Author Topic: $700m gap threatens major delays to Ares test flights/development  (Read 28505 times)

Online Chris Bergin

Something to make you feel all warm and fuzzy - not :(

About three more CxP articles in works too.

http://www.nasaspaceflight.com/content/?cid=5335

There's several schedule/manifest charts in the presentation on L2. Here's a screenshot of one, which might help:

Offline hyper_snyper

  • Elite Veteran
  • Full Member
  • ****
  • Posts: 730
  • Liked: 1
  • Likes Given: 18
Money, money everywhere and not a dime for NASA.

Offline Jeff Lerner

  • Member
  • Full Member
  • ****
  • Posts: 426
  • Toronto, Canada
  • Liked: 74
  • Likes Given: 43
...it's "Jump the Shark" time for the Cx program.....

Offline haywoodfloyd

  • Veteran
  • Full Member
  • ***
  • Posts: 363
  • Ottawa, Ontario CANADA
  • Liked: 12
  • Likes Given: 1
This is truly, truly sad.
It harkens back to the development days of the Shuttle when the budget kept getting squeezed until all we had left was a vehicle which was a shadow of its former self.
The politicians have not learned a thing.
I am dismayed at their collective lack of foresight with respect to a viable Manned Space Program.
Most of them don't even care and are paying lip service to MSF, contributing just enough to keep the patient alive, which, they think, gives the impression that they are in favour of a Manned Space Program.
It gives them something to "tick off" on their list of things to do.
Shameful...just shameful.




Offline edkyle99

  • Expert
  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 12935
    • Space Launch Report
  • Liked: 3994
  • Likes Given: 759
Nice article.  

This is starting to reek.  A ripening, odorous fiasco of the A-12 "Flying Dorito" variety.

- Ed Kyle

Offline stockman

  • Extreme Veteran
  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 6916
  • Southern Ontario - Canada
  • Liked: 3
  • Likes Given: 0
Quote
Other notes of interest in the presentation relates to the lunar element of the Constellation plan, with a change to the Ares V-Y test flight, an unmanned Orion 13 mission that will be a fly-by of the moon
 


I know there are a ton of problems and disappointments here but symbolically this one strikes me the most. 40 years ago we DARED to launch a vehicle for only the second time with a manned crew to swing around the moon and come home safely.   40 years later and then some by the time it actually happens, the best we can do is launch an unmanned flyby of the moon with a new vehicle.

This more than anything in my mind shows how risk adverse society in general has become. There is no stomach for losses and no stomach for taking bold steps anymore.

We are never getting off this rock in my lifetime....   :frown:

One Percent for Space!!!

Offline savuporo

  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 5155
  • Liked: 985
  • Likes Given: 343
Quote
hyper_snyper - 18/1/2008  5:35 AM
Money, money everywhere and not a dime for NASA.
More like money money money for NASA and all down the toilet.

Suppose an extra ten billion was added to NASA budget for this year and for the rest of the future. You think that Ares I would somehow magically fly tomorrow ?
Orion - the first and only manned not-too-deep-space craft

Offline Jim

  • Night Gator
  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 32440
  • Cape Canaveral Spaceport
  • Liked: 11186
  • Likes Given: 331
Quote
stockman - 18/1/2008  11:00 AM

I know there are a ton of problems and disappointments here but symbolically this one strikes me the most. 40 years ago we DARED to launch a vehicle for only the second time with a manned crew to swing around the moon and come home safely.   4

Apollo 8 was the 3rd flight of the Saturn V and the 6th flight of a full up Apollo spacecraft.  Apollo 6 was to be similar to Orion 13.

Offline edkyle99

  • Expert
  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 12935
    • Space Launch Report
  • Liked: 3994
  • Likes Given: 759
In my view, the most telling sentence in the article is the following.  

"... Ares I's roll past missions to the ISS is under evaluation due to performance issues."

If I understand this correctly, NASA may now be planning to spend billions to develop a launch vehicle, and the big infrastructure to build and fly it, while simultaneously planning NOT to use it!

If true, this would be a fiasco large enough to become a campaign issue - large enough to foment  Congressional anger - perhaps large enough to end the program entirely.

 - Ed Kyle

Offline pierre

  • Member
  • Full Member
  • *
  • Posts: 100
  • Turin, EU
  • Liked: 4
  • Likes Given: 3
So they still need more than five and a half years from now for the first real Ares-I unmanned, suborbital test flight?

Guess it's not too late to switch to something better, then.

Offline stockman

  • Extreme Veteran
  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 6916
  • Southern Ontario - Canada
  • Liked: 3
  • Likes Given: 0
Quote
Jim - 18/1/2008  11:05 AM

Quote
stockman - 18/1/2008  11:00 AM

I know there are a ton of problems and disappointments here but symbolically this one strikes me the most. 40 years ago we DARED to launch a vehicle for only the second time with a manned crew to swing around the moon and come home safely.   4

Apollo 8 was the 3rd flight of the Saturn V and the 6th flight of a full up Apollo spacecraft
 

thanks for the correction Jim... My OLD memory is not as reliable as it once was. The basic point remains. At the time Apollo 8 was a major step up and had its share of risk associated with it with a sooner rather than later shot at leaving Earth Orbit manned.

One Percent for Space!!!

Offline HarryM

  • Member
  • Full Member
  • ****
  • Posts: 420
  • California
  • Liked: 25
  • Likes Given: 34
I noticed that line too, pretty amazing. ("role past ISS questioned")

Offline Jim

  • Night Gator
  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 32440
  • Cape Canaveral Spaceport
  • Liked: 11186
  • Likes Given: 331
When I just typed out Orion 13, I realized why it is unmanned.

Don't put it past NASA to change the name of the mission.

while working on the 13th Spacehab flight is was referred to as the mission after the 12th flight or the mission before the 14th flight.

Online Chris Bergin

Quote
edkyle99 - 18/1/2008  4:11 PM

In my view, the most telling sentence in the article is the following.  

"... Ares I's roll past missions to the ISS is under evaluation due to performance issues."

If I understand this correctly, NASA may now be planning to spend billions to develop a launch vehicle, and the big infrastructure to build and fly it, while simultaneously planning NOT to use it!

If true, this would be a fiasco large enough to become a campaign issue - large enough to foment  Congressional anger - perhaps large enough to end the program entirely.

 - Ed Kyle

Thanks for your previous comment, it is appreciated! On the above, this relates to what the MLAS is all about - and as more and more associated information comes in, it's the only LAS that works for both Ares I and V. The current LAS and ALAS are no gos for Ares V. That's not an assumption based comment, it's actually being mentioned as so by those working on it (and it's a big, big team on MLAS).

There's more to it on the HRing of the big vehicle, but that's another article.....but to be clear, as of right now, they are still 1.5.

Offline haywoodfloyd

  • Veteran
  • Full Member
  • ***
  • Posts: 363
  • Ottawa, Ontario CANADA
  • Liked: 12
  • Likes Given: 1
Quote
savuporo - 18/1/2008  11:05 AM

Quote
hyper_snyper - 18/1/2008  5:35 AM
Money, money everywhere and not a dime for NASA.
More like money money money for NASA and all down the toilet.

Suppose an extra ten billion was added to NASA budget for this year and for the rest of the future. You think that Ares I would somehow magically fly tomorrow ?

That is a gross over-eggageration.

Offline NASA_LaRC_SP

  • Veteran
  • Full Member
  • ***
  • Posts: 343
  • Liked: 0
  • Likes Given: 1
Edit, Chris beat me to it on MLAS.

Offline Antares

  • ABO^2
  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 5202
  • Done arguing with amateurs
  • Liked: 368
  • Likes Given: 226
Quote
savuporo - 18/1/2008  10:05 AM
Suppose an extra ten billion was added to NASA budget for this year and for the rest of the future. You think that Ares I would somehow magically fly tomorrow ?
No, the thrust oscillation would still kill the astronauts.
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 Yegor

  • Regular
  • Full Member
  • ****
  • Posts: 404
  • Liked: 0
  • Likes Given: 0
"Altair development - slipping two years"

Does it mean that the Lunar Landing is 2022 now?


Offline Analyst

  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 3337
  • Liked: 1
  • Likes Given: 8
Quote
haywoodfloyd - 18/1/2008  4:43 PM

It harkens back to the development days of the Shuttle when the budget kept getting squeezed until all we had left was a vehicle which was a shadow of its former self.

It is worse than that. The Shuttle is not a shadow of its former self. It has amazing capabilities, was cutting edge technology (SSME, TPS etc.) and we finally got it only 3 years later than planned. What can we expect today? Much less.

Analyst

Online Chris Bergin

Quote
Yegor - 18/1/2008  4:39 PM

"Altair development - slipping two years"

Does it mean that the Lunar Landing is 2022 now?

Nope. Read the article :) Orion to ISS still March, 2015. Orion lunar return still 2019.

Offline Norm Hartnett

  • Elite Veteran
  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 2306
  • Liked: 56
  • Likes Given: 2
All the high profile missions stay fixed while all the precursor missions slip.

No one but PAO is going to believe thatís going to happen.
ďYou canít take a traditional approach and expect anything but the traditional results, which has been broken budgets and not fielding any flight hardware.Ē Mike Gold - Apollo, STS, CxP; those that don't learn from history are condemned to repeat it: SLS.

Offline ApolloLee

  • Full Member
  • ****
  • Posts: 456
  • Liked: 1
  • Likes Given: 0
Someone please send Obama and Hillary the Direct plan now so they can get us out of this mess too?

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
We all know that this latest projected manifest will change just like all the previous ones. Nothing is set in stone (yet) as we're still very far out from any actual launches or anything. In the end, the schedule may slip more or may be moved up, but it won't be the same as what's here. So I would just keep a big-picture perspective. I mean, really, what revision of the projected manifest are we looking at now, the eightieth? It's too fluid to put much credence on at this early stage. It's just projections.
Twitter: @spacearium; YouTube: spacearium

Offline NASA_LaRC_SP

  • Veteran
  • Full Member
  • ***
  • Posts: 343
  • Liked: 0
  • Likes Given: 1
Quote
landofgrey - 18/1/2008  11:00 AM

We all know that this latest projected manifest will change just like all the previous ones. Nothing is set in stone (yet) as we're still very far out from any actual launches or anything. In the end, the schedule may slip more or may be moved up, but it won't be the same as what's here. So I would just keep a big-picture perspective. I mean, really, what revision of the projected manifest are we looking at now, the eightieth? It's too fluid to put much credence on at this early stage. It's just projections.

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.

Offline Tim S

  • Full Member
  • ****
  • Posts: 508
  • MSFC
  • Liked: 187
  • Likes Given: 10
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 budgetry support we're having to deal with.

Offline Rob in KC

  • Full Member
  • ****
  • Posts: 671
  • Liked: 9
  • Likes Given: 55
Quote
savuporo - 18/1/2008  10:05 AM

Quote
hyper_snyper - 18/1/2008  5:35 AM
Money, money everywhere and not a dime for NASA.
More like money money money for NASA and all down the toilet.

Suppose an extra ten billion was added to NASA budget for this year and for the rest of the future. You think that Ares I would somehow magically fly tomorrow ?

Didn't Mike Griffin say that even with all the money they could dream for J-2X would still need till 2013?

Offline Delta Manager

  • Full Member
  • *
  • Posts: 106
  • Liked: 0
  • Likes Given: 0
The way this will plan out is Orion to ISS on D IVH. Ares V for Lunar.

That is the only sensible solution.

Offline TrueBlueWitt

  • Space Nut
  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 2006
  • Mars in my lifetime!
  • DeWitt, MI
  • Liked: 78
  • Likes Given: 72
Does this add pressure(and room) to keep Shuttle flying another year(if funded)?  

I do not believe that everything will go smoothly with test flights.. which means much less time to deal with issues before scheduled flights to ISS and lunar.  If even the smallest thing goes wrong in such a compressed timeline.. it will delay the whole program.

I think the money for ISS transportation and cargo is much better spent on one of the COTS ventures. Have single Orion/Ares(Direct?) system optimized for operations out of LEO.  Could also make good case for launching Orion to ISS early using an EELV heavy.

Offline Flightstar

  • Lurking around OPF High Bay 2
  • Full Member
  • ****
  • Posts: 1870
  • KSC, Florida
  • Liked: 11
  • Likes Given: 5
EELV is a non starter, unless you want to hand out thousands of pink slips at KSC.

Offline Jim

  • Night Gator
  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 32440
  • Cape Canaveral Spaceport
  • Liked: 11186
  • Likes Given: 331
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

Offline Antares

  • ABO^2
  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 5202
  • Done arguing with amateurs
  • Liked: 368
  • Likes Given: 226
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.
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 kevin-rf

  • Elite Veteran
  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 8652
  • Overlooking the path Mary's little Lamb took..
  • Liked: 1124
  • Likes Given: 243
Quote
Delta Manager - 18/1/2008  12:10 PM

The way this will plan out is Orion to ISS on D IVH. Ares V for Lunar.

That is the only sensible solution.

But we are talking about NASA ;)

With the engine upgrades again what can the D IV Heavy lob at the ISS?
If you're happy and you know it,
It's your med's!

Offline Antares

  • ABO^2
  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 5202
  • Done arguing with amateurs
  • Liked: 368
  • Likes Given: 226
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
Some who would get pink slips would be working the higher paced EELV/CEV launches.  The others would be doing the designs for the moon rocket.  The decreased labor required of EELV vs. STS would free up even more people to work on the BFR.

That's the whole dang point from we EELVers.  EELV is operational NOW!  Get a sane estimate of human rating requirements, ones that weren't written in the carte blanche days of the 60's.  Some with a real cost-benefit analysis, rather than emotional knee jerks.

If you have to downsize CEV to get on EELV, so be it.  That's fiscal reality, not a build it and the money will come Iowa cornfield.

EELV+abort handle > safe simple soon.
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 meiza

  • Expert
  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 3068
  • Where Be Dragons
  • Liked: 3
  • Likes Given: 3
If someone has access to the ESAS appendices and can say something about the accuracy of the price and requirements of human rating there... I know LM has published a paper on human rating Atlas V.

I'm not pronouncing Ares I dead or anything. There's still a big possibility it could work fine.

But to effect a change (if one is wanted) there needs to be a look at how this situation was arrived at and where the wrong decisions were made and how it now can be shown that they indeed were wrong.

Online Chris Bergin

Quote
Delta Manager - 18/1/2008  5:10 PM

The way this will plan out is Orion to ISS on D IVH. Ares V for Lunar.

That is the only sensible solution.

Ironically, the image used in the article is from the L2 video of Orion and a Delta IV Heavy :)

Still, as some have said, this is not the death of anything. Just ain't great news.

Offline vt_hokie

  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 3030
  • Hazlet, NJ
  • Liked: 92
  • Likes Given: 232
Now, wasn't the whole point of giving up on RLV's and other advancements in favor of "proven technology" to avoid this sort of mess?  

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.

Offline Stowbridge

  • Veteran
  • Full Member
  • ****
  • Posts: 427
  • Liked: 0
  • Likes Given: 0
No RLV talk please! That was only even LEO at best.
Veteran space reporter.

Offline gladiator1332

  • Mike Majeski
  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 2430
  • Fort Myers, FL
  • Liked: 4
  • Likes Given: 5
I do find it disturbing that the entire program is being put in jeapordy for a launch vehicle that will not be used after the ISS is retired. That is just pure madness!
We're blowing the entire Moon program on a LV that is going to do the same thing a Delta IV or Atlas V can do. And DIRECT can get us the whole thing much quicker, and still it continues to be ignored.

Offline Analyst

  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 3337
  • Liked: 1
  • Likes Given: 8
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

Offline savuporo

  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 5155
  • Liked: 985
  • Likes Given: 343
Quote
meiza - 18/1/2008  8:22 AM
I'm not pronouncing Ares I dead or anything. There's still a big possibility it could work fine.
When and what cost ?
Orion - the first and only manned not-too-deep-space craft

Offline ckiki lwai

  • Aerospace engineering student
  • Full Member
  • ****
  • Posts: 834
  • Europe, Belgium
  • Liked: 1
  • Likes Given: 0
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: 3068
  • Where Be Dragons
  • Liked: 3
  • 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: 2
  • 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: 5155
  • Liked: 985
  • Likes Given: 343
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: 3068
  • Where Be Dragons
  • Liked: 3
  • 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: 1
  • 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: 257
  • Liked: 2
  • Likes Given: 1
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 doesnít get the promised fat raise he worked so hard for.  Jackís 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 Jackís employer who didnít give him the fat raise.

Offline jimvela

  • Member
  • Full Member
  • ****
  • Posts: 1307
  • Liked: 205
  • Likes Given: 10
Quote
Zach - 18/1/2008  5:37 PM
So whose faults are all of these problems?  Naturally Jackís employer who didnít give him the fat raise.

I see you know jack  :cool: ...

Offline texas_space

  • Extreme Veteran
  • Full Member
  • ***
  • Posts: 392
  • 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

Online 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.

Offline Antares

  • ABO^2
  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 5202
  • Done arguing with amateurs
  • Liked: 368
  • Likes Given: 226
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: 12935
    • Space Launch Report
  • Liked: 3994
  • Likes Given: 759
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: 10483
  • Liked: 415
  • Likes Given: 19
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: 5202
  • Done arguing with amateurs
  • Liked: 368
  • Likes Given: 226
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:

Offline clongton

  • Expert
  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 10606
  • Connecticut
    • Direct Launcher
  • Liked: 2732
  • Likes Given: 1009
Quote
stockman - 18/1/2008  11:00 AM

This more than anything in my mind shows how risk adverse society in general has become. There is no stomach for losses and no stomach for taking bold steps anymore.

We are never getting off this rock in my lifetime....   :frown:
Give me a 30% chance of survival and I'd go.
Chuck - DIRECT co-founder
I started my career on the Saturn-V F-1A engine

Offline Sid454

  • Regular
  • Full Member
  • *
  • Posts: 165
  • Liked: 0
  • Likes Given: 0
Quote
edkyle99 - 19/1/2008  6:45 PM

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
One idea I played with in fixing ares I since they seem to want it so bad would be to replace the J2x With a plug nozzle J2 which would have a lot of commonality with the already tested XRS2200.
One interesting thing plug nozzles and aerospikes allow is you can now use the expander cycle on larger engine this would allow it to come close to the SSME in efficiency.

Since the J2X would have to be a completely new engine why not just go one step farther and try something really new.

Another interesting result of this is since a plug nozzle engine is it can be used as a heat sheild you get an opportunity to make a small RLV from ares I if extra hydrogen is carried for cooling plus an ablative such as insucork or shuttle thermo blankets added to the upper stage.

Though when used in this manner the payload would drop by 10% vs when used in an expendable mode.

This is not my idea Douglas  beat me to it decades ago with the Saturn applications and upgrades program but much of what was proposed for the Saturn IB could work also for ares I

http://www.astronautix.com/lvs/sassto.htm


Offline Jim

  • Night Gator
  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 32440
  • Cape Canaveral Spaceport
  • Liked: 11186
  • Likes Given: 331
Quote
Sid454 - 20/1/2008  1:37 PM

 BTW the RL60 is at an advanced stage of completion.

It is not.  It is still a long ways (years and $$) from being fielded.

You only posted old PR news.  It hasn't progressed since then

Offline Jim

  • Night Gator
  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 32440
  • Cape Canaveral Spaceport
  • Liked: 11186
  • Likes Given: 331
Quote
Sid454 - 20/1/2008  1:37 PM

Then explain the four RL10s on the LSAM and multi engine centaurs.

No extensions on LSAM.  There are only 2 engines on "multi" engine centaurs.  Not the same as 4

Offline Antares

  • ABO^2
  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 5202
  • Done arguing with amateurs
  • Liked: 368
  • Likes Given: 226
As Jim stated, the 4 RL10s on LSAM don't have radiative extensions and those links are obsolete PR pap.  It also has to do with the look angle of the cryo section vs hot section.  The short extension on the old RL10s didn't have much.  Also RL10s were designed for the mutual radiation.  RL60, not.

Quote
Sid454 - 20/1/2008  12:37 PM
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:
Well, PM me with any of their names (initials, first name, or last name, your call) and we'll see who knows who.  People in this forum know their stuff, especially those of us with govt and corporate badges.  I don't post stuff I don't know.  If you call me out, I'll put you all-in.
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 kraisee

  • Expert
  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 10483
  • Liked: 415
  • Likes Given: 19
Antares knows his engines.

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

Tags: