Ares 1X

[Moonwalker]

Forget about the article! Dig the talkbacks! They all rock! Interesting, intriguing  (and civilized) debate.

/Admin

Obama clearly indicated that he is not planning to support NASA to the degree as it was planned during the Bush administration.

Don't forget the Congress. Many members and officials think that NASA has to be supported. Obama knows that he has to consider and take a decision for future manned space flight anyway sooner or later. And he certainly won't decide to just walk away from it. He might decide to move the goals "just" further into the future.

Luckily the Shuttle flights are going to end anyway. This gives NASA more money for Ares I. I think that if NASA returns to the Moon or not, Ares I or something similar will be build anyway within the next years. If the future is not about the Moon, it will be about the ISS and a replacement of the ISS (but that's still the most unlikeliest scenarios yet).

The future of manned space flight is not dark on the whole. It is just as usual as always: uncertainty regarding how the outcome of decisions will look like.

[davidrobinsonjr]

In Germany we have a saying: History doesn't repeat itself, but occasionally it is alike. Too bad it doesn't rhyme in English. In German it sounds very nice

Moonwalker is 100% correct. The Admistration is not going to cancel anything. Every manned program in history has had the same problems. How long would it have taken to get to Apollo if Eisenhower had had his way? And so what if Ares is Apollo on steroids? I have worked in aviation for over 25 years. For any aircraft to succede it needs to be safe,reliable and cost effective. As great a feat as the shuttle is, it is none of these. Ares looks to be at least the first two by orders of magnitude. The shuttle was way ahead of its time. We will see something like it again. Probably not in our life time, but sometime.

[Moonwalker]

If not cost effective, I think that Ares I at least is going to become what Soyuz is like: a reliable workhorse for many decades and less complex and time consuming like the Space Shuttle, although the Space Shuttle is the finest flying machine humans have ever build for now.

NASA is the flagship of the USA, beside Boeing and others. But NASA is the biggest i.e. the most amazing one I guess. It's the symbol of the power, the will, the capability and spirit of a truly great nation. Almost everybody in the world knows what those 4 letters, NASA, stand for. Well, maybe not the words behind the letters but the meaning of what NASA does. Only a fool would walk away from NASA / manned space flight and give up the leading role of space achievements. Obama might not be a manned space flight enthusiast. But he also is not such a fool. Plus he has lots of consultants who actually make him decide things. And the Congress will be there for required votes (Constellation and Ares has huge support since it's also about jobs here and there). I bet my last cents that the government won't walk away from NASA. They'll fund it. Possibly not at the highest levels like initially planned by the Bush administration, but NASA will get the money to get things working again once the Shuttle rests in muesums.

And going to the Moon just is the next step after Ares I. Maybe not in 2020 but 2025. Who cares? Come on. I'm lucky to at least witness manned Moon landings in my life time since I was sadly born after the Apollo era. It doesn't matter if it takes place a few years later. The important thing is that is takes place at all sooner or later.

[Admin]

Ares option far from finalized:

http://www.orlandosentinel.com/news/local/os-nasa-rocket-alternatives-20091112,0,4497977.story

Don't forget to answer the poll at the left of the article and watch the poll results. Quite interesting.

/Admin

[bradleyjs]

/Admin, thanks that's a great Poll -=- unfortunately I wanted to select at least 2 options.

[Cthulhus]

Thanks Admin for this link, I choosed the "Go international" choice

Keep the Shuttle,
Keep the ISS access
and Get Moon and Mars

[gablau]

The future of manned space flight is not dark on the whole.

Unfortunately it is. I am old enough to witness the Moon landing, and I was floored. Heck, I am old enough that I witnessed the Mercury and Gemini programs, and I am old enough that I was around when Gagarin went up. And of course the first Space Shuttle launch. And the very fact that I am writing this post HERE, quite obviously indicate that I am a "fan" (and bought SSM 2007, and bought the 1992 Space Shuttle Simulator by Virgin).

BUT.....I am also old enough (and informed enough) to realize that the manned space program will not be able to get out of Earth orbit with any degree of seriousness and real goal without some major invention in propulsion technology and/or finding a new law of physics, which can either overcome gravity and/or enables mankind to build space vehicles with much, MUCH higher speed and/or somehow can cross distances totally differently from what we know currently (worm hole?). Why?

Well.....we maybe able to land and bring back 2,3,5,10 people to the Moon, but right now the questions is: WHY? What is the point? To bring back a few more pounds of rock? Surely, that is not enough. A Moon base? Why? How? Look how many years it takes to put together such an entity in earth orbit (ISS). Compare the size of items the shuttle could carry with what the Constellation program capsule will be able to carry. Who are we kidding with a Moon base. And still, why?

Mars? With what? Say, we do land something or somebody. Where is the technology to come back? The Mars has less gravity than the Earth, but it isn't Moon either from where they can just "fart up" the little lander to orbit. But let's say technology overcomes that somehow. The question remains: why? We already know that the Mars pretty much a "dead planet".

What is the next stop? Surely not the gas giants. Out of the zillions of other solar systems the nearest one is more than four light years away. Good for sci-fi stories, but we are unknown amount of time away to travel there. Heck, we don't even know whether it has planets around it. So, exactly what is/are the realistic goals of the current space research besides putting satellites around Earth orbit?

Yes, yes, I know, 120 years ago people couldn't imagine airplanes, computers and many other things, but in order to invent those, there were no laws of physics they knew, which they had to overcome. They just had to sort of fit their knowledge into the laws of physics. Right now we would have to "screw with" gravity, distance and time. Any genius' out there?

[bjbeard]

Awesome aerial video of the launch!

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=A4l2wxbMEQg&feature=sub

You can clearly see the separation, and I saw no contact between the upper and lower stages. Also it shows the parachute deployment and you can see one parachute failing. Amazing video!

That was great!!! Thanks for the link!!!

On the Ares 1-Y mission. When it went into the launch manifest, it was simply placeholder for a possible test flight. In an interview, in the Orlando Sentinel I think, the NASA PR person said that the objectives of i-Y was now able to be completed in other test programs and the launch was not needed. The money saved from this flight cancellation could be used to see that the next time an Ares rocket rolls out to LC39 it will be a fully operational rocket, not just a quasi-boilerplate.

As far as my past passionate statements, I have accepted that Ares is the program for our future. I am not happy with it, but is that not what compromise is? Something no one is happy about, but can at least agree on?

I can only hope that other programs (ESA, NASDA/JAXA) can get a manned vehicle flying soon. I really ticks me off that China beat Europe and Japan in the manned vehicle race...

I had a major debate last night, in fact the entire room got animated and involved. I thought I was about to get lynched...
Why?

I was the only space exploration proponent in the room. It took me two hours just to get them beyond the moron-kneejerking reactions and actually critically think about space flight. But i did it!

gablau's post here is pretty indicative of what was said. Why?

I was grasping for straws until I remembered a calculation I had made last month. These folks didn't or couldn't grasp the speeds people were traveling out yonder. To drive to the moon at a rate of 11 hours a day at 60 miles per hour, it takes 1 year, 1 month, 2 days, 23 minutes to get there. Apollo flights took just 3 days, 3 hours, 49 minutes!

The room went silent as this sank in. Apparently none or few of these people had any idea what went on in space flight. One of them said "So that means out of 14 days of vacation, I could spend about 8 of them on the moon?"

"Yep."

The discussion got interesting after that, but fell apart when they realised that the possibility of having a lunar vacation in their lifetimes was somewhere between ziclh and nada.

Until we can get the average Joe and Jane there, even for just a vacation, we will be in the minority. That thought just hurt more than loosing the shuttle and ISS. So I learned something too.  

[Moonwalker]

I had a major debate last night, in fact the entire room got animated and involved. I thought I was about to get lynched...
Why?

I was the only space exploration proponent in the room. It took me two hours just to get them beyond the moron-kneejerking reactions and actually critically think about space flight. But i did it!

There is one valid argument that explains pretty short but exactly why space flight is mandatory:

Space flight is the seal of approval for the technological progress of a nation and humankind.

Thomas Reiter, ESA

Until we can get the average Joe and Jane there, even for just a vacation, we will be in the minority. That thought just hurt more than loosing the shuttle and ISS. So I learned something too.

Before space flight becomes commercial like aviation, we have to develope economical and ecofriendly Concorde replacements, to make flying at twice the speed of sound daily routine and replace the "old" Mach ~0.8 commercial elephants. But even that relatively small goal, compared to commercial space flight, is still decades away and that 32 years after Concorde entered service and 6 years after its retirement.

I hope that people don't understand me wrong, but since the Cold War is over, technological milestones in aviation and space flight have slowed down. No manned Moon landing programs, less than ever manned flights to Mars, no commercial supersonic travel. Instead we strugle with money and STS remains, and continue to build big and fat elephants like the A380 to cross the oceans still within several hours instead to half the flying times...

It's a real shame that politics don't fund technological human progress these days in a way they did in the 1960's and 70's.

[FAAmecanic]

I dont know about you guys...but the more I read about the Constellation/Ares program, the more I feel we are taking a step backwards.

I know its all about money.  And that the STS program cost is way more then they estimated.  But we are going from something that can insert into LEO, capture satellites, repair them, launch them, re-launch them, supply the ISS, turn around and LAND on earth!  To something that is just a touch above (technology wise) the Apollo capsule.

Im just mad I didnt take my best friend from college up on his offer to come to his work.  You see...he is the lead simulator trainer in Houston for the STS program (we both graduated from Embry Riddle Aeronautical Univ together).  I was supposed to go see him in Apr, and fly the sim     He now has a job with another company starting next month  

[Moonwalker]

I dont know about you guys...but the more I read about the Constellation/Ares program, the more I feel we are taking a step backwards.

In terms of the Shuttle's capabilities we indeed go back.

But, we have to consider that there is a huge difference between the goals of the manned space program of the 1960's, the late 1970's until 1990's and these days. Back in the early 1970's NASA knew that Apollo-budget is going to be cut dramatically and that future manned exploration beyond low earth orbit wouldn't be possible for some time (many left NASA disappointedly like even Wernher von Braun). So they had to look for something that can be operated based on low earth orbit mission profiles. And they came up with the Shuttle concept. The only fact that the Shuttle was supported by the congress was its military capabilites (launch from Vandenberg Air Force Base, carrying up satellites and bring them back) and the promise to fly a few hundred times until the year 2000 (~600 times) and being "profitable". Actually neither of those purposes did the Shuttle fulfil beside carrying satellites into orbit and to build a space station, and that at the last moment under unusual circumstances (see below).

These days NASA has a different goal once again: return to the Moon and go beyond. For such purposes the Space Shuttle is plainly "useless". Plus the Shuttle eats up a huge pile of money and operates under unusual conditions which a lot of people don't seem to consider: it flies with an existing risky design flaw that already caused one Shuttle to be lost. The design flaw isn't fixable but just researchable by the OBSS-based observation and backflip maneuver. The only reason the Shuttle still flies is the commitment of ISS assembling. Otherwise the Shuttle would have been history already after STS-107, as the investigation clearly suggested to stop Shuttle flights and look for alternatives.

In terms of the Shuttle's design flaw and NASA's new goal of returning to the Moon it is NASA's wisest decision to head for Orion. Orion will offer missions within and beond low earth orbit. A capsule concept still is the best for manned space flight. That's why Russia is going along with it for decades and continues to do so with an updated version of Soyuz in the future. The only issue for NASA at the moment is whether they use Ares or any different launch vehicle.

So in terms of the Shuttle's capabilities we go back, but in terms of going to the Moon and beyond we finally gain chances after 34 years again. Operating the Shuttle any further doesn't offer any progress of returning to deep space.

[FAAmecanic]

carrying up satellites and bring them back) and the promise to fly a few hundred times until the year 2000 (~600 times) and being "profitable". Actually neither of those purposes did the Shuttle fulfil beside carrying satellites into orbit and to build a space station, and that at the last moment under unusual circumstances (see below).

Thats kind of what I was alluding to in my cost statement above.  You hit the nail on the head. STS was supposed save money and all it has done is cost in both money and lives.

I still think a reusable LEO type vehicle being available via Private firms is in the very near future.  The X-Prize proved that concept.

So that now leaves NASA to concentrate on exploration outside of LEO... and I like you, find that exciting.  But until our economic situation stabilizes ...I dont see the USA (or EU) having the money to invest in a return to the moon, let alone Mars.  That is also stated in the same report you refer too when you said the STS program needs to be terminated (the Augustine Panel Report). 

[Moonwalker]

So that now leaves NASA to concentrate on exploration outside of LEO... and I like you, find that exciting.  But until our economic situation stabilizes ...I dont see the USA (or EU) having the money to invest in a return to the moon, let alone Mars.  That is also stated in the same report you refer too when you said the STS program needs to be terminated (the Augustine Panel Report).  

Oh, I should have mentioned that I wasn't referring to the Augustine Report, but to the Columbia Accident Investigation Board conclusions. In 2003 the Columbia Accident Investigation Board already concluded to end the Shuttle program. The report luckily was disillusioning enough to finally force the government to announce something else (Constellation as a result):

"Because of the risks inherent in the original design of the Space Shuttle, because that design was based in many aspects on now-obsolete technologies, and because the Shuttle is now an aging system but still developmental in character, it is in the nation's interest to replace the Shuttle as soon as possible as the primary means for transporting humans to and from Earth orbit".

Columbia Accident Investigation Board Volume 1 (page 210/211)


As for the economcial situation:

people should be aware that the USA acutally is spending much more money for social programs than for space flight for example (which is good of course), and not a famous but a vaild argument: tons of money for war (but actually not for "defense", which is a different story...). The USA, like Europe as well, could easily fund space flight at a much higher level even these days. Just like they spend 100's times more money, billions of Euros and Dollars, to support banks so that they can go continue predator-capitalism. Nothing has changed. We just live on a governmental-borrowed "guarantee", which the majority of normal people just did not realize yet. But the next financial crash likely will be a real crash. And maybe that wouldn't be too bad to finally change thinking, morals and principles which did not happen yet. Politicians and economic people have learned nothing (and I think they don't wan't or simply can't). But that's again a different story...

Anyway, the majority of politicians sadly has different goals in mind than just manned space flight. Not enough money just is an argument not to spend money for something people don't want to spend money for anyway. No matter the economical situation, you'll always here the "we don't have the money"-argument. More than ever these days without a Cold War going on. But if there would be an "evil Russian commy" pointing something technologically advanced into the sky, people would wonder how much money would flow into the aviation and space flight industries on both sides of the Atlantic Ocean

[FAAmecanic]

I just find it humorous when people say "What does spending billions on space programs give us" when arguing.

Humm...we could start with LEDs (thanks to Apollo..LEDs were thought to be impossible until done for Apollo), GPS, reliable long distance phone service, and a ton of other advances in technology that would not have been possible any other way.

I guess you all are right..... the Ares/Constellation program is a affordable program to continue our exploration of space (at least in earth orbit).  And the big bottom line is it should be MUCH safer for your astronauts.

[Greggy_D]

I just find it humorous when people say "What does spending billions on space programs give us" when arguing.

I always reply, "That damn computer you just typed your post on."