certainly don’t want the Moon militarized in any fashion. But, I don’t see the results of that happening as any more threatening than the existence of those weapons down here on this planet.
September 10th, 2009 at 2:01 am
@ 46. Daffy Says:
Voltaire, Please direct your anger to the Americans who are being so short sighted. I would love this country to expand our space efforts…but I see little evidence that it will happen.
Anger? Well I guess I do get a bit angry when I look at some of cruel and evil things that happen in the world. And I absolutely do NOT want the people and nations who do these cruel and evil things – like China – running the world or being in a position to threaten our lives. What about that do you have a problem with?
I also agree that the short-sighted Americans who oppose space technology & science generally are idiots & have never said anything to the contrary.
And, yes, if it’s a choice between China and nobody at all, I would prefer it be China. They’re still humans; political systems come and go, but if we can colonize other worlds, that would be amazing.
I prefer it was nobody than China because the Chinese have demonstrated many times their utter contempt for human lives and the values I deeply beleive in; like freedom of speech and expression and giving everyone their “inalienable right to life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness.”
Do some basic research and you will soon see that there is something deeply sick and wrong about the brutal ideology and culture of the totalitarian communist dictatorship of China – & good reason to fear and hate the thought of them having a technological advantage and thus military superiority over us Westerners. They will be ruthless enough to use their power in a way we never would. They do not care that civilians and innocent people are killed by them. That is proven fact. Look up the Tianamin Square massacre of 1989 or the persecution of Tibetans and other minorities.
(Iran is not even worth talking about; they’re to busy with infighting to be a viable space competitor.)
I mostly agree with you here. Iran is not at all likely to be a major competitor with us or become more than a mere regional power and menace. Still it has launched a satellite and is working hard on developing some military rockets (for nukes? Well, duh!) under cover of space aspirations.
I was really using the Iranian Islamofascist regime more for a hypothetical example of the sort of “anyone” that would be totally unacceptable in leading space technology & “exploration” rather than suggesting we face a serious threat from them. Although the Israelis may tell you otherwise.
& @ 54. Daffy Says:
“Whilst the Chinese government seems to be slowly improving it’s human rights record, it’s still not a political system I’d choose to live under. For all it’s faults, the ideals of America are those which suit me best, are those which seem most rational in terms of stimulating discovery, freedom, quality of life and all that good stuff. I consider it short-sighted and silly to think that any other regime would be all warm and fuzzy once the balance of power is irresistably tilted the other way, as any permanent base on the moon would do, and we as a species just haven’t gotten nice enough yet to not take advantage of that.” [Quoting Mark HB # 53 with whom I agree entirely.]
So…what do you want to do? Attack China to prevent it? “We came in peace for all mankind.” Maybe we should send a probe to remove that plaque.
Not at all because while we did indeed “come in peace for all mankind” we’d be flipping blind dumb to think others (eg. China) would necessarily follow and share the same noble motives that we do.
Coming in peace make sense & is good – as long as you have the ability to defend yourself against those others who are NOT coming in peace.
There’s a difference between fine sentiment and goals on our side to use space positively and being exceedingly naive and foolish in thinking others are equally as nice and well intentioned as we are. The Chinese, in particular, have demonstrated they are not.
Will this change? I’m not holding my breath on that one. The Communist party in power now is the same one that massacred its own people, crushing them under tanks in Tianamin square then incinerating their bodies with flame-throwers simply for peacefully protesting and asking for political freedom. *IF* (& its a very big ‘if’) China does change, then I’m willing to change my view too in response – but I wouldn’t bet on it happening anytime soon.
Chinese culture (perhaps because of their huge population) seems to hold human life and political freedom in very low regard. And that is why I, in turn, hold their culture and nation in low regard and do not trust it or them. Where is your problem with this?
Oh & I wouldn’t be in favour of attacking China first but appeasing them or letting them get away with invading Taiwan or threatening us is unacceptable and if they give us enough reason to fight them then we should. Would you have us surrender all that makes life living for, all your freedoms without any resistence? I don’t *want* us to fight China – but if we have to, then we have to & that’s up to them.
BTW. I like Chinese individuals many of whom are extremely brave and good and fight very hard for freedom too – it is their government & culture I take issue with. Nor do I feel the need to kow-tow to the PC brigade & say “all cultures are equal” when they clearly are not. Our Western culture is superior to theirs and has achieved a lot more and denying this reality is plain dumb. Full stop.
@ 71 justcorbly:
I certainly don’t want the Moon militarized in any fashion. But, I don’t see the results of that happening as any more threatening than the existence of those weapons down here on this planet.
Agreed to an extent – but space technology is also missile technology and there’s no point pretending otherwise. Space does have military applications and we need to get out heads out of lal-la-land and be realistic here.
Those international treaties are really fairly meaningless bits of paper. They only matter if they can be enforced and checked and it takes military teeth backing them up not words to enable them to work. China certainly views them that way and if don’t use space for military purposes someone nastier and less restrained will. We do need a preventative deterrent and we do need to keep ahead in space weapons capability because if we don’t we’ll lose and they’ll win.
Space should be militarised by the good guys here so the bad guys don’t militarise it unopposed and use it for their bad ends. That simple really.
———-
“I disagree with what you say, but will fight to the death for your right to say it.”
- The original Voltaire.
October 24th, 2009 at 12:13 pm
well if the launch fails and the rocket blows up wold’nt it be like a nuke going off ???
October 30th, 2009 at 11:51 am
I think that the only mistake with Ares 1 and 5 is only Apollo like capsule…
I mean… You use Ares in the future: make a great mission…. heatshield work
good, and then…
chute did not open, and we have a tragedy. Why not go on with a small
airplane-like capsule only for crew, and the eventually load atop of rocket, as for Ariane and Proton…?