ULA Briefings Show that EELVS Can Replace Ares 1

Good article. This solution has been staring us in the face before Griffin came on the seen. It's simply criminal that we've been dumping money and time down the Ares rathole. In addition to shifting to an EELV-based Shuttle replacement, I hope Obama holds Griffin and his NASA abettors and fellow travelers accountable for this huge waste in taxpayer dollars.

Are they really 'military' rockets? Don't they carry military payloads, and sometimes commercial or university payloads?

If they are truly military vehicles, wouldn't anybody that needed access to technical data require some sort of security clearance? It can take over a year to get your clearance, and they aren't cheap.

A big "Thank You" goes out to"Engineering Lead" and "ME" for reminding me of the Orbital Space Plane.

it appears thinking is once again popular at NASA
FWIW
The CEV is maybe "OK" but it needs to have Wings and the normal flight controls to land on the Earth, Moon and Mars, not typically done in one design.

Fund Ares V after careful review of design to costs, maintain a very close review cycle for the effort to capture and adapt to effective design changes.

Do not build Ares 1x, Build the human Moon, Mars ship in LEO using EELVS and a develop a sustainable life cycle for the long term mission. ETR/WTR will support the activity.

Start using the ISS for scientific research and development via the COTS effort. Launch to ETR.

Continue to Develop & Fly hypersonic entry/re-entry air/space craft on wings with people aboard. This is a ARMD/SMD activity and always has been. NASA needs to work with the DOD on this activity such as in the deserts of California and New Mexico, Nevada and a number of other places that no one lives near in the Western US, Launch for flight on WTR.

Keep the science budget alive in such away that we can explore with humans in our solar system.

Evaluate the NASA Mission Directorites. Do not allow Field Centers to conduct HQ business for the Agency, I.E, (ESMD)

Happy Holidays

They're not "military rockets." They're commercial vehicles whose development was subsidized by the Air Force. Anyone can fly on them, and there is nothing classified about their design or operations.

Flash,

You are clueless again.
1. OSP was a capsule. That was the outcome of the project.
2. Wing and normal flight controls are useless on the moon and Mars
3. WTR/ETR have long be defunct. It is ER/WR.
4. WR is the wrong place for test launches of hypersonic entry/re-entry air/space craft on wings with people aboard. ER has the proper infrastructure. The landing areas "deserts of California and New Mexico, Nevada and a number of other places that no one lives near in the Western US" are more easily reached from ER launches

You know, that rumoured call from Dr. Griffin to the CEO of Lockheed-Martin is rather revealing. If the FACTS would show Ares-I was a better solution than EELV, as NASA has long claimed, then he would have no problem with allowing Lockheed to say whatever it liked as he would win in the end. This single anecdote, if true, would prove that Ares-I is less performance and poorer safety for greater cost.

"It's about . . . losing contractors spotting an opportunity coincident with an election year to reopen what was a settled issue three years ago," he told the Sentinel.

"If we are going to allow people having a profit motive to re-entertain every few years questions of whether we have the right space policy, we're not going to ever get anywhere."

I can't recall the exact reasons that EELV were taken off the table. I think it was cost of man-rating and the job loss issue. These aren't OBVIOUS calls in my opinion. But the inertia of these projects is so great that it is unproductive to be changing our minds and second guessing prior decisions constantly. But the EELVs can save money and get us lifting Orion quicker... well, that's a hard call. Of course we're going to spend a ton of our money now to research this option.

So I know there are NASA engineers here. I'm starting to wonder how many Ares bashers here are on the ULA payroll.

It would be nice if we got a P&W RL-60 out of this deal. That would be great for the inevitable 'medium' variants as well.

What a muddle. The article leaves the impression that the
Delta/Atlas variants could replace both the Ares I and Ares
V, whereas in reality they could only substitute for Ares I.

The Ares I design offers no advantages over the Delta/Atlas
variants and deserves to be scrapped. Let's get Marshall
working instead on the Ares V, which actually would provide unique lunar capability.

The key question is whether NASA really is going back
to the moon instead of just LEO with the Orion capsule.
Political support for the manned lunar mission is a facade
built by Griffin, Bush, and Tom DeLay - it will likely
crumble when the time comes to spend real money on Ares V
and a lunar module. We will end up marking time with Orion
and the ISS, and wondering why we regressed to crew capsules
when we should have built a smaller-scale winged shuttle
for LEO space transport.

IMO, I don't really care what launch vehicle takes the crew as long it is safe. I have reservations regarding the current Ares I. I liked the Jupiter system, was/is being worked on NASA engineers off-the-record, it is much closer to the current launch system. It makes sense to me to have a system much closer to shuttle launch vehicle. Hey, why not bring back the Shuttle-C? It's a catch 22 that we want to make certain we chose the right system but not wait too long before shuttle goes away. Eeeek!

OSP was a capsule.

I guess that's why they called it the 'Orbital Space Plane'.

Chris, no one - NO ONE - has to be _paid_ to be an "Ares basher".
Concerning Dr. Griffin's earlier comment about revisiting the design every election cycle: how about his own habit of redoing every architecture trade study on Orion every three or six months? Nothing is "settled" if the reasoned-out technical answer doesn't suit Mike's personal whims.

Wayne Hale's blog was pretty specific regarding why the Atlas V/Delta IV launchers could not be considered due to the size of the black zones. In his own words: " There has been some speculation that if an EELV were to be used to power the Orion capsule into orbit, there would be large parts of the trajectory where early aborts would cause loss of the capsule and crew during re-entry: the dreaded black zone. By adjusting the launch trajectory lower, these black zones can probably be eliminated -- but at a cost. The cost is performance: mass to orbit is decreased by flying a safer, more depressed trajectory."(source)

Now, I'd like to see some data to back up his comments, you'd think it would be out there somewhere, but I cant find it.

Source: http://www.spaceref.com/news/viewsr.html?pid=29847

I've rarely met a vendor who hasen't stretched the truth to make a sale.

For someone who's very proud of his intellectual abilities, its amazing how long and hard Mike has held on to this very unfortunate "Scotty Stick" Ares-I design -- I guess it is true that a big ego can trump sound thinking.

Talk to any experienced rocket scientist and they'll give you a host of reasons why flying fragile, precious cargo (e.g., astronauts) on a solid core rocket is a very bad idea: no rocket throttling or cut-off capability leading to difficult ascent g-profiles and exceedingly difficult abort options; ragged thrust oscillations that can shake the cargo to pieces; poor ISP which limits payload capabilities.

And lets be clear, solid core rockets aren't new. The Minuteman and Peacekeeper ICBM's are both solid core and they work very well for launching robust, expendable cargo (e.g., war heads) to space.

One day I believe Mike will look back and kick himself for all the time, money and talent he waisted on a fundamentally bad idea.

The decision on Ares vs EELV was carefully made. It was not an obvious choice, nor an easy one. Had we decided on EELV, then about now we would be in the midst of many design problems, just as we are with Ares. This is the nature of rocket development. If we throw out Ares I and pursue the EELV, then a few years down the road we will still just have paper, no hardware, and will be confronting problems that seem as difficult as the ones currently presented by Ares. Once you carefully and thoughtfully pick a program, as was done with the Ares vs EELV decision, it is vital to push through the challenges unless they become truly insurmountable. Otherwise you just get decades of paperwork.

Here is an example of how EELV can look better than it really is: The payload capacity looks great until you examine the launch trajectory. It is optimized for taking unmanned payloads, so it is highly lofted. So, if you lose an engine, there is no hope of recovering the craft as the reentry loads and heat are huge. That's OK with a satellite, as the engine loss meant the mission was lost anyway. However, with people on board, that big a "black zone" is unacceptable. So you will have to give up a significant fraction of the payload capacity to accommodate a shallower trajectory where the crew can survive an engine out. That's just one small example of the kind of detail that must be considered in choosing a design.

The saving grace in this whole mess is that SpaceX will be launching Falcon-9 on its maiden flight this next spring, and a second Falcon-9 with a Dragon capsule later this next summer. With accelerated funding from the new Obama administration, crewed flights could begin as early as 2010, effectively eliminating the gap from retiring shuttle.

Not bad for a company of about 600 people at this point, that's been in business for six years!!!

This points to a fundamental problem at NASA regarding rocket building -- its got way too many people trying to prove they're the next Werner von Braun.

By the way the Falcon-9 is a sensible liquid core rocket, with full ascent trajectory engine out capability. Its notable that the only way any human has ever traveled to space, from the US or any other country, has been on a liquid core rocket. Not even the Russians try to launch people on solid core rockets -- that should tell you something.

OSP was several things, including capsule and "winged" bodies. Since it never saw the day of light it really isn't anything. However, OSP was a return from LEO vehicle while CEV/Orion is a return from the Moon (or Mars if you can dream hard enough). Whether a vehicle has wings or not is dictated by re-entry heating (and of course associated materials that can sustain such heating), nothing else. Not even down/cross-range. I suggest that some people start reading real science and evaluate such heating and required materials. Then we can all talk about wing vs. no-wing. This is getting a little tiresome though...

Now about the subject at hands. EELVs were considered for OSP but OSP was not supposed to go to the Moon, rather to ISS. Requirements changed and therefore lift-off mass, hence the belief SRBs could do it. Not to mention the political aspect, workforce retention argument, etc. Which by the way WAS the real reason why we went SRBs. Nothing else.

Other argument that is NEVER addressed is the Lauch Abort System. This would most likely have to be redesigned. Not that the current one works for Ares I though. And works DOES NOT MEAN you can light the engines. It DOES MEAN it achieves the level of SAFETY associated with bailing out the astronauts on pad AND during ascent. Trajectories of EELVs and Ares I are certainly different, in addition to thrust termination issues for the launcher, hence different requirements.

So, man-rating an EELV may not be that expensive but the associated redesign (the one above being one among others) may just be. EELV's appeal is that they actually DO fly, but is it enough?

The real question is how much is this going to cost as a whole! Not just the launcher.

I hope this helps.

ME:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Orbital_Space_Plane
Wing and normal flight controls are useless on the moon and Mars
Moon yes without atmosphere but but can be used on return to earth rather then a chute with active control.

Mars No, has an atmosphere so Aerosurfaces will be active and can be used.

Who is currently doing Hypersonic research in NASA. It is not SOMD or ESMD for good reason.
http://www.aeronautics.nasa.gov/fap/hypersonic.html
http://www.nasa.gov/missions/research/x43-main.html

This is why the OSP was canned, It did not have enough control authority for stable entry in the earth atmosphere.
The wonderful managers did not understand this.

WTR is now WR
ETR is now ER
Big deal same place same people.

WR is the wrong place for test launches of hypersonic entry/re-entry air/space craft on wings with people aboard. ER has the proper infrastructure. The landing areas "deserts of California and New Mexico, Nevada and a number of other places that no one lives near in the Western US" are more easily reached from ER launches

I guess you must live in Florida and are cluless about the history of the WR.

Where did NASA do most of it Hypersonic Aerospace work.

The ER did not yet exist for this type of activity.

best wishes and good luck

I must agree Dan, you can't just keep stopping in the middle of the program and wonder if this was the right choice or you'll end up with nothing.

I think what all of us want is a program that gets us out of LEO and my fear is with so many sides having an investment into what gets created we may end up fighting out selves back into LEO and stuck there for a very long time.

People ask about cost--How much is Ares I going to cost compared to Direct or an EELV?

At the end of the day, Ares was meant to be "Safe, Simple, Soon". Does anyone remember that song?

Please enlighten people to ALL the changes that Ares I has gone though since the ESAS study. To say that it is the same rocket--is smoke! But the cost? What will be final cost for Ares? How many safety functions/options have been taken off Orion since Ares cannot lift it? As to the soon--I think they are talking about 2016 now!

It is time to at least look at the alternatives. Do you want the govt. to spend over $10 billion on a bad design that may be with us for the next 20+ years? I do not! Sometimes in a project, you have to know when to kill it and start again. The current NASA administration wants to build the next Edsel car, I think America and this public deserves alot better than NASA is giving us.

If NASA is soo certain of their plans, why do they not release the ESAS appendixes that show the trade studeis and assumptions they made? As Mike, like a used car person said "Trust me.. You don't need to see what's under the hood"!

Posted by: Phillip at December 30, 2008 4:49 PM:
>At the end of the day, Ares was meant to be
>"Safe, Simple, Soon". Does anyone remember that song?

How could you forget? The web site still exits in the original form.
http://safesimplesoon.com/

It hasn't even been updated for major design changes of long past.

We are really supposed to believe that everyone involved in this nation's space program have political agendas except Mike Griffin? Give me an break. He lives in a bubble. No one dares tell him his rocket stinks because he's the big boss. Even if the CEO of Lockheed can't tell him anything.

The fact of the matter is, Mike Griffin has never designed anything in his life. He has no more business desgning our next rocket than the shoe salesman down the street. The only reason he has any credibility at all is because of his position as head of NASA. When he is gone, whether it is on the 20th of January or 8 years from now, he will be a laughing stock because his position, and the credibility it undeservingly bestows, will be gone.

The EELV's would be fine to launch the Orion capsule to low earth orbit. They've got a single fault tolerant avionics system that's not "man rated", but who cares? Man rating provides no more safety when it comes to rockets. They all blow up every 75 to 150 launches, dual fault tolerant or single fault tolerant avionics, makes no difference in that number. The place they really need the dual fault tolerance is in the Orion capsule, and they're pulling that fault tolerance out due to Aries performance problems.

Shuttle-C should be our heavy lifter. Between the two we could get our space program back online. There's no need for Aries and there never was.

Flash,

Wrong again on many counts. Know something before posting

"Mars No, has an atmosphere so Aerosurfaces will be active and can be used."

Lift bodies (capsule type) can be used but they will be controlled by thrusters and not Aerosurfaces (atmosphere has too low of density) much like the Apollo capsule

"This is why the OSP was canned, It did not have enough control authority for stable entry in the earth atmosphere."

Incorrect. That was not the reason. VSE was the reason it was canned and OSP lives on in Orion. the OSP had the same shape as Orion

" cluless about the history of the WR.

No, you are the clueless one. Any hypersonic research launches from the WR were directed at Kwaj and the ocean. No orbital launches and no land landings

"Where did NASA do most of it Hypersonic Aerospace work."
From bases in the southwest, where the vehicles took off and landed from the same base.

At no time, did a launch (especial research) from the WR end up with a landing in the US. Cross range is the problem. Same goes for down range aborts.

Any manned hypersonic Aerospace research vehicle (Dynasoar, lifting bodies, etc) would be launched from ER where there are down range abort sites and first orbit minimal cross range landings in the US.

Don't cross swords with me wrt spaceflight knowledge, you will lose

This should hardly be a surprise for anyone in the trenches. At the last two JPC's there was much talk about NASA's already significant investment in man rating the J2-X - let alone the phenomenal work already performed by P&W on the RS-28. Let alone discussions on-going at the industry days. What happens when you use the man-rated motors as a straight swap into EELV? Nice.

Man-rated motors - some work on redundant avionics - bingo. (Sorry, just watched National Lampoons Xmas vacation).

More funding for shuttle? Two year earlier delivery time than Ares-1? Almost all of the integration and launch NRE already paid for? Come on!!! Think about that one.

Guess it pays to look under the hood.

I wonder how many astronauts would refuse a lift due to worry re: the black-out zone? Bet the number is less than 1.

And now we no longer have the world's first man-rated non-throttleable first stage. No o-ring joints. Guess there was that Chinese guy years ago.

Keeps sounding better and better and better...

Scrapping the Ares-I & -V will be part of a bigger changes to NASA with the arriving new Admin. While Atlas V (Delta is not in the running imo) is a real alternative to Ares-I, it is not for launching to the Moon. Launching humans to the Moon will be delayed further with the changes coming. Whatever vehicle is chosen for LEO or Trans-Lunar, SRMs are reliable and will be part of the selected design. We just do not need a LEO vehicle dependent solely on a SRM jerry-rigged due to severe oscillations.

What to expect in 2009 -

1) Obama Admin offers no additional funding to NASA and
2) tells NASA to find additional funds through better management and planning (note: Ares,MSL).
3) Plans for mannned missions to Mars are set way back (+10y) and manned lunar landings set back ~5 years more.
4) The new Admin (plus new NASA Admin) choose to scrap the Stick in favor of using EELV or the alternative Direct v2.0.
5) The Obama Admin orders redirecting NASA funding towards robotic missions. The mandate will be to explore the Moon and Planets with robotics where NASA ROI really lies. And Robotic Lunar missions will not just be a single reconnaisance orbiter (LRO) prior to manned missions.
5a) The mandate will also be to construct a Lunar human habitat using robotics including robotic mining and lunar-based astronomy. International cooperation during robotics phase will open the door to multi-national manned use of the moon bases.
6) Mars Sample Return is scrapped in favor of more Rover-based laboratories reusing proven technology.
7) NASA is told to expand the ISS cooperative, including more countries and expanding availability to present partners.
8) The Obama Admin has less concern regarding use of Russian vehicles for ISS and chooses improved relations as a means to insure ISS access.
8a) One means of travel to ISS is unacceptable and the new Admin and NASA admin provides SpaceX and OSC additional funds.
9) Obama taps another director of a national or university laboratory as the next NASA Administrator.

i meant rs-68 earlier... just in case someone trys to flame me.

:)

Mane man, P&W have the drawings, models and rights etc... to build the RD-180s in the US, same with AJ and the NK 33's. Yes there would be a delay in getting P&W up to production levels, but it is possible.

My 100% reliable source says Russia is going to eventually stop providing the RD-180 engines that power the Atlas V. There won't be an Atlas V in the future. You're just going to complain about job losses anyway after the Ares I is cancelled.

Apparently your "100% reliable source" doesn't understand that P&W can product those engines on-shore within three years if they want to make the investment...

Any manned hypersonic Aerospace research vehicle (Dynasoar, lifting bodies, etc) would be launched from ER where there are down range abort sites and first orbit minimal cross range landings in the US.

The idea is to Fly the Research Vehicle in powered flight you can land where you please. Go read the ARMD research program and propose research if you like.

Don't cross swords with me wrt spaceflight knowledge, you will lose

It is a "research program" not a spaceflight operational mission. This is what NASA will continue to due in the future like NACA did.

OK I'm Laughing. This is not a sword fight and there is no win or loose. OK you win, what contest I have no idea.

I'm wrong always.

Why is the US Spaceport in New Mexico and VG is planning manned spaceflights from the spaceport. FAA approved.

Where is the suborbital activities taking place at, not the ER. Will be orbital soon. FAA approved

Where did the first Manned hypersonic test take place, Not the ER

The X-24A shape was later borrowed for the X-38 Crew Return Vehicle (CRV) technology demonstrator for the International Space Station.
Minus some control surfaces which were not needed, LOL

The Crew Exploration Vehicle program emerged from the initial OSP proposals which had been based on four groups of concepts considered for the physical design of the space plane itself — or the vehicle architecture: a capsule, a lifting body, a sharp body with wings and a blunt body with wings.

After the Columbia accident investigation, the capsule design with a separate escape system was considered the optimal design for crew safety. BY NASA not the CAIB.

Why, Because NASA does not know enough about hypersonics and the research effort was given to ARMD.

Any hypersonic research launches from the WR were directed at Kwaj and the ocean. No orbital launches and no land landings.
sure,
Well, if there are classified we both do not know.

"Where did NASA do most of it Hypersonic Aerospace work."
From bases in the southwest, where the vehicles took off and landed from the same base.

Correct, it does not have to be launched from the ER to conduct Hypersonic research.

Just like the suborbital program which will be orbital very very soon. This is the whole idea to get Commercial Spaceflight available to the public. You will not need travel to Florida and visit the CCAFS to get a ride into space in the very near future.

Hands up who believes that Ares V would get funded under this scenario? It's fairly tenuous now, but there is at least a path to it under the current plan.

Say hello to 30 more years of pottering around in LEO if this passes.

HILARIOUS.

THINK REQUIREMENTS...REQUIREMENTS...REQUIREMENTS.

Sure EELVs can take crew or Orion to the Station, if you make them bigger, if you change this or that, add performance, and for that matter if we had just about everything duplicated in the infrastructure for NASA use only, so we don't interfere with other launches that are a priority, such as National Security, or even just Commercial (because interfere we would, especially at first).

Or for that matter if the cost of producing a different EELV design were zero to the Air Force as regards affecting production steps, configuration controls, and the entire process of production for that matter. We would not want them changing the design we buy into for example, due to a commercial requirement, or an Air Force requirement, without telling NASA. Paperwork, paperwork, paperwork.

Life's a little more complicated than just having a contractor nod a lot and talk about "minor changes" when inquiring about price for such a large potential contract. Reality would seep in slowly, but after a year of looking at EELV I'm sure many of the same issues as Ares I has, especially recurring cost, would turnout to be a wash.

NONE OF THIS IS RELEVANT HOWEVER.

It's the total cost of the system, crew AND cargo, that will matter. It's the requirements that matter. Can these be changed? 90% of the requirements for less than 90% of the cost? Safety improved? These are the deciding requirements.

Right now no system really seems to meet recurring cost AND safety AND performance as initially required/desired.

But above all, COST is the deal breaker. If transportation to space DOUBLES versus Shuttle by breaking up crew and cargo into separate vehicles, then other parts of NASA will suffer. Tactical success, strategic loss. Less R&D (hypersonic, SSP, reusable space transportation, reliability, materials, etc). Less space development or none, only to have to be rediscovered a decade or more later as learning curve opens some small wedge in operations of the transport. No continuity in presence in space, as ISS would be a program everyone wants to end early (2016) so as to seize budget for a presence on the Moon that would not become continuous perhaps till the late 2020's.

Especially - Station can not be a cash reserve for the transport. Such a psychology will whittle away safety on the Station, neglect upgrades, neglect issues.

The answer is NOT EELV's or Ares I/Ares V...it's the question that still matters and we should not move off of -

"WHAT SYSTEM (CAN BE ONE, TWO, ETC) CAN CARRY CREW TO ISS, BUT ALSO ENOUGH CARGO TO SPACE, SO AS TO HAVE A BEYOND LEO CAPABILITY, BY 20TBD, THAT COSTS ROUGHLY AS MUCH (RECURRING) AS SHUTTLE TODAY, OR ABOUT 20% OR SO OF NASA'S BUDGET, OR ABOUT $3B A YEAR, FOR ABOUT AS MUCH TONNAGE AND CREW, OR HOPEFULLY MORE, PER YEAR".

PWR and Aerojet have to pass the same test as SpaceX when it comes to engines and rockets. When RD-180s and AJ-26s (NK-33s) are coming off American assembly lines, then they're doing it. Until then, it's just an assertion, and I don't care how often they say they can do it or how many experts say they can do it. It's done when they actually get it done and not before.

This is a classic example of "a bird in the hand is worth two in the bush". A paper vehicle can always be made to look better than existing vehicles. However, the past few years have shown that Ares I and Ares V are facing troubles which are much bigger than typical launch vehicle development hurdles.

Ares I essentially duplicates EELV lift capability, but with a lot of challenges unique to using a large segmented solid rocket booster as the first stage. Ares V is running into hard limits to how big it can grow. With its current stretched SRB's (which are bigger than Ares I's) and its six RS-68 engines (or will that be SSME's?) its size and weight will require significant changes to the Saturn/Shuttle ground infrastructure.

Furthermore, when was the last time NASA designed and flown actual launch vehicles like Ares I and Ares V? It's been three to four decades, depending on whether you buy that Ares is shuttle or saturn derived. Unfortunately, so many things have changed, and will need to change, with the Ares designs, that it's neither.

Flash,
Wrong again

"Where is the suborbital activities taking place at, not the ER. Will be orbital soon. FAA approve"

FAA has not approved any orbital flights from the southwest

"After the Columbia accident investigation, the capsule design with a separate escape system was considered the optimal design for crew safety. BY NASA not the CAIB.
Why, Because NASA does not know enough about hypersonics and the research effort was given to ARMD."
1. There is no such org as ARMD
2. Nothing was taken away from NASA nor something was "given" to another org. There is no entity that make such decisions on research
Explain X-43, explain Shuttle entry, etc. NASA knows just as much as the DOD when it comes to hypersonics

"Well, if there are classified we both do not know."
There are none.

"Correct, it does not have to be launched from the ER to conduct Hypersonic research."

For orbital flight, it does (at this time"

"Just like the suborbital program which will be orbital very very soon"

Not for a decade at least

Webster,

There are more Ares bashers here on the NASA payroll. Ares I is a bad idea and will hurt the agency. Inertia is a stupid reason to keep a program going.

"The decision on Ares vs EELV was carefully made."

On the contrary, Ares selected and then a case was made against EELV's

PWR and Aerojet have to pass the same test as SpaceX when it comes to engines and rockets. When RD-180s and AJ-26s (NK-33s) are coming off American assembly lines, then they're doing it.

The difference is that the engines are existing design, and no development is required. They just have to put together the tooling.

ME:
There is no such org as ARMD
http://www.aeronautics.nasa.gov/
Have you ever felt as if your brain was so full of information that you couldn't process another thing? Mental overload creates confusion and frustration, and for airline pilots, the consequences can be disastrous.

maybe you can sign up for the study
http://www.aeronautics.nasa.gov/nra.htm

ARMD is NASA so is SMD, ESMD, SOMD.

I never wrote the effort was removed from NASA. The research effort was given to ARMD to conduct and not always on the ER. It is no longer managed as a program effort because of the lack of knowledge on the subject within ESMD and SOMD, CEV and OSP are prime examples of this knowledge gap.

Correct, it does not have to be launched from the ER to conduct Hypersonic research."

For orbital flight, it does (at this time"

"Just like the suborbital program which will be orbital very very soon"

Not for a decade at least, you are dreaming, It is good to dream.

do you recall what the last ARMD orbital flight was, from Wallops
yes I'm wrong, LOL

I am not particularly concerned about the fate of the ARES V, because NASA has yet to really ask and answer the question what we plan to do on the Moon. Unless it is camp for six months at a time then abandon it and go on to Mars. In which case why bother.

The Moon is a scientific treasure trove for Astronomy, geology and physics. The current NASA strategy does not scratch the surface of the science that could be done on the Moon.

Until we have had a real discussion of what science we could do on the Moon and what launch capability would be required to do that science, I think it is too early to design any lunar launch system.

This is not even considering the equipment needed for lunar resource utilization especially for construction of space solar power.

I have been very disappointed at the entire implementation of the return to the Moon program since Bush's speech because NASA has insisted on keeping blinders on about possibilities. And as John Mankins has repeatedly pointed out the way to have a program which is mostly on budget and on time, long term is spend time before you start, on open discussion to make sure you have the right program.

Max Q -- you're right on target. Next year at this time Ares I & V will be in the dust bin with NASP, X33/34/38, OSP/SLI.

Unfortunately NASA is currently on a very familiar path...

Anything about Black Zones regarding EELV is uninformed drivel, probably deliberately. It's really interesting that people who know EELVs can't find any reason not to use them for CLV. The only people talking against EELVs are those who are at best half-informed. Seek and ye shall find. Do so without preconception and you will find a great pair of rockets designed and built by people with real experience.

Me,

Do you believe that the Ares 1 cannot be made to work due to vibration or other problems encountered so far? or do you think that EELVs would simply be a wiser choice?

Being a government rocket architecture, Ares was chosen for many reasons including keeping jobs. If EELVs can be man rated and can lift a fully capable Orion capsule quickly then I would be all for that. I mostly want to see that Ares 5 or some other beast of a launcher gets built.

Ughh, reality is so depressing! :) To hear that we may have to go to six SSMEs instead of RS68s. Man, I can't believe it wasn't more obvious that overheating would be an issue in a tight cluster of ablatively cooled motors.

EELV's Versus Ares I was a careful decision/trade study..???
So was using the Air Force’s Arnold altitude test facility (modified for a cost of $167 million) versus NASA's non existing Stennis Altitude Facility for J-2X testing. MSFC decided to build a NEW facility at Stennis for an estimated cost of $170 million. We are now requesting $250 million to build that facility which represents a 47% cost over run and we’re not half done.

NASA decided to go it alone and now they are paying the price. On a small scale with the J-2X facility and on a bigger scale with Ares I. Maybe we should have worked WITH the Air Force and the private sector instead of our "Go It Alone" strategy that leaves us defending this path with little or no back up.

If EELV's and Ares I were "close" during the initial evaluations, at least we would have had partners to keep us afloat. Sometimes the best engineering answer is not the best program answer.

Our administrator does not need to be a Scientist he/she needs to manage program risk, cost, politics and advocacy. We are clearly loosing ground on all fronts…

One last comment… I concede the argument the EELV’s would have had cost/schedule overruns as Ares and most government programs encounter. The difference is the Air Force and ULA would likely have been PARTNERS instead of sitting on the side lines. Do you think either of those 2 groups are going to stick their neck’s out for Ares..? If we were working on a Delta IV or Atlas V heavy would they be providing political or even some financial help..? Absolutely...

Lets see if ATK/Mr. Griffin can out lobby Boeing, Lockheed and ULA….

Please.....NO RUSSIAN ENGINES ON OUR ROCKETS!!!!

The O-Ring problem of the Thiokol SRMs is long past. Ares-I is not pretty but it was meant to be safe and cheap. Unfortunately, the oscillation problem is the straw breaking the camel's back. Ares has cost over-runs without the oscillation problem and Direct v2.0 (Jupiter) and an EELV would also. I think by accepting the flaws in Ares-I and moving on NASA is setting itself up for some horrid over-runs later. Cut losses, re-examine the alternatives, pick one and move on.

I'm not a big fan of using an EELV but lets consider it. Otherwise, lets give the Jupiter vehicle a day in court. Direct v2.0 looks like a great idea but it needs to be examined. Lets not spend a year examining the alts though!!!

Chris Webster,

In response to the following statement you made: "Ughh, reality is so depressing! :) To hear that we may have to go to six SSMEs instead of RS68s. Man, I can't believe it wasn't more obvious that overheating would be an issue in a tight cluster of ablatively cooled motors."

The Aries V is going to use the RS-68A engine, which has regenerative cooled nozzles, so the ablative design and its weight goes away. Not sure why they would go to the SSME's at this point.

Joe

Instead of Aries V, lets build a really simple big, big, big
lox / kerosene booster...
It could use simple orifices for pressurization instead
of more complex logic x-ducers.
A delta 2 on steroids!!!

Me

You know the ground rules
are you grounded yet, Loss of medical cert
Please.....NO RUSSIAN ENGINES ON OUR ROCKETS!!!!
concure.

First of all, I'm skeptical about the whole "black zone" issue. The Shuttle has them also, but it hasn't stopped us from flying it. But assume it's true, and that EELV's would have to fly depressed trajectories with a subsequent loss of payload capacity. What's wrong with that? Why not have an architecture that requires more launches and takes advantage of what we've learned about on-orbit assembly from the ISS Program? We've managed to assemble a large complex structure without any significant interface issues. That's a remarkable achievement, and there's no reason we couldn't do it on a much smaller scale with a Lunar vehicle. It might even lead to new capabilities like orbital refueling/refurbishment. Then you'd really be laying the groundwork for a robust, sustainable, exploration system. It's high time we tossed the old Apollo/Saturn paradigm of launching everything at once.

Besides, all those extra launches would require more people (i.e., jobs), and probably also open up more commercial opportunities for support services, etc. That should make the politicians happy, and I'll bet it would still be cheaper in the long run.

"The Aries V is going to use the RS-68A engine, which has regenerative cooled nozzles, so the ablative design and its weight goes away."

No, it's going to use the man rated version of that called RS-68B and it uses an ablative design. Regen is not even on the table for any RS-68 version as it's a big development cost.

SSME's would drive the final nail in the coffin of the Constellation program.

The engine is fickle and extremely expensive to manufacture/maintain. (the injectors, for one) NASA must be examined by the Transition Team right now, and it must clean out the stables! It's getting out of hand.

EELVs have some shortcomings, BUT they are flying (for a few years already with track record) and operational machines with completely valid upgrade paths.

Lower head count on the prep and roll out is a PLUS not a minus for the EELVs! (trust me - you don't want another job program like the STS! we want a sustainable space program)

I also pay taxes and don't appreciate it being spent on this BS. Thank you.

Marsavian, the regen-cooled nozzle for the RS-68A development and design is done and fabrication checkouts are almost finished. Prototype nozzles have already been built and subscale versions tested. You're right, its a big development cost, however, its almost been completed. I'll call some friends regarding what they're using on the Aries V, I doubt it will be the ablative nozzle version, but we'll see!

I believe the pass/fail issue with manufacturing the RD-180 engine stateside is some proprietary metallurgy , not tooling.

It doesn't matter what the issues are with regard to RD-180 and AJ-26 (NK-33) are. What matters is that while PWR and Aerojet say they can make the engines, they have not yet done so. The proof of the pudding is in the eating, not what the manufacturer says the pudding is going to taste like when and if the start making it.