Are we really getting Ares V again?

[Zvezdichko]

Hm... take a look here:

http://www.spacepolitics.com/2010/08...ket-designers/

The Committee anticipates that in order to meet the specified vehicle capabilities and requirements, the most cost-effective and `evolvable’ design concept is likely to follow what is known as an `in-line’ vehicle design, with a large center tank structure with attached multiple liquid propulsion engines and, at a minimum, two solid rocket motors composed of at least four segments being attached to the tank structure to form the core, initial stage of the propulsion vehicle. The Committee will closely monitor NASA’s early planning and design efforts to ensure compliance with the intent of this section.

Sounds familiar?

Looks like Congress won't embrace the Shuttle-C or Side-mount design, but something more like Ares V.

The only other vehicle except Ares V that complies with the description is Jupiter.

[Garrison]

Hm... take a look here:

http://www.spacepolitics.com/2010/08...ket-designers/



Sounds familiar?

Looks like Congress won't embrace the Shuttle-C or Side-mount design, but something more like Ares V.

The only other vehicle except Ares V that complies with the description is Jupiter.

It also describes the Boeing Inline concept but as I believe it was The Jim pointed out when I ran a poll on the subject they are all practically identical. The only thing eliminating sidemount as an option does is guarantee that this rocket will be even more over budget and behind schedule when it is completed/cancelled. And this decision does nothing to address the fundamental question; what is this rocket for? At the moment the only actual hardware it's intended to work with is Orion and and it's going to be one heck of an expensive crew ferry for the ISS, there is nothing else on the table except a vague suggestion it could be used for President Obama's, deliberately, rather vague plan for a NEO mission.

[Zvezdichko]

The only thing eliminating sidemount as an option does is guarantee that this rocket will be even more over budget and behind schedule when it is completed/cancelled. And this decision does nothing to address the fundamental question; what is this rocket for?

Excellent question. The answer to it should be: a BLEO mission. Obama has already said he wants to send astronauts to an asteroid and Mars, but this doesn't exclude lunar orbit or L points. Counting this one:

At the moment the only actual hardware it's intended to work with is Orion and and it's going to be one heck of an expensive crew ferry for the ISS, there is nothing else on the table except a vague suggestion it could be used for President Obama's, deliberately, rather vague plan for a NEO mission.

... you may need only the rocket and the Orion and the vague plan turns into a firm plan. a NEO/Mars Orbit/Lagrange point/Lunar orbit mission doesn't require expensive LM hardware

[djellison]

NEO/Mars Orbit/Lagrange point/Lunar orbit mission doesn't require expensive LM hardware

But it needs more than just an Orion and HLV. It needs expensive hardware, just not expensive LM hardware. Hardware there is no money to pay for. Furthermore, the budget and timeline for the HLV are clearly ludicrous.

I rarely agree with Keith Cowing - but his comments after his review of this book are spot on
http://nasawatch.com/archives/2010/0...u-ready-f.html

They call to start deep space travel with a capsule and heavy lift rocket, but no money for a habitat to house the astronauts for the long journey, insufficient funds for the rocket to take them there, and less money to design ways to shield the flyers from the radiation hazards that they'll surely face.

It doesn't matter what you call the HLV, it doesn't matter what form it takes be it Ares V, Jupiter, Sidemount.... we don't have the money it requires, the budget doesn't give it the time it requires, and even if we had both, we can't afford to do anything with it.

It's beyond ludicrous that this current plan has got any traction whatsoever.

[Garrison]

It's beyond ludicrous that this current plan has got any traction whatsoever.

Well there's the elements to do with jobs and federal spending in certain states but I think there are a lot of people who want NASA to be seen to be doing something now. Obama's plan is essentially focused on research and commercial space development with a 'let's wait and see how things pan out' approach to the big ticket projects, it might, or might not, be a sensible approach but it doesn't come across as very dynamic or exciting. And let's not forget good old fashioned national pride; NASA might not have any mission to use it for but it will be the biggest rocket in the world and it will have the 'Stars and Stripes' painted on somewhere, and for some people that might be enough.

ETA: And of course to be fair there are those who genuinely believe it is needed and that once it's built the politicians will have to come up with the funds for a BEO mission to justify its existence.

[publiusr]

What we don't need are two EELVs. HLVs are needed if enough folks say they are needed. Germany didn't need the V-2 Humanity did, for obvious reasons. How many payloads were there for V-2 at first? None. Rocketry came first and non-warhead payloads followed. For those who refuse to understand the need for engineering, how many decades of dedicated airplane development allowed the 747 to exist for SOFIA to ride in it. In order to build an airborne telescope of any real size, you first need a century of flight.

HLLVs allow for better interplanetary probes as I have explained here many times. Also, according to the L2 section on nasaspaceflight.com, which permits The Jim to lie about how small station modules are better, etc. (while spacewalks are forced for repairs that should be easy)---the first payload is going to be a SPS demonstrator, designed by Mark Holderman IIRC. He came up with the geode station concept if you will recall.

The question is, which HLLV will we have? If shrouds are to be lightweight, foam strikes will still be a problem. I'm thinking that if we do get an in-liner, it might be Magnum/Longfellow sized. I'd like for the HLLV to be as big as possible for larger payload volume, reduced assembly, etc. Damphousse seems to be pushing for SPSS, as Coyote Smiths heir as it were, and right now, if SPSS is what gets an HLLV built, so be it. Then Kim Reh and others who want Kuiper belt landers, Europa cryobots, and the like will have a ride for automated probes beyond the limit of what is being offered now.

As I understand things, MSFC wants in-line and JSC wants side-mount. I do remember some of Boeings papers about a rigid disk shaped heat-shield a long time ago that was side-mount--and about as wide as an orbiter's wingspan. You might remember some of the artwork with squat cylinders that seemed to be wearing wide-brimmed 'hats' for aerobraking. Those might have been inflatable, but side-mount does allow for outsized articles to be launched. In a bok on Lockheed's Secret Projects, the author lauded Venture-Star's ability to carry outsized articles piggy-back. VentureStar was a dead end, and far more a challenge than Shuttle-C, or "not Shuttle-C" as they are calling it now.

But even Boeings' phantom works seem to be calling for In-line vehicles
http://newpapyrusmagazine.blogspot.c...d-be-dc-3.html

[Garrison]

What we don't need are two EELVs. HLVs are needed if enough folks say they are needed. Germany didn't need the V-2 Humanity did, for obvious reasons. How many payloads were there for V-2 at first? None. Rocketry came first and non-warhead payloads followed. For those who refuse to understand the need for engineering, how many decades of dedicated airplane development allowed the 747 to exist for SOFIA to ride in it. In order to build an airborne telescope of any real size, you first need a century of flight.

The V2 most assuredly had a clear purpose when it was built, that it found other uses was indeed fortunate. The designers of some of the early ICBM's may have had more than one role in mind but they had a primary function they were designed for. The Saturn V was designed as an integral part of Apollo to support a clearly defined mission goal.And the Boeing 747 was also built with a clear goal in mind, it's fortunate that it's turned out to be useful for mounting SOFIA but Boeing didn't design it on the off chance that it would some day be useful in scientific endeavours. Building an SD HLV without any budgeted mission hardware is a totally different proposition.

HLLVs allow for better interplanetary probes as I have explained here many times. Also, according to the L2 section on nasaspaceflight.com, which permits The Jim to lie about how small station modules are better, etc. (while spacewalks are forced for repairs that should be easy)---the first payload is going to be a SPS demonstrator, designed by Mark Holderman IIRC. He came up with the geode station concept if you will recall.

There is a suggestion for an SPS demonstrator but even that would only be 30 tonnes, and it is totally unfunded at the current time. better to use the money for the HLV on things like the SPS demonstrator(slimming it down so it could launch on an existing vehicle) and other new space technology.

The question is, which HLLV will we have? If shrouds are to be lightweight, foam strikes will still be a problem. I'm thinking that if we do get an in-liner, it might be Magnum/Longfellow sized. I'd like for the HLLV to be as big as possible for larger payload volume, reduced assembly, etc. Damphousse seems to be pushing for SPSS, as Coyote Smiths heir as it were, and right now, if SPSS is what gets an HLLV built, so be it. Then Kim Reh and others who want Kuiper belt landers, Europa cryobots, and the like will have a ride for automated probes beyond the limit of what is being offered now.

If the SD HLV goes ahead there will be no money for anything else, not an SPS, not a Kuiper belt lander, not a Europa cryobot, the cupboard will be bare.

[Hop_David]

Hm... take a look here:

http://www.spacepolitics.com/2010/08...ket-designers/

While we're building a mega rocket to nowhere, Russia, India, China and Japan will be landing robots on the moon. After time, they will have useful infra structure while we have huge, rotting mountains of pork.

I will vote against Gabrielle Giffords in the coming election.

[publiusr]

It isn't a mega rocket to nowhere. India has been making larger LVs and China is working on Saturn V class rockets themselves. Bomb-disposal robots have had their day. There is a reason why cars don't drive themselves. It is easier for a robot to fly/coast than it is to drive. Keep robots in UCAVs where they can out-turn fighters, but have humans for exploration. That is what works best. But we spend more on war than we do on science. Hopefully, that will change one day.

[NEOWatcher]

The Saturn V was designed as an integral part of Apollo to support a clearly defined mission goal.

... And scrapped when that single function was removed.

...And the Boeing 747 was also built with a clear goal in mind.

Which never materialized (AF Cargo craft). Fortunately, it could be easily converted to other uses.

If the SD HLV goes ahead there will be no money for anything else, not an SPS, not a Kuiper belt lander, not a Europa cryobot, the cupboard will be bare.

Unfortunately, this is a real issue.
On the other side, how many things will never get funded without one?

I agree, we need a commitment for HLV and the uses for one. Otherwise, we're going to be arguing catch-22's for quite some time.

[Garrison]

It isn't a mega rocket to nowhere. India has been making larger LVs and China is working on Saturn V class rockets themselves. Bomb-disposal robots have had their day.

India doesn't have an HLV on the cards as far as I'm aware. China has a proposal for a new engine that would be in a similar class to those used on the Saturn V, actual development of the engine let alone the vehicle to go with it is a long way down the line. And the next Lunar projects from both nations would appear to be landers and small rovers, so no the 'bomb disposal robots' haven't had their day.
And you know what? Even if either of them do build an HLV all that proves is that they have money to burn and I fear they will eventually find themselves in the position the US did after the first successful Apollo landings; with an expensive to run system of hardware, waning enthusiasm, and plenty of people with other ways to spend the money.

[Garrison]

I agree, we need a commitment for HLV and the uses for one. Otherwise, we're going to be arguing catch-22's for quite some time.

I agree with that statement, those two need to go hand in hand. Unfortunately the uses don't seem to feature on the politician's radar.

[publiusr]

"India doesn't have an HLV on the cards as far as I'm aware." Not yet, but the new GSLV III is pretty sizable compared to what they had before--and this is India we are talking about. If they can scrape up enough money for a near Ariane V class rocket, we can have HLVs

"I fear they will eventually find themselves in the position the US did after the first successful Apollo landings; with an expensive to run system of hardware, waning enthusiasm, and plenty of people with other ways to spend the money."

That is always a threat no matter how large your space program is. If enough people think their smaller GSLV is a waste of money--then it will die. If more folks appreciate space, then the industry will thrive. We were sold a bill of goods on reusability, and folks regret that we got rid of the Saturns. So many see this as rectifying a mistake. People are fickle and yes they do get bored--but this is the brilliance behind what LBJ did.

There was no need for JSC. You could have had everything out of Florida. But then space would simply be seen as that one state's pork, and then there would be less support. One of the reason folks talk about reusability is that it would obviate the need for standing armies. But standing armies vote. This is why we have ANY space program at all.

Imagine that Musk found a way to launch payloads (lets say only small payloads) for pennies. And these small sats could somehow do the job of big objects (which they can't since big optics are needed, and a big dish helps--but that is another arguement) Or let's say, that all American spacflight is done out of the Cape. All construction, etc.

Support for space wanes. Now with the current system, there is rivalry, debate, etc. And widespread support in instant constituencies. This gives meek space supporters a bigger mouth than what they would have ordinarily. Sadly, it also allows defense to grow as well.

Let's say that I could launch a few HLLV payloads that could zap any target with lasers, roods from god, etc. Why would we need fighters anymore, especially if we had UCAVs that are smaller and cheaper? But the folks who want military bases and who are behind the logistical burden that cost us so much cry out, and so defense concerns get more money. The trick here is for younger folks to support NASA infrastructure more, and WWII/Cold War infrastructure less. That is the trick for us to become a true space-faring people. That or we destroy ourselves.

[MaDeR]

Similarity of design is no surprise. Goal is not to have viable, thriving space program, but to hold and maintain as many jobs as possible in shuttle industry. Because it worked so well with Constellation.

In fact, "jobs program" and "sane space program" are in direct contradiction. Burn money, give pork in local politican area. And make another white elephant or oversized freudian excuse called HLV. Time to start learning chinese...

[publiusr]

The destruction of Constellation is no improvement in that it destroyed institutional inertia Ares IX flew and the pad was ready for similar launches


"In fact, "jobs program" and "sane space program" are in direct contradiction. Burn money, give pork in local politican area. And make another white elephant or oversized freudian excuse called HLV. Time to start learning chinese..."

The Chinese, who support National space programs with gov't money using the system you just condemned? With no big Gov't, there would be no space program of any kind. Goddards liquid fueled toys would be all we would ever have had if it had been left up to the privatize everything crowd. Unlike Griffin, I doubt you or Jim have every written a textbook on spacecraft design. I trust the engineers like him.

[The Jim]

[QUOTE=publiusr;1778049 The trick here is for younger folks to support NASA infrastructure more, and WWII/Cold War infrastructure less. That is the trick for us to become a true space-faring people. That or we destroy ourselves.[/QUOTE]

Wrong on many counts

1. The Arsenal method is out dated.
2. NASA infrastructure is part of the WWII/Cold War infrastructure, you can not separate them. NASA is a Cold War agency, it is not a space settlement or colonization agency. NASA exists to serve the US of A and not mankind. A space settlement or colony would do little for the US of A.
3. NASA job is to support industry, NASA is not an exploitation agency
4. "If more folks appreciate space", they don't and hence NASA funding is where it is at. You can't force it on people. Anyways, see below.
5. The trick is for younger folks to support commercial space. That is what will make us a space-faring people and not a gov't agency.
6. US spacelflight no longer means just NASA. NASA is only a part of it.
7. And yes, there is a need for JSC. launching and controlling spacecraft are two different things. The DOD and commercial comsats are not controlled from Florida.


Once again, your skewed view of the world is not reality.

[MaDeR]

With no big Gov't, there would be no space program of any kind.

Where I wrote that space program should not be done by goverment?

[publiusr]

Glad to here that. Sadly, there are a lot of alt.spacers out there. You did seem to get ticked off by Washington--but they are what is keeping HLV alive now. Since you conceeded that you think HLV makes sense--don't look the gift horse up the mouth. Be glad

[The Jim]

1. The destruction of Constellation is no improvement in that it destroyed institutional inertia Ares IX flew and the pad was ready for similar launches

2. The Chinese, who support National space programs with gov't money using the system you just condemned? With no big Gov't, there would be no space program of any kind. Goddards liquid fueled toys would be all we would ever have had if it had been left up to the privatize everything crowd.
3. Unlike Griffin, I doubt you or Jim have every written a textbook on spacecraft design.
4. I trust the engineers like him.

1. Yes it is an improvement, it prevented more money from being wasted. And the pad was not ready for similar launches, it was an once only launch and it damaged the pad

2. Bad analogy (as usual). The gov't job is not to run operations but to start and nurture them, like airmail did for airline industry. The gov't does not need to be involved with space launch, industry can do it all and this has been proven. The gov't just has to provide payloads (like airmail was) and let industry figure out how to get them where they need to be.

3. And how does that make him qualified to design launch vehicles? Ares I is one of the worse launch vehicles ever. Griffin has been discredited and hence he lost his job. He will go down in history as one of the worse administrators. He nearly brought NASA to ruin.

4. Your praise of him means your opinion doesn't mean much

[publiusr]

"The Arsenal method is out dated." That is your opinion. Not everyone shares it


"NASA is not a space settlement or colonization agency." It is if enough people say it is and vote

"You can't force it on people. Anyways, see below."

We get a lot of things forced on us, (Trillion dollar wars) but that is a whole different arguement

The trick is for younger folks to support commercial space. That is what will make us a space-faring people and not a gov't agency.

I agree with the first. But Gov't agencies have their roles. The ICBMs were paid for by Uncle Sam, and the costs of early comsats underwritten.

6. US spacelflight no longer means just NASA. NASA is only a part of it.
Agreed. But I do think they should be more independant.

And yes, there is a need for JSC. launching and controlling spacecraft are two different things.
There is no reason they can't be in one state, except to spread support.

The DOD and commercial comsats are not controlled from Florida.
Never said they were

[publiusr]

1. Yes it is an improvement, it prevented more money from being wasted.
Destroying infrastructure before it can be used is a waste.

And the pad was not ready for similar launches, it was an once only launch and it damaged the pad
And Delta IV heavy is a pad sitter and undershot its first launch--all fixable

"Industry can do it all and this has been proven. The gov't just has to provide payloads (like airmail was) and let industry figure out how to get them where they need to be."

DASH-80 was gov't funded, 707 came later

"Ares I is one of the worse launch vehicles ever." And it is gone. Happy?

"Griffin has been discredited (**)and hence he lost his job. He will go down in history as one of the worse administrators. He nearly brought NASA to ruin." No, the current President is what will bring it and a lot of other things to ruin. He may sign off on HLV yet. Or he might starve NASA and not even support unmanned missions. Who knows what he will do next.

[The Jim]

[QUOTE=publiusr;1778099]
1. Destroying infrastructure before it can be used is a waste.
2. And Delta IV heavy is a pad sitter and undershot its first launch--all fixable
3. DASH-80 was gov't funded, 707 came later
4. "Griffin has been discredited (**)and hence he lost his job. /QUOTE]

1. Nothing has been destroyed before it was used.
2. Delta IV has nothing to do with this. You have no legitimate response so you throw out an EELV barb, which means your argument is no more than name calling
3. Wrong, Dash 80 was Boeing funded.
4. Not **, but reality and the truth/

[publiusr]

Nothing has been destroyed before it was used.
Delta IV has nothing to do with this. You have no legitimate response so you throw out an EELV barb, which means your argument is no more than name calling

EELV apologists, ULA/DoD folks wanted Ares to die so it did, after one launch. ULA throws out barbs against VSE supporters--and you have been guilty of name calling yourself. I have a history of posting links to make my case and you have ignored them out of hand. Folks who have been here for years know that.

"Dash 80 was Boeing funded."
And who bought KC-135 --the USAF. Gov't money cannot be separated from airline development history. Bombers first, liners later has been the history up to 707.

[The Jim]

1. "The Arsenal method is out dated." That is your opinion. Not everyone shares it
2. "NASA is not a space settlement or colonization agency." It is if enough people say it is and vote

3. We get a lot of things forced on us, (Trillion dollar wars) but that is a whole different arguement

4. I agree with the first. But Gov't agencies have their roles. The ICBMs were paid for by Uncle Sam, and the costs of early comsats underwritten.

5. US spacelflight no longer means just NASA. NASA is only a part of it.
Agreed. But I do think they should be more independant.

6. There is no reason they can't be in one state, except to spread support.

1. Mine is not an opinion but fact and reality backs me. Ares I is an example of bad engineering from the arsenal.

2. and they won't. It is not in NASA's charter and nor is it in the gov't charter. The gov't didn't settle the west, the public did.

3. It was not forced on us, our elected officials decided it was best for the US.

4. And hence the gov't job is done, it does not have to do launch vehicles, just like it doesn't do comsats/.

5. No, NASA should use more commercial space

6. Yes, there is a reason. The manpower in florida couldn't support it and also, if not Texas, it would have been in Virginia.

[The Jim]

"Dash 80 was Boeing funded."
And who bought KC-135 --the USAF. Gov't money cannot be separated from airline development history. Bombers first, liners later has been the history up to 707.

Wrong again. Aside from the Stratocruiser, name a converted US bomber. Yes the money can be separated. Dash 80 was 100% Boeing funded. KC-135 was a different aircraft and came later. so your point is meaningless.

[publiusr]

The manpower might not have supported it in Florida then, but as you can see with a lot of aerospace jobs being relocated to my state things change.

Might have been better off closer to the beltway now that I think of it.

[The Jim]

Face it, Jeff, you are just plain wrong and history supports my view. Your view of the world is only shared by the lunatic fringe much less the minority and certainly not the majority.

[publiusr]

Lunatic fringe? I thought you just complained about name-calling. The folks involved with Constellation were good people Jim and deserved better.

That Saturn V and not Titan IV-assembled craft took us to the moon is proof positive that history is with me--so far.

[MaDeR]

Glad to here that. Sadly, there are a lot of alt.spacers out there. You did seem to get ticked off by Washington--but they are what is keeping HLV alive now.

You seem to mistake support for goverment space program with support for HLV. These are different things.

And you also seem to think that commercial space and goverment-led program are exclusive. Another mistake. In fact, cooperation is most desired situation - for example, goverment want astronauts to space station, private space firm will transfer them for cash. Everyone happy. Well, except certain politicans, whom their pork vanished.

Since you conceeded that you think HLV makes sense--don't look the gift horse up the mouth. Be glad

I said no such thing. I do not like putting words in my mouth. Stop reading in my words more than it is there.

[The Jim]

That Saturn V and not Titan IV-assembled craft took us to the moon is proof positive that history is with me--so far.

That is a one off, an aberration. It existed to beat the soviets before 1970 and nothing more. Once its job was done, it was discarded. Remember, Von Braun first championed EOR and not HLV. The Saturn was for flags and footprints and not for a sustainable program. EELV's and depots are sustainable and affordable.