Author Topic: $700m gap threatens major delays to Ares test flights/development  (Read 30612 times)

Offline ckiki lwai

  • Aerospace engineering student
  • Full Member
  • ****
  • Posts: 826
  • Europe, Belgium
  • Liked: 4
  • Likes Given: 3
Quote
Analyst - 18/1/2008  10:17 PM

Quote
vt_hokie - 18/1/2008  8:00 PM

I was never a fan of Ares/Orion, but I did think that there was something to be said for the "safe, simple, soon" approach.  I'm a bit suprised that even such a conservative design for our next generation "STS" is proving to be so troublesome.

Quote
Stowbridge - 18/1/2008  8:01 PM

No RLV talk please! That was only even LEO at best.

The bird in hand ... :) Constellation looks more and more like LEO too (budget wise it looked like LEO from the beginning), much less capable, but for about the same costs.

What do we know about Ares-X? Will it move to the left too? Will it have enough momentum and carried out even if the architecture changes to whatever in 2009?

Analyst

Thanks for reminding me of my worst typo of 2007... :bleh:
Bah! We will see what the future will bring us.
Don't ever become a pessimist... a pessimist is correct oftener than an optimist, but an optimist has more fun, and neither can stop the march of events. - Robert Heinlein

Offline meiza

  • Expert
  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 3067
  • Where Be Dragons
  • Liked: 5
  • Likes Given: 3

"Ares I might still fly - When and with What cost?

2014-2016, a few billions here and there?

It's a bit hard to judge from the outside.

I've worked in a commercial company's R&D before and external people sometimes had hunches about what the company's products were like or were going to be like, and sometimes they were not entirely correct. I don't mean this as sarcastically, that's just the way it is because the commercial process of R&D is always internal. You don't give out all your "secrets" to your competitors.

So I'm trying to put myself into the boots of the engineers working with Ares I - it might be that the issue is solvable and it just takes some time and money. Or it might be that it's been a total catastrophe for a year already but it just has to convince those who are deciding. But I'm willing to give them the benefit of the doubt. They of course can't discuss this publicly with ITAR, contractor trade secrets and all the other things, never mind that if they admitted some problems or talked something else, they could be misunderstood or misquoted and it would be even worse. (This site of course has respectable journalists who try to make sure there are no misunderstandings.) And most people (like me) would not understand the problem very well even if we had all the data that the engineers themselves have - because we simply don't have the skills or expertise to infer much from it.

Offline William Barton

  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 3487
  • Liked: 8
  • Likes Given: 0
I don't have the engineering knowledge to have a valid opinion, but sometimes it seems as though almost _anything_ would be cheaper and sooner than the Ares I/V version of ESAS. EELV plus almost any "real" SDV heavy lifter would do the job, whether its DIRECT/Jupiter 232, my own pet version of the 1977 Boeing SDV proposal (side mounted, with an Ariane-derived upper stage), the 1990 version of Shuttle-C, or even a new design using a revived RS-84. I realize this is probably an illusion, but it sometimes seems distressingly like the whole point of ESAS is to provide contracts for "the usual suspects."

Offline savuporo

  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 5152
  • Liked: 1002
  • Likes Given: 342
Quote
William Barton - 18/1/2008  
I realize this is probably an illusion, but it sometimes seems distressingly like the whole point of ESAS is to provide contracts for "the usual suspects."
Well thats probably because any design idea that you take from paper and try to turn into real metal is going to see real problems.
And meiza has a point here too that from engineering perspective we cant see inside ..

However, a schedule slip is a schedule slip and ballooning costs are ballooning costs. If you were already stretching the patience of the people holding the wallets before, then anything further will just not go down well.
Orion - the first and only manned not-too-deep-space craft

Offline meiza

  • Expert
  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 3067
  • Where Be Dragons
  • Liked: 5
  • Likes Given: 3
I don't think anyone was really thinking that Ares I was going to be cheaper on its own than an EELV, it's thought to be an enabler for Ares V, that was the justification. Add in some general vague sense of a need for  Ares V political insurance and the 1 engine per stage -> safety reasoning.

Offline yinzer

  • Extreme Veteran
  • Full Member
  • ****
  • Posts: 1509
  • Liked: 3
  • Likes Given: 0
The ESAS report definitely claimed that Ares I was cheaper than an EELV solution.
California 2008 - taking rights from people and giving rights to chickens.

Offline Jackson

  • Full Member
  • **
  • Posts: 288
  • Liked: 18
  • Likes Given: 7
Quote
yinzer - 18/1/2008  5:25 PM

The ESAS report definitely claimed that Ares I was cheaper than an EELV solution.

And safer. I know the EELV people say this is unfair.

Offline Zach

  • Member
  • Posts: 94
  • Liked: 0
  • Likes Given: 0
Quote
Antares - 18/1/2008  11:50 AM

Quote
Tim S - 18/1/2008  11:06 AM
Good article. Would have been easy to focus on just the slips without stressing this is to mitigate slips for the primary missions.

Just goes to show the lack of budgetary support we're having to deal with.
Denial is not just a river in Madison County.  Will MSFC ever understand it doesn't have infinite money like in Apollo, or other programs to steal from like in STS and ISS?

It's naive to blame Washington.  Our money is fixed - that's the design driver - which no one in the heritage HSF world seems to understand.  Design a system that fits in that budget, with performance, cost and schedule margin.  Don't design a system with zero margin or less (with political considerations as the design driver) and then complain when you don't get more budget to bail you out.

That's the fundamental problem with the answers from ESAS.

If we show we can develop and operate new systems, the budget would grow.  But bad news like this... we're hammering our own thumbs.

Jack decides to design and build his fully loaded dream house boasting home automation, solar power, air filters, in-home theater and security systems.  He estimates the cost and figures that he can just afford it.  Fantastic, Jack is off and running.

Jack hires the sub contractors, who sadly come in a bit over his estimates.  Jack is surprised when he doesn’t get the promised fat raise he worked so hard for.  Jack’s 25 year old jalopy surprisingly needs extensive repairs.  Jack forgot to include the cost of building permits.  The contractor installing the security system runs into serious problems installing the system that Jack designed, correcting this significantly increases cost.

So whose faults are all of these problems?  Naturally Jack’s employer who didn’t give him the fat raise.

Offline jimvela

  • Member
  • Full Member
  • ****
  • Posts: 1662
  • Liked: 900
  • Likes Given: 71
Quote
Zach - 18/1/2008  5:37 PM
So whose faults are all of these problems?  Naturally Jack’s employer who didn’t give him the fat raise.

I see you know jack  :cool: ...

Offline texas_space

  • Extreme Veteran
  • Full Member
  • ***
  • Posts: 393
  • Ex Terra, Scientia
  • Dallas/Fort Worth Metroplex, USA
  • Liked: 2
  • Likes Given: 8
Quote
Jim - 18/1/2008  11:48 AM

Quote
Flightstar - 18/1/2008  12:40 PM

 unless you want to hand out thousands of pink slips at KSC.

Either way, it looks like a given.  The delays won't allow for ops people to be kept on payroll with nothing to do for years

Looks like the plan to save NASA jobs is actually going to guarantee that they get axed.  Great work NASA higher ups! I really feel for the people who work at NASA and the contractors.  

And to boot, we don't get a launch system on time.
"We went to the moon nine times. Why fake it nine times, if we faked it?" - Charlie Duke

Offline landofgrey

  • Recovering rocket scientist, currently media
  • Full Member
  • **
  • Posts: 271
  • Living the dream in Cape Canaveral
  • KSC / CCAFS / Melbourne, FL
    • ARES Institute, Inc.
  • Liked: 0
  • Likes Given: 0
The fourth. Thakns, I actually hadn't kept track but I know it's a continual process. Chris wrote a good article, of course, but I'm just saying maybe people should resist the urge to get too down or go into panic mode, since things are sure to change again.

NASA Watch posted a response from ESMD PAO about this and mentioned that Mike Griffin has shot down Hanley's recommendations.

I'm working on something after I hear back from ESMD, but that won't be until Monday probably. I got questions in late today as I was focused on Giuliani's visit to KSC this afternoon. He said some good things like agreeing the gap needs to be closed. So, how does this relate? You can bet that schedules and funding is going to change no matter who is elected president. And perhaps, just perhaps (optimism) in a good way.

Isn't this fun?!?!


Quote
NASA_Langley_spammer - 18/1/2008  12:05 PM

It's the fourth.

Good comment, and I believe Chris wrote the article in such a style, when he could have really angled it heavily if he was that kind of a writer.
Twitter: @spacearium; YouTube: spacearium

Offline Chris Bergin

Quote
landofgrey - 19/1/2008  1:28 AM

Chris wrote a good article, of course, but I'm just saying maybe people should resist the urge to get too down or go into panic mode, since things are sure to change again.

Thanks, and indeed - that's always the case!

As I wrote in the article:

"The re-alignment plan - according to the presentation - is part of a long process, which started on January 9, and will continue for some months, as Constellation carry out 'face-to-face reviews' with each of its related departments."

This is the data - based on a very recent CxP presentation and a separate memo - not from Hanley - (which preceded it - from which we held, and waited for expanded documentation before running).

It is the opening results. It's days into a couple of months of process - as I've written - and we will continue to cover the process, as we do with all our content field, with beginning, during and after coverage, based on actual NASA documentation, via L2, which acquires the bulk of documentation, presentations and (running information from the engineers - and that includes the first mention of thrust oscillation) and we're very thankful for their ongoing and growing support.
Support NSF via L2 -- Help improve NSF -- Site Rules/Feedback/Updates
**Not a L2 member? Whitelist this forum in your adblocker to support the site and ensure full functionality.**

Offline Antares

  • ABO^2
  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 5181
  • Done arguing with amateurs
  • Liked: 371
  • Likes Given: 228
Quote
Zach - 18/1/2008  6:37 PM
Jack decides to design and build his fully loaded dream house.  He estimates the cost and figures that he can just afford it.
Jack shouldn't have designed the house since he hasn't designed one in 30+ years.  He did, however, design a boat, which had roughly 8x cost overruns over its 20 year design period.

He should have let the contractor do it since they've been designing houses all along.
If I like something on NSF, it's probably because I know it to be accurate.  Every once in a while, it's just something I agree with.  Facts generally receive the former.

Offline Sid454

  • Regular
  • Full Member
  • *
  • Posts: 165
  • Liked: 0
  • Likes Given: 0
The answer to this is so easy it's not even funny just get rid of Ares I/V and the J2X and develop direct launcher instead.

Then on the EDS use the P&W RL60 in cluster of three engines in place of the J2X.

Unlike the J2X the Rl60 is not a paper engine it's due to go into production as an upgrade to the RL10 used in EELVs.
It's higher ISP will reduce the propellant mass by 15tons also you now have three engines so if one fails to restart no big deal just do a  longer burn with the two that are working.

With the single J2 EDS the entire EDS and LSAM becomes spacejunk if that engine fails to start.

These changes would free up no less then 3B on dev costs.  :bleh:

Offline Sid454

  • Regular
  • Full Member
  • *
  • Posts: 165
  • Liked: 0
  • Likes Given: 0
Quote
Jackson - 18/1/2008  6:04 PM

Quote
yinzer - 18/1/2008  5:25 PM

The ESAS report definitely claimed that Ares I was cheaper than an EELV solution.

And safer. I know the EELV people say this is unfair.

The ESAS report is a load of BS and should be tossed out it's too full of fudged quotes and fabricated numbers.
It doesn't even consider alternatives or even using solar electric tugs for cost reduction of cargo transport.
As for safer I fail to see how a vehicle that is not even dynamically stable is going to be safer or one that requires air starting a large cryo engine vs ground starting said engine.
In short the ESAS report is not even worth the paper it is printed on. :angry:

Offline edkyle99

  • Expert
  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 15391
    • Space Launch Report
  • Liked: 8566
  • Likes Given: 1356
Quote
yinzer - 18/1/2008  5:25 PM

The ESAS report definitely claimed that Ares I was cheaper than an EELV solution.

Right, but that "Ares I" (called CLV at the time) was substantially unlike the current Ares I.  It used a four segment booster and an SSME powered upper stage - items that largely existed.  It weighed 200 tonnes less than the current Ares I at liftoff.  I don't think that anyone is brave enough to claim that an Ares I with a five-segment booster first stage and a J-2X powered upper stage is cheaper than an EELV.

 - Ed Kyle

Offline kraisee

  • Expert
  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 10560
  • Liked: 807
  • Likes Given: 40
Ed,
I'm sure *someone* will still try to though...

Lots of normal folk will actually believe it if it comes out of PAO...

Ross.
"The meek shall inherit the Earth -- the rest of us will go to the stars"
-Robert A. Heinlein

Offline Yegor

  • Regular
  • Full Member
  • ****
  • Posts: 404
  • Liked: 0
  • Likes Given: 0
Quote
jgoldader - 19/1/2008  5:19 PM

I'm not against the moon.  But honestly, folks, the very first step in going back to the moon, Ares I, seems to be just stopping up the works.  We also need Ares V, the EDS, Artemis, bases...  And given how much Ares I alone is going to cost, how can all this possibly cost less than many hundreds of billions of dollars?  If NASA is working "go as you pay," it'll be a long time before we go anywhere besides LEO, IMHO.
It is from the post from another thread "Space Leaders Work To Replace Lunar Base With Manned Asteroid Missions" from a new user.
He makes a very good point:
"And given how much Ares I alone is going to cost, how can all this possibly cost less than many hundreds of billions of dollars?"

A very reasonable question. Indeed, a very reasonable question. A one people are going to ask. A one that people who do not want VSE will use to sink VSE.

If NASA has so many problems with the simplest part of the VSE then what lies ahead for us?

NASA is just killing VSE with this Stick! Sad, sad, sad.


Offline Antares

  • ABO^2
  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 5181
  • Done arguing with amateurs
  • Liked: 371
  • Likes Given: 228
Quote
Sid454 - 19/1/2008  1:14 PM
1) Then on the EDS use the P&W RL60 in cluster of three engines in place of the J2X.
2) Unlike the J2X the Rl60 is not a paper engine it's due to go into production as an upgrade to the RL10 used in EELVs.
1) radiatively cooled engines can't be clustered unless originally designed for it
2) it is a paper engine.

Welcome newb, but please educate yourself a bit more.
If I like something on NSF, it's probably because I know it to be accurate.  Every once in a while, it's just something I agree with.  Facts generally receive the former.

Offline Sid454

  • Regular
  • Full Member
  • *
  • Posts: 165
  • Liked: 0
  • Likes Given: 0
Then explain the four RL10s on the LSAM and multi engine centaurs.
Also your not knowledgeable as you think you are only the extendeble carbon carbon nozzles are radiatively cooled on either engine.
The main nozzle and the combustion camber are regen cooled and by liquid hydrogen at that.
I think the centaur guys at Lm are a lot smarter then you are and BTW the RL60 is at an advanced stage of completion.
BTW here's a page on the engine http://www.pratt-whitney.com/vgn-ext-templating/v/index.jsp?vgnextoid=34c309d09e91c010VgnVCM1000000881000aRCRD
and some news on it .
http://www.spaceref.com/news/viewpr.html?pid=11883 :cool:

I may be new here but rocketry is old hat to me and I do my research before posting an idea. :bleh:

Tags:
 

Advertisement NovaTech
Advertisement Northrop Grumman
Advertisement
Advertisement Margaritaville Beach Resort South Padre Island
Advertisement Brady Kenniston
Advertisement NextSpaceflight
Advertisement Nathan Barker Photography
0