Ares a warthy sucessor to the space shuttle

[fwagner]

Is the Ares an worthy successor to the space shuttle?. I don't think so what do you think.

[HMSEndeavorreborn]

Not to the shuttle no, no launch vehicle will come close to its reusability and versatility.

Still it'll be good to see some Saturn esc launches when they first start sending the Ares into orbit

[fwagner]

Yes I agree with that but I think that ARES is A big step backward for NASA and a big waste of money for instance I scene a segment on NASA TV that they started testing the launch escape system for the capsule why not use the launch escape system from the Apollo which they knew it worked so why spend money on R and D for it. And why it takes 4+ years to get it to orbit its mostly made of off the shelf parts. Heck if we had the NASA back in the sixties like we do today we might just be getting to the moon and not revisiting it

[Moonwalker]

NASA's new Constellation program is going to be the biggest step of manned space exploration. It is the most important step after ending Apollo in 1975. It is a step forward for a steady stay on Moon as well as Mars.

The Space Shuttle was and still is a unique vehicle but it was not designed for anything beyond low earth orbit and long duration missions. It also did not bring us any closer back to the Moon and beyond. It is a requirement to go back to the capsule design to leave the low earth orbit again. Ares is going to do that job reliable and less expensive.

The difference between the development of the Apollo Command Module and Orion today is that back in the 1960's NASA was able to concentrate only to send humans to the Moon before Russia as fast as possible. They got all the money they needed. But today NASA has to operate the Space Shuttle, build, assemble and to operate the ISS while developing the new generation space craft. It doesn't seem so but what NASA does today is a lot more than they did in the 1960's. There is just not that much sensation within the media because most people are not interested in manned space flight anymore.

Anyway, Orion will be rather usefull to go back to the Moon and even to fly to Mars. It will be relatively safe (as far as manned space flight can be safe at all) and easy to use. Docking can be performed automatically and it can stay and operate unmanned in lunar orbit while the crew takes a trip to the lunar surface.

Also, the new lunar module called "Lunar Surface Access Module" (LSAM) will be a lot bigger than the old Apollo Lunar Module. It will have an ISS-like toilet aboard as well as an airlock. The duration of a lunar-stay will last about 7 days which is a lot. I can't wait for the retirement of the Space Shuttle to see new important events taking place finally after a brake of more than 3 decades...


PS: And of course I hope that the great development team of SSM would deliver us an Ares simulation just that much awesome as SSM... 


Here you can take a look inside Orion: http://de.youtube.com/watch?v=wlzytubpMiE

[desktopsimmer]

I don't like it as it a step backwards in take off and landings, however the computer will be better.

But, look at SS1, get NASA Orion budget behind that and you'll have a real cheap and resuable craft. The biggest draw back with the capsule landing is what if the landing does go to plan. NASA have already looking (or have) to abandon landings on solid earth and gone back to water landings, asking for trouble.

The X-38 could of been advanced, but I think this is another case of Cheap and Quicker politics rather than actual forward progression.

[marvx]

i do not fully agree. Maybe one reason for that step backward is, that the Capsule/rocket boosters system is much better secured during lauch, so that maybe a tragic ending mission like columbia wouldnt have occured.

Also does the ARES have a Launch escape system (LES) which contains a rocket, that allows separation of the command capsule and bring it back safley to earth, or to a safe orbit, if ARES in high enough

/Marvx

[desktopsimmer]

I agree with the fact it is safer to launch in a 'pure' stack, but to have a  SRB as the first stage, with no cut off, is a bad idea IMHO.

I hope NASA don't make the mistake with the seats and only rate them for wet landings. During the lead up to Apollo 7, Wally Schirra had serious concerns about what if the wind was blowing from the sea and a quick 'ejection' is needed.

[USA~Driver]

NASA wont live Columbia down until they retire the shuttle and that cant come fast enough for them. Having to inspect the vehicle multiple times during a mission to insure safety is not a viable long-term option.(there opin) I have no idea about ARES but NASA is ridding themselves of the Shuttle as of 2010 no matter what.

[Moonwalker]

I agree with the fact it is safer to launch in a 'pure' stack, but to have a  SRB as the first stage, with no cut off, is a bad idea IMHO.

For a first stage you don't need any cut off capability after lift off. What you need is a possibility to move the spacraft away from the launch vehicle. And that you get with a capsule design very well.

The STS stack consists of SRB's for the first stage too (the SSME's just deliver additional thrust on launch which is only 17%) without any cut off and even without any abort capability before separation. While Orion will have a launch escape system on top which makes an Ares launch & ascent a lot safer as a Space Shuttle launch & ascent on the whole. Almost no possible damage of the thermal protection system and abort capabilies all along the way from launch up until into orbit.

STS has proved that SRB's are rather reliable for manned space flight by the way. The o-ring problem which caused the Challenger accident was known but at that time NASA just did risk management. It was plain human error.

[asterix]

The o-ring problem which caused the Challenger accident was known but at that time NASA just did risk management. It was plain human error.

I have to disagree. In my opinion it was nothing but manslaughter.

You wouldn't ignore the advice of a car mechanic who said that your wheels are about to fall off then drive at top speed on the motorway / highway, that would be lunacy. Yet that's pretty much what happened with Challenger, only the crew had no input into the decision.

[desktopsimmer]

They've had issue on the o-ring before (STS-2, right SRB). They may of badly assessed the risk, not enough tests or bad communication of the problem. if they (Thiokol/NASA) ignored completely the risk, then there are grounds for some form of negligence.

I've get to get to the Challenger Incident in Mike Mullane's "Riding Rockets" (just read up to STS-41C). So it will be interesting to read his comments.

[desktopsimmer]

<Expletives>, Just reading the Golden age chapter and there have been many missions with eroded O-rings, pre challenger. With various warning from Thiokol, if one of those warning had got to astronaut's desk, things might of turned out differently

[Moonwalker]

It doesn't matter if we call it human error or manslaughter. SRB's still proved to be reliable for manned space flight if the NASA managament wouldn't have ignored the Thiokol SRB manuals and the engineers. But NASA has learned. There were more than 120 launches using SRB's. Ares will do so very well too and even better for sure without an o-ring problem.

"It turns very rapidly from grave to anger because, you discovered
there was growth negligence to launch that day. Just plain negligence.
We had all that data. We knew how bad everything was. We knew the
relationship with the o-rings and temperature."

Story Musgrave (STS-6, STS-51-F, STS-33, STS-44, STS-61, STS-80)

[Chris Bergin]

Ares will be lucky to survive the year. Certainly not 2009.

The design issues are dire and we're already seeing many of the tests being shut down, along with Orion's PDR being delayed a year (likely for a new replacement to be looked into for Ares I).

[Moonwalker]

Ares will be lucky to survive the year. Certainly not 2009.

The design issues are dire and we're already seeing many of the tests being shut down, along with Orion's PDR being delayed a year (likely for a new replacement to be looked into for Ares I).

Nothing something special or new. Development of a new system doesn't work well all along usually. It's always a real challenge and not just an easy progress like a lot of people seem to think.

The first Shuttle launch was delayed by 3 years. A lot of tests didn't work well which is actually good before sending somebody into space. There was a huge tile loss during tests. The main engines blew up during early tests and lot of other things didn't went very well too.

Ares just is on its beginning like the Shuttle and any other systems were once. Not to mention the early Redstone and Titan rockets which blew up one after another back in the early 60's

"The very first time I saw the Shuttle sitting on the back of a 747, I thought we have screwed up bad, this is never going to work"

Robert Crippen (STS-1, STS-7, STS-41-C, STS-41-G)