Interesting info comparing the two spacecraft/missions.

http://news.yahoo.com/s/space/20080...centurymoonshot

__________________
Scott D. Hansen
Ye Olde Rocket Shoppe - Your One Stop BAR Shoppe!
Ye Olde Rocket Plans - OOP Rocket Plans From 38 Companies!
Ye Olde Rocket Forum
WOOSH NAR Section #558

Sounds good but reality may turn out somewhat differently... From what I've been reading over at http://forum.nasaspaceflight.com/index.php?board=5 both Ares I and Ares V have been running into brick walls technologically and the 'fixes' are going to push the development and operating expenses into the 'completely unaffordable/unsustainable' region or the 'so expensive it's cancelled outright' region. From what I've read of Ares V projections, Shuttle flights look to be a financial bargain, rediculously expensive as they are... and Ares I is catching up fast in that department. Even Ares I's vaunted safety gains over shuttle are diminshing as technical fixes and weight reductions reduce the redundancy and operational safety of the vehicle while increasing it's complexity and the number of things that can go wrong...

I hope for the best, as I'd really like to see a moon landing before I'm dead, but I'm not holding my breath, especially as our economy falters and costs/timelines on these projects escalate... OL JR

__________________
The X-87B Cruise Basselope-- THE Ultimate Weapon in the arsenal of Homeland Security and only $52 million per round!

Why don't they just bring back the tried-n'-true Saturn V with a modern electronics/computer package instead of trying to re-engineer what has ALREADY been done in a span of about 7 years (1962 to 1969) ?
Typical excess bureaucracy, red tape, and OVER emphasis on mamby-pamby SAFETY !
This is JUST PLAIN DUMB, not to mention the supposed new boosters could not be any uglier even if they were designed to be ugly.

__________________
When in doubt, WHACK the GAS and DITCH the brake !!!

Yes, there is such a thing as NORMAL, if you have to ask what is "NORMAL" , you probably aren't !
Failure may not be an OPTION, but it is ALWAYS a POSSIBILITY.
ALL systems are GO for MAYHEM, CHAOS, and HAVOC !

Again, check out nasaspaceflight.com :
Why can't we build the SaturnV again? plus others...NSF is very valuable resource.

__________________
David Stribling
NAR 18402 SR
But it is rocket science!
Get yer Barrowmans here

Basically they're trying to 'reuse' as much shuttle stuff as possible... but they have already run into so many technical roadblocks ALREADY and STILL CAN'T GET THE JOB DONE that they are basically reusing NOTHING of the already existing shuttle hardware... and the stuff gets more divergent by the day, eliminating the 'commonality' and 'not having to redesign everything' that was supposed to make this plan 'affordable' in the first place...

For instance, the 4 segment shuttle booster will be a museum piece after the last shuttle flight-- the 5 segment boosters for Ares I have very little in common, and are essentially new equipment. The performance margin is SO thin there has been talk of making them either 1) non-reusable, saving weight by deleting the recovery equipment, since recovery from the height and speed of the booster burnout is presenting some difficulty in recovery/reuse feasibility anyway, in which case we'd eventually run out of the existing steel shuttle casings anyway once they're all burned up and on the ocean floor, or 2) swiching to spiral-wound filament casings like those used for ICBM's and SLBM solid rocket motor casings.. which requires an entirely new design, fabrictaion, and certification process... BIG $$$! Ares V has already gone through a slew of 'redesigns' while 'real' work on it hasn't even really begun yet-- the back of the envelope figures are already not panning out as hoped. It's gone from 5 to 6 RS-68 LOX/LH2 engines and may require 7, which is already causing myriad problems trying to mount that many engines under the booster core and get workable base heating/gas flow plume impingement with that many rocket engines firing between 2 solid rocket motors, and the 5 segment boosters used for Ares I aren't powerful enough, so 5.5 segment boosters will be required AT A MINIMUM, maybe 6 segment boosters, again a completely new design, fabrication, and certification process with no commonality with Ares I or shuttle. Even with these 'fixes' there is STILL a performance shortfall. All this added complexity is pushing costs thru the roof and will make Ares V launches at least DOUBLE the cost of a shuttle launch, which is already the most expensive launcher ever and basically unaffordable.

From the performance standpoint, from what I've read on NSF, the main problems seem to be that 1) a single solid rocket motor makes a LOUSY first stage, due to thrust oscillation/motor buzz effects that don't bother us in model rocketry but certainly DO at the scale of these beasts 2) the SRB, even adding another segment or two, is basically undersized for the job it has to do... it needs a longer duration and less thrust to take some of the burden off the second stage of Ares I so it can do it's job efficiently within the limitations of the redesigned J-2X engine, 3)POGO and other liquid fuelled rocket problems are a LOT easier to solve than solid rocket motor thrust oscillaitions/motor buzz, 4)the US doesn't even make a Kerosene/LOX rocket motor anymore, ala F-1, F-1A type, which is best suited to the first stage's job compared to solid rocket motors, and ESPECIALLY to hydrogen fuelled first stages which have to be absolutely rediculously ENORMOUS to contain enough liquid hydrogen to do the job, which requires more thrust, which requires more/bigger engines. which requires more fuel... etc... self defeating... 5) the Ares V is basically trying to do a three stage rocket's job with TWO stages, and a couple strap-on boosters. The staging points and possible trajectories with the available rocket motor performance is all suboptimal, the SRM's have a low specific impulse for their size and weight compared to Kerolox engines, and the liquid hydrogen fuelled core stage is too big and heavy hauling all that empty tankage past SRB seperation that would have been shed as the first stage on Saturn V, which hurts performance. RS-68 LH2 engines, while cheap, are relatively low specific impulse wise, compared to Space Shuttle Main Engines, which have high specific impulse and better performance but are breathtakingly expensive and no longer made.

The BEST thing would be to toss the whole deal on Ares I and V and just start with a clean sheet design. Reengineer the F-1A for modern tooling/manufacture and use that as the baseline for the program, perhaps with existing shuttle 4 segment boosters if beneficial. For some reason we can magically recreate the J-2 rocket motor in updated form but the F-1 or F-1A is completely impossible... RUBBISH!!!! Use a 33 foot diameter kerolox fuelled first stage like Saturn V, perhaps with shuttle SRB's if beenficial, with a LH2 powered second stage lifting an EDS ALMOST to orbit, minimizing residual mass thru TLI which would increase efficiency and performance. Design a simple two stage rocket for the Orion crew vehicle, using either two existing off the shelf RS-68 engines in the first stage and a single J-2X in the second stage, or a single F1 or F1A kerosene engine first stage with a J-2 second stage. Basically an updated version of a Titan II, or a greatly simplified/cheaper version of Saturn IB. Problem is, since NASA hasn't worked on a shuttle replacement in all this time, we need it NOW and we don't have a lot of time to wait for new development, and we still have to get to ISS and the Russians don't look that friendly anymore... so probably the best short term fix is to manrate the Delta IV heavy and develop a new upperstage so it can launch Ares I to ISS. A simplified single core dual engine LH2 or single engine Kerolox first stage with a LH2 upperstage would still probably be the best bet longterm.

Essentially, a cleansheet design copying Saturn V and Saturn IB (though I'd copy the design elements of Titan II for an Orion launcher, only using Kerosene or LH2 lower stage and an LH2 single engine upper stage rather than the complicated arrangement of Saturn IB)
Never gonna happen though-- too much politcal bacon in the skillet for it to ever happen... OL JR

__________________
The X-87B Cruise Basselope-- THE Ultimate Weapon in the arsenal of Homeland Security and only $52 million per round!

Basically, I've been reading NSF for two years now, and the amazing thing that I've learned when you condense it all down is that,

VON BRAUN GOT IT RIGHT THE FIRST TIME!!!

Here were these guys, doing it ALL for the first time, because NOBODY HAD EVER DONE IT BEFORE, everything pretty well new and untried, and they did the math and solved the hard problems and GOT THE RIGHT ANSWER. Friggin' huge Kerolox first stage engines, because their specific impulse is so much better than solid rockets (even though Thiokol was lobbying for solids even back then) which get the thing off the pad and moving out of the lower atmosphere, and can be moved to the launch pad with their fuel tanks empty, which a solid rocket motor cannot do, and which is a KILLER for Ares V already. High efficiency LH2 engines for the second stage, doing most of the work to get the stack to orbital speed with higher efficiency than kerosene could, but using a cluster of engines to get the necessary thrust, followed by a single engine LH2 high efficiency third stage to finish getting to orbit and push the stack on out to the moon. If you look at the mass/propulsion breakdowns, the Saturn V was just about as optimal as you could get. It was upgradeable and had perfomance margins that proved ABSOLUTELY NECESSARY to success later on as the mass of the Apollo CSM and LM proved to be much greater than originally anticipated, unlike ARES I and V which outright cannot meet the most optimistic projections of the final weight of the spacecraft to be sent to the moon, RIGHT NOW!!!

So, here we are, 50 years later, and we can't even do what they did back then with slide rules and punchcards... VERY sad... But, the big companies are making a fortune, and will even if the thing never flies or even gets built... and we wonder why we're in trouble??? JMHO! OL JR

__________________
The X-87B Cruise Basselope-- THE Ultimate Weapon in the arsenal of Homeland Security and only $52 million per round!

I worked at NASA from 1984 to 1987 in Space Shuttle Operations at JSC. That was also when they began work on the ISS although most folks don't seem to remember that. In Reagan's 1984 State of the Union Address he did the worn-out build an orbiting space station, yadda, yadda, in ten years schtick. Which I found quite exciting at the time, although the ten years bit was a bit trite.

So let's see, when did the ISS go operational? Blink, blink. Something like 20 years later.

So when I started at NASA in May of 1984 they were beginning the very early work on the space station. Did they start by defining the mission statement/requirements and then create a conceptual design using a small team? After which they could create teams to flesh out each of the components identified in the conceptual design?

Nope. They created an organizational chart for all the groups they thought they might possibly need, for this undefined thing called "space station" and proceeded to fill the chairs called for by the organizational chart--without ever developing any clear statement of what the space station was going to do or be.

In other words they hired the crew before they really knew what the job was. And the design floundered around for the next fifteen years while they tried to figure out what the heck they were building.

I have no reason to believe that NASA has become any smarter as an institution since that time. Therefore difficulties in designing the next generation of vehicles, while tragic is not surprising.

Why tragic? I believe that mankind's expansion of his living domain into space is important for a variety of reasons. And I am certain that can never happen at today's prices. The space shuttle costs about $10,000 / lb to lift stuff into low earth orbit. You could literally fill the payload bay to capacity with lead, take it into orbit, magically convert it to gold, return to Earth and still lose money.

Until launch costs get down into the hundreds of dollars per pound range, we're not going to have a viable space program.

Sure, you can try to export starter industry into space and boot-strap from there, but at today's prices it's too expensive to even do that. We can't afford the experiments to learn how to do those things. Plus the closest source of native materials is the moon and we can't even get there.

Sigh. When I left NASA I hoped they would be fixed some day. Still not that day.

so from a non-space-expert (ie. me), do the private firms stand a chance of landing some of these bigger opportunities if they continue to succeed with LEO payload launches. Like SpaceX, etc?

One possible benefit would be the leadership clarity and lack of bureaucracy... Any thoughts?

That's one of the reasons the Russians have been launching the same rocket for 50 years. It works.

In reply, from my point of view... I don't think that private space is going to do a whole lot in the short term beyond satellite launches. Figuring out how to do it cheaper bootstrapped the European Space program (Ariane was much cheaper than Shuttle, or even US expendable rockets) and has also bootstrapped the Chinese program and, since the collapse of the Soviet Union, in large part kept the Russian program going.

Personally I see this 'space tourism' thing as a bit of a fad for the ultra-rich, kinda like barnstorming was for the adventursome and daredevils back in the day... but the only difference being, a LOT of ultra-rich are lining up for rides and making it look really lucrative, but after a couple space tourist accidents happen because of cutting edge technology going wrong, it'll taper off to a very few and the rest will go back to sailing yachts... after all being ultra-rich doesn't help you much if you're dead... And the technology for manned flight is an order of magnitude more difficult than even the amazing feat by SpaceX reaching orbit... even the 'Big Two" (USA, USSR) had to make a serious leap in technology between 57 and 61 to accomplish a safe MANNED mission. I don't see private space moving anywhere near that quickly, despite the hype. Look how long private space companies have been trying to fly from the ground to orbit on their own booster, and have JUST achieved it! Manned flight is a whole other order of magnitude harder. I think most of the space tourism/space hotel stuff is just more pie in the sky hype, at least for the next 20 years or so...

Gus makes an EXTREMELY good point! The Russians have taken a terribly practical view of all this... they're using a booster which first orbitied a payload in 1957, FIFTY ONE YEARS AGO!!! It's not optimal, it's not sexy, and it's definitely not high-tech, BUT IT WORKS AND IT'S CHEAP AND RELIABLE (relatively speaking). NASA needs to learn that lesson, and unfortunately, that is the one lesson they have NEVER learned, and with the pork and political posturing involved likely never will. I've always marveled at how the Russians fly to space in a plain Jane old VW Beetle, (which was essentially unchanged from when it was first designed for Hitler by Ferdinand Porsche in the 30's, just continually tweaked and slightly upgraded) and they take this old Beetle and toss it every time, but in 50 years they've figured out how to make em cheap and make a few improvements and tweaks to the basic design along the way, while we fly to orbit in a Lamborghini Countach that we spend billions developing and testing and flying, and then have to take apart down to the last bolts and TOTALLY rebuild after every flight, expending COUNTLESS manhours and parts and labor to rebuild...

THAT'S why we'll never be able to see the cost of space come down, at least not from NASA's drawing boards... too much pork and too much money to be made by the contractors, to many votes to be won for politicians catering to voters in space related districts, etc. We need the equivalent of an appropriately upscaled and yet 'simple" (by today's standards) booster like a balloon structured Atlas or a Titan II... basically a new design using a minimalist modified balloon structure like Atlas along with it's LOX/Kerosene lower stage propulsion, in a simple straightforward two engine first stage, single engine upper stage design like Titan II. Ditch the hypergols for anything but manuevering, SPS propulsion, and go with a LH2 upperstage if it can be built cheaply enough to justify the performance gains. After all, the Russians have proven that LH2 isn't necessary for an orbital rocket, especially a minimalist one. EVERYTHING should be driven by safety first, and cost second, and performance thereafter, if you want an affordable booster. It has to be easy to build, easy to service and maintain, and cheap to produce. (cheap being a relative term) Of course it would require the US to develop a kerosene fuelled engine again, but if we can 'resurrect' J2, why would a new 'F-1' or 'F1A' be impossible?? RS-84 was fairly close to completion when it was mothballed and cancelled....

But NONE of these things are even being considered... Ares is going to make the breathtaking expense of shuttle flights look like a bargain by comparison, and that's why I personally give them less than a 10% chance of EVER being built. That's why I figure if I ever get to see a moon landing in my lifetime it will be by the Chinese and not the US... They're going to prove to themselves and the world that they can do it... that they have the technological prowess and organizational capability of doing it, to prove they're no longer 'backwards' or whatever... we're supposedly going, and the only constant sustaining and motivating factor I can see is we're trying to prove how much we can spend on workforce retention, fat contracts for aerospace contractors, expanding the NASA centers, and making the politicians happy by winning them happy highly paid aerospace voters in Florida, Alabama, Texas, and Utah (among others) to keep them elected. That ain't gonna get us there... JMHO! OL JR

__________________
The X-87B Cruise Basselope-- THE Ultimate Weapon in the arsenal of Homeland Security and only $52 million per round!