But then it would have not been a legacy design and all the talks they had had been in vain. ...
I wonder if the mass of the Orion was the root of all the Ares-1's woes.
Quote from: Zed_Noir on 02/13/2014 07:20 pmI wonder if the mass of the Orion was the root of all the Ares-1's woes.Shortly before it was cancelled, Ares I had a 15% margin over the Orion mass requirement. I think the woes were budget related. - Ed Kyle
The title of this thread is "Could Ares I have Worked if Things have been different?" It seems, from having read NASA Flight over the last decade that the chief problem was Ares I was always the weight of Orion. And best solution there would have been to radically rethink the purpose of Orion...
Delta IV-H or Atlas V-H would have been perfectly adequate as the full-featured 'heavy' Orion launchers, particularly if the Delta IV-H had an uprated upper stage - RL-60/MB-60 or regenerative RS-68 for the first stages....Other in-a-nutshell look backs included keeping the Ares V stages to the 8.4 meter Shuttle diameters, keeping the 4 segment SRBs and using clusters of existing upper stage engines (RL-10s or finishing the RL-60) instead of pouring billions into J-2X and 5 segment boosters - all this was suggested by our DIRECT friends.
Given enough time and money the Ares I and Orion configuration could have been made to work, and work safely. I have no doubt about that.
Quote from: beb on 02/23/2014 01:53 amGiven enough time and money the Ares I and Orion configuration could have been made to work, and work safely. I have no doubt about that.You would have been wrong. Even Dr Griffin himself finally admitted toward the end of CxP that the Ares-I could not have been made to work for its originally intended mission, which was to deliver a lunar-capable Orion to LEO for meeting the LSAM and EDS delivered on an Ares-V. He assigned a short-fueled Orion to LEO ISS support and left the Moon missions for a future Administration to wrestle with.
The title of this thread is "Could Ares I have Worked if Things have been different?" It seems, from having read NASA Flight over the last decade that the chief problem was Ares I was always the weight of Orion.
Quote from: beb on 02/23/2014 01:53 amThe title of this thread is "Could Ares I have Worked if Things have been different?" It seems, from having read NASA Flight over the last decade that the chief problem was Ares I was always the weight of Orion. When John Young was famously reported to have said that "Ares I won't work" in May 2007, he quickly corrected his assertion to point out that it was Orion that was too heavy, not Ares I that was falling short of its objectives. Today, nearly seven years later, Orion is still too heavy. That can't be Ares I's fault. - Ed Kyle
Hey Chuck and Ed; my memory fails me about Ed's Ares 1 fixes - or maybe I just haven't read it. Does anyone have a link?
Unfortunately, it is no longer a "legacy" LV. It is a clean sheet LV with a legacy diameter core.
Quote from: beb on 02/23/2014 01:53 amThe title of this thread is "Could Ares I have Worked if Things have been different?" It seems, from having read NASA Flight over the last decade that the chief problem was Ares I was always the weight of Orion. When John Young was famously reported to have said that "Ares I won't work" in May 2007, he quickly corrected his assertion to point out that it was Orion that was too heavy, not Ares I that was falling short of its objectives. Long after Constellation was cancelled Orion was still too heavy. That can't be Ares I's fault.http://forum.nasaspaceflight.com/index.php?topic=31670.msg1039792#msg1039792 - Ed Kyle
You would have been wrong. Even Dr Griffin himself finally admitted toward the end of CxP that the Ares-I could not have been made to work for its originally intended mission, which was to deliver a lunar-capable Orion to LEO for meeting the LSAM and EDS delivered on an Ares-V. He assigned a short-fueled Orion to LEO ISS support and left the Moon missions for a future Administration to wrestle with.
Resurrecting this thread from the dead. Nevertheless, IMO this question fits better here than in a new thread.If BOLE (aka Dark Knight) boosters had been available for use on Ares I and Ares V, would Ares I have had the necessary performance meet Orion's needs?
Bottom line is that ascent performance was not a showstopper problem for Ares I, even though it was very serious. The most serious technical issue of Ares I was vibroacoustics, which was causing a lot of expensive subsystem redesign work. That was giving engineers fits. Other so-called problems, like thrust oscillation and post-destruct debris hazards, were just plain overblown.Ares I did not deserve to be cancelled because of any technical issues. It did deserve to be cancelled because of cost and schedule issues. At least, that was from my vantage point of working in CxP Level 2 SE&I.