• Welcome to the new COTI server. We've moved the Citizens to a new server. Please let us know in the COTI Website issue forum if you find any problems.
  • We, the systems administration staff, apologize for this unexpected outage of the boards. We have resolved the root cause of the problem and there should be no further disruptions.

Ares rocket test successful.

The Ares I Program is winding down. The Augustine Commission (tasked with reviewing NASA and making recommendations to the White House and Congress) will recommend abandoning the Solid Rocket for Crew Launches. It has flaws which make it unsafe (Vibration issues and Crew abort problems).

Watch for a Delta or Atlas Rocket to replace it for the Crew launches.

The entire future direction of Human Space Flight is about to change, and nobody knows what that change will be. Fuel depots with ships made from small components assembled and refueled in orbit is one option. A Shuttle Derived rocket similar to the old Apollo Saturn that uses the Engines, External Tank and Solid Rocket Boosters is a competing option. Will something else appear from out of left field?

Exciting times.
 
If all one wants is a resonably modern launcher for shooting "canned humans" into near orbit, there is a cheap and easy solution - use the Ariane V. It already is mated to the human-rated ATV vehicle used to supply the orbital black hole known as ISS. And the ATV is currently under low-rate (and thankfully low-cost) development as a manned toy.

Why waste money building yet another type of firecracker?
 
Because the Ariane V doesn't meet NASA HLV standards (It was in fact rejected on that score.)
 
Two things.

One. Thank you to the Mod that jumped on Trent's post. Seriously. I was in a "pistols at ten paces at dawn under the oak tree" mode about that. I mean I am from Wisconsin and thought I would have to defend the Honor of our Great State and Senator.

One.five. OTOH, old Tailgunner Joe McCarthy is however, fair game with no need to get a second. :D

Two. I don't understand why we let the Military railroad us into a crappy solid fuel booster system. I mean sure they have a long shelf life, but the Moon Program (sorry, but to me it is either Apollo Two or nothing, but I don't run the Manned Spaceflight Programs. *shrugs* OTOH, I will take the job if offered. :)), does not need to worry about shelf life. Missiles yes, rockets to the Moon, not so much.

Two.five. Bring back Saturn Vb. We know that worked and with '60's tech, so now we could make better, faster, stronger. Yep, the Six Million Dollar Rocket! Seriously though, we could do all the above with the Saturn V rocket system. We know it works, it went to the Moon, how many times..17-8=9, safely nine times (OK, more like 8.75 counting Apollo 13). That is a fine record for a manned rocket.

I am glad though that they are at least trying to create a real fail safe system again, fourteen astronauts killed in action in my life time is just too damn many.

Anyway, just my post 16 hour shift thoughts, now to go and drink on an empty stomach...
 
Solid Rockets have a number of advantages... amongst them, they are simpler, easier to store, and don't require cryogenic fuels.

Plus, the ones being put forward are reusable, and already man-rated; far fewer bars to leap to upgrade them than to man rate a non-man-rated design.

Further, the manufactury is already configured.

My preference would be a trio rather than a single, with the second stage in the center, and the capsule atop.

pad life of a fueled LFR: a week, tops. (WIthout having to be topped off... the Apollo was topped off morning of launch!)
pad life of a fueled SFR: a month to a year.

Many of the launch delays with the shuttle (and Apollo, and Ariane) have been fuel issues... fuel flow systems not reporting, etc.
 
Last edited:
aramis said:
Because the Ariane V doesn't meet NASA HLV standards (It was in fact rejected on that score.)
Click to expand...

Well, at least it's there and works. Plus the basic Ares under tests is IIRC the "light" version that replaces LEO launchers like Delta not the heavy "we will waste money going to the moon" thingy

And if one needs something heavier I guess ENERGIA would do with a lot less investments. After all if one absolutely has to waste taxpayers money for "canned man" projects, it should at least be the smallest amount possible.

After all each million wasted on ISS etc. means at least 10 teachers or 20 policeman that can't be financed. So the german's alone loose the financing for around 1600 teachers positions each year financing ISS.

And on the Saturn V: Do you really want to fly into space on a NAZI rocket? Build under the lead of an SS-man and KZ boss? Not to mention that the think had numerous technical proplems and each flight ignored a number of safety protocolls betting on redundancies
 
That money, Michael, wouldn't be spent on police or education, anyway, at least in the US; it would probably be spent of military budgets.

Energia doesn't meet NASA manned flight standards, either.

And if you think ISS is a waste of money, then all currently-planned manned spaceflight is, too.
 
Just as an order of magnitude check, ALL OF NASA is 0.5% of the Federal Budget. Cancelling all space activity would mean virtually nothing to the US Government Spending.

Europe probably spends even less.

[EDIT: Check this out ... from NASA rebel engineers ...]

http://www.directlauncher.com/
 
Last edited:
Regarding the Saturn V: I'd second Magnus' thoughts.

However...

Just shootin' here, but I've heard that we lack the expertise to build those things anymore. We'd be starting back at ground zero. Er, square one, pardon me.

Of course, no matter what we do, it sounds like NASA is more or less at square one, and relying on other space programs' programs (be they from other governments or from our fledgling commercial ventures).
 
aramis said:
That money, Michael, wouldn't be spent on police or education, anyway, at least in the US; it would probably be spent of military budgets.

Energia doesn't meet NASA manned flight standards, either.

And if you think ISS is a waste of money, then all currently-planned manned spaceflight is, too.
Click to expand...

I consider

+ ALL "canned man" missions
+ ALL unmanned missions past GEO

a total waste of money. Same for government-funded space research of any kind. The useful stuff (GPS, ComSats etc.) pays for itself at least here in Europe (ArianSpace).

As for the "man rated" stuff: It's more a matter of NIH than anything else even more so given NASA's track record and the stuff the used back in the 60s. Energia is man-rated by the Sovjets, Ariane (sadly) is in the process of getting a man-rated version. And even if not. Taking an existing and (in case of A5) well tested booster and making it save for Astronauts should be a lot easier and cheaper than building a new one

As for where the money is spend: Maybe the USA throws it into war. Germany won't that's for sure. You need an army for that in the first place :( and than give it a budget. Germany does neither. So we might actually get the teachers

=================

Building a Saturn from the original plans is impossible. Aside from the technical defects with instabilities in the stack etc. quite a few systems and components are no longer produced. Same for some of the metal compositions. So the minimum would be to re-design the thing to current standards and tools. Basically building a new one.

Besides the beast was basically "Made in Germany" and I wouldn't use anything build there that's not a tank.
 
Last edited:
Lessee...

Saturn and all tooling are gone or unusable. There are some odd bits laying around still, but nothing worth making a rocket out of. There's not even a complete set of drawings, and those manufacturers still around in one form or another will have crossed the threshold on archival periods for their records long ago.

Energia--also gone, not worth rebuilding.

We have several good options for boosters, we don't need to resurrect the past. Any of DIRECT/Jupiter, Not-Shuttle-C, or Ares (particularly an Ares I with "Ares 4" config) could work and be cost effective. Especially if we don't throw the system away in less than 10 years, like Saturn Ib/V.

The problem isn't options, it's leadership and consistent funding. Ares is over budget because it's been underfunded for the last 3 years as a result of continuing budget resolutions for NASA rather than real debate about what should be funded and for how much. Not trying to be political here, just stating how the current $3B hole got dug in the first place. Plenty of blame for every side. ;)

It's been said all along that if the money isn't paid in early, it'd cost a lot more later and that would blow the whole funding plan. Check and check.

Anyway, the Augustine Commission has done a pretty good job of covering options (they are explicitly not recommendations, as reported by the media. All reporting I've seen in mass media has been malpractice-bad.) Now, it'll be interesting to see what happens. I'm expecting Congress to grind along through their hearings, come up with some suggestions, then the White House will make statements in another six or eight weeks. That will be the first time there'll really be "recommendations" worthy of discussion. Until then, it's anyone's guess.

Any of the "middle of the road" scenarios from the Commission on HSF or a pastiche of them would result in some reasonable work being done over the next couple of decades. The high price options are unlikely, and the "within 2010 budget guidance" options are less than a holding pattern.

All I can say is that if you're interested, write physical letters of your own composition by hand to folks in Congress. Whether you're a U.S. citizen or not, whether you favor human spaceflight or not. That's what it takes to let them know anyone even thinks it's an issue.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top