Author Topic: ARES I-X: NASA Knowledge Session  (Read 1205 times)

Offline catdlr

  • Member
  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 4510
  • Marina del Rey, California, USA
  • Liked: 1397
  • Likes Given: 843
Tony De La Rosa

Offline A_M_Swallow

  • Elite Veteran
  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 8153
  • South coast of England
  • Liked: 248
  • Likes Given: 104
Re: ARES I-X: NASA Knowledge Session
« Reply #1 on: 08/05/2017 06:36 AM »
This was nearly 8 years ago. Fun to watch any reason for the video being issued?

Offline Proponent

  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 5111
  • Liked: 773
  • Likes Given: 528
Re: ARES I-X: NASA Knowledge Session
« Reply #2 on: 08/05/2017 07:25 AM »
I don't understand how the same organization that thought Aries I-X was a good idea can also think its reasonable to fly EM-1 around the moon with a crew (just a little too expensive).

Offline A_M_Swallow

  • Elite Veteran
  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 8153
  • South coast of England
  • Liked: 248
  • Likes Given: 104
Re: ARES I-X: NASA Knowledge Session
« Reply #3 on: 08/05/2017 08:55 AM »
I don't understand how the same organization that thought Aries I-X was a good idea can also think its reasonable to fly EM-1 around the moon with a crew (just a little too expensive).

That is easy basic politics. If you want to keep your job you do not say "No" the the President. You can how every drop a few hints that it would be inadvisable. Money is a good hint.

Offline SWGlassPit

  • I break space hardware
  • Full Member
  • ****
  • Posts: 437
  • Liked: 249
  • Likes Given: 35
Re: ARES I-X: NASA Knowledge Session
« Reply #4 on: 08/07/2017 05:56 PM »
I don't understand how the same organization that thought Aries I-X was a good idea can also think its reasonable to fly EM-1 around the moon with a crew (just a little too expensive).

That is easy basic politics. If you want to keep your job you do not say "No" the the President. You can how every drop a few hints that it would be inadvisable. Money is a good hint.

You can also frame it as, "yes, but it will cost $X,XXX to bring the risk to acceptable levels," where $X,XXX is quite a bit more than the target audience wants to spend.

Offline Patchouli

  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 4201
  • Liked: 117
  • Likes Given: 210
Re: ARES I-X: NASA Knowledge Session
« Reply #5 on: 08/07/2017 08:52 PM »
Ares I was one of those ideas that seemed like a good one on the surface but the devil was in the details esp with the requirements forced by the 1.5 launch architecture and a minimum of LEO assembly for lunar missions.

It might have worked if they stuck with the spiral development program so they were not forced to try and meet a 25+ ton payload target on the first version or drop the requirement that it have only a single upper stage engine.

Though the vehicle would have made a lot more sense during 1990s when low cost EELV class vehicles simply were not available.
« Last Edit: 08/07/2017 08:54 PM by Patchouli »

Offline Propylox

  • Member
  • Posts: 81
  • Colorado
  • Liked: 6
  • Likes Given: 7
Re: ARES I-X: NASA Knowledge Session
« Reply #6 on: 08/08/2017 03:57 AM »
...
It might have worked if they stuck with the spiral development program so they were not forced to try and meet a 25+ ton payload target on the first version or drop the requirement that it have only a single upper stage engine. ...
25mT wasn't an issue, nor was a single J-2X. Having to use the same size solid as AresV was the problem. A reduction to a 3.5segment reduces the minimum mass of the 2nd stage so J-2X could actually lift it, resulting in 25mT to LEO and 10mT to GTO with a solid 3rd stage. Discuss here;
https://forum.nasaspaceflight.com/index.php?topic=9460.msg1709872#msg1709872

Tags: