Author Topic: NASA rebutts Ares I 'myths'  (Read 8727 times)

Offline ANTIcarrot

  • Member
  • Full Member
  • *
  • Posts: 115
  • Liked: 10
  • Likes Given: 30
NASA rebutts Ares I 'myths'
« on: 03/05/2008 01:25 pm »
NASA rebutts Ares I 'myths' - published in Flight International March 3rd, 2008

http://www.flightglobal.com/articles/2008/03/02/221872/nasa-rebutts-ares-i-myths.html

Offline lbiderman

  • Going where no Uruguayan has gone before
  • Full Member
  • **
  • Posts: 281
  • Buenos Aires - Argentina
    • Mars Society Argentina
  • Liked: 64
  • Likes Given: 24
Re: NASA rebutts Ares I 'myths'
« Reply #1 on: 03/05/2008 01:37 pm »
Real or wishful thinking?
"If I wanted to lead a bunch of robots that could only follow orders, I would have joined the Army!"
Captain Alvarez (Uruguay Marine Corps) in Congo (MONUC Deployment), March 2007

Offline Rifleman

  • Member
  • Full Member
  • *
  • Posts: 116
  • Liked: 106
  • Likes Given: 29
RE: NASA rebutts Ares I 'myths'
« Reply #2 on: 03/05/2008 01:38 pm »
Quote
ANTIcarrot - 5/3/2008  9:25 AM

 for some missions the removal of the first-stage recovery system for a "significant capability increase".


I may be wrong about this, but I thought that the capability to cast new SRB segments no longer exists. Is it really a good idea to turn a limited and non-renewable resource into an expendable item?

Offline AresWatcher

  • Member
  • Full Member
  • **
  • Posts: 226
  • Liked: 0
  • Likes Given: 0
RE: NASA rebutts Ares I 'myths'
« Reply #3 on: 03/05/2008 01:56 pm »
Very lazy article, from the guy that thinks Ares V is the CLV. Plus it's needs spell-checking!  :o
"One Percent for Space"

Offline rdale

  • Assistant to the Chief Meteorologist
  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 10390
  • Lansing MI
  • Liked: 1415
  • Likes Given: 171
Re: NASA rebutts Ares I 'myths'
« Reply #4 on: 03/05/2008 02:05 pm »
You can get the entire presentation including the myths from the NASA link I posted on the live space news thread...

Offline TrueBlueWitt

  • Space Nut
  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 2242
  • Mars in my lifetime!
  • DeWitt, MI
  • Liked: 300
  • Likes Given: 487
RE: NASA rebutts Ares I 'myths'
« Reply #5 on: 03/05/2008 02:09 pm »
Quote
Rifleman - 5/3/2008  9:38 AM

Quote
ANTIcarrot - 5/3/2008  9:25 AM

 for some missions the removal of the first-stage recovery system for a "significant capability increase".


I may be wrong about this, but I thought that the capability to cast new SRB segments no longer exists. Is it really a good idea to turn a limited and non-renewable resource into an expendable item?

When they run out they'll switch over to HTBP and the composite wound casings that Ares V sodesperately needs which will give them another "Significant capability increase"

That must be some mighty tasty Kool-aid that Griffin is pouring at NASA staff meetings.

Offline TrueBlueWitt

  • Space Nut
  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 2242
  • Mars in my lifetime!
  • DeWitt, MI
  • Liked: 300
  • Likes Given: 487
Re: NASA rebutts Ares I 'myths'
« Reply #6 on: 03/05/2008 02:10 pm »
Quote
rdale - 5/3/2008  10:05 AM

You can get the entire presentation including the myths from the NASA link I posted on the live space news thread...

The myths that NASA is propogating or the ones they are trying to refute?

Offline Namechange User

  • Elite Veteran
  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 7301
  • Liked: 0
  • Likes Given: 0
Re: NASA rebutts Ares I 'myths'
« Reply #7 on: 03/05/2008 02:22 pm »
Folks,

I was there at that conference.  Honestly, how many of you are truely qualified to judge?  How many of you have rocket scientist degrees on your wall?  Are there problems?  Yes.  Are there engineering issues to be resolved?  Sure.  

I'm all for vigorous debate which this site used to really inspire but lately it's come down to just a bunch of trash talking and draging names through the mud.  If you're a casual observer with an interest in this stuff, great.  I applaud that and welcome your participation.  However, if you just "troll" because of other posts or things you have read from others who hide behind a screen name then I ask you to take a step back and examine your objectivity.

Another thing, I'm really tired of seeing thread after thread of how "this person is doing this wrong and those people are to blame for this or that.  If they would just listen to this or that everything would be fine", etc.  The funny thing is nothing in these threads is new.  Just the same old folks throughing their little one liners out there.
Enjoying viewing the forum a little better now by filtering certain users.

Online Herb Schaltegger

Re: NASA rebutts Ares I 'myths'
« Reply #8 on: 03/05/2008 02:29 pm »
Quote
OV-106 - 5/3/2008  9:22 AM

How many of you have rocket scientist degrees on your wall?

*raises hand quietly*  Me. :-)

However, I don't post often as I no longer work in aerospace.  That said, this article is very thin and contains nothing new, and worse, what it does contain is little more than spin.  At least the article does mention that the PDR, which NASA so proudly claims to be on track for, has slipped from the original date.  As for the rest of it, well, I'm still waiting to see a real spacecraft with real mass numbers that Ares I can launch safely.
Ad astra per aspirin ...

Offline TrueBlueWitt

  • Space Nut
  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 2242
  • Mars in my lifetime!
  • DeWitt, MI
  • Liked: 300
  • Likes Given: 487
Re: NASA rebutts Ares I 'myths'
« Reply #9 on: 03/05/2008 02:35 pm »
Quote
OV-106 - 5/3/2008  10:22 AM

Folks,

I was there at that conference.  Honestly, how many of you are truely qualified to judge?  How many of you have rocket scientist degrees on your wall?  Are there problems?  Yes.  Are there engineering issues to be resolved?  Sure.  

Show me the engineering data. Or send me their FEA model and I'll run my own acoustic and vibration studies!  That I AM qualified to do.

There are major problems on both sides.  I just vehemently disagree with Griffin's off-hand dismisal of a concept like DIRECT.  The Future of NASA's manned space program depends on him getting it RIGHT.. not just making the first part marginally work and making the second part(Ares-V) so incredibly expensive that it will never get funded by a new administration.  

I don't think many here question NASA's technical ability to make Ares work in some fashion or another.  The question is.. Is it really the right(cheapest, fastests, with most re-use) path.. and will we ever get to the Moon or Mars if they follow this path?

Everyone here wants the most effective and affordable vehicle to get us to the Moon, Mars or a NEO.  Agreed?


Offline Namechange User

  • Elite Veteran
  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 7301
  • Liked: 0
  • Likes Given: 0
Re: NASA rebutts Ares I 'myths'
« Reply #10 on: 03/05/2008 02:37 pm »
Yes, this article is poorly written in many ways.  My point is this thread will fill up with people dropping by to say the same old thing they always say, drop back out and wait for the next thread to do it all over again.
Enjoying viewing the forum a little better now by filtering certain users.

Offline sandrot

  • Extreme Veteran
  • Full Member
  • ****
  • Posts: 751
  • Motown
  • Liked: 9
  • Likes Given: 5
Re: NASA rebutts Ares I 'myths'
« Reply #11 on: 03/05/2008 03:07 pm »
Quote
TrueBlueWitt - 5/3/2008  10:35 AM

[...] Or send me their FEA model and I'll run my own acoustic and vibration studies!  That I AM qualified to do.

[...]


That would be the triumph of Open Source SRB design.
"Paper planes do fly much better than paper spacecrafts."

Offline Namechange User

  • Elite Veteran
  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 7301
  • Liked: 0
  • Likes Given: 0
Re: NASA rebutts Ares I 'myths'
« Reply #12 on: 03/05/2008 03:12 pm »
Quote
TrueBlueWitt - 5/3/2008  9:35 AM

Quote
OV-106 - 5/3/2008  10:22 AM

Folks,

I was there at that conference.  Honestly, how many of you are truely qualified to judge?  How many of you have rocket scientist degrees on your wall?  Are there problems?  Yes.  Are there engineering issues to be resolved?  Sure.  

Show me the engineering data. Or send me their FEA model and I'll run my own acoustic and vibration studies!  That I AM qualified to do.

There are major problems on both sides.  I just vehemently disagree with Griffin's off-hand dismisal of a concept like DIRECT.  The Future of NASA's manned space program depends on him getting it RIGHT.. not just making the first part marginally work and making the second part(Ares-V) so incredibly expensive that it will never get funded by a new administration.  

I don't think many here question NASA's technical ability to make Ares work in some fashion or another.  The question is.. Is it really the right(cheapest, fastests, with most re-use) path.. and will we ever get to the Moon or Mars if they follow this path?

Everyone here wants the most effective and affordable vehicle to get us to the Moon, Mars or a NEO.  Agreed?


Why should anyone send you the data for you to run your own model?  I'm glad you are qualifed but does that mean you are entitled to it?  Why do you assume that direct is so much better for a launch system still in design concept, could it be because you are biased?

Sure everyone wants something that is the cheapest, etc.  Unfortunately, many assume that there is some evil force at work that is out to screw everything and will trash everyones name conncected to it without making a clear point.  Not the best and most strategic tact if you want to sell something.
Enjoying viewing the forum a little better now by filtering certain users.

Offline kevin-rf

  • Elite Veteran
  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 8823
  • Overlooking the path Mary's little Lamb took..
  • Liked: 1318
  • Likes Given: 306
Re: NASA rebutts Ares I 'myths'
« Reply #13 on: 03/05/2008 03:21 pm »
Quote
sandrot - 5/3/2008  11:07 AM

Quote
TrueBlueWitt - 5/3/2008  10:35 AM

[...] Or send me their FEA model and I'll run my own acoustic and vibration studies!  That I AM qualified to do.

[...]


That would be the triumph of Open Source SRB design.

So would you use a BSD or GNU based license and would it contain a line that says "can not be used for launching WMD"?
If you're happy and you know it,
It's your med's!

Offline Jorge

  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 6404
  • Liked: 529
  • Likes Given: 67
Re: NASA rebutts Ares I 'myths'
« Reply #14 on: 03/05/2008 03:28 pm »
Quote
OV-106 - 5/3/2008  9:37 AM

My point is this thread will fill up with people dropping by to say the same old thing they always say, drop back out and wait for the next thread to do it all over again.

Godwin's Law, NSF Corollary:

"As an NSF discussion grows longer, the probability of a comparison involving DIRECT approaches one."
JRF

Offline Peter NASA

  • Extreme Veteran
  • Full Member
  • ****
  • Posts: 1294
  • SOMD
  • Liked: 8747
  • Likes Given: 98
Re: NASA rebutts Ares I 'myths'
« Reply #15 on: 03/05/2008 03:37 pm »
Quote
OV-106 - 5/3/2008  9:22 AM

Folks,

I was there at that conference.  Honestly, how many of you are truely qualified to judge?  How many of you have rocket scientist degrees on your wall?  Are there problems?  Yes.  Are there engineering issues to be resolved?  Sure.  

I'm all for vigorous debate which this site used to really inspire but lately it's come down to just a bunch of trash talking and draging names through the mud.  If you're a casual observer with an interest in this stuff, great.  I applaud that and welcome your participation.  However, if you just "troll" because of other posts or things you have read from others who hide behind a screen name then I ask you to take a step back and examine your objectivity.

Another thing, I'm really tired of seeing thread after thread of how "this person is doing this wrong and those people are to blame for this or that.  If they would just listen to this or that everything would be fine", etc.  The funny thing is nothing in these threads is new.  Just the same old folks throughing their little one liners out there.

I thought that was uncalled for. They heavily moderate this forum to avoid such trash talking getting out of hand.

Offline NASA_LaRC_SP

  • Veteran
  • Full Member
  • ***
  • Posts: 348
  • Liked: 41
  • Likes Given: 3
Re: NASA rebutts Ares I 'myths'
« Reply #16 on: 03/05/2008 03:58 pm »
Quote
OV-106 - 5/3/2008  9:22 AM

Folks,

I was there at that conference.  Honestly, how many of you are truely qualified to judge?  How many of you have rocket scientist degrees on your wall?  Are there problems?  Yes.  Are there engineering issues to be resolved?  Sure.  

I'll see your degrees on the wall and raise you actually working on one of the vehicle in question. If you're workload was to continuously find ways to strip mass off Orion due to Ares' problems, you might be able to speak more on knowing a bit more than listening to Cook's happy talk at a conference.

Offline rdale

  • Assistant to the Chief Meteorologist
  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 10390
  • Lansing MI
  • Liked: 1415
  • Likes Given: 171
Re: NASA rebutts Ares I 'myths'
« Reply #17 on: 03/05/2008 04:02 pm »
Quote
TrueBlueWitt - 5/3/2008  10:10 AM

Quote
rdale - 5/3/2008  10:05 AM

You can get the entire presentation including the myths from the NASA link I posted on the live space news thread...

The myths that NASA is propogating or the ones they are trying to refute?

The presentation that this article was based on, which might make a better "debate" than trying to use a reporter's recollection of a powerpoint & speech...

Offline TrueBlueWitt

  • Space Nut
  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 2242
  • Mars in my lifetime!
  • DeWitt, MI
  • Liked: 300
  • Likes Given: 487
Re: NASA rebutts Ares I 'myths'
« Reply #18 on: 03/05/2008 04:05 pm »
Quote
OV-106 - 5/3/2008  11:12 AM

Why should anyone send you the data for you to run your own model?  I'm glad you are qualifed but does that mean you are entitled to it?  Why do you assume that direct is so much better for a launch system still in design concept, could it be because you are biased?

Sure everyone wants something that is the cheapest, etc.  Unfortunately, many assume that there is some evil force at work that is out to screw everything and will trash everyones name conncected to it without making a clear point.  Not the best and most strategic tact if you want to sell something.

I don't think I ever said I deserved to get the models..  nor do I ever expect to.  Would serve little more than to satisfy my own curiosity(on several levels).. and perhaps give some independant assesment.

Irregardless of DIRECT.. It seems NASA picked a suboptimal branch on the decision tree up front.. And did so based on much less sound logic(anyone seen an air-start SSME?) than DIRECT.  If NASA had done their homework and not made such overly optimistic assumptions early, I believe we'd be looking at launch system that was more capable(and delivered much sooner) than what we are getting.  I am not tied to DIRECT.. NASA engineers are very gifted and capable, and given a little less "direction" from the top and had their hands untied,  would come up with a very capable launch solution.


Better Question.. Why would anyone blindly trust NASA, or congress for that matter, to make the correct choices regarding manned spaceflight given the history of the Shuttle program?  Do you honestly believe ATK isn't licking their chops at the thought of a new SRB development program?  If in the end we were not going to build a shuttle derived launch system, why didn't NASA start from scratch and come up with rockets that are acatually optimized for their missions?

The reason I am so frustrated(and vocal) is that I desperately want to see man get to Mars in my lifetime, and I think the odds of me doing so are signficantly lower than they could be if NASA stays tied to the current Ares Architecture.

Offline Namechange User

  • Elite Veteran
  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 7301
  • Liked: 0
  • Likes Given: 0
Re: NASA rebutts Ares I 'myths'
« Reply #19 on: 03/05/2008 04:11 pm »
Quote
NASA_Langley_spammer - 5/3/2008  10:58 AM

Quote
OV-106 - 5/3/2008  9:22 AM

Folks,

I was there at that conference.  Honestly, how many of you are truely qualified to judge?  How many of you have rocket scientist degrees on your wall?  Are there problems?  Yes.  Are there engineering issues to be resolved?  Sure.  

I'll see your degrees on the wall and raise you actually working on one of the vehicle in question. If you're workload was to continuously find ways to strip mass off Orion due to Ares' problems, you might be able to speak more on knowing a bit more than listening to Cook's happy talk at a conference.

Quit if you are so unhappy.  Maybe that's what it will take for you and everyone else who is on here that is "actually working on the vehicle" to get the point across if these issues are truely that huge.  If you all would not be so quick to pounce, never once did I say there were no serious issues or engineering concerns.  The problem is everyone is just so willing to trash everyone and say this about this person or that person.  What's the point?  How are we going to be ever taken seriously as a community if we come off as immature and complain about everything.
Enjoying viewing the forum a little better now by filtering certain users.

Tags:
 

Advertisement NovaTech
Advertisement Northrop Grumman
Advertisement
Advertisement Margaritaville Beach Resort South Padre Island
Advertisement Brady Kenniston
Advertisement NextSpaceflight
Advertisement Nathan Barker Photography
1