Author Topic: Could Ares 1 have Worked if things had been different?  (Read 195032 times)

Offline dks13827

  • Full Member
  • ****
  • Posts: 468
  • Phoenix
  • Liked: 16
  • Likes Given: 60
Re: Could Ares 1 have Worked if things had been different?
« Reply #140 on: 09/06/2011 02:49 am »
Quote:
"However, the history also suggests that we can't expect the five segment solid to inherit the reliability of the four segment version. Titan 3C/D/E solids failed once in 84 flights, Titan 4 once in 39. "


SRB's in current configuration, 100+ flights times 2 boosters = 200 successful consecutive flight items without a failure.  Top that !

Ares 1 design intent was to drastically increase crew safety during ascent.
« Last Edit: 09/06/2011 02:52 am by dks13827 »

Offline Will

  • Member
  • Full Member
  • ****
  • Posts: 902
  • Liked: 18
  • Likes Given: 1
Re: Could Ares 1 have Worked if things had been different?
« Reply #141 on: 09/06/2011 02:53 am »
Both Ares I and V had serious design issues that made them unviable designs.

I don't see the Ares I design in particular as nonviable.

It was.  The premise behind Ares-I was to take two existing engines and use their extensive flight experience to make a simple, reliable rocket for Orion.  Then they discovered their choice for the second stage engine (SSME) wouldn't work and that they'd have to design a new second stage engine.  Then they discovered that the new engine wasn't going to give the performance of the original so they'd have to design a new first stage engine as well. 
This is not correct. 

ESAS recommended the four-segment booster and SSME stage 2 design, but also described a five-segment booster and J-2 derived alternative.  The alternative was selected soon after ESAS.  It was selected not for any of the reasons you describe.  Instead, it was selected to speed up development of five-segment booster and J-2X for Ares V - a choice that was expected to save development costs for Ares V down the road.  In addition, the five-segment booster design actually outperformed the four-segment SSME design.  It's all right there in the ESAS report.

Yes, along with this gem about LC16, the 5-segment J-2 (and expander-cycle LR-85) derived solution (which scored behind both Atlas and Delta in the ESAS report):

"The J–2 or J–2S could not support the 2011 launch date requirement."
"...would be too expensive and exhibit an unacceptable development risk to meet the goal of the 2011 IOC for the CEV."
"However, the five-segment development added significant near-term cost and risk and the J–2S+/expander engine could not meet the 2011 schedule target."
"The J–2S option could not meet the 2011 target (whereas the SSME could) and had 6 percent less performance than the SSME-based option (LV 13.1)."

In short, ESAS did include LV16, the Ares I which was developed, and it came in *behind* the other CLV options, with a risk factor of 1.3, almost to the bottom, and the highest facilities cost out of any of the other options.  By the ESAS, the model to be designed should LV13.1 not be persued, was LV2, the Atlas V Heavy with a custom upper stage, with a risk of 1.03, second from the top.

So, just including it in the report does not mean that it was endorsed by the report.  Reading the report, it was the complete opposite, it was included and listed as a high risk of running over the budget, and missing the schedule, as well as listed as a severe risk of failing to meet performance predicted.

The 5 segment J-2 upper stage variant was rated by ESAS only slightly behind the original choice of 4 segment solid plus air started SSME.

This demonstrates how deeply flawed the ESAS process was. Operating cost per launch was not even considered as a figure of merit. When cost per launch was discussed, it was based on an absurd assumption of six launches a year for all launchers.

That's no way to run a space program.

Offline Downix

  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 7082
  • Liked: 22
  • Likes Given: 1
Re: Could Ares 1 have Worked if things had been different?
« Reply #142 on: 09/06/2011 03:13 am »
Both Ares I and V had serious design issues that made them unviable designs.

I don't see the Ares I design in particular as nonviable.

It was.  The premise behind Ares-I was to take two existing engines and use their extensive flight experience to make a simple, reliable rocket for Orion.  Then they discovered their choice for the second stage engine (SSME) wouldn't work and that they'd have to design a new second stage engine.  Then they discovered that the new engine wasn't going to give the performance of the original so they'd have to design a new first stage engine as well. 
This is not correct. 

ESAS recommended the four-segment booster and SSME stage 2 design, but also described a five-segment booster and J-2 derived alternative.  The alternative was selected soon after ESAS.  It was selected not for any of the reasons you describe.  Instead, it was selected to speed up development of five-segment booster and J-2X for Ares V - a choice that was expected to save development costs for Ares V down the road.  In addition, the five-segment booster design actually outperformed the four-segment SSME design.  It's all right there in the ESAS report.

Yes, along with this gem about LC16, the 5-segment J-2 (and expander-cycle LR-85) derived solution (which scored behind both Atlas and Delta in the ESAS report):

"The J–2 or J–2S could not support the 2011 launch date requirement."
"...would be too expensive and exhibit an unacceptable development risk to meet the goal of the 2011 IOC for the CEV."
"However, the five-segment development added significant near-term cost and risk and the J–2S+/expander engine could not meet the 2011 schedule target."
"The J–2S option could not meet the 2011 target (whereas the SSME could) and had 6 percent less performance than the SSME-based option (LV 13.1)."

In short, ESAS did include LV16, the Ares I which was developed, and it came in *behind* the other CLV options, with a risk factor of 1.3, almost to the bottom, and the highest facilities cost out of any of the other options.  By the ESAS, the model to be designed should LV13.1 not be persued, was LV2, the Atlas V Heavy with a custom upper stage, with a risk of 1.03, second from the top.

So, just including it in the report does not mean that it was endorsed by the report.  Reading the report, it was the complete opposite, it was included and listed as a high risk of running over the budget, and missing the schedule, as well as listed as a severe risk of failing to meet performance predicted.

The 5 segment J-2 upper stage variant was rated by ESAS only slightly behind the original choice of 4 segment solid plus air started SSME.

This demonstrates how deeply flawed the ESAS process was. Operating cost per launch was not even considered as a figure of merit. When cost per launch was discussed, it was based on an absurd assumption of six launches a year for all launchers.

That's no way to run a space program.
No it wasn't.  It was rated only slightly behind in two categories, namely LOC and LOM, and even those are suspect when you check the numbers. In other categories, such as DDT&E, schedule risk, political risk, facilities cost, even performance, it rated worse. 

The ESAS process itself was not a major issue, even with the finger on the scale which is clear in the LOC/LOM sections, the raw numbers are still there to pull from.  The issue was *after* ESAS, when the LV16 lost, flat, period, to other vehicles such as LV2 and LV7. The best vehicles studied in the appendix against it were not shown in the final report either.
chuck - Toilet paper has no real value? Try living with 5 other adults for 6 months in a can with no toilet paper. Man oh man. Toilet paper would be worth it's weight in gold!

Offline edkyle99

  • Expert
  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 15391
    • Space Launch Report
  • Liked: 8565
  • Likes Given: 1356
Re: Could Ares 1 have Worked if things had been different?
« Reply #143 on: 09/06/2011 04:24 am »
This is not correct. 

Sure it is.  Jan 14, 2004:

http://smartech.gatech.edu/jspui/bitstream/1853/8025/2/SSEC_SB4_doc.pdf

No, its not.  You asserted that "they discovered their choice for the second stage engine (SSME) wouldn't work and that they'd have to design a new second stage engine."  This is not correct.  Air start SSME was a viable option - it would have worked - and was still n the SLS trades as recently as this year.  NASA decided at the time that spending money on SSME wouldn't be worth it since it had no other use on Ares V. 

You also stated that "[t]hen they discovered that the new engine wasn't going to give the performance of the original so they'd have to design a new first stage engine ..."  This is also not correct.  NASA did not "discover" that J-2X wasn't going to perform as well as SSME.  It already knew that was true.  The trade off was a much simpler gas generator engine that could restart in space.   

The original SRB in-line design investigated by the Astronaut Office about two years before ESAS was a four segment SRB topped by a J-2 type powered upper stage that would have lifted less than 20 tonnes to LEO.  A kerosene upper stage was even considered at one point.

 - Ed Kyle

Offline edkyle99

  • Expert
  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 15391
    • Space Launch Report
  • Liked: 8565
  • Likes Given: 1356
Re: Could Ares 1 have Worked if things had been different?
« Reply #144 on: 09/06/2011 04:32 am »

"The J–2 or J–2S could not support the 2011 launch date requirement."
"...would be too expensive and exhibit an unacceptable development risk to meet the goal of the 2011 IOC for the CEV."
"However, the five-segment development added significant near-term cost and risk and the J–2S+/expander engine could not meet the 2011 schedule target."
"The J–2S option could not meet the 2011 target (whereas the SSME could) and had 6 percent less performance than the SSME-based option (LV 13.1)."

Right.  NASA accepted the schedule slip.  It had to accept the slip because Congress did not provide sufficient funding for Constellation, or for any human lunar exploration program. 

NASA could not afford to do SSME and J-2X and RS-68B and four segment booster and five segment booster.  It decided to drop SSME and four segment booster and to accept the Ares I delay in favor of making Ares V more viable.  Even then, Orion and Ares V were going to slip unless more money was authorized.  The plan did not work out, but I'm not sure the Agency had a choice. 

 - Ed Kyle
« Last Edit: 09/06/2011 04:32 am by edkyle99 »

Online 93143

  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 3054
  • Liked: 312
  • Likes Given: 1
Re: Could Ares 1 have Worked if things had been different?
« Reply #145 on: 09/06/2011 04:43 am »
Sure they did.  Go DIRECT...

You really want a separate CLV capability?  Man rate an EELV Heavy.

Seriously, spending more than twice the money on a continuous basis just for a negligible decrease in mission risk is not a good use of cash, especially after it became plain said cash was not going to materialize.  I thought we had this discussion years ago.

Ed, you were the one who inspired Ross' original question.  Have you forgotten everything we learned over those five years?

Offline Downix

  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 7082
  • Liked: 22
  • Likes Given: 1
Re: Could Ares 1 have Worked if things had been different?
« Reply #146 on: 09/06/2011 05:56 am »

"The J–2 or J–2S could not support the 2011 launch date requirement."
"...would be too expensive and exhibit an unacceptable development risk to meet the goal of the 2011 IOC for the CEV."
"However, the five-segment development added significant near-term cost and risk and the J–2S+/expander engine could not meet the 2011 schedule target."
"The J–2S option could not meet the 2011 target (whereas the SSME could) and had 6 percent less performance than the SSME-based option (LV 13.1)."

Right.  NASA accepted the schedule slip.  It had to accept the slip because Congress did not provide sufficient funding for Constellation, or for any human lunar exploration program. 

NASA could not afford to do SSME and J-2X and RS-68B and four segment booster and five segment booster.  It decided to drop SSME and four segment booster and to accept the Ares I delay in favor of making Ares V more viable.  Even then, Orion and Ares V were going to slip unless more money was authorized.  The plan did not work out, but I'm not sure the Agency had a choice. 

 - Ed Kyle
And you're re-inventing things.  Those statements were *with* the added budget NASA never got.  So, you can't say it was accounted for, when the ESAS report itself says it wasn't.
chuck - Toilet paper has no real value? Try living with 5 other adults for 6 months in a can with no toilet paper. Man oh man. Toilet paper would be worth it's weight in gold!

Offline yinzer

  • Extreme Veteran
  • Full Member
  • ****
  • Posts: 1509
  • Liked: 3
  • Likes Given: 0
Re: Could Ares 1 have Worked if things had been different?
« Reply #147 on: 09/06/2011 07:08 am »

"The J–2 or J–2S could not support the 2011 launch date requirement."
"...would be too expensive and exhibit an unacceptable development risk to meet the goal of the 2011 IOC for the CEV."
"However, the five-segment development added significant near-term cost and risk and the J–2S+/expander engine could not meet the 2011 schedule target."
"The J–2S option could not meet the 2011 target (whereas the SSME could) and had 6 percent less performance than the SSME-based option (LV 13.1)."

Right.  NASA accepted the schedule slip.  It had to accept the slip because Congress did not provide sufficient funding for Constellation, or for any human lunar exploration program. 

NASA could not afford to do SSME and J-2X and RS-68B and four segment booster and five segment booster.  It decided to drop SSME and four segment booster and to accept the Ares I delay in favor of making Ares V more viable.  Even then, Orion and Ares V were going to slip unless more money was authorized.  The plan did not work out, but I'm not sure the Agency had a choice. 

Why didn't they have a choice?  There was no indication that the money for designing and flying Ares V and Altair was actually going to materialize, and an Ares I that was actually flying would be much harder to cancel than one that was still on the drawing boards.
California 2008 - taking rights from people and giving rights to chickens.

Offline edkyle99

  • Expert
  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 15391
    • Space Launch Report
  • Liked: 8565
  • Likes Given: 1356
Re: Could Ares 1 have Worked if things had been different?
« Reply #148 on: 09/06/2011 02:06 pm »
Sure they did.  Go DIRECT...

You really want a separate CLV capability?  Man rate an EELV Heavy.

Seriously, spending more than twice the money on a continuous basis just for a negligible decrease in mission risk is not a good use of cash, especially after it became plain said cash was not going to materialize.  I thought we had this discussion years ago.

Ed, you were the one who inspired Ross' original question.  Have you forgotten everything we learned over those five years?

If "Direct" could have saved the lunar mission, NASA would be going to the Moon right now.  It isn't.  Instead, it is trying to figure out how to pay for, and what to do with, a big "Direct"-like SLS design that it can't afford to use. 

 - Ed Kyle

Offline edkyle99

  • Expert
  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 15391
    • Space Launch Report
  • Liked: 8565
  • Likes Given: 1356
Re: Could Ares 1 have Worked if things had been different?
« Reply #149 on: 09/06/2011 02:11 pm »

"The J–2 or J–2S could not support the 2011 launch date requirement."
"...would be too expensive and exhibit an unacceptable development risk to meet the goal of the 2011 IOC for the CEV."
"However, the five-segment development added significant near-term cost and risk and the J–2S+/expander engine could not meet the 2011 schedule target."
"The J–2S option could not meet the 2011 target (whereas the SSME could) and had 6 percent less performance than the SSME-based option (LV 13.1)."

Right.  NASA accepted the schedule slip.  It had to accept the slip because Congress did not provide sufficient funding for Constellation, or for any human lunar exploration program. 

NASA could not afford to do SSME and J-2X and RS-68B and four segment booster and five segment booster.  It decided to drop SSME and four segment booster and to accept the Ares I delay in favor of making Ares V more viable.  Even then, Orion and Ares V were going to slip unless more money was authorized.  The plan did not work out, but I'm not sure the Agency had a choice. 

 - Ed Kyle
And you're re-inventing things.  Those statements were *with* the added budget NASA never got.  So, you can't say it was accounted for, when the ESAS report itself says it wasn't.

http://waynehale.wordpress.com/2010/09/23/6/
"Our first reaction on seeing the Vision Sand Chart was that we were appalled.  There was no way we could do our job with that little amount of money, and to develop a new deep space system for that pittance was beyond belief."  Wayne Hale

However you dice or slice it, the bottom line is that there wasn't enough money.  There still isn't enough money.

 - Ed Kyle
« Last Edit: 09/06/2011 02:13 pm by edkyle99 »

Offline Downix

  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 7082
  • Liked: 22
  • Likes Given: 1
Re: Could Ares 1 have Worked if things had been different?
« Reply #150 on: 09/06/2011 02:28 pm »

"The J–2 or J–2S could not support the 2011 launch date requirement."
"...would be too expensive and exhibit an unacceptable development risk to meet the goal of the 2011 IOC for the CEV."
"However, the five-segment development added significant near-term cost and risk and the J–2S+/expander engine could not meet the 2011 schedule target."
"The J–2S option could not meet the 2011 target (whereas the SSME could) and had 6 percent less performance than the SSME-based option (LV 13.1)."

Right.  NASA accepted the schedule slip.  It had to accept the slip because Congress did not provide sufficient funding for Constellation, or for any human lunar exploration program. 

NASA could not afford to do SSME and J-2X and RS-68B and four segment booster and five segment booster.  It decided to drop SSME and four segment booster and to accept the Ares I delay in favor of making Ares V more viable.  Even then, Orion and Ares V were going to slip unless more money was authorized.  The plan did not work out, but I'm not sure the Agency had a choice. 

 - Ed Kyle
And you're re-inventing things.  Those statements were *with* the added budget NASA never got.  So, you can't say it was accounted for, when the ESAS report itself says it wasn't.

http://waynehale.wordpress.com/2010/09/23/6/
"Our first reaction on seeing the Vision Sand Chart was that we were appalled.  There was no way we could do our job with that little amount of money, and to develop a new deep space system for that pittance was beyond belief."  Wayne Hale

However you dice or slice it, the bottom line is that there wasn't enough money.  There still isn't enough money.

 - Ed Kyle
Ed, the report said that the 5 seg, j-2 design was too expensive, even under the planned budget. Which means, the budget was limited already, and switching to that only made the problem worse. If I go out to buy a car, having a budget of $15k, even if I can only really spend $12k, buying one for $20k makes the problem worse as now, rather than $3k over, it is now $8k over.
chuck - Toilet paper has no real value? Try living with 5 other adults for 6 months in a can with no toilet paper. Man oh man. Toilet paper would be worth it's weight in gold!

Offline edkyle99

  • Expert
  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 15391
    • Space Launch Report
  • Liked: 8565
  • Likes Given: 1356
Re: Could Ares 1 have Worked if things had been different?
« Reply #151 on: 09/06/2011 08:48 pm »
Ed, the report said that the 5 seg, j-2 design was too expensive, even under the planned budget. Which means, the budget was limited already, and switching to that only made the problem worse.
Five segment J-2 cost more in the short term, but eliminating SSME and four-segment booster would save much more money in the long term.  That was the rationale.  The budget was busted even before the project began regardless.

 - Ed Kyle

Online 93143

  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 3054
  • Liked: 312
  • Likes Given: 1
Re: Could Ares 1 have Worked if things had been different?
« Reply #152 on: 09/06/2011 09:20 pm »
If "Direct" could have saved the lunar mission, NASA would be going to the Moon right now.  It isn't.  Instead, it is trying to figure out how to pay for, and what to do with, a big "Direct"-like SLS design that it can't afford to use.

That's a distortion of the facts.

First, the design we've seen floating around for SLS is not quite Jupiter.  It's bigger, more expensive, and takes longer to develop.  Especially since Shuttle is already gone.

Second, the only reason NASA "can't afford" to use it is because with the current fuss over the budget, NASA has produced a "worst-case scenario" which has been leaked and convinced a bunch of excitable outside observers that the "worst-case scenario" is the best we can hope for.

Third, the goals of NASA as authorized by Congress do include going back to the moon - they referred to the '05 and '08 Authorizations as guidance for the decadal survey.  The only reason it looks like NASA isn't going back to the moon is because Obama doesn't want to and Bolden is his puppet.

If NASA had switched to Jupiter internally back when Ares I ran into problems, we'd most likely have already had multiple test flights by now, and the lunar program would be on course.

On the other hand, this mess seems to have prompted some soul-searching, and perhaps NASA will be the better for it...

...

Finally, you said you were "not sure the Agency had a choice" but to switch to a plan that would cost roughly twice as much as DIRECT and take about twice as long.  There's a link missing from your logic...

...

Quote
Five segment J-2 cost more in the short term, but eliminating SSME and four-segment booster would save much more money in the long term.

That assumes the subsequent development of Ares V and the resultant need for J-2X and 5-seg.  Leaving aside the fact that Ares V ended up not being able to use the Ares I 5-seg, the fact remains that you're optimizing with the wrong variables held constant.
« Last Edit: 09/06/2011 09:50 pm by 93143 »

Offline Downix

  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 7082
  • Liked: 22
  • Likes Given: 1
Re: Could Ares 1 have Worked if things had been different?
« Reply #153 on: 09/06/2011 11:34 pm »
Ed, the report said that the 5 seg, j-2 design was too expensive, even under the planned budget. Which means, the budget was limited already, and switching to that only made the problem worse.
Five segment J-2 cost more in the short term, but eliminating SSME and four-segment booster would save much more money in the long term.  That was the rationale.  The budget was busted even before the project began regardless.

 - Ed Kyle
But that was the post-ESAS rationale, so you cannot claim that LV16 was endorsed by ESAS for reasons which are not in ESAS.  They listed LV16 as the wrong option, and gave very good reasons why.  Any rationale given to the decision was rationalizing a bad mistake to themselves.
chuck - Toilet paper has no real value? Try living with 5 other adults for 6 months in a can with no toilet paper. Man oh man. Toilet paper would be worth it's weight in gold!

Offline edkyle99

  • Expert
  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 15391
    • Space Launch Report
  • Liked: 8565
  • Likes Given: 1356
Re: Could Ares 1 have Worked if things had been different?
« Reply #154 on: 09/07/2011 04:18 am »
... the goals of NASA as authorized by Congress do include going back to the moon - they referred to the '05 and '08 Authorizations as guidance for the decadal survey.  The only reason it looks like NASA isn't going back to the moon is because Obama doesn't want to and Bolden is his puppet.

The President does not want NASA to go to the Moon.  So, the reason it looks like NASA isn't going back to the Moon is - because NASA is not going back to the Moon!

Quote
Finally, you said you were "not sure the Agency had a choice" but to switch to a plan that would cost roughly twice as much as DIRECT and take about twice as long.  There's a link missing from your logic...

The missing link is that a "Direct" plan would not have cost half as much as the Constellation plan.  NASA itself showed in ESAS that a dual-launch plan like "Direct" cost somewhat less, but only fractionally less than the 1.5 launch architecture.  The really big costs, the crew and lander spacecraft, would not have been reduced with a dual-launch plan like "Direct". 

 - Ed Kyle
« Last Edit: 09/07/2011 04:19 am by edkyle99 »

Offline Downix

  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 7082
  • Liked: 22
  • Likes Given: 1
Re: Could Ares 1 have Worked if things had been different?
« Reply #155 on: 09/07/2011 04:26 am »
... the goals of NASA as authorized by Congress do include going back to the moon - they referred to the '05 and '08 Authorizations as guidance for the decadal survey.  The only reason it looks like NASA isn't going back to the moon is because Obama doesn't want to and Bolden is his puppet.

The President does not want NASA to go to the Moon.  So, the reason it looks like NASA isn't going back to the Moon is - because NASA is not going back to the Moon!

Quote
Finally, you said you were "not sure the Agency had a choice" but to switch to a plan that would cost roughly twice as much as DIRECT and take about twice as long.  There's a link missing from your logic...

The missing link is that a "Direct" plan would not have cost half as much as the Constellation plan.  NASA itself showed in ESAS that a dual-launch plan like "Direct" cost somewhat less, but only fractionally less than the 1.5 launch architecture.  The really big costs, the crew and lander spacecraft, would not have been reduced with a dual-launch plan like "Direct". 

 - Ed Kyle
Only if the original launchers for 1.5 were the ones chosen.  Instead they chose LV16 and LV52, which had dramatically higher costs, making the point of DIRECT.  While, yes, against LV13 and LV27 the LV25/LV26 based DIRECT only had a marginally better cost, against the final Constellation it was dramatically better, per the ESAS report.
chuck - Toilet paper has no real value? Try living with 5 other adults for 6 months in a can with no toilet paper. Man oh man. Toilet paper would be worth it's weight in gold!

Offline edkyle99

  • Expert
  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 15391
    • Space Launch Report
  • Liked: 8565
  • Likes Given: 1356
Re: Could Ares 1 have Worked if things had been different?
« Reply #156 on: 09/07/2011 04:30 am »
Ed, the report said that the 5 seg, j-2 design was too expensive, even under the planned budget. Which means, the budget was limited already, and switching to that only made the problem worse.
Five segment J-2 cost more in the short term, but eliminating SSME and four-segment booster would save much more money in the long term.  That was the rationale.  The budget was busted even before the project began regardless.

 - Ed Kyle
But that was the post-ESAS rationale, so you cannot claim that LV16 was endorsed by ESAS for reasons which are not in ESAS.  They listed LV16 as the wrong option, and gave very good reasons why.  Any rationale given to the decision was rationalizing a bad mistake to themselves.

I don't think I said it was "endorsed", only that it was studied and described as an alternative.  Griffin later said that it came in a close second, or words to that effect.  By switching to five segment/J-2X, Griffin was prioritizing Ares V - a rocket really designed to go to Mars. 
 
Had they stayed with four-segment and SSME, they would have suffered the same final result (cancellation).  Ares I would still have been delayed due to tight budgets and Shuttle overhang, and Ares V would have been utterly impossible to afford.  I don't see NASA's Ares I decision as a mistake.  The mistake was lack of funding from the outset.

 - Ed Kyle

Online 93143

  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 3054
  • Liked: 312
  • Likes Given: 1
Re: Could Ares 1 have Worked if things had been different?
« Reply #157 on: 09/07/2011 04:35 am »
The President does not want NASA to go to the Moon.  So, the reason it looks like NASA isn't going back to the Moon is - because NASA is not going back to the Moon!

Well, nuts.  I guess the lunar mission is on hold indefinitely.  Because unless someone assassinates the Dear Leader, he's in for the long haul, right?  And his sons will inherit his attitude, and...  oh, wait...

Worst case scenario, Obama stays to 2016.  Assuming SLS survives, it will be just about ready by then.  Orion will be ready before then.  Due to the magic of sequential development, the lunar lander won't really get started before then regardless of who's the president, so does Obama really have any say at all in whether or not NASA goes to the moon with SLS?

Besides, he's not the only one with any say in what NASA does.  Congress has given the decadal survey the goals of the VSE.  They've already gotten Obama to sign a law he didn't want; SLS is now national policy.  If they want the moon badly enough, and NASA backs them on technical grounds, Obama won't stand in their way.  Heck, with the policy statements in the Authorization, coupled with the decadal survey, the lunar mission may just slip back in below the political level...
« Last Edit: 09/07/2011 04:48 am by 93143 »

Offline Downix

  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 7082
  • Liked: 22
  • Likes Given: 1
Re: Could Ares 1 have Worked if things had been different?
« Reply #158 on: 09/07/2011 04:39 am »
Ed, the report said that the 5 seg, j-2 design was too expensive, even under the planned budget. Which means, the budget was limited already, and switching to that only made the problem worse.
Five segment J-2 cost more in the short term, but eliminating SSME and four-segment booster would save much more money in the long term.  That was the rationale.  The budget was busted even before the project began regardless.

 - Ed Kyle
But that was the post-ESAS rationale, so you cannot claim that LV16 was endorsed by ESAS for reasons which are not in ESAS.  They listed LV16 as the wrong option, and gave very good reasons why.  Any rationale given to the decision was rationalizing a bad mistake to themselves.

I don't think I said it was "endorsed", only that it was studied and described as an alternative.  Griffin later said that it came in a close second, or words to that effect.  By switching to five segment/J-2X, Griffin was prioritizing Ares V - a rocket really designed to go to Mars. 
 
Had they stayed with four-segment and SSME, they would have suffered the same final result (cancellation).  Ares I would still have been delayed due to tight budgets and Shuttle overhang, and Ares V would have been utterly impossible to afford.  I don't see NASA's Ares I decision as a mistake.  The mistake was lack of funding from the outset.

 - Ed Kyle
So, in effect you are saying Griffin lied, as it did not come in a close second, and instead came in near the bottom.  By switching, he guaranteed the budget issues. 

And no, if they had stayed, the cancellation is not a foregone conclusion.  For one, Orion would not have needed 9 redesigns, and the billions that consumed.  Another, the initial launch had a better chance of being done on time, and a flying launch system is difficult to cancel.
chuck - Toilet paper has no real value? Try living with 5 other adults for 6 months in a can with no toilet paper. Man oh man. Toilet paper would be worth it's weight in gold!

Offline edkyle99

  • Expert
  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 15391
    • Space Launch Report
  • Liked: 8565
  • Likes Given: 1356
Re: Could Ares 1 have Worked if things had been different?
« Reply #159 on: 09/07/2011 04:45 am »
Worst case scenario, Obama stays to 2016.  Assuming SLS survives, it will be just about ready by then.  Orion will be ready before then.  Due to the magic of sequential development, the lunar lander won't really get started before then regardless of who's the president, so does Obama really have any say at all in whether or not NASA goes to the moon with SLS?

Yes.  By dismantling NASA infrastructure now, especially during this long decade-plus of economic stagnation, he is having the ultimate say in NASA's future.  Who's going to rebuild it once its gone?  Seriously.  Tea Party Republicans?  President Romney?

 - Ed Kyle

Tags:
 

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