Community
On Orbit => Real NASA Space Shuttle Missions => Topic started by: bjbeard on July 24, 2009, 09:18:42 AM
-
I hear all these yapping heads on TV and Radio talking about how Orion is the replacement of the shuttle. Well it aint! Orion is the replacement for the Apollo spacecraft, not the space shuttle.
Want proof?
The shuttle is a delta-winged reusable spacecraft capable of carrying a maximum of 65,000lbs of cargo and 7 crew. Current safety constraints limit the cargo to about 55,000 lbs. It was deigned to conduct multi-role missions in low-earth orbit, primarily the construction and re-supply of the space station.
The Orion is a non-reusable conical shaped capsule. 4 crew and 500lbs of cargo. It was designed to be the vehicle to return to the moon in concert with the Artemis lander, and to serve as a crew transfer vehicle.
There is NO replacement for the shuttle. Some in NASA questioned the logic of the retirement. How can NASA repair or replace a module of the space station if needed? You cant launch them on a Delta IV or Atlas. The modules are too big for Atlas, and Delta would crush them during launch. In any case, there is no way to grapple them after the were lofted up. The RMS on the station is not designed for that type of use. SO what does NASA do? The guys in both Bush's and Obama's administration have avoided the whole topic.
The space shuttle was designed for a 50 year service life. Discovery is at the half way mark, Atlantis is one year behind, and Endeavor is only 18! With the confirmation of Ex-Shuttle astronaut Charlie Bolden to be the new NASA administrator, he has engaged in a full assault for the cancellation of the retirement plans. And it just might happen.
Project Constellation is on schedule for the Ares-1X test light, but everything else is behind schedule. There is still no clear consensus on what form the heavy lift booster will take, either the Ares-IV or -V. And the first test flight is already scheduled for 2015. Orion is still not yet in existence as a whole, and the TLI package and lander only exist in computers and desk models.
Prior to his departure former Administrator Dr. Griffin stated in a now infamous leaked e-mail that the Bush administration had made no viable plan for U.S. crews to participate in the International Space Station beyond 2011, and that OMB and OSTP are actually seeking shutting it down, and apparently along with it the whole of NASA! Russian policies toward the US are now causing US astronauts to be bumped from Soyuz missions. With the deterioration of relations between Russia and the US it appears that, politically speaking, US astronauts will no longer be allowed to fly in Russian vehicles in the near future.
One of the biggest arguments for the STS shutdown was the designs age, not the vehicle. Meanwhile these same nimrods were saying we could use the Russian spacecraft, apparently not knowing the Soyuz design predates the shuttle by a decade!!! Where is the Logic in that?
Here is basic reasoning for all this idiocy. House members serve 2 year terms, Senators and Presidents 4 years. These people have long term goals of 2-10 years at most! Space exploration is on geologic time frame in relation to the politicians and business guys. NASA has SHORT-TERM goals that are 25 years long! Long term? Try 50-100 years. Here is an example.
In 1991 Bush Sr., asked NASA for a comprehensive plan for space exploration through 2050 that would include the Moon and Mars manned flights. He understood that space related research required long term investments of both time and money. So THREE MONTHS(!) later NASA presented the plan. The Executive Summary, that came to be called "The 90 Day Study" in the media, laid out a plan that had a much larger station that was 90% US made, Lunar and Martian exploration vehicles that would be totally built at that station and a replacement for the shuttle to begin flying in 2028, 4 years prior to the Columbia's original retirement date, and 12 years before Endeavor last flight. This plan had us back on the moon in 2005-2009 and on Mars by 2025-2030. The total projected cost for this plan was $450 billion, with disbursements over the next 50 years. This worked out to $9 billion a year average, less than 1% of the US total budget per year.
All the US Congress saw was the total price, and they didn't do the math. So after the entire legislative branch collectively had kittens, the plan was killed with extreme prejudice. There was a huge fight about the plan again in 1993 and 1995. Then Congress did the most i***tic thing they could have done. They passed the Lunar part of the plan, and gave it the full $450 Billion... :o
NASA brass just scratched their heads and the engineers just shook their heads...
Congress just didn't get it.
So now we are in a position that may just see the US drop out of space exploration...
Eisenhower and Kennedy are spinning in their graves. So are 17 other folks that gave their lives for the US Space program.
If we stop, those people died for nothing! If we stop, all that money spent will truly have been wasted.
Next thing we know, Congress will pass the space exploration equivalent of the Edsel!
>:(
-
Why did "i d i o t i c" get ***
-
Why did "i d i o t i c" get ***
Because some words are no-no and are filtered by the forum engine.
/Admin
-
Good write up bjbeard and I agree with everything you have posted here.
I'll refrain from commenting further though, as I'm at a complete disgust level with Congress and this would not be the appropriate venue.
-
The Orion is a non-reusable conical shaped capsule. 4 crew and 500lbs of cargo. It was designed to be the vehicle to return to the moon in concert with the Artemis lander, and to serve as a crew transfer vehicle.
As far as I know is the Orion capsule planned to be reusable as well as the SRB's (Ares-I first stage and Ares-V booster) (but I do not know how often).
Crew of 4 is for lunar missions. ISS missions will have a crew of 6.
Armin
-
This is a matter of money only, as ever. But I'm hoping in Mr. President far-sightedness, and perhaps the new NASA Administrator is a first and strong signal.
-
Last I read(either AWST or spaceflight.com), Lockheed was not sure they could make the Orion re-usable. But that was a while ago. I remember a article in one of the flying publications that the House Committee on Science and Technology was not very happy with Lockheed.
-
I stand corrected, Orion is re-usable. It is limited to 5 flights due to the stresses placed on it during re-entry, though this is only a limitation if the vehicle has been used on a lunar mission.
I feel like smacking myself now...but no head smack emote!
-
Just curious - one of the options NASA is considering is extending the Shuttle operations to 2012. BUt what would they do with the extra missions? As far as I know, the only ISS module that is basically flight ready is the AMS, which is already manifested for STS-134. Would these additional missions be logistics missions?
-
Just curious - one of the options NASA is considering is extending the Shuttle operations to 2012. BUt what would they do with the extra missions? As far as I know, the only ISS module that is basically flight ready is the AMS, which is already manifested for STS-134. Would these additional missions be logistics missions?
IMO those would also be "political" missions - like in "we're still here and Soyuz is not the only option until Constellation is fully operational".
What worries me however is that there are only 3 Shuttles left and the strain put on them during the short turnaround can be too much. IMHO NASA should not exceed 2 STS missions per year until 2015, or until Constellation is a "go".
/Admin
-
I just read the other day that the Shuttle's were designed for a 50 year life-span and that sounds a bit long to me; especially the stress involved... However, they have, in the past, been refurbished and upgraded individually; so it could be possible. But, I think that USA (United Space Alliance) doesn't have the tooling to support that anymore...I'm assuming. When I was with Rockwell/USA, the creator, the tooling and other OEM's were being phased out in the mid-90's due to cost.
But, then again, the B-52 (the one's that are still flying) have been flying for more than 40+ years. So, I say NASA flys them as long as possible until a "true" replacement is created; or otherwise... Again, if there are no "real" missions other than Logistics then it would be hard to justify, "Politically" as /Admin put it.
-
They should have had a plan to upgrade each Shuttle in the future with new features like newer engines (those old engines cost to much to maintain), more reliable computers (hopefully use less), and for god sakes do something about that foam on the tank (someone should have suggested that the shuttle's underside should fit and actually touch the underside of the Shuttle. And build another thermal protection system to withstand impact. And replace some parts of the shuttle with lighter materials like carbon fiber, (on the inside of course not the outside.)
I know sometimes I want to go up and tell congress Ni!
-
they had a plan to replace all the GPCs - it was canceled after Colombia. when it was clear that the shuttle will be used only to fulfill US commitment to the ISS.
SSMEs are one amazing piece of machinery. I've heard an MIT lecture on it few days ago. apparently each of them costs more the 60M$ to build. and they are produced at a rate of 3/4 an engine a year (or at lease that was on 2004). all shuttle R&D is irrelevant now. it was before colombia.
few launches before STS-107, a big chunk of foam broke off and DENTED one of the SRB skirts. nobody even though what would happen it it would have been hitting the shuttle. I guess if someone had been noticing it - the fleet would have been grounded for a few months till they figure it out and full flight schedule would have been resumed. (and Colombia would have been bringing HST home)
-
Hopefully if this Constellation program is supposed to be "cheap" as they say, Uncle Sam better not be asking for more money, or else I will be upset. >:(
-
I'm too holding back my opinions on Orion/Constellation/Ares, as they're slight learning to the letters W T F N A S A.
They didn't 'need' to investigate a new design, they already had them, the X-38 & X-37. And these programs were going to be viable low cost programs, with off the shelf technologies. Okay, the airframes will need to be modified, which would cost a bit more, but I bet that launching them might cost the same as Ares based system would work.
I've heard about the 5 times 'reusability clause', and that's 'if' the performance of the craft operates in 'Ideal' conditions, not real conditions. At best, the internal hardware will be reused, but then are the costs moving the parts from one craft to another... sound familar?
Folks, I think Uncle Sam is going to push space on to private companies within the next 25-50 years and Astros will be hitching a ride with McBurgerSpace.com, whilst NASA retires in to the 'Labs & Listening Dishes'
-
Private space ventures are a joke. No way is any corporation going to toss that kind of money away. They cant see the long term investment, only the initial costs. Don't you think by now we would have seen some corporation or other make orbit if they really wanted to? Best we'll ever get is the Rutan designed/Branson scam called Spaceship II. Last I read the tickets were over 300,000 USD and it lasted like an hour or so. Geeze, if ya wanna feel weightless, pop a ride with Zero-G. It lasts longer and costs a LOT less!!!
-
It's not the weightlessness.....it's the VIEW. Trust me.
-
Tourism is a strange thing. 100 years ago it involved many, MANY $$ for boarding a plane, or a trans-Atlantic cruising and most of them did that out of necessity (immigration, work, etc.).
Today, people can pay @$2000 and spend 7-10 days on a Caribbean cruise.
Surprisingly soon enough, LEO space tourism will be a thing everybody can afford, at least once in a lifetime. Humans are an inquisitive species and if there is a new frontier, everybody wants to be there, smelling, watching, touching, taking it apart and tasting... NASATV is just not enough ;D
I only hope that we don't manage to turn this piece of rock we call Earth into a heap of ruins, before that happens.
/Admin
-
The second card (first was Griffin removal) was played:
http://www.nasaspaceflight.com/2009/07/major-shuttle-and-iss-extension-drive-augustine-commission/
Only few weeks, and we'll have all the answers.
After all, if the Shuttle program should be closed in 2010, many will lose their jobs.
-
After all, if the Shuttle program should be closed in 2010, many will lose their jobs.
How true, how true... I left Rockwell/USA 13 years ago to get a better paying job here in Orlando and I'm glad that I did as I would probably be in the same boat....
Kinda saw the "Writing on the Wall" back then when NASA was discussing cut-backs at that point in time; and we were contractors for NASA and that's just the way contracting works... Still a contractor now, at my current job, and every year (or contract end) it's up in the air.... It's just business....
-
After all, if the Shuttle program should be closed in 2010, many will lose their jobs.
How true, how true... I left Rockwell/USA 13 years ago to get a better paying job here in Orlando and I'm glad that I did as I would probably be in the same boat....
Kinda saw the "Writing on the Wall" back then when NASA was discussing cut-backs at that point in time; and we were contractors for NASA and that's just the way contracting works... Still a contractor now, at my current job, and every year (or contract end) it's up in the air.... It's just business....
It's just the same in DoD contracting believe me.
-
Anyone here got a really rich uncle?
I bet we could come up with an idea to get to orbit.
On a different side, Has anyone head of Project Blackstar?
Apparently it used a remnant from the XB-70 Valkyrie program and is a two stage orbital system. Both are manned, and it has apparently been flying for at least 15 years...
I wonder if something is about to be unveiled? Who knows what fun stuff Groom Lake has come up with!
-
Has anyone seen this?
http://www.copenhagensuborbitals.com/
-
Form their website:
--snip----
By having a large launching tower, currently being developed, the rocket will be guided by passive rails until it have sufficient velocity to reach its apogee using only static fins.
--snap----
I am skeptical
On the same page, they have a graphic, which shows "active guidance rudders".
Armin
-
I think the rails take the place of the gimbaled nozzles that most rockets have today, and the fins are for minor trajectory changes on the later stages of ascent.
It is still interesting, nevertheless. I never would have thought that a volunteer organization might be able to accomplish this.
-
Orion is the future manned NASA vehilce. Because of the fact that NASA won't use any different system to carry humans up into space, Orion will be the replacement of the Space Shuttle indeed, not as a reusable glider, but as a spacecraft.
A lot of people at present are to narrow minded in my point of view (too much fanatic on old stuff) -> focused on the ISS and Hubble, two aging relicts, to try to justify further use of the Space Shuttle. Hubble is in its declining years. Follow up space telescopes won't require a Space Shuttle, nor are they launched by such a vehicle. As for the ISS: this thing also is aging. It's already 10 years old and in the worst case it might not get beyong 2016. And Remember that the Russians did not need a Space Shuttle to build and operate the Mir space station. I hope that NASA won't be that s****d again to carry up such a big space station like the ISS by such small/light pieces.
As for the gap:
The Space Shuttle has caused a gap way bigger than Constellation does right now and is indicating to do in near future. If you add the gaps of the Shuttle program, it's already nearly a decade. Yes, a decade. The delays during development already were so "amazing" (because of major problems with the thermal protection system but also main engines and other parts) that it even caused Skylab to be abandoned.
There is only one rational reason to continue using the Space Shuttle: jobs. And I can understand those, nearly 8000 people, who are going to lose their jobs. But NASA has a news focus, which is the deep space again, well, luckily. For that the Shuttle is absolutely useless. That NASA has just announced the STS-134 crew, shows how serious they are regarding the Shuttle retirement and doing something different. Just look how they hurry up now. They try to finish the ISS monster project on time to start doing something different.
NASA is on a good path, no matter they chose Ares or something else.
-
OK so following that logic, you come across as saying we only should focus on one aspect of exploration? Deep space only, and poop-can everything in earth orbit? Look I love the fact that Luna is on the plate again, but not at the expense of building more and larger stations in LEO. Currently less than .01% of the US budget is spent on NASA related items. The National Endowment for the Arts (NEA) gets more that NASA...What is wrong with that picture?
-
While such claims are being evaluated by the Augustine Commission, a realignment of funding and direction could play into the hands of extending shuttle, buying the US more time to make the transition, saving the majority of the skill set, holding on to the country’s leadership in space, and fully utilizing the $100 billion Space Station via shuttle for crew transportation and logistical support via the vehicle’s unprecedented upmass – and second-to-none downmass – capabilities.
So one major reason why we need to extend the shuttle has to do with pride, so we don't allow Russia to be the leaders of space exploration?
-
The Shuttle program is focused on only one aspect of exploration. NASA, and anybody else yet, does not have and won't get the money to focus on more than one manned program. But instead of the STS, Constellation is a program that combines two proposals and capabilities in one program: low earth orbit and deep space. The Space Shuttle is a money and time eating program that has prevented doing anything else beyond LEO for decades. With the Space Shuttle NASA gets stuck in low earth orbit not only for decades, but forever in case they would not do anything different.
The current Constellation boosters might be still controversal. But the Orion spacecraft will put NASA on a proper way rather than the Space Shuttle did. Humans want to explore the universe which we can not achive by staying in LEO. And we won't go beyond LEO at all by continuing to operate the Shuttle.
The actual purpose of the Shuttle was never achived: a cheap and reliable system that launches hundreds of times until the year 2000. Beside keeping jobs, I see no valid reason to continue the program, although it was an amazing human achievement. I just love to simulate and recreate the STS by using SSM2007. But in reality I don't want to see NASA continue to be focused on LEO only for another decades. It's enough. Just like Eileen Collins and her colleagues say these days: "It's time to go farther"
-
Well you might want to take a look at this: Panel: Exploration plan doesn't fit in current budget
http://spaceflightnow.com/news/n0908/12augustine/
Doesn't look too good for any program... The current administration is f***ing up lots of things and spend trillions on things that just aren't that important IMO...
-
Doesn't look too good for any program...
Because of the low budget. I think that a budget increase is the most likely outcome when Obama gets the final Augustine review. Neither NASA, nor the US government, have the goal to have no launcher available and give up the leading role of manned space flight achievements.
-
That is just atrocious. Thinking that commercial sources will take up the slack is just this side of fantasy. Space-X is the only commercial viable system that I have read about, as Scaled Composites designs are all sub-orbital. Orbital is having problems, and someone in Obama's administration wants to man-rate Atlas and Delta IV! I don't see that happening due to the acceleration of both systems.
Let's face it, we are among a dwindling minority. No one wants to go anymore, nor do they want to use any tax dollars to do it. Corporate backed systems are non-existent and will remain that way for at least a generation or two.
I seriously do not see Constellation continuing, Obama wants his Cash 4 Clunkers, and universal healthcare plans too bad. For those living in other countries, it will soon be up to you to continue space exploration. The US is fast becoming the Portugal of the Space Age. Portugal began the exploration of the Western Hemisphere, but due to internal turmoil, lost their position of preeminence in colonizing it.
Now 510+ years later, the United States is giving up the lead. If we wont head it, I hope Europe does. Japan is my second choice, I really don't want to see China be the leaders of the 21st century of space exploration.
But I fear they will be.
-
Don't be so naive to think that the US government would give up its leading role in space achievements ;)
The Shuttle retirement + the ISS retirement will add more money to Constellation, no matter they continue Ares or chose another booster. And an additional budget increase is not yet ruled out at all. Remember that the Augustine Commission has not the assignment to make NASA out of the business. It has just the assignment to review the whole situation. To say that everything is in order would be quite unwise. Saying that NASA won't go anywhere with the current budget is the best way if they want to get money.
My cents are still on a budget increase and a continuation of the Ares development. Don't forget that for the first time since decades a new launch system is standing within the VAB at the Kennedy Space Center, almost as tall as the SaturnV moon rocket, and nearly ready for rollout and test-launch...
http://www.nasa.gov/images/content/378860main_2009-4672_full.jpg
That the government would call a stop seems quite unlikely to me. No matter all the speculation going on within the web.
-
Wow, that is tall! :o
-
Well anyway, if the shuttle program is gearing down for retirement then why would they waste money on this? curious...
Discovery to debut new OI-34 flight software and new operations
http://www.nasaspaceflight.com/2009/08/discovery-to-debut-new-oi-34-flight-software-and-new-operations/
-
One would imagine they will keep testing and modifying right up to the last flight. Opportunities to test on this kind of vehicle won't come again for a long time. :)
-
Well anyway, if the shuttle program is gearing down for retirement then why would they waste money on this? curious...
Discovery to debut new OI-34 flight software and new operations
http://www.nasaspaceflight.com/2009/08/discovery-to-debut-new-oi-34-flight-software-and-new-operations/
Wow nice find. Thnaks for sharing
/Marvx
-
Wow, that is tall! :o
Yes. It's an amazing sight. Can't wait to see it lifting off in about two month from now. But rollout should happen quite soon :)
Just compare Ares1 with the Space Shuttle stack...
http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/9/93/Size_Comparison2.png
Well anyway, if the shuttle program is gearing down for retirement then why would they waste money on this? curious...
Discovery to debut new OI-34 flight software and new operations
http://www.nasaspaceflight.com/2009/08/discovery-to-debut-new-oi-34-flight-software-and-new-operations/
I would not call it wasting money. Using the lunar rover on Apollo for example also was no waste of money, although it was known already that Apollo is facing and early cut. Otherwise you could also argue that anything of a program that ends sooner or later anyway, is a wast of money on the whole.
Anything that is done to gain experience and develope new stuff is not wasting money I think ;) And there are still about two years left for the Shuttle. I think it will fly until at least spring 2011.
-
Sure would be nice if they do fly to 2011.
And, BTW, thanks for the pic of the different vehicle sizes -- been wondering about that lately now that they recently (last Thurs) stacked the 1st test Ares vehicle.
-
I would love the fly to the moon, and even in the Orion! Seriously though the US Government is doing exactly what my grandpappy told me not to do;
"Dont put all yer eggs in one basket."
This is what is happening. ISS budget should be on a different legern that NASA flight operations. That way the STS and Constellation could be maintained. This is the 21st Century damnit adn we should be MUCH further along in space exploration. Why cant NASA get a few hundred billion dollars? Christ thay gave over 800bn to WALL STREET FOR CRYING OUT LOUD!!!!
WHy did they give all that cash to the same guys that got us into trouble in the first place???? At least NASA woudl have something to frikkin show for it!
-
ISS budget should be on a different legern that NASA flight operations. That way the STS and Constellation could be maintained.
STS and Constellation sadly can not be maintained in almost any circumstances. Constellation alone, including the lunar landing part, will cost way more than Apollo (in todays numbers) and ISS together. Even once STS and ISS are retired, the gained budget by far would not even be enough to return to the Moon any time soon. It just would contribute to the Ares1 developement and Orion flights in low earth orbit.
That is what the Augustine commission currently is concluding, that NASA is in a real trouble if we talk about budget. If NASA does not get a budget boost and/or changes to an alternative to Ares1 and AresV, they won't go anywhere beyond low earth orbit within at least the next 2 decades. Especially the AresV has no funding at all at present. The only thing NASA did on the AresV was a wind tunnel test using a small model. Ares1 has at least a chance to lift of in future. But for AresV it looks more than quite bad at present.
We can only wait what Obama/the congress will decide once the Augustine Commission has done its job...
-
Well, why not boost all the stuff to orbit on shuttle and ELV and construct the TLI stage there. No need for the Aries V.
-
The problem with the Shuttle is that it is old, and with all old things, NASA is having a hard tome finding spare parts for it. Basically all the companies that built the Shuttle are no longer in business, and it would cost NASA a fortune to custom make the parts.
IIRC, some of the propellant tanks in the Shuttle are already years past their designed lifetime, and with every flight the Shuttle flies, the greater the chance the tanks will rupture or explode.
More here:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Space_Shuttle_Atlantis#Aging
-
The problem with the Shuttle is that it is old, and with all old things, NASA is having a hard tome finding spare parts for it. Basically all the companies that built the Shuttle are no longer in business, and it would cost NASA a fortune to custom make the parts.
IIRC, some of the propellant tanks in the Shuttle are already years past their designed lifetime, and with every flight the Shuttle flies, the greater the chance the tanks will rupture or explode.
More here:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Space_Shuttle_Atlantis#Aging
Not all is bad though when discussing spare parts: a good example for initial manufacturing STS costs is the switch guards. The titanium alloy originals cost US$800 apiece, while a currently-manufactured identical set, CNC-ed from Aviation-Grade Aluminum costs less than 10% - @$50 apiece.
/Admin
-
I believe that RMS Driver's point is quite valid. When I used to work in the Shuttle program (specificially the Shuttle Depot for repair) we had a dandy of a time to get OEM parts and some parts we just made ourselves (being Rockwell Int'l and all)... And sometimes just had to re-contract another business to recreate the part(s) to spec.
-
Well, why not boost all the stuff to orbit on shuttle and ELV and construct the TLI stage there. No need for the Aries V.
Further operation of the Space Shuttle would prevent Orion + Altair, and an Earth departue stage from being build and reach operational status. There is no money to operate different manned space programs at the same time. Operating the Shuttle any further beyond 2011 does prevent Constellation pretty much and vice versa.
-
Constellation is about going into deep space again. Starting at the Moon, go to Mars, and beyond in the late second half of this century likely. The Shuttle is not a part of those deep space purposes. Building a potential future platform for deep space missions in low earth orbit will be done way cheaper by another launch vehicles rather than using the Shuttle for it. NASA these days realizes that assembling the ISS using the Shuttle was technlogical milestone, but it was also somehow s****d to put it up in such small parts using something like the Shuttle. I don't remember who but a NASA responsible once was quoted "I hope we won't be that s****d again".
The Shuttle is out of the business in any case if the future is about going beyond LEO. Let's enjoy 7 more missions and call it a day. Any program has its end, and to be honest, the Shuttle lasted for too long anyway. Constellation should have taken place more than one decade earlier already. But now NASA is in a real mess, which includes the follow on program forced by the STS-107 accident, while there are pacts to build and operate that big and fat space station. Both, ISS and Shuttle have to go if NASA seriously wants to do something totally different, i.e. going beyond LEO again.
-
Well according ot the August panel, even with the ending of STS and ISS, we cant afford the EDS or the Aries V.
So where does that leave us?
-
Well according ot the August panel, even with the ending of STS and ISS, we cant afford the EDS or the Aries V.
So where does that leave us?
Ahem, you mean "Augustine" panel...
/Admin
-
I didn't realise that Ares-I was so close to a test flight :o
-
correct me if I'm wrong, but isn't Ares I-X just a glorified SRB?
they took a standard SRB, added a mockup additional segment, put in the rotation maneuvering thrusters (the only real new bit), and added a big cylinder that is shaped, and weighs roughly the same as the upper stage and orion space-craft. it sounds like they are only doing it to show results fast.
I-Y would be more of a test flight IMHO.
oops, RoCS isn't new, it's taken from the peacekeeper ICBMs
-
Aries I is a 5 segment SRB topped off with a glorified Centaur second stage. Then of course the Spam.