NASA new "Ares IV" ...aka "SLV" ...aka "FAST-SLV" ...aka "SuperSLV" ...aka "ArianeX"

[gaetanomarano]

.

NASA new "AresIV" ...aka (April 12, 2006) "SLV" ...aka (May 12, 2006) "FAST-SLV" ...aka (May 21, 2006) "SuperSLV" ...aka (May 27, 2006) "ArianeX"

and, without the LSAM, it (absolutely) NEEDS the (September 18, 2006) "SwissKnife Orion" to work (while, despite the F.I. article drawing, it DOESN'T NEED the 5-segments SRBs)

another ghostNASA "decision" that may come true...

also, the NASA "new" strategy uses the "Multiple Launches Architecture" (MLA) I've suggested in my (May 27, 2006) ArianeX article ...multiple launches of the same rocket with Capsule/Lander rendezvous/docking in lunar orbit (instead of earth orbit, to avoid the risk of a missions' fails due to a "sum-of-delays") ... or (maybe...) to a (small) Lunar Space Station as suggested in my (June 5, 2006) article


ps - not forgotten the SLV-like proposals seen in July 2006 (Stumpy) and August 2006 (Direct)

.

[Doodler]

Interesting variant, but its only a study program. Much as the Saturn V/STS study program was.

[gaetanomarano]

.

if NASA will build the Ares-IV for moon missions, will be no need for an orbital version (nor a smaller rocket) to launch the Orion, since, for ISS and orbital missions, will be (or may be) available...

for crew: Soyuz, Digital-Soyuz, Shenzhou, ACTS, COTS and (maybe) a SAFER Space Shuttle and/or an Orion-light (the standard Orion with less propellent) launched with a man-rated Ariane5 or Delta IV Heavy

for cargo: Progress, ATV, COTS, cargo-ACTS (?), H-II Transfer Vehicle (HTV) and (maybe) a CREWLESS Space Shuttle

.

[Doodler]

Just because they form a study group does not imply this will be anything more than vaporware.

[Nowhere Man]

Boy, according to you, NASA doesn't do anything right, do they?

Fred

[cjl]

What is the point of a crewless shuttle?

Seems absurdly expensive for a cargo vehicle to me...

It's a lot easier to send up the payload and not bring anything back, eliminating the weight of all the heat shielding, structure, etc.

[gaetanomarano]

...vaporware...

if the currenty Ares are "perfect" ...why do they need spend million$$$ to make "vapor"?

.

[Nicolas]

Because without a firm research, you don't know what is vapor and what is a good idea. Without a firm research, you will not get side results. WIthout good research, you won't get very far. History is filled with ideas that didn't make it. That doesn't mean it's wasted time and effort. The very conclusion that it's a bad idea can be very valuable.

[gaetanomarano]

...doesn't do anything right...

take a look (on astronautix) at the pre-Apollo/pre-LEM designs... you will find incredibly strange "concepts" of spacecrafts
then, after thousands changes, they have built the right vehicles (or the best compromise)
the same mistakes (done or avoided) about the Shuttle, ISS (and Ares...)
the difference between '60s-'80s and '90s-up is (mainly) INTERNET Sat-TVs so (now) EVERYTHING (space and non-space) is put on X-RAYs and public, experts, journalists, etc. can give their opinions/critics on magazines, websites, forums and blogs...

"That's internet, baby, internet, and there's nothing you can do about it. Nothing." (Humphrey Bogart, "Deadline USA", 1952)

.

[gaetanomarano]

...vapor and what is a good idea...

yesterday, I've read that a NASA official admitted "AresIV" as a true NASA study...

.

[gaetanomarano]

What is the point of a crewless shuttle? Seems absurdly expensive for a cargo vehicle to me...

Progress and ATV class vehicles are sufficient for small cargo, but (now) only the Shuttles can send 24 mT payloads in space, move them from its insertion orbit to every orbit they need and... assemble, disassemble, repair and bring back to earth: space-labs, big modules, ISS parts, etc.
in my CREWLESS Space Shuttle article I suggest to send the ISS modules with many crewless launches, hook them to an “ISS Space Parking” then send to ISS the assembly specialists with a few Soyuz or Shuttle launches

.

[stutefish]

I can already see where this is going: It's just like the "EggCV" idea.

NASA will study the Ares IV option, and Gaetano will rejoice in their wisdome and insist that this is the option they will ultimately choose, since it's "obviously" the VERY BEST option... right up until the point that NASA chooses something else instead. Then he'll complain that NASA didn't REALLY study this option, otherwise they would've seen how obviously superior it is.

Meanwhile the rest of us will continue to be amazed at how much more insightful than NASA Gaetano is, in spite of the fact that he has no aerospace R&D budget, no aerospace R&D experience, and not a single hour of aerospace operations logged with any flight crew or mission control center in the world.

Personally, I wouldn't mind seeing NASA and Gaetano both be right on something, but as long as they're in disagreement, I'm going to continue siding with NASA. No offense, Gaetano. Their experience, resources, and even their presentation style work together to inspire confidence in their ideas.

[gaetanomarano]

...NASA will study the Ares IV option...

apart of your personal (and useless) insults against me (that, I can assure you, have no effect on me) ...lets think about the fact that NASA has started this (costly, but, apparently, nonsense) AresIV study over a year after its ESAS plan, while their ("already perfect"!) Ares' rockets (and launch architecture) are on the way...

.

[SpaceNutNewmars]

Just some of the many topics that have just as many or more holes...

BIG advantages of the 4-segments SRB vs. the 5-segments SRB


2010 shuttle recertified, What's needed to fly safely?


Do you (exactly) know how to "man-rate" a rocket?


VISUAL "Shuttle to Capsule" comparison


"3+3 engines" Super SLV >>> The BEST version of the FAST-SLV


gaetanomarano Lunar Space Station; Safe haven or for rescue of lunar crew


The GIANT mistake of the (too small) Orion's Service Module!

Many of these are just not economical, feasable or in the direct line of infrastucture building for the VSE of going to the moon, Mars or to beyound...

[gaetanomarano]

...holes...

no more "holes" than EVERY ambitious plan (including ESAS) has before it happens/works/fly...

about "BIG advantages of the 4-segments SRB vs. the 5-segments SRB" ...ready available, low cost, man-rated, tested in 231 successful flights, no years and billion$$$ to spend for a new version ...do you want more?

about "2010 shuttle recertified, What's needed to fly safely?" ...I'm not alone suggesting to SAVE the Shuttles to fill the gap between their retirement and the first Orion flight (and lots of other good reasons...)

about "VISUAL "Shuttle to Capsule" comparison" ...capsules are (clearly) LOSERS compared with Shuttles in LEO operations (I avoid to repeat here the long list of advantages... more payloads, more crews, less costs, assembly, etc.)

about "3+3 engines" Super SLV >>> The BEST version of the FAST-SLV" ...it's very close to the AresIV... and use the ready available standard-SRBs... why do you want NASA spends more?

about "gaetanomarano Lunar Space Station; Safe haven or for rescue of lunar crew" ...("gaetanomarano" added by moderators) ...it's a great idea to avoid big risks for the astronauts and multiply the number of lunar surface missions per crew!

about "The GIANT mistake of the (too small) Orion's Service Module!" ...the "SwissKnife Orion" ...already discussed here and INDISPENSABLE if NASA will build the AresIV !

then, where are the "holes"?

sorry, but I see (from early days) MUCH MORE "holes" in the ESAS plan!

.

[Bob B.]

...lets think about the fact that NASA has started this (costly, but, apparently, nonsense) AresIV study over a year after its ESAS plan.

Not entirely true. The architecture that would make use of the Ares IV formed the ESAS Initial Reference Architecture (EIRA) from a couple years ago. The architecture is detailed on page 91 of the ESAS report (PDF page 17)...

http://images.spaceref.com/news/2005/ESAS.REPORT.04.PDF

The new study seems to be a more detailed look at the launch vehicle required (i.e. Ares IV) to make EIRA happen, however the architecture itself is old news. There were justifiable reasons for dismissing EIRA at the time of the ESAS report, but NASA appears to be keeping their options open by taking a second look at it.

[gaetanomarano]

...new study seems to be a more detailed look at the launch vehicle required...

clearly they have made dozens studies (including some architectures based on EELV) but, after the ESAS plan publishing last year, many claims, contracts assignments, etc., was clear (to everyone) that the BEST, the ONLY, the PERFECT, the DEFINITIVE choice was the Ares-I/Ares-V duo... why (now) do they spend time and money to study another (useless) rocket if they don't need it???

I think they are going (soon!) to change (both) rocket design and mission's architecture... if they (still) wait to do that NOW, the first moon mission will happen in 2025 !!!

.

[Bob B.]

...was clear (to everyone) that the BEST, the ONLY, the PERFECT, the DEFINITIVE choice was the Ares-I/Ares-V duo...

Says who? ESAS was just a concept study and did not result in any definitive decisions. The ESAS recommendations have always been subject to possible change. Keeping all the trades on the table is part of the process.

[gaetanomarano]

...just a concept study and did not result in any definitive decisions...

assign the 5-seg.SRB (3 years and 3 billion$), RS-68, J-2x (7 years and "n" billion$), Orion contracts (7 years and 9.1 billion$) appear "definitive decisions", NOT "just a concept study"

.

[Bob B.]

assign the 5-seg.SRB (3 years and 3 billion$), RS-68, J-2x (7 years and "n" billion$), Orion contracts (7 years and 9.1 billion$) appear "definitive decisions", NOT "just a concept study".

The RS-68 already exists, so there is no development cost there. The J-2X engine can have a wide variety of applications in whatever architecture or launch vehicle(s) are finally chosen, so proceeding with its development does not lock us into any particular concept or design. The same is true of the 5-segment SRB. So although some costs are already committed on the sub-system level, there is still much flexibility in the way we go forward from here. Even Orion is far from a final design and is still subject to possible changes. Everything is still rather fluid at this point in time.

[gaetanomarano]

...Even Orion is far from a final design and is still subject to possible changes. Everything is still rather fluid at this point in time...

then... we will se the FAST-SLV... SwissKnife-Orion... EggCEV... LSS... Ariane5-Orion launch...

.

[MrClean]

A guy can dream can't he? Sometimes I dream I'm back on the Golf Course cutting grass for a living and shooting beautiful rooster tails of Bluegrass/Fescue out of my Toro 7 gang fairway unit, or the Jake F-15. The smells of fresh grass, the warmth of the morning sun on an early spring day, sigh.

Gaetano's dream is director of operations NASA and as long as you read his thread you get to go along for the ride.

Personally, I'd rather be back on the Course, but to each their own.

[cjl]

then... we will se the FAST-SLV... SwissKnife-Orion... EggCEV... LSS... Ariane5-Orion launch...

.

Nope. We'll see exactly what Nasa decides on launch, which won't have any of these on board.

[Dave J]

Gaetano,
Question...what is the total impulse of the 5SRB? What is the total impulse of the current RSRM design?
If you say you don't know, or start talking about figures of burn time and max thrust from some website, then you don't know the answer. There are those who do, who are intimately connected with the system. You are not, not am I.
Do you have any idea how many configurations were involved in the Apollo program? You seem to think, after announcing a program last year, that everything would be set in stone in under 12 months. Your lack of program management training, or even sense, is showing.
BTW, I keep clicking on the colored, bolded, italicized text in your posts...where are the links? All your "screaming" minimizes it's "impact".
Meanwhile, you still think it's viable to move HST to ISS inclination...I look forward to the written study...without the colors.
Edit: you speak of keeping HST around for "30 years". 30 Years ago I don't think the PC existed, I bought my C64 in 83. How could I upgrade my C64, bought for around 200$ to something of near comparable capability today?
Your speculation and second guessing is irritating without some firm data behind it...firm data, not just some website stuff.

[gaetanomarano]

...keeping HST around for "30 years". 30 Years ago I don't think the PC existed, I bought my C64 in 83...

both Soyuz and Progress fly despite their '60s soviet technology and will fly another decade or more
the Shuttles (built in '80s with '70s technology, like your C=64...)) fly and still fly again until 2010 when it will be grounded ONLY due to a political decision
the ISS and many probes was '80s designs built with '80s and '90s technologies but will work well in the next two decades or more
the "new" Ares-I will have a '80s 1st stage SRB and a '60s 2nd stage engine
Orion will be a '60s design built with to-day's technologies and (as planned) it will still fly in 2040 (when it will be "old")
many military and civil airplanes (B-52, 747, etc.) was designed and built 30, 40, 50 years ago!
EVERYTHING fly in the sky or in space is OLD or VERY OLD!!!
WHY the ONLY "old thing in space" to KILL must be the Hubble???
after the LAST servicing it will have a few years of life, while, near the ISS, it can survive (and be upgraded) for decades!
if it will survive 20+ years more than planned... in 2025 it will (simply) have the SAME age/technology of the ISS... of course, if, in the next 20 years, many, new and better telescopes will be launched... they're welcome!

.

[Nicolas]

EVERYTHING fly in the sky or in space is OLD or VERY OLD!!!

Bold and all caps is a bit of an exageration here in "everything". There is also recent and new technology used in certain aircraft and spacecraft.

[gaetanomarano]

Bold and all caps is a bit of an exageration here in "everything". There is also recent and new technology used in certain aircraft and spacecraft.

true, but, especially manned spacecrafts use past, reliable and well known (including problems) chips and technologies for safety and reliability... just imagine a manned spacecraft (flying in orbit) using a recent processor driven by Vista OS Beta with 375 unknown bugs to be fixed "soon" with the Vista Service Pack 1...

.

[SpaceNutNewmars]

gaetanomarano you speak of keeping HST around for "30 years". while 30 Years ago I don't think the PC existed, I bought my C64 in 83. How could I upgrade my C64, bought for around 200$ to something of near comparable capability today?

EVERYTHING fly in the sky or in space is OLD or VERY OLD!!!

While it may be a good thing to keep using old things so long as they are working without need of repair but when it comes to electronic items the market for there parts are gone in 7 years or less from the manufacturer. They stop making them if the sales are low or specialized.

true, but, especially manned spacecrafts use past, reliable and well known (including problems) chips and technologies for safety and reliability... just imagine a manned spacecraft (flying in orbit) using a recent processor driven by Vista OS Beta with 375 unknown bugs to be fixed "soon" with the Vista Service Pack 1... .

But there is a grave difference between software and hardware....

[gaetanomarano]

...electronic items the market for there parts are gone in 7 years or less...difference between software and hardware...

in the past I've read many times of the problems to find some electronics parts for Shuttles' servicing... however, the Shuttles' electronics have had many updates in last 25 years... the problem of "bugs" don't affects only the software, also a new processor has some bugs to fix (also in the math processor like happened many years ago on a new processor)

.

[gaetanomarano]

.

SIX MONTHS AFTER my Launch the CEV with Ariane5 article and my Ariane5+CEV thread here you can read here the "Stumpy/Direct" version of MY proposal...

.