There Are Several Reasons Not To Fly Any More Ares

For God's sake, please don't tell me we need "green" rocket motors? How far do we need to take this nonsense?

Keith,

About a decade ago the Russians raised that issue regarding the Shuttle SRBs and, I believe, it was debunked.

By the way, on another topic, there are now some voices in the Air Force wanting to scrap Atlas-V altogether and instead focus on Delta-IV. I believe I read this in Aviation 'Leak' (for whatever that's worth, of course).

Regards.

Let's see. The Ares I-X test flight cost 250-450 million depending on who you believe. Granted this was a kluge, but let's assume future flights are about the same. Now Mr. Bolden says we cannot afford $750,000,000 to $1,350,000,000 over 5 years for 3 test flights that lead to developement of key heavy lift components (i.e. 5 segment SRM, US J-2X, and Orion). What can we afford Mr. Bolden?

As for the talk of needing a more enviromentally friendly rocket, give me a break. When will this madness end? At worst you would have 1 test flight a year and maybe 2-3 heavy lifts per year.

The politically correct crowd will ruin our space program, and we only have ourselves to blame. Congrats to all the Cx bashers, now we need to wait to develop unobtainium to launch anything BEO.

If we cannot use SRMs, then the enviromentalists sure as heck are not going to let us use any "transformative technologies" like in space nuclear power.

> For God's sake, please don't tell me we need "green" rocket motors? How far do we need to take this nonsense?

What nonsense? Did Keith quote the wrong pollution data? Or are you just saying you don't care about pollution?

In any case you're in luck. Nobody is saying you need "green" rocket motors. Needs and wants are different things.

Pollution being a reason to not use a motor is not the same as needing to use a motor that doesn't pollute.

Since a hydrocarbon engine would increase global warming, is the administration arguing that its better to put our coastlines underwater?

Marcel F. Williams

> What can we afford Mr. Bolden?

Not that. Augustine found anything to do with Ares I isn't affordable. That is why every scenario he came up with didn't use it. Or am I wrong?

I remember some years ago in a magazine where the author watching a STS launch at VIP viewing area mentioned they were given car covers to protect the paint from residual droppings from SRB smoke.

Anyone from KSC care to comment?

The benefits from going into space are worth the pollution we create in doing so.

Who cares how we get there as long as we get there. Yes and for the good of this planet long term, that goes doubly so!

It's worth it!

We are not talking launches every day here for crying out loud.

This is indeed environnmental extremism and no doubt is being invoked for reasons other then actual concern for the environment.

If this is the kind of thing that will drive decisions going forward, then we are screwed. Give it up folks.
Greenies will not approve of any launch system!
They will find something to complain about every one of them!

@mfwright - I have watched many launches from the LCC, which is, I think, closer than the VIP viewing area. The parking lots at the LCC and VAB are full. I've never seen any cars covered, and my car has never been covered. Maybe years ago, but not since 1998. At least not in my experience.

There are many good reasons to stop NASA from spending its limited funds on the Ares I (safety, cost, schedule, the lack of a need for yet another medium-lift rocket, competing with commercial, etc.), but IMHO environmental concerns is pretty low down the list.

So, someone tell me how damaging the volcano in iceland is to the atmosphere? Please... The SRBs are a speck in that pollution.

RC,

My point was that Senator Nelson's test flight program where you use the Ares I stack to test parts of a heavy lift is small. If we cannot afford that, then we are NEVER going to have a heavy lift. Bolden may believe we will get a LOX/Kerosene first stage, and that would be a valid argument. But don't use affordability as your argument because that test flight program will be as much as Nelson's proposal and probably more.

http://www.aerospaceweb.org/question/spacecraft/q0298a.shtml

Good results on study of SRBS

While environmental concerns are pretty far down on the list for me when it comes to space travel (not that I'm not environmentally inclined, just that the amount of pollution generated by a yearly launch is pretty trivial), that's not really an apt comparison. Emissions from volcanic eruptions are usually limited to CO2 and a mix of SO2 and volcanic ash (the former contributing to global warming, the latter causing global cooling- the two actually end up canceling each other out, essentially). The SRBs on the other hand generate a whole host of various noxious chemicals.

*However*, with that said, a better comparison might be to your typical coal power plant- I'd imagine the emission from one of those during just 24 hours of operation is probably significantly higher than that of a SRB launch.

"OSTP and others in the White House are concerned that these solid rockets are heavy polluters (1.1 million pounds of propellant each) and that it is time to move to something far less dirty to launch things into space."

I am so happy to read this. For most of my life I've watched STS launches with admiration and wonder, but always I've felt an underlying disgust at the pollution created in the manufacture and lighting of those filthy SRBs. It's worse than setting a mountain of tires and aluminum cans ablaze.

I'm taken aback by a number of the planet-eating comments in this thread. We've had a couple of centuries of recklessness towards our fragile ecosystem. If we're going to err in one direction or the other at this point, I'm for erring on the side of respect for our jewel in the cosmos.

Yes they send out cautions about SRB exhaust be corrosive, but they also put MSDSs on the hand soap in the bathrooms. I'm more concerned about the FL salt air eating the paint off my car than SRB exhaust. As far as environmental concerns, I'd be more afraid of launching a full up nuclear reactor to power a VASMIR demonstration than a few SRMs.

LC, whilst I can't comment on the reliability or otherwise of your information, given that NASA uses Atlas-V almost exclusively for its robotic exploration spacecraft launches, even if the DoD were to drop it like a hot potato, Atlas-V would survive in the ULA manifest thanks to NASA and commercial customers. FWIW, Delta-IV has yet to win any NASA contracts and Atlas-V launches at roughly twice the rate. Atlas-V has also been listed by many commercial spaceflight providers as their preferred LV. Atlas-V is thus safe.

If anything, DoD dropping Atlas-V might prove beneficial in the long run. DoD are currently blocking human-rating the design to prevent delays to their own missions.

@ spacedout,

Whilst Ares-I uses some similar components to the HLV, its flight environment and flight profile are sufficiently different that those components will be operating under very different stresses and requirements. One could argue that Ares-I-X tests of those components would be mostly-worthless as you would have to repeat the tests on the HLV configuration to get any worthwhile data on how they perform in that specific environment.

NASA has little money with which to play. I, for one, would recommend that it be focussed on the thing that it and it alone wants to do - develop a heavy lifter and BEO spacecraft. Let ULA and their competitors concentrate on crew to LEO and cargo lift up to 25,000kg; They've proven rather good at the latter and might prove good at the former.

What Charlie won't tell us is there isn't anything that we will develop that will be cheaper than Ares, if he believes there is then he really is delusional.

And the SSMEs emit water into the atmosphere!!! Water, a known killer which can drown you!!! Stop all spaceflight and technology immediately, squatting in caves is much greener.

For what it's worth, there are studies of how much & what kinds of crud which different types of rockets put into the air. Some are listed at the NASA HQ library's website on the Environmental Impact of NASA. It's possible that in the overall scheme of things, a shuttle launch's impact is minor, but shouldn't NASA serve as an example of best practices?

They used to offer us a car cover for the launches. It was due to the possibility that the SRB launch exhaust residue depositing on our cars when mixed with a bit of moisture, which we have plenty of due to the humidity down here, would etch the surface of the car paint. I believe it does do that. However I don't recall them offering the covers in a number of years now. I don't know what happened about it but wind direction at launch can play a significant role in whether it is a problem or not.

Aside from noxious chemicals, SRBs have a number of other disadvantages, lower performance compared to liquid fueled rockets. 'Political correctness' has nothing to do with it - you are releasing a fairly noxious mix of chemicals over a populated area whose economy depends on tourism and fishing etc. The pollution aspect is only one of the negatives. If one can build a better rocket that also is better for the environment, then why not?

A few points for the readers to keep in mind -

1) If you are the only user of the SRM (UTAH) and SRB (KSC FL) capabilities then current yearly costs and knowledge of fixed costs can tell you a lot to start the conversation. Right now total costs run about $500M and $150M a year resp. and fixed costs have been documented to be as high as 75% of these values.

2)On near term benefit, consider why we would need 5 segment test flights and why we would need these with anything on top if they are to be taken as data points for a 5 segment booster on a future shuttle derived heavy? Anything above the waistline first off would likely not apply. Further, the Shuttle was launched on STS-1 with no such flight tests for the 4 segment version. Horizontal ground tests were adequate. Why would this not be so for a 5 segment?

3) On long term benefit, consider what the connection is between a solid rocket motor and "significantly" lower cost access to space? Liquid propulsion will have tankage and engine technology with a near direct traceability to a future reusable launch vehicle of either the rocket or air-breathing type. Thus furthering any technology, or any manufacturing expertise and knowledge, furthers long term significantly lower cost access to low Earth orbit. Solids can not show that same long term technology path to routine access to low earth orbit except in a smattering of sub-systems (like actuators, or power systems) which are common in liquids and actually come from the liquid stage manufacturing base.

3) On intangibles - the Shuttle program took advantage of the Department of Defense investing heavy in solids back in the late 60's. Some cheap thrust was required and a large solid design could do the trick. NASA was glad to take advantage of the investments of others offering some amortization of the basic knowledge base for solids. Today, as non-recurring investments in solids have declined (and they will further), investments of the ICBM sort, the tables are reversed. The Department of Defense benefits from this cash flux that NASA provides to a solids contractor that can then stand more prepared as Department of Defense operational and one-off requirements in the field come and go. This is not a reason to hold back a civil space program, the goal of which is fostering and investing in lower cost access to space, access independent of government requirements, as a vibrant, improving and growing industry outside NASA. The ability of NASA and DoD to take advantage of each others direction is a good thing when goals are aligned, as an added benefit, but it can not be a dominant driver of each agencies mission investments.

4) On the environment - consider the Department of Defense moved away from Hypergols with the elimination of the old Titan at the Cape, and then they are eliminating the Hypergol upper stage of the Delta II. NASA has been left holding the bag on this entire capacity (esp. production of 1 of the 3 hypergols). So who pays for what is a game that combines environmental with cost factors if you really want to muddle the waters. This issue with solids appears like more of the same.

5) Lastly yet most important - affordability. Take a look at the budget of the "heavy" in it's near term "development" form under Exploration in the budget. The message is simple: Get going on a heavy NASA, BUT, you'll have a "program" to go ahead once you have confidence that the recurring costs of the heavy are an improvement that fits into the long term budget. The value can be derived (leaving this to the interested reader) as about $2B a year for some number of a TBD design "heavy" lifter flights, inclusive of recurring production especially. Space Flight Support is another line item and at the additional $1B a year is expected to provide for the mission (JSC) and ground (KSC) operations of this future heavy. The number is derived by knowing the budget is about $4B in this heavy budget bucket and that after it's operational there must still be an on-going "development" task that does all the other stuff, ranging from what goes on top as payload to what goes in space like depots to just developing technology maturity of all the sub-systems as an on-going mission. This would correct the notion "programs" have that all development becomes ops, as with Shuttle, which simply becomes a formula for neglecting long term R&D over time, and then getting caught with no product to replace the last one when that time comes.

Take that number of $2B a year and then tell the program manager they re being constrained from the git go to have 33% of the budget tied up in solids. Notably, the rest of the ship and the spacecraft would have to fit in the remaining 66%. And therein is the reason why either ATK must come back with a significant cost improvement or they must be taken out of the picture. Liquid stage manufacturers will be around in many years, without having to pay them to be around quite as much, so this business case for continuing solids gets very difficult. Affordability for sustainability is what the heavy must be about if it is to succeed sooner rather than later.

"Whilst Ares-I uses some similar components to the HLV, its flight environment and flight profile are sufficiently different that those components will be operating under very different stresses and requirements. One could argue that Ares-I-X tests of those components would be mostly-worthless as you would have to repeat the tests on the HLV configuration to get any worthwhile data on how they perform in that specific environment."

That's an overly simplistic analysis of flight testing. You don't have to fly in the exact same physical configuration and the exact same flight profile in order to get valid data. Much data can be gathered which helps validate your models and assumptions regarding the systems performance. Your statement regarding the worthlessness of the test flights only hold's true if these were test flights to certify hardware. They're not so whether the flight test are worthwhile or not will depend greatly on their objectives and how they are structured. Without that information no one can say whether these test flights are worthless or not.

But at what cost? Going green isn't a no impact choice. At what point does it make sense to accept some level of pollution for the benefits the activity provides? What econcomic price is worth paying to reduce your emissions?

The problem is that most of the loudest voices arguing about environmental issues aren't intrested in reasonable, cost effective solutions, they are interested in gaining power for themselves and the ability to tell the rest of us how to live our lives.

A clear link has been made between perchlorate, produced in the manufacture of solid rocket motors, and stunted brain development, as well as thyroid deficiency, which has the potential harm to developing fetuses.

The fact that it's effecting mothers and their children means the opposition to its use is use only going to grow. The Obama administration is attempting to keep up with the curve of the public's desire to restrict the use of perchlorate.

> If we cannot afford that, then we are NEVER going to have a heavy lift. Bolden may believe we will get a LOX/Kerosene first stage, and that would be a valid argument. But don't use affordability as your argument because that test flight program will be as much as Nelson's proposal and probably more.

Delta IV heavy needs RS-68a to be heavy lift. Atlas V triple body will be heavy lift. Falcon 9 triple body will be heavy lift. Nobody is paying for this stuff because nobody cares about heavy lift. NASA put the moon lander off until 2030, and you think they need heavy lift? They have nothing heavy to lift! Delta IV heavy is dressed up and ready to go. But it has no date.

This isn't about getting heavy lift. Heavy lift is available. This is about money and jobs. Augustine said there is no money to waste on Ares I. Period.

There are extremists on both sides and they don't make dealing with the issue any easier. Our choices need to be based on reality, not ideology.

American industry has demonstrated time and time again that it possesses the innovation necessary to create environmentally acceptable alternatives to dangerously polluting technologies and to do so in economically viable ways.

We're Americans, dammit. We can solve any problem we put our minds to and make a buck while we're at it. The only force that resists that are those who are too afraid to let go of old ways of doing things.

Thank you, thank you, thank you.
Finally, some sanity.

In particular, why should NASA, a $19B agency,
be subsidizing the requirements of DOD, a $600+ billion department.

If national security requires large segmented solid rocket motors -- and it DOES NOT -- then DOD can pay for it. Not NASA. Not Human Spaceflight.

Why Senator Nelson wants NASA to sacrifice new jobs in Florida to subsidize DOD in Utah completely escapes me.

But then I never worked in the Senate... only the House side.

@PFHarlock

Unfortunately, the "we are Americans, damn it" logic is not an assurance of success anymore. Much of our past achievements following WWII started with importing a highly skilled technical work force, a work force that we don't welcome as much anymore and whose opportunities in their native countries and elsewhere have increased. American technical workforce then picked up internally, to great benefits to our society with lasting benefits, but it has been in the decline ever since for at least the last few decades. There is a lot of things we do well, experience, and expertise, but success is not guaranteed just because "we are Americans" anymore in a more highly competitive world.

I'm fully aware of the situation, Zack, and it's up to all of to reverse it. It's all a matter of policy and policies can be changed.

With the overwhelming existing and potential industrial might of China and India, innovation is our best hope for economic security and to maintain a modicum of our position of global leadership. Only a resignation to the belief that our best days are behind us will will make that belief come true.

I've traveled pretty extensively around the world (and have lived in Japan and China for years at a time) and I was pleasantly surprised by something; There is no workforce on Earth that approaches us in capability and productivity. We expect more from ourselves and our country, because we're Americans, dammit. :) Our culture really is something special. The biggest problem we're having is remembering and appreciating that fact.

Relevant?

ADVISORY BOARD OF DIRECTORS
For
The Haines Centre for Strategic Management

Former Board Members serving the Obama Administration

4.Admiral Dennis C. Blair, USN, Ret.—Omar Bradley Chair of Strategic Leadership, Army War College, Former Commander, US Pacific Command, Rhodes Scholar, White House Fellow and graduate, US Naval Academy, with the Legendary Leadership Class of 1968.
Currently he is the Director of National Intelligence.

5.Major General Charles Bolden—USMC, Ret., Member Astronaut Hall of Fame, graduate, US Naval Academy, with the Legendary Leadership Class of 1968.
Currently nominated as NASA Administrator.

http://www.hainescentre.com/advisory-board.html

RC,

You make my point for me. There is NO heavy lift in this plan and we don't need it until 2030. Which means HSF and manned exploration BEO is dead with Obama's "plan". My point was that if we cannot afford Ares I test flights then we cannot afford heavy lift. All of the upgrades that you mention take money. Where will that come from? ULA and SpaceX will not be developing heavy lift without NASA $$$. So Obama and the liberal wing of the democrat party get want they have wanted since LBJ...the end of manned spaceflight so we can use the money here on Earth.

Hate to say this, but you need to stop drinking the Obama Kool-Ade. He has no plan. He has no timetable. Fortunately for America, he also has no hope that this gets through Congress. You got to love co-equal branches of government. Boy those founding fathers sure knew what they were doing.

No, we don't need "green" rockets. Sheesh, enough with the red (green?) herrings. Ares needs to die because it keeps the worst feature of Shuttle (solid rocket boosters) and abandons the best features of Shuttle (parallel staging and at least partial reusability).

The Air Force is taking a far better approach with its plans to demonstrate a fly-back booster:

http://news.discovery.com/space/air-force-reusable-rockets.html

There's no limit to how large this could be. Parallel staging (all engines running before liftoff) and reusability greatly improve reliability and reduce operating costs. If NASA really wants to advance the state of the art with the goal of reducing costs they should start with a liquid fueled flyback booster and work on a vertical-landing orbiter with altitude-compensating engines.

> There is NO heavy lift in this plan

Wrong

> and we don't need it until 2030.

Wrong

> Which means HSF and manned exploration BEO is dead with Obama's "plan".

Wrong

> Obama and the liberal wing of the democrat party get want they have wanted since LBJ...

Wrong

> the end of manned spaceflight so we can use the money here on Earth.

Wrong

> He has no plan.

Wrong

> He has no timetable.

Wrong

> he also has no hope that this gets through Congress.

Wrong

And let me guess, you can't be convinced otherwise. Sorry, just enjoy the show I guess.

The big problem is not that there are slight differences between the two vehicles' envelopes and environments. There are big differences.

A second big problem is that you could spend essentially the same amount of money on the 1-X tests on tests using the actual HLV configuration and get the same amount of relevant data, or even more, back.

The A-Com Report teaches us that NASA must spend smart rather than spend big. All I'm saying is that further Ares-I-X flights, if you are not going to develop the Stick, is a waste of money that the agency doesn't have.

Apparently you forgot the second part of that reference:
"Still, the expected impact of spaceflight pales in comparison with the carbon footprint of a commercial airport. Los Angeles International Airport has carbon dioxide emissions of nearly 19,000 tons a month ... and the 33,000 airplanes that fly in and out of the airport each month emit about 800,000 tons of carbon dioxide."
Source(s):
"Discover" magazine, December 2007 special issue, page 21, "A Spaceport for Tree Huggers".

And think about that first statement- SRBs put out same pollution as a weekend in New York City. Hmm, 2 days of New York = one space shuttle launch. Given that there are approximately 365 days a year, you would have to launch 182 shuttles a year to equal the pollution of JUST ONE CITY. Also, take a look at the numbers for airports.

Please, when you clip a quote from a source, please keep the whole context. And when you spew numbers out there on pollution from solids, keep it in perspective that not all liquids are the ubiquitous Lox/LH2.

He said he couldn't afford Ares I which is about $30 billion through 2015. Ares 1-X was about $400 million for an existing 4-segment SRB with some plywood and ballast on top. It had a limited amount of people working on it and it had minimal engineering rigor used in the documentation and processes such that what was accomplished is probably not sufficient to count towards certification, something CxP management has no clue about.

Further test flights of Ares I will include increasingly higher fidelity flight hardware such as upper stage and J-2X and huge amounts of people. This will carry enormous costs. This money would be better spent on a sustainable rocket development program with a more sensible architecture. Ares I doesn't make any engineering or project management sense. Unfortunately, those in charge of it are too inexperienced and incompetent to realize this fact.