This rocket won't die...

[aquitaine]

Now it might be cheaper to taxpayers if Musk were to price ATK and ULA out of the ballpark--but is it healthy for the institution as a whole?

Yes, because that's how the free market works. Usually whoever can deliver the best bang for each dollar spent, wins.


This does make me wonder, do these contracts have some kind of an expiration?

[NEOWatcher]

This is the 3rd part of a 5 part article.
I was choking trying to read the 2nd part, but this part definitely needs to land on this thread.
Handicapping NASA's commercial space race

Part 3: Three rockets are at the front of the pack ... here's why Liberty should lead

He's using lego logic throughout the article which is bad enough. He even uses Ares1-X as an example for how close they are.

But when he compares it to the chance of SpaceX (which he places third) he's comparing this mythical 5 year development of an entire rocket system against a 3 year target for man rating a real working rocket by saying that they have had delays in the past.

And the fact that KSC has modified thier facilities for it already? If they are using KSC facilities, then all they are doing is hiding the recurring costs and pushing over to the taxpayers.

This guy has got to be affiliated with the good-old-boys in some ways.

[Garrison]

This is the 3rd part of a 5 part article.
I was choking trying to read the 2nd part, but this part definitely needs to land on this thread.
Handicapping NASA's commercial space race

He's using lego logic throughout the article which is bad enough. He even uses Ares1-X as an example for how close they are.

But when he compares it to the chance of SpaceX (which he places third) he's comparing this mythical 5 year development of an entire rocket system against a 3 year target for man rating a real working rocket by saying that they have had delays in the past.

And the fact that KSC has modified thier facilities for it already? If they are using KSC facilities, then all they are doing is hiding the recurring costs and pushing over to the taxpayers.

This guy has got to be affiliated with the good-old-boys in some ways.

I started to read the article but I just about gave up when I got to this gem:

A version of Liberty was tested under the name Ares 1-X in 2009. Everything the launch system needs remains standing.

Since the Ares 1-X was nothing but an SRB with a mocked up second stage his statement reflects either a massive research failure or that he's a consultant for ATK. as you say he seems to be trying to paint the Liberty as a tested system; probably to glaze over the gap between the actually flight worthy Falcon 9 and what is still largely a Powerpoint vehicle. What we're getting is still the same old story about they can slot all these components together so simply and cheaply even when the evidence says otherwise.

[aquitaine]

Wait a minute, he's giving a rocket that has already flown a successful test flight up to the ISS a much lower ranking than that? Has the Liberty even had a test flight of any sort yet? Although I must admit it is ironic that he's comparing it to a rocket system that was canned because of delays and cost overruns.

[Garrison]

Wait a minute, he's giving a rocket that has already flown a successful test flight up to the ISS a much lower ranking than that? Has the Liberty even had a test flight of any sort yet? Although I must admit it is ironic that he's comparing it to a rocket system that was canned because of delays and cost overruns.

He's trying to claim the Ares 1-X as a 'test flight'; conveniently ignoring how far removed that launch was from any actual flight hardware. And if he wants to compare Liberty to Ares I he might want to mention just how delayed and overbudget that was. you would think it was a press handout from ATK except I doubt they would be that crass and naive.

[djellison]

There is no part of the Ares 1-X that constitutes part of the Liberty.

Sadly, Barbree has become a schill for old-school, outdated Aerospace firms. It's embarrassing.

[publiusr]

There is no part of the Ares 1-X that constitutes part of the Liberty.

Besides the solid that makes up the bulk of the LV? Was that simple ignorance on your part, or a deliberate untruth?

"The full scale Liberty is currently designed to launch off the former Ares I Mobile Launcher (ML)."

http://www.nasaspaceflight.com/2012/...acecraft-mlas/
http://www.nasaspaceflight.com/2012/...dence-liberty/

Barbree a schill because he doesn't agree with you? That's embarassing. The Arex I-X doesn't use the Ariane as an upper stage, but the program--and the pad--is far enough along that all that has to be done is to change the location of the oxygen line, and some ground infrastructure. As for me, I prefer old school. The reason folks had old school monolithic optics is because they don't have to unfold a hundred different ways. NRO makes a gift of these things, and you act as if they shot your dog.

Now maybe this is because you and certain folks at JPL are so used to packing things in narrow Delta II shrouds not much bigger than my waistline that any suggestion that things should be large and simple, as opposed to small and overcomplicated has folks all foaming at the mouth. We ill see in a few days how this works out with Curiosity.

I think you owe Barbree a little more in the way of respect. And a little less rancor.

[cjameshuff]

Besides the solid that makes up the bulk of the LV? Was that simple ignorance on your part, or a deliberate untruth?

It was a simple statement of truth. Ares I-X was an old Shuttle booster that was never going to be used for its original purpose and a second stage mockup. Perhaps you should do better research yourself...

[publiusr]

Four segment yes--but largely the same. He said no part. Ares I-X, Liberty Ares I--look at the business end of the solid and it is all the same solid. lengths can be added yes--but the vehicle is essentially the same. The deal with Barbree is what got under my skin.

[djellison]

Besides the solid that makes up the bulk of the LV? .

Wrong. Ares 1-X was 4 segments. Liberty is 5 segments. Different boosters.

The 5 segment Ares-1 (not X) booster has been tested on the ground - but it has never flown and it was never part of Ares 1-X.

It's a different booster. Period.

[publiusr]

You said 'no part' of the Ares I-X.

Liberty, Ares IX and Ares I have the same nozzle, the same type of common segments etc. LTD/Crown Vick--Grand Marquis--Lincoln Town Car have more differences--and they are considered to be essentially the same car. But if you want to split hairs--you win. You are right and I am wrong. Happy?

[Swift]

Was that simple ignorance on your part, or a deliberate untruth?
...

I think you owe Barbree a little more in the way of respect. And a little less rancor.

I could care less about disrespect, perceived or real, of some author. I care greatly about rude behavior toward other members. You are welcome to disagree, and to argue that disagreement, but you will do so politely or not at all. This will earn you an infraction.

[djellison]

Liberty, Ares IX and Ares I have the same nozzle,

No. The Ares I nozzle ( and thus the Liberty nozzle ) is wider than the Ares 1X nozzle.

There is some component commonality - this I will concede. The steel casings than make up each segment of the SRB's are the same. Indeed, for the DM tests of the 5 segment booster - they used old shuttle casings.

However Barbree said this "A version of Liberty was tested under the name Ares 1-X in 2009. "

This is categorically wrong. I-X is not a 'version of Liberty'.

Ares 1-X didn't use the same first stage. It didn't have ANY second stage. It didn't have any payload. It had avionics borrowed from the Atlas V. In no way did it represent 'a version of Liberty'

It is very VERY rare that I find myself agreeing with Keith Cowing. VERY rare. But on the performance of Barbree in this case - he and I see eye to eye...

http://nasawatch.com/archives/2012/0...rbree-get.html
"It is beyond odd that Jay Barbree focuses on the money spent on SpaceX but ignores the billions that NASA spent on Ares 1's first stage - which is now being used as the first stage of Liberty. Ares 1 was, itself, a derivation of another government-funded research program to develop the Space Shuttle SRBs. Given th ebillions spent on SRB and Ares 1, SpaceX is an incredible bargain by an order of magnitude.....
.....Liberty should be allowed to succeed or fail on its own merits. Yet Jay Barbree continues to write this one-sided, badly-researched revisionist history. Indeed, the things he writes are downright misleading and are fraught with inconsistencies and glaring omissions. Does NBC simply not care enough to provide Jay Barbree with a research assistant or fact checker?"

Barbree said he was going to retire when the Shuttle retired. He really should.

[Garrison]

Barbee seems to have been pushing the Liberty for quite some time and as some of the comments on the link you posted suggest he's entitled to his opinion. But what is not acceptable is being so economical with the facts; making claims about Liberty that have no basis in reality. The Liberty is an untried design that will require significant work to turn the Ariane first stage into an upper stage. It offers nothing by the way of capability that isn't already available. I do fear that the lobbying is going to force NASA to kick them some part of the next round of funding.

[MaDeR]

You said 'no part' of the Ares I-X.
Liberty, Ares IX and Ares I have the same nozzle, the same type of common segments etc. LTD/Crown Vick--Grand Marquis--Lincoln Town Car have more differences--and they are considered to be essentially the same car. But if you want to split hairs--you win. You are right and I am wrong. Happy?

Nope. There is simple reason why they are considered different (and "shuttle heritage" making things only a little simpler than starting from clean sheet) - each of those booster have different characteristics - weight, max-q, loads on various parts etc. Adding new segment means practically running simulations and calculations from scrath. You cannot simply extrapolate (this would be small recalculation anyway). In space business littlest detail can kill dead your mission (for example, thrid mission of F1).

In this context, complaining that rockets are more finely distinguished than cars is ludicrous. Adding spoiler to you car one inch off will not make it explode or crash.

[Jeff Root]

I haven't been following this thread, but my attention
was just directed here, and the subject is one that I
have some interest in.

There is no part of the Ares 1-X that constitutes part of
the Liberty.

Besides the solid that makes up the bulk of the LV?
Was that simple ignorance on your part, or a deliberate
untruth?

There is some component commonality - this I will concede.
The steel casings than make up each segment of the SRB's
are the same.

So you knew that what you said was untrue. Not merely
some small part, but the largest components of the two
launch vehicles, accounting for the majority of the unfueled
mass, are the same.

So you just slipped up? You were concentrating so hard on
the differences that you forgot that they have a great deal
in common? Or what?

-- Jeff, in Minneapolis

[djellison]

Not merely
some small part, but the largest components of the two
launch vehicles, accounting for the majority of the unfueled
mass, are the same.

And everything inside them is different. Their configuration is different. Their nozzle is different. The pattern of the fuel inside is different.

The Liberty 1st stage and Ares I-X are very very very different rocket motors. That they use the same metal tubes in which to put their fuel is barely consequential. In essence - they're as wide as each others. That's what the commonality boils down to.

They do not have 'a great deal in common'.

[Garrison]

I haven't been following this thread, but my attention
was just directed here, and the subject is one that I
have some interest in.




So you knew that what you said was untrue. Not merely
some small part, but the largest components of the two
launch vehicles, accounting for the majority of the unfueled
mass, are the same.

So you just slipped up? You were concentrating so hard on
the differences that you forgot that they have a great deal
in common? Or what?

-- Jeff, in Minneapolis

You seem to be missing the main point here; that describing the Ares I-X as a test flight for the Liberty as Jay Barbee did was wildly inaccurate. That vehicle contained no actual Ares I hardware and certainly no Liberty hardware. As to the casings; well to carry on the car analogy you might as well argue that because you can fit the same spark plugs in a Toyota Yaris and a Ferrari 430 they are essentially the same vehicle.

[Jeff Root]

If the two launch vehicles use the same solid rocket motor
segments, then they have essentially identical bodies.
One just has an additional pair of segments. The body
of a solid rocket motor is the second-most important and
second-heaviest part of the vehicle after the fuel itself.

Of course there are a huge number of differences. Nobody
said there aren't. But the biggest, most important parts
are the same.

The Ares I-X test flight tested some things that Liberty
would do. That appears to be what was claimed. It is a
true statement. It was one test. Nobody claimed it
validated the system. The point was that the test didn't
invalidate the system. It didn't show that Liberty's
design can't work. It could have, but didn't. It was a
valid proof of concept test of some aspects of Liberty.

-- Jeff, in Minneapolis

[cjameshuff]

...

Jeff, it's a tube. If it doesn't burst or buckle, its only impact on performance is its mass. It's high-mass because it hasn't been critical to optimize for mass (due to the low delta-v performance of the stage and high mass of the solid fuel, structure mass doesn't cost much), so it's a simple heavy steel tube. Further, adding a segment and changing the burn profile, nozzle, and acceleration and aerodynamic forces certainly has an influence on the casing doing its job. Looking at its contribution by mass and ignoring the different number and burn profile of the fuel segments, the nozzle, the thrust vectoring systems, the sensors monitoring the burn, the ignition system, the avionics, the separation hardware, etc is just insane.

It's a simple fact that Ares I-X had no substantial hardware commonality with either Ares I or Liberty. Arguing otherwise based on such superficial similarities as the casing is just ridiculous.

[Swift]

<snip>
So you knew that what you said was untrue. Not merely
some small part, but the largest components of the two
launch vehicles, accounting for the majority of the unfueled
mass, are the same.

So you just slipped up? You were concentrating so hard on
the differences that you forgot that they have a great deal
in common? Or what?

Jeff Root,

I already suspended one member for a post like this, would you like to follow?

Everyone - Enough with the accusations of lying or deception. Even if it might be true, you are not to post such comments, they are rude, and they constitute personal attack on CQ. Even if someone has posted something that is incorrect or which you have a different opinion about, you politely explain your side.

Any further posts like that will be harshly infracted.

[djellison]

If the two launch vehicles use the same solid rocket motor
segments, then they have essentially identical bodies.
One just has an additional pair of segments.

Jeff - you're missing the point. It's like saying any two boxes are the same, regardless of what's in them.

The Ares I-X test flight tested some things that Liberty
would do. That appears to be what was claimed. It is a
true statement. It was one test. Nobody claimed it
validated the system. The point was that the test didn't
invalidate the system. It didn't show that Liberty's
design can't work. It could have, but didn't. It was a
valid proof of concept test of some aspects of Liberty.

Which concepts? Ares 1-X had a different first stage, different fuel config, different avionics, different fuel grain, different nozzle, and a fake steel version of a different upper stage with a boilerplate of a different payload on top.

What, exactly, did it prove for Liberty.

Barbree said "A version of Liberty was tested under the name Ares 1-X in 2009. "

Multiple people have explained way Barbree is wrong. Please be specific and explain to use why he's not. Why, for example, have they had three solid rocket motor tests for what would have been the Ares-1 first stage out in the desert, if it's already been flight tested as the 1-X.

[Garrison]

If the two launch vehicles use the same solid rocket motor
segments, then they have essentially identical bodies.
One just has an additional pair of segments. The body
of a solid rocket motor is the second-most important and
second-heaviest part of the vehicle after the fuel itself.

Of course there are a huge number of differences. Nobody
said there aren't. But the biggest, most important parts
are the same.

The Ares I-X test flight tested some things that Liberty
would do. That appears to be what was claimed. It is a
true statement. It was one test. Nobody claimed it
validated the system. The point was that the test didn't
invalidate the system. It didn't show that Liberty's
design can't work. It could have, but didn't. It was a
valid proof of concept test of some aspects of Liberty.

-- Jeff, in Minneapolis

Again your missing the context. Barbee is claiming that the Liberty is a superior choice as manned launcher to the already flying Falcon 9. To this end he attempts to equate the Ares 1-X launch to the three launches of the Falcon 9. The Falcon 9 doesn't need to fall back on a 'proof of concept of some aspects', it's a working rocket. Note that Barbee also rates the Liberty ahead of the Atlas V, do you really believe that he has made a reasonable judgement based on the facts about the three systems?

[Jerry]

And everything inside them is different. Their configuration is different. Their nozzle is different. The pattern of the fuel inside is different.

The Liberty 1st stage and Ares I-X are very very very different rocket motors. That they use the same metal tubes in which to put their fuel is barely consequential. In essence - they're as wide as each others. That's what the commonality boils down to.

They do not have 'a great deal in common'.

Wrong. So wrong. Same propellant, same case, same insulating components, same nozzle thrust vector system, same nozzle throat materials and architecture, they use 95% of the same tooling, same manufacturing process, same testing matrix, same material certification, exactly the same ignitor, same safe and arm, same linear shaped charges, same assembly, transportation and loading cranes, same x-ray and hydroburst testing facilities, same qualification motor testing criteria, same testing instrumentation, same nuts bolts and screws.

No, a 747-4 stretch manufactured in 2006 is not the same airplane as the 1971 version, but mostly because of incrimental improvements nugged into a very robust system.

Hate solids if you like, for many good reasons; but it is wrong to talk about at least the first stage of the Liberty as an unproven design. The similarities to the reliable redesigned booster that succeeded on over two hundred successful ignitions far outweigh the differences in length, propellant grain and nozzle throat diameter. How often was the shuttle delayed because of a problem with a booster? Not once - since 1996; and precious few times before then. I like the Falcon, but Space-X has a long ways to go before they can talk abouit a turn-key first stage that will never delay a launch.

[djellison]

but it is wrong to talk about at least the first stage of the Liberty as an unproven design. .

How many times has it flown, Jerry?

Note - the answer is zero.

[Garrison]

Wrong. So wrong. Same propellant, same case, same insulating components, same nozzle thrust vector system, same nozzle throat materials and architecture, they use 95% of the same tooling, same manufacturing process, same testing matrix, same material certification, exactly the same ignitor, same safe and arm, same linear shaped charges, same assembly, transportation and loading cranes, same x-ray and hydroburst testing facilities, same qualification motor testing criteria, same testing instrumentation, same nuts bolts and screws.

No, a 747-4 stretch manufactured in 2006 is not the same airplane as the 1971 version, but mostly because of incrimental improvements nugged into a very robust system.

Hate solids if you like, for many good reasons; but it is wrong to talk about at least the first stage of the Liberty as an unproven design. The similarities to the reliable redesigned booster that succeeded on over two hundred successful ignitions far outweigh the differences in length, propellant grain and nozzle throat diameter. How often was the shuttle delayed because of a problem with a booster? Not once - since 1996; and precious few times before then. I like the Falcon, but Space-X has a long ways to go before they can talk abouit a turn-key first stage that will never delay a launch.

So are you agreeing with Barbee that a rocket that has never flown with a capsule they only dreamed up after the Liberty was turned down the last time is better bet that the Falcon 9 or the Atlas V? SpaceX has delivered cargo to the ISS and returned material safely to Earth. Atlas V has 30 straight successful launches to its name; is it truly reasonable to ignore that in favour of a rocket that still only exists in Powerpoint?

[DoggerDan]

Sounds plausible to me. It's always cheaper and less time-consuming to use proven, off-the-shelf components than to design from scratch.

[djellison]

It's always cheaper and less time-consuming to use proven, off-the-shelf components than to design from scratch.

Really?

That was the plan with Ares 1 and Ares V. They were cancelled because they were going over budget and their schedule was slipping hideously.

Meanwhile, nearly from scratch, SpaceX are delivering and returning cargo from ISS for less that the cost of the Ares 1 launch platform.

[Garrison]

Really?

That was the plan with Ares 1 and Ares V. They were cancelled because they were going over budget and their schedule was slipping hideously.

Meanwhile, nearly from scratch, SpaceX are delivering and returning cargo from ISS for less that the cost of the Ares 1 launch platform.

And not to forget that some of those 'off the shelf' components are going to be radically retasked. And you know what's better than a rocket that uses off the shelf components DoggerDan? One that's actually flown and proved it works.

[publiusr]

They widened the nozzle out sure--but the overall commonality is not to be denied

Sadly, Barbree has become a schill for old-school, outdated Aerospace firms.

Just because you have aging engineers doesn't make them wrong. The KISS method allowed by big dumb boosters--or at least some touch of that in the Liberty first stage--is something a lot of young folks might think they are too sophisticated for. Sometimes young people get it wrong too:

...the people I worked with from LoMart when doing our Eyes on the Solar System work for Stardust NExT were a young, bright, friendly, professional team. Funny - Polar Lander, Climate Orbiter, DS1, and Stardust all launched within a few months of each other. Perhaps they were all just stretched too thin - like the Mars program as a whole was at the time.

http://cosmoquest.org/forum/showthre...27#post2046327

Yes Jay is old school. And were I to hazard a guess, he might be one of the few people aging engineers trust to speak to. The internet--and all its flame wars--are a game for the young in their minds--so older experienced folks are under-represented at the table of ideas.

Case in point:

It is very VERY rare that I find myself agreeing with Keith Cowing. VERY rare.

Now that's what I am talking about. For every Jay Barbree there are a score of Keith Cowings, hobbyspaces, etc. who pretty much own the blogosphere. That's why Jay shouldn't retire. Take the article by WSJ op-ed by Gordon Crovitz where he tries to minimize ARPA's role in the internet:
http://news.cnet.com/8301-1023_3-574...erf-disagrees/

I don't think he should retire for a gaff--if that is what it was. We all have warts, failings--agendas. And we hash it out in places like this--and even get a yellow card on occasion. But we should make allowances for under-represented views of those whose only crime isn't being internet savvy. My guess is that there are a lot of bright, older folk who only do work on computers--or drafting tables--and rarely if ever have any clue that their work is being discussed or attacked on web forum activity they take no interest in.


Again, Safran and Astrium are not dummies.

Now maybe this is because the Euros want to get rid of Ariane 5 for something smaller and want to cut their losses. The Germans seem to want to keep Ariane 5--so there is disagreement even there. Frankly, both the pads are more geared towards SLS--and a return to an Ares I/Liberty type system might need more in the way of changes.--so I am happy to see Dragon and Dream Chaser be the two down-selects. Liberty is also the name for the near all-composite capsule of theirs, and I would like to hear some of your thoughts on that.

O/T

It is very VERY rare that I find myself agreeing with Keith Cowing. VERY rare.

Now you have got me curious. I figured you and Cowing were pretty much on the same page on a lot of things--what has he written that you disagree with?