Orion, Ares, ISS, Moon, Mars, Maybe?

[Tyyr]

I'm interested in what people think about NASA's latest launcher architecture. Anything from the decision to terminate the Shuttle, to the problems the current design is having, to their refusal to seriously consider alternate solutions like DIRECT.

Personally I'm not surprised at cost and schedule overruns. Building something entirely new and on the extreme end of the performance envelope is always going to be a challenge and you never quite appreciate how much of one until you're in the middle of it.

[Aaron]

I'm all for it, the shuttle needs replacement and we may as well build the best we can get. Though I have a suspicion that it'll never actually see service.

[Tyyr]

I think Ares I is going to come along but I don't know if they'll get funding for Ares V. We'll wind up with a crew launch vehicle with no purpose other than to shuttle crews back and forth to the ISS.

I'm still trying to confirm whether or not the Orion's be downgraded from a 6 man to 4 man vehicle, in which case it can't even properly service the full crew ISS.

[Tyyr]

To me the biggest problem with the Ares I right now is that the launcher is maxed out and the first capsule isn't even in orbit. The Orion CEV has already been cut back many times to try to lighten it enough just to get it to fly. They removed its ability to return on land, they've even started cutting back on safety systems they're that desperate to lighten it. You can only trim so much fat before you start slicing muscle and chopping bone. They're about to hit marrow.

This is concerning because all machines like this get bigger. You want to add capabilities to them to make them better, refine them more, but in this case you can't. The Ares I is barely capable of lifting the Orion as is. We're spending billions to develop a launch vehicle that will have to be replaced in short order as it's capabilities are at its limit before the first one ever launches. What that means is that right after they finish Ares V (if it even happens) they'll immediately have to launch into another development effort to replace the Ares I.

[Sionnach Glic]

Any step away from that godawful shuttle is a step in the right direction, as far as I'm concerned. That thing's been nothing but a disaster from day 1.
Hell, just buy a heapload of Soyuz modules and their launchers off the Russians. It's what the ESA is doing, I believe.

[Mikey]

Hell, just buy a heapload of oil off the Russians. It's what the ESA is doing

There you go.

[Sionnach Glic]

Yeah, that too.

[Tyyr]

Because Russia is not the US, and relying on them for access to space borders on ridiculous. Soyuz is also a strickly LEO craft. Since part of the plan is to go to the Moon and eventually Mars we'd have to develop a new launcher for that anyways.

[Sionnach Glic]

Why the hell do we want to go to the moon again? We've been there. The verdict is in: it's full of nothingness.

For stuff like throwing satalites up and moving personel to and from the ISS, it's perfect.

Because Russia is not the US, and relying on them for access to space borders on ridiculous.

Why? Europe isn't Russia either, yet we're fine using them.

[Tyyr]

Why the hell do we want to go to the moon again? We've been there. The verdict is in: it's full of nothingness.

Exploration and research.

For stuff like throwing satalites up and moving personel to and from the ISS, it's perfect.

Not really. The ISS crew was recently bumped up to 6, supporting that with a craft limited to 3 at a time isn't great.

Why? Europe isn't Russia either, yet we're fine using them.

Good for you, but Europe is also not the US. Using Soyuz is contingent upon Russia letting us. If they decide they don't want to let us ride we can't do jack shit about it. Given what happened in Georgia I think it's safe to say we're not exactly seeing eye to eye on some issues. If something else goes down and we find ourselves at cross purposes the Russians could decide they don't feel like letting us ride any more. Then our incredibly expensive station is so much space junk.

[Sionnach Glic]

Exploration and research.

For? What's there to explore? There's nothing there.

Not really. The ISS crew was recently bumped up to 6, supporting that with a craft limited to 3 at a time isn't great.

Then have two shifts of three working the station at once. Simples.

Good for you, but Europe is also not the US. Using Soyuz is contingent upon Russia letting us. If they decide they don't want to let us ride we can't do jack s**t about it. Given what happened in Georgia I think it's safe to say we're not exactly seeing eye to eye on some issues. If something else goes down and we find ourselves at cross purposes the Russians could decide they don't feel like letting us ride any more. Then our incredibly expensive station is so much space junk.

Europe's in the exact same situation. We backed the US and Georgia during the South Ossetian conflict as well. Hell, if Russia wanted to it could do a lot worse than just stop us getting into space, given that the vast majority of our gas and oil comes from them.

And what's the problem with buying Soyuz modules? That's what I suggested originaly, then we got sidetracked into a rental debate.

[Aaron]

For? What's there to explore? There's nothing there.

Well it'd be nice to know exactly what is there in case we want to mine it or use it as a stop off point for Mars/outer planets. It does have a shallower gravity well after all.

Besides, I want to watch a moon landing live!

Good for you, but Europe is also not the US. Using Soyuz is contingent upon Russia letting us. If they decide they don't want to let us ride we can't do jack s**t about it. Given what happened in Georgia I think it's safe to say we're not exactly seeing eye to eye on some issues. If something else goes down and we find ourselves at cross purposes the Russians could decide they don't feel like letting us ride any more. Then our incredibly expensive station is so much space junk.

Build it under license, it's not like the US doesn't do it for other things. Mind you I'm advocating this only as a means to allow the Aries project to reach it's planned potential.

[Tyyr]

For? What's there to explore? There's nothing there.

We've explored less than 1% of the moon. More like less than 0.1% of the moon. It's a bit premature to declare there's nothing there. Even if there is nothing obvious there it has a wealth of knowledge about geology and the formation of the solar system.

The dark side of the moon offers a perfect place to base a massive space telescope as it has no atmosphere to speak of.

Finally, like Kendall implied, if nothing else it has vast natural resources and a much shallower gravity well. If projects require building anything large in space it makes more sense to bring the materials from the moon than from Earth. It's more of a long term prospect but there it is.

Then have two shifts of three working the station at once. Simples.

Except you're doubling the number of launches to do it.

Europe's in the exact same situation. We backed the US and Georgia during the South Ossetian conflict as well. Hell, if Russia wanted to it could do a lot worse than just stop us getting into space, given that the vast majority of our gas and oil comes from them.

Ultimately that's Europe's decision. If you want to go that route that's fine, but with a thriving native space sector farming out launch capability to someone else is ridiculous to us.

And what's the problem with buying Soyuz modules? That's what I suggested originaly, then we got sidetracked into a rental debate.

We are, we're buying them but we still rely on the Russians to launch them. As for buying them and shipping them over here to launch them ourselves

Build it under license, it's not like the US doesn't do it for other things. Mind you I'm advocating this only as a means to allow the Aries project to reach it's planned potential.

It doesn't do what we want it to do. Buying it and building it under license ourselves solves absolutely nothing. We still have to develop Ares I and V along with Orion and Altair but now we have building and maintaining Soyuz as an albatross around our neck.

[Tyyr]

Private Companies Claim Better, Cheaper Options for New NASA Rocket
By Bill Theobald
FLORIDA TODAY
posted: 19 June 2009
12:55 pm ET

WASHINGTON -- Executives from several private space companies said Wednesday that they could provide cheaper, more reliable launch systems than those of NASA's Constellation program.

The executives made their comments about alternatives to NASA's plan for sending astronauts to the moon and on to Mars during the first meeting of the Review of U.S. Human Space Flight Plans Committee created by President Barack Obama.

After the daylong meeting, committee Chairman Norm Augustine, a former CEO of Lockheed Martin Corp., said some commercial launch efforts appear "further along than I thought."

Michael Gass, the CEO of United Launch Alliance, told the committee that the company could use an existing Delta rocket to launch the Constellation project's Orion capsule into space sooner and at a lower cost than NASA's planned Ares I rocket.

And Gary Pulliam at Aerospace Corp., which was hired to look at other ways to launch Orion, said a modified Delta IV Heavy rocket could save between $3 billion and $6 billion compared with the Ares I.

But Pulliam also noted that NASA has said canceling the Ares I project would add $14.1 billion to $16.6 billion to the cost of developing the larger Ares V rocket, which NASA hopes to use to take the Orion capsule farther into space, including to Mars.

Executives with SpaceX and Orbital Sciences told committee members that they could help NASA ferry astronauts to the International Space Station, filling the gap between the end of the shuttle program in 2010 and the start of Constellation.

SpaceX CEO Elon Musk also said that using private firms to service the space station -- both for supplies and people -- would free up NASA to spend its funds on more ambitious space exploration. NASA has contracted with both firms for a total of 20 missions to service the station.

Steve Metschan, part of a group called Direct, offered the most provocative presentation, which proposed using existing shuttle components to create a new launch system that would be cheaper and already tested.

He added some drama by imploring panel members to allow people working on the Ares I rocket to talk to the panel anonymously about problems with the project.

Earlier in the day, NASA officials told the committee that they're dealing with concerns about the lift capacity of the Ares I rocket, its ability to safely clear the launch tower and potential vibration issues during launch.

Augustine cited the vibration problem as among the most striking issues brought up on the first day. Others, he said, included the availability of commercial rockets as an alternative way to launch the Orion and the concept of reusing the shuttle launch system.

He said the committee is developing a set of criteria -- including cost, risks involved and the impact on jobs -- to evaluate options. Democratic Sen. Bill Nelson told the group that its

recommendations could be "the significant influence for the White House and the Congress for where the space program is going."

The committee's report is due by the end of August. The panel also includes former astronaut Sally Ride, the first American woman in space, and Lester Lyle, a retired Air Force general who was on Obama's short list for NASA administrator.

http://www.space.com/news/ft-090619-pri ... ption.html

Personally I'm a big fan of DIRECT because its a genuine SDV (Shuttle Derived Vehicle) that can get in the air quickly, cheaply, and while maintaining the workforce. People like ULA and Space X can get Orion into orbit but that's as far as it's going. For going to the Moon and Mars you need a real heavy lift rocket. I do like how NASA tried to paint Ares I as too expensive to fail by tying Ares V to its development. What good does it do to save 16 billion on Ares V if we have to spend another 30 billion to develop a successor to Ares I since it'll be obsolete before they ever fuel the first one.

[Tyyr]