Community
On Orbit => Real NASA Space Shuttle Missions => Topic started by: spaceboy7441 on October 20, 2009, 05:49:48 AM
-
Not shuttle but it is crazy not to mention it.
Ares 1X is scheduled to be rolled out to Pad 39B tonight at 12:01 EST. It will be a 10 hour process. This will be the first new rocket to roll from the VAB t Pad 39 since 1980 when the Shuttle rolled out for the first time. This is history in the making. I for one am so excited. This will be the start of the Constellation Program.
This is also the first unmanned rocket to roll to Pad 39 since the Apollo era.
Check out this live coverage thread on NSF!
http://forum.nasaspaceflight.com/index.php?topic=19156.0
-
May i correct you. ARES ias rolled to the modified 39B Launchpad.
Additionally ARESrollout will be covered my NASA-TV as well....
A new history in Space Engeneering has finally begun to come to reality
/Marvx
-
Ares is on half the way to the launch-pad.
Follow the twitter
http://twitter.com/NASA_Ares_I_X
/Marvx
-
http://twitpic.com/m8d2k
Handsome beast, but a bit the old crawler platform looks a bit empty compared to the STS stack :\
-
Ares 1-X has passed the Flight Test Readiness Review and is set to launch Tuesday October 27 at 8am. Who else is going to get up and watch it? :)
Even though it may never get the chance to carry astronauts it should be a good show!
http://www.nasaspaceflight.com/2009/10/ares-i-x-passes-ftrr-weekend-simulation-set/
Edited to add link
-
Launch is set for tomorrow 10-27-09 at 8am EST if weather cooperates. :)
http://nasaspaceflight.com
-
Even the most diehard shuttle fan (myself included) can't help but feel proud of the subject of this picture. The past and the future. I was around for the birth of Apollo and the Shuttle and now Ares/Orion. It has allways been sad to see a passing like this, but also exciting. Congress and the administration will get their act together and Ares will be as fantastic as everything that has come before. God Speed Ares.
(http://img43.imageshack.us/img43/2450/38650499.jpg)
By davidrobinsonjr (http://profile.imageshack.us/user/davidrobinsonjr) at 2009-10-26
-
I can't wait, I'll be watching the launch from school, man why do they always launch important things on a school day? :(
-
I am actually going to just go late to school ;) Hope they can launch.
I will only be missing 1 or 2 periods so it is all good
-
Even the most diehard shuttle fan (myself included) can't help but feel proud of the subject of this picture. The past and the future. I was around for the birth of Apollo and the Shuttle and now Ares/Orion. It has allways been sad to see a passing like this, but also exciting. Congress and the administration will get their act together and Ares will be as fantastic as everything that has come before. God Speed Ares.
Well said.
I'm disappointed that I did not witness the greatest era of manned space flight (for now): Apollo. I was born 10 years after Apollo 11. But I'm excited to witness a dramatic change at NASA these days (in a positive sense). I was waiting for something like Ares to happen since I was about 14 years old. Now, 16 years later, the time has come. And I still can't believe what I'm seeing on NASA TV right now. The beautiful AresI, well in fact AresI-X, standing on LC39B at the cape. It still seems somehow unreal but I'm happy that it's quite a real event. Even as a German guy I'm not ashamed to say that I'm proud of the United States and of those great people who stick their smart heads together to do all that amazing stuff for decades. If AresI-X lifts off either today or tomorrow and does what it is supposed to do, I really hope that this will open the eyes of the congress members and Obama, to fund NASA at the highest possible levels and give them what they need to return to the moon and finally go further.
-
T-00:04:00 and holding... we are about to see history unfolding. I hope that all of you appreciate the importance and significance of this moment!
/Admin
-
Launch is "Go" but it is SO FREAKING FUNNY to see that they cannot remove the probe cover. THIS IS HILARIOUS! The least sophisticated item tries to prove how important it is by refusing to be removed.
ROFL!
/Admin
-
And we have a NO GO because, well, there is a... CARGO SHIP crossing the warning area. This is somehow funny but also annoying at the same time.
Did this ever happen on a Shuttle launch?
-
And there is the GO finally...
-
yet it is still on the pad.. :(
-
I have to admit that those weather issues are really annoying. Back at the Apollo days they gave a damn s.... about such narrow constraints. Also, I think they should stop it this time and try it on another day with better forecasts. Green, red, green red... The whole chase after the weather just is ridiculous.
-
Scrub!
-
T-00:04:00 and holding... we are about to see history unfolding. I hope that all of you appreciate the importance and significance of this moment!
/Admin
I don't know how old you are, but I am old enough to remember the Apollo days.
The Ares 1 is nothing more than a slighty larger rocket than the Saturn V was and the capsule a slightly larger capsule than the Apollo. There in no conceptual difference. Yes, there are slight differences, but the technology is basically the same. Is it only my personal opinion? Not quite. I was watching an hour program on the NASA TV channel. On that program they even acknowledged that "we had a difficult time to find some of the information from the Apollo program.....".
I was watching/listening this morning the last couple of hours before they scrubbed for good. I have never heard such amateurish communication before. Yes, no, yes, no, yes, now wait a minute, maybe no, what do you think?, well...wait.....the airplane which is suppose to observe the weather is in the ground refueling......at around 11.15 EST: we are resuming countdown in five minutes. Then two minutes later a female voice reports that the wind is such and such, then......okay than no....., and finally the scrub.
The whole thing sounded like some high school's club getting ready to launch some balloon.
-
T-00:04:00 and holding... we are about to see history unfolding. I hope that all of you appreciate the importance and significance of this moment!
/Admin
I don't know how old you are, but I am old enough to remember the Apollo days.
The Ares 1 is nothing more than a slighty larger rocket than the Saturn V was and the capsule a slightly larger capsule than the Apollo. There in no conceptual difference. Yes, there are slight differences, but the technology is basically the same. Is it only my personal opinion? Not quite. I was watching an hour program on the NASA TV channel. On that program they even acknowledged that "we had a difficult time to find some of the information from the Apollo program.....".
I was watching/listening this morning the last couple of hours before they scrubbed for good. I have never heard such amateurish communication before. Yes, no, yes, no, yes, now wait a minute, maybe no, what do you think?, well...wait.....the airplane which is suppose to observe the weather is in the ground refueling......at around 11.15 EST: we are resuming countdown in five minutes. Then two minutes later a female voice reports that the wind is such and such, then......okay than no....., and finally the scrub.
The whole thing sounded like some high school's club getting ready to launch some balloon.
If I may correct you gablau; the Ares 1 is not larger than the SaturnV. The Ares 1 is about 100 meters tall, the SaturnV was 111 meters tall. You may have a visual check here http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/d/d5/Saturn-V_Shuttle_Ares-I_Ares-V_comparison_%2806-2006%29.jpg
There are also huge differences between Ares and the Saturn family rather than small ones. The second stage of the Ares1 is based on External Tank technology from the Shuttle. The only difference here is the J-2X engine, originally designed and used on the second stage of the SaturnV. The most significant difference is the Ares1 first stage, which is a Shuttle-derived single solid rocket booster. Solid rocket boosters were not used on the SaturnV. And this is even the first time in the world and history that a solid rocket booster is used as a single first stage with a second stage and a manned capsule on top of it.
Orion also has not a lot in common with the Apollo Command Module, beside the exterior shape/appearance. The technology is different. For example it won't use fuel cells (it'll depend on solar power like the ISS). There won't be an EVA capability as well. Heat shield materials will be also different to Apollo. The interior also will be different to that of the Apollo Command Module, significantly. Not only because of the increased crew size but also by the paneling of the cabin and more over the rendezvous windows and the instrument panels and controls. There won't be any similarity within the interior.
All in all there are just 3 small similarities between Apollo and Ares/Orion: the J-2X engine, the exterior shape of Orion and the launch abort system on top. Everything else is totally different and basically based on the Shuttle. Not to mention the AresV...
Regarding the "high school's club": did you ever see the launch preparation of Alan Shepards Freedom 7 flight in 1961? ;)
Todays weather limitations, launch procedures and decisions are highly professional for both the Shuttle and Ares, performed by well skilled persons. Especially the weather constraints already had been significantly changed after the lightning stroke during the ascent phase of Apollo 12 in 1969, which caused a serious telemetry malfunction and nearly an abort during ascent.
-
I can only agree with Moonwalker, especially regards the latter point abut the launch control decisions. If you think predicting the weather is easy then you are sadly mistaken. Even with radar, airborne obs and a weather team watching the sky it's still not easy to give a cast iron prediction of conditions, especially when so many factors have to line up. Doubly more so in Eastern Florida!!
Also consider what is happening here before you criticise the repeated launch attempts and hold-offs. This is an unmanned test flight, which it is important to launch correctly and into safe atmospheric conditions, BUT it's unmanned and isn't scheduled for any particular orbit pattern. That means they keep trying until the window closes on them. If it'd have been a Shuttle launch it'd have scrubbed once and that'd have been it until tomorrow.
Also, put yourself in the shoes of the members of the launch control teams before you criticise them. This was a unique instance where they had to think on their feet and retry stuff as quickly as they could to get a launch in weather windows. You can't expect people to magic a weather prediction out of nowhere, they need facts and data to make an informed prediction. Personally I think 20 secs to do a weather prediction based on radar and aerial obs reports alone is pretty impressive. Hey, these people are only human, they are bound to um and err a bit, especially as it wasn't an emergency or a time critical launch (other than the weather).
I know it was a little frustrating compared to a STS launch, which seems to well orchestrated, but it all gets a bit seat of the pants when you are doing stuff like this on the fly, trying again and again to get a window of opportunity to launch. I'm pretty sure if they did anything like this in the 50s and 60s it was probably even more confused than this was, if only because they didn't have 50 years of practice behind them!
Give em a break, eh?
-
The only thing I'm honestly complaining about is the decision of launch day. If there is a 40% or even 30% chance of launch due to weather constraints, I wouldn't do an attempt. In most cases there is a scrub anyway. But if there is a 50%+ chance, it's worth it I think. Tomorrow we get a 60% chance which quite likely is going to enable us to witness an amazing show for the first time since 1981, after Apollo had been cut in 1975.
The volks at NASA are doing amazing work. And those people at the cape perform just perfectly all the time. NASA represents the power of a great nation, no matter if there are different voices in the world, especially in my country sadly (Germany). I'm absolutely behind NASA and the USA. That country has a significant positive impact on the life of people all over the world...
PS: and have a look how amazingly NASA has made progress on Ares. They are actually well prepared to build and operate that beautiful new launch vehicle. Let's hope congress and Obama will give them required money shots :)
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=DUXpoLe7nFI
-
The only thing I'm honestly complaining about is the decision of launch day. If there is a 40% or even 30% chance of launch due to weather constraints, I wouldn't do an attempt. In most cases there is a scrub anyway. But if there is a 50%+ chance, it's worth it I think. Tomorrow we get a 60% chance which quite likely is going to enable us to witness an amazing show for the first time since 1981, after Apollo had been cut in 1975.
The volks at NASA are doing amazing work. And those people at the cape perform just perfectly all the time. NASA represents the power of a great nation, no matter if there are different voices in the world, especially in my country sadly (Germany). I'm absolutely behind NASA and the USA. That country has a significant positive impact on the life of people all over the world...
PS: and have a look how amazingly NASA has made progress on Ares. They are actually well prepared to build and operate that beautiful new launch vehicle. Let's hope congress and Obama will give them required money shots :)
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=DUXpoLe7nFI
Yes,
People must be "man" enough to acknowledge and respect the achievements of ANY nation w/o any racial, nationalistic, religious etc. prejudice. Unfortunately this is not the general attitude in the world these days, as more and more become blindly, inhumanly and suicidally political, guided by greed, racism, anarchism and by malicious ulterior motives. But this is NOT a subject for this forum, so I'll stop here.
Looking back at how the entire world was captivated by the Apollo program, I can only say that even thugh NASA is an American organization, it has given to humanity a lot more than the hordes of greedy politicians spewing empty slogans, hiding ugly truths and facts behind suicidal "political correctness", and brainwashing masses into imbecile pulp, ready to go to the streets and bark whatever they are told to.
With all its shortcomings which are "natural' for such a sizeable organization, and with goals reaching for the stars, literally, NASA has my full support, whatever the endeavor and whatever the cost (human life not included).
NASA represents what is best in humankind. I assume that ESA is not far behind, as for the Russian Space Program, I don't have much info on which to base my opinion so basically my I shape it by the amount of cooperation they do with NASA and ESA.
Rant mode off... 8)
/Admin
-
Another day, another Ares 1X launch attempt. We are now at T-00:04:00 and with about 35 minutes remaining, launch is in about 40 minutes from now.
Fingers crossed, as we see history unfolding (take #2)
/Admin
-
History?? This is a giant step BACKWARDS! Instead of three there are to be four astronauts making like spam in a can once again...
I say keep the Discovery and Endeavor flying and build the EDS at the ISS. That would be a major step forward.
Anyone read the Augustine panels report to NASA? Intersting stuff, especially option 4B!
-
Well, that's a matter of opinion, but it is history nevertheless.
WWII was also history although it pushed humanity back by one or two generations, depending on which side you were 8)
/Admin
-
History?? This is a giant step BACKWARDS! Instead of three there are to be four astronauts making like spam in a can once again...
That AresI-X is a step backwards is an individual opinion. That AresI-X is an historic event is a fact. It's the first time since 1981 that a new potentially manned system is going to be launched, consisting of a single solid rocket booster first stage, which is another historic event, + AresI is the tallest manned launcher of the 21st century for now, which is another historic fact.
I say keep the Discovery and Endeavor flying and build the EDS at the ISS. That would be a major step forward.
Keeping the Space Shuttle flying won't reduce the gap, and won't also bring NASA closer to the moon i.e. sooner out of low earth orbit.
Building the EDS at the ISS is not an option at all. The ISS quite likely isn't going to survive until 2020, less than ever past 2020.
Anyone read the Augustine panels report to NASA? Intersting stuff, especially option 4B!
The report is interesting but doesn't basically decide NASA's future. Obama quite likely isn't going to base his decisions on the report "only".
As had been pointed out by some congress members and other persons already, the report does not entirely meet the goals of the USA and NASA of returning to the Moon and go beyond. The report doesn't make any serious suggestions, nor does it offer improvement suggestions for the current program. But the key finding of the report is that NASA needs more funding and support in order to accomplish Constellation. Regarding Norman Augustine, Constellation i.e. Ares is well achievable by proper funding. Even more: Augustine says that AresI-X is an important step, even in case AresI isn't going to enter operational status in the future.
-
History?? This is a giant step BACKWARDS! Instead of three there are to be four astronauts making like spam in a can once again...
Just a note, the Orion is designed to carry 6 astronauts to the ISS. Four is for lunar missions, or I guess anything past LEO. I think it is a misconception to keep comparing Orion to Apollo. It is the same concept, but it definitely is a new generation of spacecraft. But, I digress because moonwalker already covered all of this. Also, not a big fan of the saying "spam in a can". I think it doesn't give proper credit to the courage and skill of all the astronauts in Mercury, Gemini, Apollo and Skylab.
I think what people should keep in mind is this is a vehicle designed for a whole different purpose than the space shuttle. I love the shuttle, obviously, but it is a different beast. The only similar mission between Orion and the shuttle will be ISS trips. If funding was not a factor I would say keep the shuttle going and build the Orion, but we don't live in my fairy tail world. :) I'm honestly torn about our path forward, but I just hope we stay in space and not back out completely.
Anyway, back to the launch. Still T-00:04:00 and holding. Hopefully we get to see a launch today!
PS: I noticed I said "we" in my post. I live in the US, so that's what I meant. But, my personal opinion is the path NASA should take forward would include international cooperation.
-
We, at Exciting Simulations love the STS program (can you tell? LOL), nevertheless we love Space Exploration more. Ares I-X is a landmark along the Space Exploration timeline and we're lucky to being able to watch it in REAL TIME on NASATV (or real TVs).
Lay back and enjoy the moment, regardless of opinion. Once we went to the skies, there is nothing to hold us, humans, back (except for our suicidal tendencies ON Earth - 8))
Go Ares Go!
/Admin
-
...and WEATHER is still a problem. Another at least 1:15 delay! Next estimate is 10:30 EDT!
/Admin
-
Once we went to the skies, there is nothing to hold us, humans, back
Except maybe clouds! :D
-
Ares I-X is a landmark along the Space Exploration timeline and we're lucky to being able to watch it in REAL TIME on NASATV (or real TVs).
You can't imagine how lucky I am as well ;D
Back in 1992, when I got the old "Shuttle" sim by Virgin Games, I've never imagined, not even in my best dreams, that I'd be able to watch all that stuff live via something called the internet. And just imagine another years, how the quality of live coverage might look like. Possibly HD :)
-
Once we went to the skies, there is nothing to hold us, humans, back
Except maybe clouds! :D
LOL! And a recalcitrant sensor cover! ;D
/Admin
-
New launch time of 11:00 am EDT. 20% chance of no-go on weather! :)
-
And we're going to get an 80% chance for an 11:00 a.m. EDT lift off (05:00 p.m. CET). It seems AresI-X is going to make it today...
-
So we've got both mentioned: a 20% "NO GO" and 80% "GO" ;D
-
So we've got both mentioned: a 20% "NO GO" and 80% "GO" ;D
It would have been embarrassing if they didn't add up! :D
-
T-2 minutes, Good Luck Ares!
-
Whooohaaa,
I almost got a heart attack in the first seconds as it looked like tilting over.
I hope that the tilting of the upper stage after (during!) seperation was planned, because I have expected it to be stable a little longer.
NASA: good job
/Armin
-
A M A Z I N G ! ! !
However, it looked like the vehcile tipped to one side during passing the launch tower. But I'm not sure. The ascent looked quite smoothly from the onboard camera. The SRB didn't even bend like seen on almost all animated NASA videos. Of course it's not really possible to tell from the onboard camera view but, despite all the critics, a ride on top of an SRB seems to be much smoother than expected, at least visually.
-
But what was that at separation. It looked like something that was smacked in half by a machete.
Shouldnt the separation be smooth??? ::)
-
Normally they would have fired some ullage rockets (several mini-SRB's) around the perimeter of the upper stage to slush the liquid oxygen and hydrogen backwards toward the fuel lines and then start the stage engine. All this would be under some guidance.
The ullage and stage engines would keep the upper stage away from the burnt out lower stage.
Here the upper stage is probably complete without any engine (just mass and instruments). So maybe the separation was only a "disconnect" and the tumbling lower stage hit the not literally separated (being in a distance) upper stage.
Just saw the vid with the outside sound, hilarious.
/Armin
-
What an epic view for the first time since the end of Apollo...
(http://onfinite.com/libraries/1531217/56e.jpg)
(http://onfinite.com/libraries/1531218/222.jpg)
(http://onfinite.com/libraries/1531219/887.jpg)
-
I'm so glad they were able to launch, they cut it close on weather. "Weather should be green for 10 mins, launch in 10 mins!" Threading the needle.
There is suppose to be a press conference at 1:30pm EDT. Maybe they will let us know if the separation went as planned.
-
I didn't like that first few seconds either!! Scared me as well.
Whooohaaa,
I almost got a heart attack in the first seconds as it looked like tilting over.
I hope that the tilting of the upper stage after (during!) seperation was planned, because I have expected it to be stable a little longer.
NASA: good job
/Armin
-
It did tilt at launch and it is suspected that the lower stage recontacted the Upper Stage but is not confirmed
-
So I just watched the press conference and they did not expect the upper stage to tumble like it did during separation. They thought it would go straight for longer, however they have seen this in simulations when the vehicle was slightly at the wrong angle or speed. As of now they do not think the upper and lower stages made contact after separation.
As for the tilting at the launch, it sounded like that was planned. Could of warned us though! All in all it sounds like the test went very well and they will have a lot of good data to look at.
-
The tilt during launch was intentional to avoid potential contact with the launch tower (the Apollo Saturn rockets did the same maneuver, how could I not consider that). However, the staging sequence did work well beside the unintentional rotation. We have to wait until the data is evaluated. The video images do not really show what was happening exactly. For now they think it was aerodynamic effects that caused the tumbling of the upper stage, as had been previsouly demonstrated by computer models already.
We should not forget that the upper stage was an uncontrolled piece of metal ;)
-
...<SNIP>...
We should not forget that the upper stage was an uncontrolled piece of metal ;)
IMO the entire test was from liftoff to SEP. After that, was just "grab the pieces and analyze the data".
We are still VERY far from putting real people up there.
/Admin
-
...<SNIP>...
We should not forget that the upper stage was an uncontrolled piece of metal ;)
IMO the entire test was from liftoff to SEP.
Well, the first stage was powered (obviously :P) and the entire stack was controlled during powered flight (the upper stage became a useless piece of metal at separation). The vehicle performed just as expected until separation, and even better as expected regarding the torque. There was just 3 corrections other than during computer modeling which indicated there could be 20 to 25 corrections. It seems that riding on top of a single SRB could be much more comfortable and stable than expected. There wasn't even noticable vibrations of the onboard camera and the acceleration did not exceed 3g. But regarding those vibrations: only the very last few seconds of the powered flight of the first stage is expected to cause virbations anyway. Not a big deal although some voices are trying to "verbally" make it a big deal.
But yes, we're still years away of sending humans into space on top of Ares I. But the next test flight, if NASA is allowed to continue, is Ares I-Y in 2012 and that will give us amazing results on an almost usable Ares I configuration I guess. If NASA gets the go and money, I'm confident they're going to design a wonderful and reliable manned system. Solid rockets have been proven to be rather reliable over the last 3 decades.
PS: just in case -> No, STS-51L was not caused by a failed SRB but by mismanagement i.e. decisions against well known issues.
-
...<SNIP>...There wasn't even noticable vibrations of the onboard camera and the acceleration did not exceed 3g. But regarding those vibrations: only the very last few seconds of the powered flight of the first stage is expected to cause virbations anyway. Not a big deal although some voices are trying to "verbally" make it a big deal.
...<SNIP>...
PS: just in case -> No, STS-51L was not caused by a failed SRB but by mismanagement i.e. decisions against well known issues.
Well, one critical point was Max-Q - and it passes, thankfully.
That was the point where STS-51L "broke". Astronaut Mike Mullane explains a lot about the mismanagement issues that led to the fateful STS-51L and I am sure that the web has a ton of additional info on the subject, not to mention the lame conspiracy theories meant for people with single-neuron brains :)
/Admin
-
BTW - one of the test goals was to see if the the seperation thrusters are enoght before the pivot thrusters kick in.
If I saw it right they are too weak (or timed too closely together) because when the pivot thrusters fired, you could very clearly see that the SRB is nudging the upper stage.
-
If I saw it right they are too weak (or timed too closely together) because when the pivot thrusters fired, you could very clearly see that the SRB is nudging the upper stage.
You couldn't really clearly see if both stages had contact once again. That is pretty much interpretation ;) The video, well that one of the public NASA TV transmission everybody is refering to, does not really allow a conclusion. The fact that the upper stage begins to rotate faster right after the first stage began to tumble points to areodynamic effects between both bodies, which were obviously still too close together after sep. There are another different videos on youtube meanwhile, showing the launch from different angles. But we'll have to wait if any data will say seomthing about it...
-
This is an interesting read:
NASA assessing dented booster from Ares 1-X launch
http://spaceflightnow.com/ares1x/091029dent/
-
[Snip] China launched rockets like this thousands of years ago [Snip]
Just to correct you and prevent others from potentially jumping on a famous myth-wagon: that China launched rockets like this thousands of years ago is wrong just like that the Earth is 4.500 years old or that the Moon is empty like some people indeed still believe these days.
The Chinese launched small projectiles, propelled by black powder pretty much comparable to New Year rockets, to frighten the horses of their enemies. That didn't happen thousands of years ago but 768 years ago for the first time. The first small rockets in Europe were used 323 years later, in 1555 for the first time (in Romania). This is not comparable to todays space flight engineering and technology anyway.
What happened to the Bigger, Faster, Better, Further mentality.
Well, Bigger, Faster, Better and Further is exactly the intention of Constellation. Ares I, going to consist of a 22 million hourse power 5-segement SRB, will lift off the pad faster than the Shuttle or the Saturns did, but which doesn't really matter. Better: also is a part of Constellation i.e. Ares. The configuration of both, the Ares I and Ares V vehicles is going to be less risky than the Shuttle stack with its 100% unprotected thermal protection system. The abort capabilities of the Shuttle are also rather narrow compared to a "usual" rocket design. It's actually a windows of just a few seconds. Further: Orion will be operable in a wide range beyond low earth orbit, which is the key goal of future manned space exploration also for future Russian systems as they announced recently. The future lies beyond low earth orbit, which is something the Space Shuttle can not accomplish. Bigger: the Ares V will be able to lift off more mass into earth orbit than the Saturn V did. Ares V will outshine Saturn V.
One could agree that riding on top of such a configuration the Ares I consists of is crazy. But if people would just take a closer look and think about, they'll conclude that riding in a Shuttle on such a configuration actually is the most craziest thing astronauts did for now ;)
-
History?? This is a giant step BACKWARDS! Instead of three there are to be four astronauts making like spam in a can once again...
Just a note, the Orion is designed to carry 6 astronauts to the ISS. Four is for lunar missions, or I guess anything past LEO. I think it is a misconception to keep comparing Orion to Apollo. It is the same concept, but it definitely is a new generation of spacecraft. But, I digress because moonwalker already covered all of this. Also, not a big fan of the saying "spam in a can". I think it doesn't give proper credit to the courage and skill of all the astronauts in Mercury, Gemini, Apollo and Skylab.
I think what people should keep in mind is this is a vehicle designed for a whole different purpose than the space shuttle. I love the shuttle, obviously, but it is a different beast. The only similar mission between Orion and the shuttle will be ISS trips. If funding was not a factor I would say keep the shuttle going and build the Orion, but we don't live in my fairy tail world. :) I'm honestly torn about our path forward, but I just hope we stay in space and not back out completely.
Anyway, back to the launch. Still T-00:04:00 and holding. Hopefully we get to see a launch today!
PS: I noticed I said "we" in my post. I live in the US, so that's what I meant. But, my personal opinion is the path NASA should take forward would include international cooperation.
Spam in a can is a nickname the ASTRONAUTS gave it. Humor is used A LOT in Aerospace circles. Would you rather have me saig Tang in a bottle? ;D
I guess I expect too much, having been born in the early 70's when the sky was the limit. I was born just before Apollo 17, and I guess the whole thing affected me. I know the Onion (yes I meant that) is the only way to get back from a lunar mission, but that is not the only reason I dont like it. How are we to construct the next space station with out the shuttle? What are ya gonna do, pull Buran outta mothballs? Oh, wait YA CANT! It got destroyed when a hangar collapsed.
Commercial space ventures aren't commercial, as ALL of them are subsidized by NASA via grants, at least in the US. Where are all the SSTO designs at? For crying out loud, there were 15 designs in the 60's and 70's, and 5 more in the early 90's! Now nothing! Until there is a way to get to orbit 2 or 3 times a day with the same vehicle, we are going to be a terrestrial only species.
As many people that use this software, I have a hard time believing that notone of you are an aerospace engineer. Heck I have a design for such a vehicle, but not the training to know if it can work. I am just a private pilot/ex-truck driver that came up with this design on my own.
What have any of you come up with? Ever put pen to paper and done the basic calculations on the thrust/fuel/cargo/pax needed to make an idea fly? Or is your extent in the space program just limited to cheering when the STS heads up and playing with a sim?
This is not an attack, but a challenge to all of you to come up with something that is better! ;D
-
Hmmm, the thread is becoming less "cuddly" than needed and I blame it on the misunderstandings of written word against friendly face to face conversations. I also blame it on the obvious partisan views some have about the STS and the new Constellation program.
I say that whatever brings us to the Stars without s****dly and needlessly sacrificing the lives of people, has my support. There are still very intense relevant and non-relevant, political and not political discussions inside NASA about the correct configuration and goals of the Constellation program, which make the arguments here a bit diluted. I am sure that before we see the first Constellation manned LEO or Moon mission, there will be many changes. After all, the next test flight will happen in 2012!
Whether the Shuttle or Ares is more beautiful, well, that's only a personal opinion which cannot be argued with - you know, the "beauty" and the "beholder" stuff?
Anyway, I will be following up on the Constellation program and hope that it is the correct way to "reach for the Stars".
/Admin
-
I have a hard time believing that notone of you are an aerospace engineer.
Actually, I am. Studying aerospace engineering in grad school. To be honest my concentration is aerodynamics/hydrodynamics so I don't do too much past ascent and descent for space vehicles.
Where are all the SSTO designs at?
Single stage to orbit designs have one big flaw and that is weight. Historically multiple stage vehicles have always been lighter for the same lifting power, since you can release your spent rocket sections. However, there have been so many advances with composite materials and new manufacturing techniques recently that this isn't a bad idea. :)
Now I think SSTO designs and anything big enough to build a space station (like the shuttle) are pretty much limited to LEO operations. There is no reason to take all that weight to the moon or beyond.
How are we to construct the next space station with out the shuttle?
This is a tough one. The shuttle is great at it! ;D
We have had awesome advances in autonomous operation and just down the hall from my lab they are working on autonomous space docking. It has also been done by the Jules Verne ATV to the ISS. With this in mind we could use heavy lift rockets (maybe even the ares-v?) to lift the sections into orbit and then dock them there. This of course has one HUGE flaw. Each section has to have the ability to rendezvous and dock!
-
Hmmm, the thread is becoming less "cuddly" than needed and I blame it on the misunderstandings of written word against friendly face to face conversations.
I agree, this is a limitation on forums. For the record my comments are all made in a friendly matter. I've only been on the forums for a short time, but everyone so far has been friendly with good opinions. My comments are my own opinions and nothing else.
I apologize if anyone has been offended by them. Thanks guys!
-
...<SNIP>...
I apologize if anyone has been offended by them. Thanks guys!
Phixit,
My remark was not necessarily directed at your post ;)
/Admin
-
It is a common (non-engineering) misconception that the Space Shuttle is an absolute requirement to assemble a space station in orbit. That the Space Shuttle is used for ISS assembling is due to the fact that the entire concept included the Space Shuttle from the beginning, the early 1980's, when the USA initially was planning to build the "Freedom" space station. At that time, Russia already was developing the Mir station and launched it into orbit starting in 1986 already, without any Space Shuttle or a similar vehicle involved. This was a milestone in space flight engineering and a huge step forward for long term space exploration. That is an experience the USA did not have for decades. The Mir station lasted for 16 years.
The future of manned space flight lies beyond low earth orbit, well for NASA. NASA did never intend to operate the ISS into the early or even late 2020's. The ISS NASA budgets will cut in 2017 rather likely. However, it is not out of the question that NASA would potentially build another space station. But this is something for the wide future, possibly not going to happen again within the first half of this century in case NASA continues to put its focus on Moon and Mars within the next decades, which is a wise decision.
There is a wide range of possibilites to build a station like ISS without any Shuttle-like vehicle involved. Even more, using something like the Russian Proton-K, assembly will happen quite faster than using the delay-hungry Space Shuttle. The Proton-K lifts up to 21 tons into orbit. Future vehicles could lift up even more. NASA engineers theirselves said that: hopefully we won't be that s****d again to build a space station by carrying it up by so many small pieces. And they're right. 6 tons here, 4 tons there... lots of required launches and delays for month inbetween caused by technical issues with the Shuttle / ET technology. The ISS is aging still during assembly. The first parts are already a decade of age. When Orion might be ready to fly, the ISS will be almost 20 years old alreday.
As amazing the Shuttle is, and as much progress and milestones the Shuttle did, not all that glistens is gold in any case. People really have to look behind the curtain before saying that something is the absolute best thing. The ISS does way less science than intended and than a lot of people here on the ground know or imagine. The ISS is a huge experiment itself which showed that it was an expensive and time consuming way we did it. Engineers and scientists have learned that in the future they'll do it a different more efficient way.
-
Going back to the matter in hand for a moment...
http://www.spaceflightnow.com/ares1x/091029dent/
It looks from the recovery photos like the landing wasn't quite as smooth as it should have been. One of the 3 main chutes on the SRB deflated during descent and by the looks caused an awkward impact that buckled the SRB tube. It's apparently happened to the shuttle SRBs in bad seas of from awkward landings before.
I guess this is what test flights are for, finding problems. It's not something that would be life threatening to a human mission on Ares I but it is annoying when you are expecting to reuse the SRB tubes for another launch.
Hope they can work the creases out before the 2012 I-Y flight (if it ever happens).
-
That parachute thing is quite an old issue. The SRB's of STS-4 even got completely lost due to high speed impact on the water surface.
So we can say that Ares I-X was a nice success still. Obviously no contact between SRB and the upper stage mass-simulator after separation. Just and insufficient separation burn of the SRB (timing and thrust) and aerodynamic effects which caused the upper stage tumbling. If there was a contact, we would have seen this on the upper part of the SRB, which in fact looks like it has not a single scratch on top.
-
Where are all the SSTO designs at?
Single stage to orbit designs have one big flaw and that is weight. Historically multiple stage vehicles have always been lighter for the same lifting power, since you can release your spent rocket sections. However, there have been so many advances with composite materials and new manufacturing techniques recently that this isn't a bad idea. :)
Now I think SSTO designs and anything big enough to build a space station (like the shuttle) are pretty much limited to LEO operations. There is no reason to take all that weight to the moon or beyond.
Exactly! Modern composites are far lighter and stronger than materials to be had back in the 70's and 80's. The ship would still be large, probably the size of a 767-400, but it would fill that entire space.
How are we to construct the next space station with out the shuttle?
This is a tough one. The shuttle is great at it! ;D
We have had awesome advances in autonomous operation and just down the hall from my lab they are working on autonomous space docking. It has also been done by the Jules Verne ATV to the ISS. With this in mind we could use heavy lift rockets (maybe even the ares-v?) to lift the sections into orbit and then dock them there. This of course has one HUGE flaw. Each section has to have the ability to rendezvous and dock!
It is a common (non-engineering) misconception that the Space Shuttle is an absolute requirement to assemble a space station in orbit. That the Space Shuttle is used for ISS assembling is due to the fact that the entire concept included the Space Shuttle from the beginning, the early 1980's, when the USA initially was planning to build the "Freedom" space station. At that time, Russia already was developing the Mir station and launched it into orbit starting in 1986 already, without any Space Shuttle or a similar vehicle involved. This was a milestone in space flight engineering and a huge step forward for long term space exploration. That is an experience the USA did not have for decades. The Mir station lasted for 16 years.
The future of manned space flight lies beyond low earth orbit, well for NASA. NASA did never intend to operate the ISS into the early or even late 2020's. The ISS NASA budgets will cut in 2017 rather likely. However, it is not out of the question that NASA would potentially build another space station. But this is something for the wide future, possibly not going to happen again within the first half of this century in case NASA continues to put its focus on Moon and Mars within the next decades, which is a wise decision.
There is a wide range of possibilites to build a station like ISS without any Shuttle-like vehicle involved. Even more, using something like the Russian Proton-K, assembly will happen quite faster than using the delay-hungry Space Shuttle. The Proton-K lifts up to 21 tons into orbit. Future vehicles could lift up even more. NASA engineers theirselves said that: hopefully we won't be that s****d again to build a space station by carrying it up by so many small pieces. And they're right. 6 tons here, 4 tons there... lots of required launches and delays for month inbetween caused by technical issues with the Shuttle / ET technology. The ISS is aging still during assembly. The first parts are already a decade of age. When Orion might be ready to fly, the ISS will be almost 20 years old alreday.
As amazing the Shuttle is, and as much progress and milestones the Shuttle did, not all that glistens is gold in any case. People really have to look behind the curtain before saying that something is the absolute best thing. The ISS does way less science than intended and than a lot of people here on the ground know or imagine. The ISS is a huge experiment itself which showed that it was an expensive and time consuming way we did it. Engineers and scientists have learned that in the future they'll do it a different more efficient way.
Thanks for the explanation.
So would I be safe to assume the majority of engineers out there are siding with the direct ascent capsule, and are not perusing SSTO ideas simply based on cost? Boeing did all that work on a lifting body for nothing?
Well if it is to be capsules again, can we see the finalized plans yet? Oh yea Lockheed has no idea what they are doing! McDonnell Aircraft Corporation built the Mercury and Gemini spacecraft, North American the Apollo. Last I checked Boeing owns both now... Yet NASA went with Lockheed.
Well if this is the next program, LETS GET IT GOING AND QUIT MESSING AROUND!!!
-
SSTO does work in space. The Apollo lunar lander was SSTO. The next generation of lunar lander also will be SSTO. But SSTO vehicles, capable to be launched on earth, never were capable of reaching orbit for now, and did exceed costs and suffered from serious technological problems. SSTO to be launched from earh still is music for the wide future, if at all. Or in other words: SSTO to be launched from earh does work in theory only.
As had been concluded by the Columbia accident investigation board, crew and cargo have to be separated. That's what Ares is about, launching crew and cargo separately (it is likely that we won't ever see something like the Space Shuttle again). The Augustine Commission does recommend to stop the Shuttle flights next year or 2011 at the latest and to continue with Ares I and Orion. The only real uncertainty belongs to the Ares V as there is no funding yet. Ares IV might become a likely option.
-
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!
-
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!
It has been said that there was no recontact by NASA. So there was no recontact. There is a video on NSF L2 that clearly shows that there was o recontact.
-
Can I just clear up a small matter here. The Augustine Committee has not made *any recommendations*. It's MO was purely to give the most viable *options* for the future of the US Human Spaceflight Program.
It's explained very well by committee member and former astronaut Leroy Chiao here:
http://leroychiao.blogspot.com/2009/10/on-future-of-us-human-spaceflight.html
-
And one of those options is to stop Shuttle flights by 2010/2011, continue development of Orion and expanding the ISS to 2020. But in my honset opinion I'd say retire ISS i.e. stop US funding and use the money for Constellation (just as they intend still). NASA should stop making people any hopes that Orion will be a big part of the ISS era. If at all, Orion will become the companion of the final few years of the ISS.
-
You can clearly see the separation, and I saw no contact between the upper and lower stages.
Sorry, but where can you see clearly the separation?
You can see clearly that after separation there was no recontact.
But you can't see the separation itself.
Both videos I know (this here and the life NASA TV during launch) do not show clear enough the junction of upper and lower stage.
But both show from different angles, that the top of the lower stage and the bottom of the upper stage start to move in the same direction right after separation.
It is highly unlikely, that this is a coincident.
In my opinion there are two possibilities and the second with the higher probability:
1. The separation mechanism (probably some pyrotechnical severed bolts) did not work as intended (one or some bolts broke too late).
2. The separation rockets of the lower stage were too weak for this test (the upper stage had no ullage rockets and no own thrust). The lower stage is in the slipstream of the upper stage after separation and was able to catch up after normal separation leading to an immediate recontact that pushed the lower end of the upper stage to the side.
I say "too weak for this test" and not too weak generally, because with a normal upper stage there might be no problem.
They should have used the escape system (without or with delayed separation of the crew cabin) to propel the upper stage forward in the very moment of 1st stage separation.
I wonder what would be planned in a real launch, should the 2nd stage start tumbling like here. I guess it would be immediate start of the escape system.
But I guess, the escape system was only a mock up.
Regarding the parachute issue, the comments on youtube so far are wrong.
It can be clearly seen, that all three parachutes open normally, but then one rapidly deflates and you can see it dragging half of the canopy above the plane of the two good ones and the lines. I guess, approximately half of the lines broke (or more likely their attachment point(s)).
What happened to the second was blocked by the cloud, but it drags part of the blue material so I guess a quarter of its lines broke as well.
I don't know how many attachment points each chute has.
Were it four, than two of the first chute and one of the second probably broke.
I am pretty sure, that will not happen on the next launch.
/Armin
PS: I speak of "separation rockets" but this is a plain guess.
Should they did not use any means of active deceleration of the lower stage during separation, the visited tumble of both stage would be no reason for questions, it would have been expected.
-
Sorry, but where can you see clearly the separation?
You can see clearly that after separation there was no recontact.
I was talking about the initial tumble after separation. Sorry, should of made myself clearer. :)
-
Even the most diehard shuttle fan (myself included) can't help but feel proud of the subject of this picture. The past and the future. I was around for the birth of Apollo and the Shuttle and now Ares/Orion. It has allways been sad to see a passing like this, but also exciting. Congress and the administration will get their act together and Ares will be as fantastic as everything that has come before. God Speed Ares.
(http://img43.imageshack.us/img43/2450/38650499.jpg)
By davidrobinsonjr (http://profile.imageshack.us/user/davidrobinsonjr) at 2009-10-26
I don't remember who said it, maybe it was Aldrin, but the statement was essentially correct: "The Orion project is nothing more but Apollo on steroids"
-
Looks like the Ares 1-Y test flight could be cancelled? Apparently it's a lack of fund to build the new engine required for the second stage flight test.
http://nasawatch.com/archives/2009/11/ares-1-lynch-mo.html
-
Forget about the article! Dig the talkbacks! They all rock! Interesting, intriguing (and civilized) debate.
/Admin
-
And be aware that NASA isn't going to cancel Ares I-Y because they have no fund to build the J-2X engine. They just don't have the fund to build it on schedule. Big differecne. And with the potential cut of Ares I-Y, there are opportunities for later but more efficient test flights by an almost complete Ares-I rocket. I say better take some time than do things fast and quick just to reduce a gap. The gap between Apollo and the Shuttle was 6 years although development was already underway when Apollo was still in operation. When the Shuttle was first being tested within the atmosphere in 1977 (the ALT - Approach and Landing Test flights), NASA was still anticipating to launch the Shuttle already in 1979 (for missions that take "a month"...). But there was a delay by two years caused by several challenges of the Shuttle's development. And to develope the Space Shuttle system was a huge challenge compared to Ares-I. And the Shuttle had never been launch-tested unmanned... ;)
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 :)
-
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.
-
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.
-
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.
-
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.
-
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
-
/Admin, thanks that's a great Poll -=- unfortunately I wanted to select at least 2 options.
-
Thanks Admin for this link, I choosed the "Go international" choice :)
Keep the Shuttle,
Keep the ISS access
and Get Moon and Mars :)
-
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?
-
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.
-
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.
-
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 :(
-
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.
-
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).
-
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 ;)
-
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.
-
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." ;D
-
LOL Greggy_D..... how true.
-
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." ;D
Yep - fully agree: there are so many "trivial" technologies, materials, processes and discoveries that Space Exploration gave us, that we use on a daily base without giving a second thought.
IMHO, Space Exploration, international or not, is billions or trillions well-spent.
/Admin
-
I firmly agree!
Just imagine everything that we've learned over the years...
-
And herre goes the last fill year of the STS Program
:-(
/Marvx
-
I have a feeling it is going to be extended.
-
Would be nice - but I certainly have my doubts....
What really bothers me, is all of the workforce that supports the STS could be out a job,,,
But, this is the way things go...
-
I have a feeling it is going to be extended.
Don't count on it. The production line for the external tank is closed down. According to Wayne Hale, it would take three years to get it running again. Not to mention all the other suppliers that have closed up or moved on to the Constellation Program.
It can be extended for one extra mission, since there is a spare external tank. Missions may be delayed till sometime in early 2011, but after that we'll just have to wait for Orion or Dragon.
In any case, all we have to look forward to, when it comes to human spaceflight, for the next 6-8 years are ISS crew rotation flights.
-
Would be nice - but I certainly have my doubts....
What really bothers me, is all of the workforce that supports the STS could be out a job,,,
But, this is the way things go...
Not "all" the workforce. Rather a small part, as many of it has already been assigned to other projects. Of course there will be some early retirees and some job losses, but not at a nation or state level disaster scale.
/Admin
-
I don't think the program will be extended. It is going to be delayed, as delays are usual for the Shuttle program. But they won't add any extra mission for sure. The retirement is more than a done deal for some years already. The only hope that sometimes arises comes from web articels but not from NASA or responsible persons. The ET production has been mentioned already. But also flight planning and training branches have done their work so far. There won't be any new or extra mission. And it is highly unlikely the government i.e. its consultants for manned space flight would advice to roll back the hole thing just for an extra mission. NASA follows a straight line although the money question for Ares still is uncertain. But the Shuttle retirement is more than certain.
I think that NASA will get some more money to get Orion into orbit not to soon before ISS retirement. But I think the gap and waiting really will be worth it, like the gap between Apollo and STS was worth it as well (which was 6 years!). We've seen Ares 1-X which was an amazing launch. Just imagine Orion on top of the finished Ares 1 launching into orbit to meet and rendezvous with the lunar module either in low earth orbit or in moon orbit (whatever NASA decides how to insert to the moon...). But even a manned Ares 1 launch alone will be breathtaking. The future offers much more when operating Orion rather than operating the Shuttle. Orion i.e. capsule desigen generally offers any capabilities beyond low earth orbit which STS did not. We can count on it, but we have to be rather patient first ;)
We'll be older, wiser and we'll have a great and almost finished SSM simulation once Orion lifts off ;D
-
http://www.nasaspaceflight.com/2009/12/nasa-direction-extra-shuttle-flights-commerical-launcher/
-
http://www.nasaspaceflight.com/2009/12/nasa-direction-extra-shuttle-flights-commerical-launcher/
Sadly that's once again not something officially and lots of speculation. Until NASA does not decide and officially announce something, the program ends by STS-133 as planned or STS-135 at the very latest. But there is only five missions left. The more time lapses away the more unlikely an extension will be. The final year is running already...
-
This was just released a few min ago. It is about the future vehicle options and the extension of the shuttle. I would highly advise it be read. I feel maybe we could split this thread into like a shuttle extension thread and a Future NASA type thread or something :)
http://www.nasaspaceflight.com/2010/01/battle-of-the-heavy-lift-launchers-monster-200mt-vehicle-noted/
-
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." ;D
Yep - fully agree: there are so many "trivial" technologies, materials, processes and discoveries that Space Exploration gave us, that we use on a daily base without giving a second thought.
IMHO, Space Exploration, international or not, is billions or trillions well-spent.
/Admin
I just don't understand one thing. If the Russians could somehow save the Soyuz, how come USA didn't save anything.
-
I just don't understand one thing. If the Russians could somehow save the Soyuz, how come USA didn't save anything.
Well, Soyuz is a real workhorse plus more reliable and favourable than any other manned system ever build and operated until today. Soyuz will be updated (as usual) and might even fly to the moon in future.
The Shuttle eats up a lot of money and man power. It is highly costly and high-maintenance. And it's a 100% low earth orbit system. Like former NASA Admin Michael Griffin said: the Shuttle was not the right path. If you want to get out of orbit or if you want a manned system that can be updated without changing the infrastructure and eating up tons of extra budget, the Shuttle really is around the neck of NASA.
The reason why NASA did not save any system for now is that NASA never developed a cheap and reliable system for the wide future comparable to Soyuz. Mercury and Gemini just was short-term programs to gain knowledge, learn how to live, navigate and rendevous in space in preparation of Apollo. And Apollo also just was a short-term program. It was made for a big show of landing on the moon manned to beat the Russians in arms race finally. Apollo really wolfed NASA and a lot of US money and man power. The Saturn V was a money-hungry beast. Its small sister, the Saturn 1B, also wasn't cheap at all. It was launched only 9 times. It was just another expensive rocket actually nobody was interested in after Apollo. And Skylab just marked the end of a great era. That space station was made up of Apollo remains due to dramatic budget cuts. It was just to fill the gap between Apollo and the Shuttle if you will. Actually NASA planned to use Skylab along with the Shuttle program. But due to the Shuttle program delays they had to abandon Skylab, after they noticed that it got out of control once they powered the station up again after some time in orbit. History does not repeat, but it is similar quite often ;)
STS initially was believed to be a robust and profit making design for a bright and shiny future. At the end the only bright and shiny future was for example Hubble and the ISS beside a few other missions. But STS-51L and STS-107 really casted a dark shadow on the program, while STS-107 was the beginning of the end. The Shuttle did never become what it was intended to become, but still it reamins the pinnacle of space flight engineering and the most awesome flying machine humans have ever build until today.
That's what NASA did not manage until today: to build a reliable and cheap system. That's when Russia comes into play. Russia often gets underestimated a lot anyway. Although that country had been driven by turbulent political events within the last centuries and did not have a good press in our believed "objective" press, they did some very impressive technologies and programs. They did not land on the moon manned, but they've build Buran which could even fly unmanned (and had a much higher payload capability than the US Shuttle). But sadly the program suffered from the breakdown of the Soviet Union. They build the most powerful rocket in the world until today: the N1 moon rocket (no, the Saturn V was not the most powerful rocket ever build as often called wrongly; it was the most powerful rocket that reached operational status). They've build the biggest airplane which still flies and holds the record: the Antonov 225 (it is biggher than the Airbus A380 in both, size and weight). Russia build the biggest artificial object in space in the 1980's: the Mir station. Russia has had much more experience in manned long term missions than NASA had when they started to build the ISS together. And last but not least: Soyuz, which operates for decades very very reliably without any losses. Just like ESA astronaut Thomas Reiter said: you can ride on it with closed eyes and fully trust on it. Some Russian technology really is robust and reliable. The Antonov 225 and Soyuz are the still living examples. And they're catching up with Airbus in civil aviation meanwhile (fly-by-wire, cockpit systems similar to Airbus cockpit systems etc.) and so beat Boeing technologically.
Soyuz is that much reliable and cheap that ESA has bought it and will launch it (unmanned) from Kourou, French Guyana: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Guiana_Space_Centre#ELS_.2F_Soyuz_at_CSG
Well, to talk about the future of manned US flights: Orion really could become a manned NASA vehicle for the wide future for the first time. They only have to get a reliable and cheap launcher working...
-
To talk about the future of STS again:
not that I want to destroy hopes or contradict web articles, news and speculation, but to say like it is: NASA did not request the extra money the House and Senate leaders agreed to authorize in early 2009 ($2.5 billion) if an extension should be necessary to complete the currently planned missions to the ISS. For a general extension there is no room anyway.
Until today the NASA management does not seem to be interested in keeping the Shuttle's flying at all. Unless Obama says anything different, which is actually not his decision anway, the current course of retirement is a final one at about 99% if there is not a miracle to happen.
-
....
I just don't understand one thing. If the Russians could somehow save the Soyuz, how come USA didn't save anything.
My take is that USA and USSR (and current Russia) had/have a totally different set of priorities.
/Admin
-
....
I just don't understand one thing. If the Russians could somehow save the Soyuz, how come USA didn't save anything.
My take is that USA and USSR (and current Russia) had/have a totally different set of priorities.
/Admin
Indeed. Before STS, everything in manned US space flight was short-term projects with the goal of one big political show of landing on the moon (the scientific part of Apollo was not as big as journalists often tend to call it in the media). Politically Apollo was about beating the Russians but nothing else. They did no think any further at that time. Initially Russia was on a similar course with its N1 moon landing program. But at the same time they've also build Soyuz, a real workhorse that later on sucessfully carried men to Mir and today men (and stuff) to the ISS. It operates sucessfully for 39 years (after there had been the last accident in 1971: because of a failed valve the crew got exposed to vacuum). There is no need to end the Soyuz program, and there is no better design for a replacement. If you will it is a perfect system that even will be in operation by ESA in the future. Think about why China did chose to partly "reproduce" that design and not something really different ;)
STS was the first long-term project of the USA. But the mistake was that its design did not really include the possibility for updates. Everything you do on the Shuttle is expensive and elaborate as hell (just as the whole program is). STS is/was way ahead of its time. I hope that this time NASA really builds something for the future...
-
In the end, what it all means is the US need to retain at least one flight ready shuttle (OV-105) until Orion is flying manned missions. The Russians are already talking about seats on Soyuz in the current nuclear arms limitation talks. Congress aint gonna go for that bait. So with the prospect of Russia possibly denying US Astronauts seats on Soyuz, it is national suicide to retire the only access to space available.
The USA should take cash outta that useless failure of a health care reform bill, and put it back into NASA. The HCR will keep another 10 years. You folks not living in the US don't really know how much the citizens here do NOT WANT that heath care system that congress is ramrodding though. That money should be spent on infrastructure and NASA.
-
In the end, what it all means is the US need to retain at least one flight ready shuttle (OV-105) until Orion is flying manned missions.
Well, as far as I know neither the NASA management nor the house and senate don't really want to operate the Shuttle any further beyond the ISS servicing missions. The house and senate only agreed to extra money "if" the current planned ISS servicing missions need to be extended by another servicing mission. Operating the Shuttle any further beyond the still required servicing missions is something nobody really wants (of the management) because it costs another tons of money and doesn't close the gap at all. They rather want to focus on getting Orion off the ground.
To stop the Shuttle flights as soon as possible and pump the proper budegt into the new program would be the best thing to happen for the future of manned US space flight. It would reduce the gap significantly and get a reliable system off the ground. What people don't understand is that the STS program is the actual issue here. It eats up tons of money and man power. It is a real drag NASA has to get rid of finally, no matter as much as we all love the Shuttle.
You folks not living in the US don't really know how much the citizens here do NOT WANT that heath care system that congress is ramrodding though.
It depends ;) I'm not living in the US but I'm quite aware that by the HCR Obama actually is going to divide the country.
-
Even if a significant amount of money was injected into Constellation, I doubt Orion or Ares I (or whatever they decide to launch Orion on) would fly till 2014-2015. That's just a basic Orion too, not the block that will do lunar or NEO flights. Similar story with heavy lift capability; it would still be years away even with a significant injection of funds. Unless they decided to built a fairly unsafe poor man's heavy lift rocket that consists of hastily cobbled multiple (more than 3) together Delta or Atlas stages.
Just look at Apollo. Even with the huge budget that NASA had available to them, it still took close to a decade of development and testing to get to the Moon (Saturn I first flew in 1961!).
It's a bad situation that I think everyone with the most meagre knowledge of aerospace or spaceflight history saw coming. Grand goals without the funding to back it up. No bucks, no Buck Rogers.
-
Even if a significant amount of money was injected into Constellation, I doubt Orion or Ares I (or whatever they decide to launch Orion on) would fly till 2014-2015. That's just a basic Orion too, not the block that will do lunar or NEO flights. Similar story with heavy lift capability; it would still be years away even with a significant injection of funds. Unless they decided to built a fairly unsafe poor man's heavy lift rocket that consists of hastily cobbled multiple (more than 3) together Delta or Atlas stages.
I think that the lunar version won't fly within this century anyway. But to get Orion off the ground and service the ISS wouldn't be any big deal until 2014/2015 by proper funding.
Just look at Apollo. Even with the huge budget that NASA had available to them, it still took close to a decade of development and testing to get to the Moon (Saturn I first flew in 1961!).
The big difference between those days and these days is that NASA had no experience in manned space flight. They decided to go to the Moon still within the 1960s just a few days after the first manned US space flight in 1961. And only 6 years later the first Saturn1b launched manned. And only 1 year later the first crew was orbiting the Moon already. If you will, from the decision to go to the Moon until the first manned flight to the Moon it took only 7 years, while NASA also had to learn how to live, work an operate in space at the same time. Remember that at the same time they also developed and operated Mercury and Gemini, including the required new infrastructures and mission control centers. The development of the Saturn V took only 4 years until it first lifted off for a test flight which was a complete success, and all in all only 6 years (two years after the first test flight) until it flew to the Moon manned for the first time in 1968.
Within only one decade, NASA developed and operated three manned systems: Mercury, Gemini and Apollo, and even more manned launchers: Mercury- Redstone, Mercury-Atlas, Gemini-Titan, Saturn 1b and Saturn V!
These days NASA engineers are highly skilled as well and they have much more tools and technologies availabe. They just wait to get a real chance. By proper funding, going to the Moon seriously could be done until 2018. The problem is that it's not a governmental goal really, it's just what NASA managers and engineers/scientists have in mind. But they just don't get the proper money. As you say: no bucks, no Buck Rogers.
-
I bet if NASA got the 770 billion from that "bailout" in 08 we would have a flying Orion next year!
-
Within the next weeks, or in February at the latest, we can expect that Obama might set a new and hopefully final course for NASA. According to a few sources they may scrub Ares I and get a heavy launcher ready to take humans to the moon until 2018.
"President Barack Obama will ask Congress next year to fund a new heavy-lift launcher to take humans to the moon, asteroids, and the moons of Mars, ScienceInsider has learned. The president chose the new direction for the U.S. human space flight program Wednesday at a White House meeting with NASA Administrator Charles Bolden, according to officials familiar with the discussion. NASA would receive an additional $1 billion in 2011 both to get the new launcher on track and to bolster the agency’s fleet of robotic Earth-monitoring spacecraft."
http://blogs.sciencemag.org/scienceinsider/2009/12/exclusiveobama.html
-
They keep fooling around, changing directions, funding is on and then it is off. We are going to get Ares I, and then we are not. In the mean time the schedule slips and slips. Are they going to chuck all the R&D allready done on Ares I? I don't mean to be synical, but that sounds like a government program doesn't it? I read the comments at the end of the article. Sounds great. How long would it take to develop propellantless propulsion. What do we do in the decades before that is ready. Like I said before: we need a safe, reliable and cost effective way into space. Ares might not be what everyone wants, but how long has it been since NASA got what it wanted? We have spent a ton of money on Ares I. Seems pretty dumb to toss it all down the drain now when we are so close to being done.
-
Well Ares I and Orion are a done deal. We are getting those, the only question is when. I have read and heard statements that it will be ready to fly in 2016 to as late as 2022. My bets are on the 2017-2019 time frame, unless a lot of money is routed to the program. The Ares V HLV program will need far more then 1 billion dollars to get it back on track. That report above proves that Obama is all about appearances and lip-service. Michoud Assembly has already cleared out all STS program equipment and begun to modify the facility for Constellation support. But at this point it is just a big empty bulding.
There is not even a finalized design for the HLV, as engineers are still going back and forth between the Ares IV and V concepts. I think this billion is being done as incentive to freeze the HLV design and stop all this bickering. I reluctantly got behind the Constellation program, but I am begining to wonder if we will ever see it.
-
Well, Ares I sadly is not a done deal at all. Work on it only continues as long as NASA has the go to continue. That's what one of the managers also said during one of the Ares I-X post-conferences. Everything depends on the white houte and congress. If they want to see things change, things will change. NASA depends on its "financier".
The problem of the latest course of Obama, if the source is trustable, is that the government is continuing to not make access to space cheap and reliable. They again are going to continue building something that's expensive and certainly not for the wide future. Orion needs more than just a heavy-lift launch vehicle. Also, Obama does not seem to consider the ISS at all. If they stop Ares I now, and put 1 billion "pocket money" into a heay-lift launcher, NASA is going to be what I didn't want to say before: out of the manned business. 1 billion is nothing. It won't help getting Ares I off the ground. Less than ever will they build and operate a heavy-lift launch vehicle until 2018. NASA is going to lose manned access to space really, which won't be a gap anymore, but a total stop for an uncertain period of time, probably right into the late 2010s or even into the 2020s.
It's nice that Obama considers international work. That is what I believe for a long time already: a real requirement if we want to fly to the Moon and beyond. The maverick way was possible for Apollo, but only for a very few years because it simply was too expensive. International partnership does work and does enable great projects like we can already see by the ISS. But again, like Apollo and the Shuttle, a heavy-lift launch vehicle and a lunar lander is not something for the wide future. It's for a big show of footprints on the lunar surface. But what after? There won't be no cheap manned access to space for NASA beside a grounded heavy-lift launcher and a few new descent stages on the lunar surface.
To cancel Ares I and put ridiculously less money into a heavy-lift launcher is to cancel manned access to space. Those politicians and decision maker today have no skill, no spirit, and no imagination anymore. We need somebody like Kennedy. Not somebody who "seems to be" like Kenney but does just indeed nothing more than lip service. To be honest: Obama and his team does not seem to have any clue of space flight. But that's what Obama already was known for. He is not a space flight enthusiast. My personal point of view is that space flight seems to be only a necessary evil for him.
No matter what happens this year, I can already see a bright future for Soyuz. Not that only Europe is going to operate it on its own in French Guyana, but also US astronauts will ride on it for many years to come...
People can think about Russia whatever they want. But one thing is for sue: they did it very right with Soyuz. Something NASA missed to build until today and in future obviously...
-
That post makes me want to add more lead to my diet...
Way to depressing.
-
...
No matter what happens this year, I can already see a bright future for Soyuz. Not that only Europe is going to operate it on its own in French Guyana, but also US astronauts will ride on it for many years to come...
.....
The only gripe I have with it is their crash landing "system". I wouldn't want to stay for one or two months on the ISS, significantly lose bone mass (a minimum of 14% loss and closer to 30%) and then suffer a fracture during landing.
/Admin
-
...
No matter what happens this year, I can already see a bright future for Soyuz. Not that only Europe is going to operate it on its own in French Guyana, but also US astronauts will ride on it for many years to come...
.....
The only gripe I have with it is their crash landing "system". I wouldn't want to stay for one or two months on the ISS, significantly lose bone mass (a minimum of 14% loss and closer to 30%) and then suffer a fracture during landing.
/Admin
That seems to be an old myth ;)
The Soyuz TMA, which is the latest version, was especially modified for ISS missions. It's latest SLEs (soft landing engines) reduces the touchdown speed from 9,4 km/h (Soyuz TM, the older version) to only 5 km/h. That's even slower than some landings of skydivers and makes landing with Soyuz more comfortable than landing with the Apollo Command Module was. The Apollo Command Module had a rate of descent of 35,4 km/h and up to 40 G's during water impact, depending on the wave hight. A splashdown is not something that can be called smooth. Each time the impact attenuation system destroyed the structure of the Command Module intentionally (that's really what can be called "crash", even more when you consider 40 G's). The rate of descent of the Soyuz TMA is 7 times slower during landing than the rate of descent of the Apollo Command Module was. Even if the Soyuz TMA would have to land only with its reserve parachute, it would descent with only 8.6 km/h and so even slower than the normal rate of descent of the old Soyuz TM during landing.
By the way, the Soyuz TMA improvements also increased the crew member capability by 10kg per astronaut, which is 95kg maximum mass per astronaut.
That's actually another good example of what NASA never managed to do, neither with Apollo, nor with Orion these days: smooth landings on solid ground. Orion sadly won't only land on solid ground and so reduce costs, it also won't be as much reusable as they wanted to make it initially. There are engineering voices who already said that Orion likely even could become non-reusable.
If people would look closer to Soyuz, they really would realize the advantages and dominance compared to any other manned system regarding to costs and reliability. And it has even a higher success rate than the Space Shuttle.
-
Not really a "myth" Moonwalker - rather a quite recent fact:
http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/24243569/ns/technology_and_science-space/
and a post TMA incident:
http://www.space.com/missionlaunches/exp6_soyuz_030526.html
While in NASA's case the STS program desasters were a direct result of management and decision-making chain almost criminal failures, in the Soyuz case, it's the method and equipment which is still an issue, with all the traditional Russian robustness, simplicity and over-specification built in their platforms.
And yes, I still have gripes with uncontrolled and uncontrollable re-entry and landing on hard surfaces regardless of whether it's NASA, ESA, JAXA or the Bear... but maybe that's a personal thing.
/Admin
-
At least the water will get out of the way, land not so much...
Orion was only hoped to be reusable, but only ISS bound capsules. The returning lunar flights were never going to be reused.
-
Not really a "myth" Moonwalker - rather a quite recent fact:
http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/24243569/ns/technology_and_science-space/
and a post TMA incident:
http://www.space.com/missionlaunches/exp6_soyuz_030526.html
While in NASA's case the STS program desasters were a direct result of management and decision-making chain almost criminal failures, in the Soyuz case, it's the method and equipment which is still an issue, with all the traditional Russian robustness, simplicity and over-specification built in their platforms.
That Soyuz generally is a hard landing vehicle remains is a rumor basically beefed-up by some news articels. Soyuz touches down with only 1,4 m/s under normal circumstances, which is quite smooth for a landing on solid ground.
Space flight always was and always will be a risky business. Soyuz isn't sparsely trustworthy because of incidents that are not uncommon to happen in manned space flight, less than ever within 39 years of operation. The causes are known and fixable. Soyuz fulfills all NASA requirements to accomplish ISS missions and to carry US astronauts.
And yes, I still have gripes with uncontrolled and uncontrollable re-entry and landing on hard surfaces regardless of whether it's NASA, ESA, JAXA or the Bear... but maybe that's a personal thing.
Yes, it's a personal thing I guess, but also for astronauts who feel different I think ;) If you take my personal opinion: I would be a fool not to take a ride on Soyuz only because of a few incidents within decades of operation. Same for the Shuttle by the way :)
Well, crews ride on Soyuz for 39 years, without any loss and without major injuries. It is indeed the most successful manned program for now. Especially German astronauts Thomas Reiter and Ulf Merbold loved to ride on it (and not to mention Sigmund Jähn, the first German guy in space in 1978 who also flew with Soyuz). They all still talk about it amazed in interviews like lots of others who took a ride and are willing to do again whenever they would get another chance. It's just that a few people still think that because Soyuz is a Russian thing it must be bad or rudimentary, which is not the case at all.
If you're scared about those incidents, then you have good reasons to also not take a ride with the Shuttle, just like with any other system as well (especially Mercury and Gemini which was really risky business). If you only look at the STS-1 anomalies, it already scares the hell out of you not less than those Soyuz incidents. STS-1 easily could have become a rather close one, just like many other STS missions. But that's again something you shouldn't worry about if you want progress and go into space ;)
Soyuz is a reliable system that wrote history within the last 4 decades not less than the Shuttle, and is going to continue to do so for decades to come.
At least the water will get out of the way, land not so much...
An impact on water with 35 km/h and up to 40 G's is something that doesn't make the crew feel the water getting out of the way. Just think about the Apollo 15 landing with one failed main parachute. Comfort wasn't what you were looking for those days ;)
Orion was only hoped to be reusable, but only ISS bound capsules. The returning lunar flights were never going to be reused.
The initial concept included Orion to be reusable up to 10 times, while it is still uncertain how much and which parts of the lunar version could be reusable. Of course the lunar version won't be entirely reusable, but also not non-reusable on the whole. Just think about the interior, i.e. the expensive electronics and instrumentation. I think that the final solution for both, the low earth orbit and lunar version, will be reusability of certain parts only.
The Apollo Command Module had a mass of "only" ~6 tons and required an impact attenuation system and a crushable structure, although it landed on water that gets out of the way (also remember the Ares 1-X first stage impact...). Orion is going to have as twice as much mass. The Soyuz descent module has only half the mass of the Apollo Command Module and only 1/4 the mass of Orion. With a rate of descent of only 1,4 m/s, you cann guess which landing of those three systems will be the smoothest one.
With a 6-crew member Orion and Ares 1, NASA really has created a monster-challenge. Weight is the major issue for both, Ares 1 and Orion. The weight capabilities of the Ares 1 are almost exhausted already, resulting in a smaller version of Orion, shrinking crew size for lunar missions etc. Meanwhile I'm really curious how the program will continue. But I'm still a proponent and fan rather than an opponent. Because the program has come far and still is amazing. If they scrub it now and again change the direction, the manned part of NASA will be in serious trouble for years...
-
Well, crews ride on Soyuz for 39 years, without any loss and without major injuries.
Just want to point out that the crew was lost on both Soyuz 1 (parachute failure) and Soyuz 11 (valve failure when the orbital module separated from the descent module).
Still a really successful program, just wanted to point it out.
-
Just want to point out that the crew was lost on both Soyuz 1 (parachute failure) and Soyuz 11 (valve failure when the orbital module separated from the descent module).
That's why I mention that Soyuz is in operation for 39 years without losses and serious injuries. Because both accidents happened more than 39 years ago, during the early years of the program ;)
Soyuz TMAT will be the next generation soon. And Soyuz ACTS is expected to be the lunar orbiting version in future. That's what I call a flexible spacecraft concept. It was servicing the Saljut stations and the Mir station (and it was used for the Apollo-Soyuz Test Project), it is servicing the ISS, and it is potentionally going to fly to the Moon in future. Russia will get its chance again. I think we might see something similiar to ISS in future (cooperation), but maybe on the surface of the Moon this time. If NASA only would be set to the proper course finally...
-
That's why I mention that Soyuz is in operation for 39 years without losses and serious injuries. Because both accidents happened more than 39 years ago, during the early years of the program ;)
You're right, my bad, should of read your comment closer. :)
If NASA only would be set to the proper course finally...
I agree, I just want NASA to get a course and be free to pursue it. I'm tired of politics causing their focus to change. I know Constellation has its problem, but if we keep changing the program we will never get anything done. Just my 2 cents.
-
Moonwalker, nothing personal here but sometimes your posts come across in a condescending way.
Just an observation...
Orion is being sold with the same pitch the shuttle was. Cheap and routine. Didn't those people learn their first time around? Oh wait, Con is the opposite of Pro, so Congress must be the opposite of Progress. At this point I really dont give a flying F#&% what is done, JUST THAT SOMETHING IS DONE!!!!
/rant
-
Yes, sometimes my posts come across in a condescending way. The problem is that at the moment there is not a lot of good things to say about NASA these days. The whole world, well the whole space flight world, is watching it with big scepticism and criticisms like maybe never before. And I think with good reasons. NASA once did amazing things and an amazing progress. This definately has come to an end sadly. The Ares program did raise so many criticisms which I would have never thought before. But I can see why in the meantime. NASA is doing really bad and that not only since Constellation to be honest. I think exactly the same way regarding the past 3 decades like many do, including former NASA Admin Michael Griffin: "It is now commonly accepted that was not the right path." "We are now trying to change the path while doing as little damage as we can."
The Space Shuttle era is accompanied by a lot of amazing things, but also it carries as much shadows along and is doing big damage to NASA these days. It's a millstone around NASAs neck. In my personal opinion NASA should have updated the Apollo program almost the way Russia did with Soyuz. Instead, they completely changed their course and developed something that can't be easily improved/changed and is bounded to low earth orbit forever. But actually it's the congress and not really NASA who is the quilty one, just like with Constellation. What a lot of people do not see is that the current problems was not only caused by Ares and the current path, but also lies within the STS program.
The gap between Apollo and STS was almost 6 years, while the go, money and development of STS already began when NASA still was landing on the Moon in the eraly 1970s. But these days everything is uncertain. They have to keep the Shuttle flying in order to finish building the ISS (which is really the only reason why the Shuttle survived the post STS-107 era). They don't have enough money for Constellation they were promised to get. And the most worst thing is that they're developing something that raises more criticism by negineers like never before. For now the future of NASA looks: grounded in the hangar while they will have to buy seats of the Russian workhorse that survived any era. So how can my posts within this thread come across not in a condescending way? ;)
-
At this point, the question of man-rating the Atlas V and Delta IV must be considered, if only for a stop-gap.
-
Unofficial, but soon to be made official:
- ISS to be extended to 2020
- Constellation is dead, to be replaced by "commercial" or "entrepreneurs" whose task will be to build the capability to haul cargo to LEO (ISS etc).
- Exploring how the ATV/HTV can be expanded to "safe deorb and landing" capabilities.
- Human crews will reach ISS with Soyuz
/Admin
-
Unofficial, but soon to be made official:
- ISS to be extended to 2020
- Constellation is dead, to be replaced by "commercial" or "entrepreneurs" whose task will be to build the capability to haul cargo to LEO (ISS etc).
- Exploring how the ATV/HTV can be expanded to "safe deorb and landing" capabilities.
- Human crews will reach ISS with Soyuz
/Admin
Where did you get that information from?
If that's going to be announced, it will mean that NASA will be out of the manned space flight business. Also, there won't be any missions to the Moon within the next ~20 years and no missions to Mars until the late 2050s, or in other words: there won't be any missions beyond LEO in future. Further, I also do believe that a commercial system won't be ready for safe operation within the lifetime of the ISS. At least not SpaceX within the next years. But who else if even NASA doesn't get the money? Exactly: nobody. It is just empty phrases to take away the responsibility.
NASA is facing and marking the end of a great human era, with ISS marking the peak. And if there won't be a STS replacement at all, we can be sure that NASA will look very different in future, i.e. shrink dramatically while removing the manned capabilities for an indefinite period of time. I have to say that Obama and most of the present politics are sissies.
RIP NASA. The Game is over after 59 years of manned programs. Best ones to ESA and Roscosmos.
-
I obviously can't tell you where this comes from, but let's say that it's right from the horse's mouth - not some journalist or rumors. This will become public soon. Obama will try and wrap this as gently as he can so that what you say about NASA and manned space fligh wouldn't be so obvious, but the message is clear.
Don't forget however that these things can change, and NASA may yet return to the manned option sooner than the current not-published-yet plan allows.
In any case, NASA will be more internationally cooperative than before.
/Admin
-
In any case, NASA will be more internationally cooperative than before.
That might be the only good thing. But, there is a big but: if the manned business would remain. NASA needs an assignment and a course. If Obama does not set a course, NASA won't be manned anymore what it is today. And I don't see any course.
In any case, Obama is not going to leave the office as he entered. He will leave a shadow, not only speeking about NASA but also about the health care reform which isn't going to become reality. No second Kennedey. Just a 21th century shadow cast. The world does not have any leaders anymore these days. But that's a different topic.
However, I can't tell you often enough how glad I am for being able to use SSM2007. You have created such a great simulation and contribute to the memory of the final manned NASA program (well, final for now...). Looking forward for many years and missions to come ;D
-
Any word on what will happen to unmanned exploration?
I won't believe it till I hear it. I just can't see the USA getting out of the human spaceflight business...until I remember the vote to approve the Space Shuttle program only passed by one vote in the Senate.
It would be one of the most absurd, shortsighted, and ignorant decisions that a politician has ever made. The American space program is peaceful, inspirational, promotes innovation and international cooperation. How could President Obama possibly justify getting rid of it? It's less than 1% of the Federal Budget! I work in finance, and anytime I see people eliminating budget items that account for an insignificant percentage of their budget, I know it is one hell of a desperate attempt to cut costs and usually means the organization is in dire straits.
I haven't seen any such rumours on NASASpaceFlight forum, so I'll remain cautiously optimistic.
At the very least, we'll have the Chinese space program. Shenzhou 2010 perhaps?
-
I have great hopes for SpaceX. I'm sure they'll be dashed by beauracracy, but a man can hope. I spent several hours the other day on SpaceX's website researching and going wow. I really believe Elon Musk(sp?) is committed to making his dream work. And, it's not all just about being NASA's taxi service. I never knew he was the guy behind PayPal. That's how he made his initial fortune and started SpaceX on his own dime(s).
-
I haven't seen any such rumours on NASASpaceFlight forum, so I'll remain cautiously optimistic.
I don't think it's rumors anymore. Our Admin seems to be right. Here you go: http://www.orlandosentinel.com/news/space/os-no-moon-for-nasa-20100126,0,2770904.story
NASA will be a climate research agency basically. But the manned era will be over by the end of the STS program. NASA has no focus and Obama is not going to give NASA a focus on manned space flight.
At the very least, we'll have the Chinese space program. Shenzhou 2010 perhaps?
No. ESA and Roscosmos ;)
-
I have great hopes for SpaceX. I'm sure they'll be dashed by beauracracy, but a man can hope. I spent several hours the other day on SpaceX's website researching and going wow. I really believe Elon Musk(sp?) is committed to making his dream work. And, it's not all just about being NASA's taxi service. I never knew he was the guy behind PayPal. That's how he made his initial fortune and started SpaceX on his own dime(s).
I like SpaceX but I don't see it becoming a manned supporter of the ISS. SpaceX is far away from that. If at all, they will carry cargo to the ISS. But even this is still years ahead...
Admin: could you please develope "Soyuz Mission 2011-2020"? ;D
Just kidding ;)
-
Any word on what will happen to unmanned exploration?
I won't believe it till I hear it. I just can't see the USA getting out of the human spaceflight business...until I remember the vote to approve the Space Shuttle program only passed by one vote in the Senate.
It would be one of the most absurd, shortsighted, and ignorant decisions that a politician has ever made. The American space program is peaceful, inspirational, promotes innovation and international cooperation. How could President Obama possibly justify getting rid of it? It's less than 1% of the Federal Budget! I work in finance, and anytime I see people eliminating budget items that account for an insignificant percentage of their budget, I know it is one hell of a desperate attempt to cut costs and usually means the organization is in dire straits.
I haven't seen any such rumours on NASASpaceFlight forum, so I'll remain cautiously optimistic.
At the very least, we'll have the Chinese space program. Shenzhou 2010 perhaps?
Basically it's up to the Prez... Kennedy put NASA on the map, Obama may well take it off.
HOWEVER, please note that I did say "international cooperation" so NASA will still be a leader, but not THE leader.
2020 is slated for a human expedition to the Moon , but the Astros getting there will ride an international - not solely American - platform.
STS will be mothballed by the end of 2010 as planned and NASA secured a deal with Russia for uniterrupted Astros hauling up and down the ISS until ISS is retired too.
The good news is that the ISS will live at least until 2010 and maybe even beyond - again, with international support.
/Admin
-
I have great hopes for SpaceX. I'm sure they'll be dashed by beauracracy, but a man can hope. I spent several hours the other day on SpaceX's website researching and going wow. I really believe Elon Musk(sp?) is committed to making his dream work. And, it's not all just about being NASA's taxi service. I never knew he was the guy behind PayPal. That's how he made his initial fortune and started SpaceX on his own dime(s).
I like SpaceX but I don't see it becoming a manned supporter of the ISS. SpaceX is far away from that. If at all, they will carry cargo to the ISS. But even this is still years ahead...
Admin: could you please develope "Soyuz Mission 2011-2020"? ;D
Just kidding ;)
SpaceX is a major player in the new NASA work-plan, together with other "space exploration entrepreneurs". 'nuf said!
/Admin
-
Well, seriously: we all know that nobody will ride to the Moon until 2020. That's only 10 years. Anybody is focused on the ISS until then. SpaceX can be happy if they manage to support the ISS with cargo, even with the help of NASA.
-
Any word on what will happen to unmanned exploration?
I won't believe it till I hear it. I just can't see the USA getting out of the human spaceflight business...until I remember the vote to approve the Space Shuttle program only passed by one vote in the Senate.
It would be one of the most absurd, shortsighted, and ignorant decisions that a politician has ever made. The American space program is peaceful, inspirational, promotes innovation and international cooperation. How could President Obama possibly justify getting rid of it? It's less than 1% of the Federal Budget! I work in finance, and anytime I see people eliminating budget items that account for an insignificant percentage of their budget, I know it is one hell of a desperate attempt to cut costs and usually means the organization is in dire straits.
I haven't seen any such rumours on NASASpaceFlight forum, so I'll remain cautiously optimistic.
At the very least, we'll have the Chinese space program. Shenzhou 2010 perhaps?
Basically it's up to the Prez... Kennedy put NASA on the map, Obama may well take it off.
HOWEVER, please note that I did say "international cooperation" so NASA will still be a leader, but not THE leader.
2020 is slated for a human expedition to the Moon , but the Astros getting there will ride an international - not solely American - platform.
STS will be mothballed by the end of 2010 as planned and NASA secured a deal with Russia for uniterrupted Astros hauling up and down the ISS until ISS is retired too.
The good news is that the ISS will live at least until 2010 and maybe even beyond - again, with international support.
/Admin
2020 for an international expedition to the Moon? I remember when the ISS was given rather similar optimistic deadlines too.
Here is an article in the Orlando Sentinel about all this:
http://www.orlandosentinel.com/news/space/os-no-moon-for-nasa-20100126,0,2770904.story
"There will be no lunar landers, no moon bases, no Constellation program at all.
In their place, according to White House insiders, agency officials, industry executives and congressional sources familiar with Obama's long-awaited plans for the space agency, NASA will look at developing a new "heavy-lift" rocket that one day will take humans and robots to explore beyond low Earth orbit. But that day will be years — possibly even a decade or more — away.
In the meantime, the White House will direct NASA to concentrate on Earth-science projects — principally, researching and monitoring climate change — and on a new technology research and development program that will one day make human exploration of asteroids and the inner solar system possible."
As I said before, how about Shenzhou 2010? Starting to sound better and better.
Anytime I read "decade or more" or "one day" in articles dealing with a project that requires politicians to approve the funds, I know that the project is certainly dead for foreseeable future.
-
Without entering into details and speculations here's my feedback to a few points raised before:
1. It took NASA (and the nation) less than a decade to "land a man on the moon". Of course, the leadership and the challenges (economical, political and technological) were very different, but still, it's been done before.
2. NASA has scheduled SpaceX for an ISS resupply mission for 2011. That Falcon 9 is a nice tool.
3. Don't just yet underestimate SpaceX's Dragon CEV, or on of its future incarnations.
/Admin
-
To go to the moon required a huge infratsructure and a lot of money. Money that only governments offer for space flight. The manpower required to put NASA on the surface of the moon, and that within less than 10 years (from announcement until first touchdown it was only 8 years) required almost a whole country i.e. its most powerful companies (Boeing, McDonnell Douglas, IBM and much much more) to work almost 24 hours a day under big political and leadership pressure. That is something no private company has and not even NASA gets today. What SpaceX is able to do is within a very narrow range compared to Apollo and NASA. They might launch cargo sometime within the next 10 years to the ISS, and maybe, just maybe, by much money and help, humans to the ISS. But that will be it. If Europe, Russia and the USA don't work together, or if Obama does not assign NASA a real new goal and straight program, we won't see any manned missions beyond earth orbit. This is as safe as the Bank of England!
Huron_Serenity: forget about Shenzhou. Why are you so focused on it? The leadership in manned space flight goes to Russia anyway. The Chinese space flight program is not in a good shape at all. They launch too rarely. They flew only 3 times within 5 years. And their next flight is not going to happen until 2011, which is a gap of 3 years, and which all in all makes it only 4 manned flights within nearly a decade. They're just doing a propaganda show to show that they are also are able to do big things now (finally after many decades of testing rockets...). But the science is minor, very minor. Without partnership they won't be able to hold a candle to Russia, less than ever to the USA.
-
Moonwalker,
I didn't say or imply that SpaceX will get to the Moon within 10 years. Point #1 referred to NASA (and USA) alone, under the proper economical, political and technological conditions. Currently, only the technological condition is met.
I do stand by my points #2 and #3 though based again, on firm information, not speculation.
/Admin
-
Yes, SpaceX might launch crew to the ISS. That's their intention based on firm information of course. But they are still quite away from it. Dragon is still under development (mockups, videos and computer models basically AFAIK), and we already have 2010. Completing development and testing will take still some time until they finally will launch cargo to the ISS, and some more time until they will launch crew to the ISS after testing and man-rating the intended manned version. NASA needs to put some money into it if they don't want to see a relatively huge gap after ISS retirement.
I like the SpaceX and the COTS concepts. But at the moment it's still overestimated rather than underestimated I think. Falcon 9 did not even successfully get off the ground yet. We will still have to wait quite some time...
-
Moonwalker,
Just as my previous posts are beginning to receive official confirmation, based on today's US morning news, believe me on the SpaceX cargo haul to the ISS on 2011, and Dragon future ;)
That unless somebody grows some serious Titanium balls at the White House and gets his/her priorities right <VBG>
/Admin
-
Yes, Dragon might have a future on the ISS. But it's temporary for now, just adapted to the ISS, not really a wide NASA future. And crews aboard Dragon still is music. We'll see...
Meanwhile, it is interesting to see that beside all the rumors going on across the web, NASA has finished building something that is similar to the Apollo Program: a 118 meter mobile launch tower for the Ares 1 ;D
(http://spaceflightnow.com/news/n1001/28arestower/mlwide.jpg)
http://spaceflightnow.com/news/n1001/28arestower/
Maybe not the end of Ares? Maybe just "anonymous" rumors going on? Now I'm curious what Obama is going to tell us. Since I can not imagine that NASA insiders and managers do know less than we and/or "anonymous" web news ;) If they do such big things, they must have good reasons...
-
LOL - not really "anonymous" and not "web news". What about very real and most relevant persons telling you in person face-to-face?
/Admin
-
Well, nobody talked to me face to face for now, especially not somebody from the White House or NASA ;D All those rumors are comming from "insiders" and "officials" (who don't want to be named) or people who tell they were told something from somebody.
I'm really curious now what Obama is going to tell us really...
-
Well, nobody talked to me face to face for now, especially not somebody from the White House or NASA ;D All those rumors are comming from "insiders" and "officials" (who don't want to be named) or people who tell they were told something from somebody.
I'm really curious now what Obama is going to tell us really...
Well, I can't do anything about you not having the "right" sources. For you, these are rumors, for me, these are already facts.
/Admin
-
Well, nobody talked to me face to face for now, especially not somebody from the White House or NASA ;D All those rumors are comming from "insiders" and "officials" (who don't want to be named) or people who tell they were told something from somebody.
I'm really curious now what Obama is going to tell us really...
Well, I can't do anything about you not having the "right" sources. For you, these are rumors, for me, these are already facts.
/Admin
The problem is that Obama did not yet announce anything and all sources across the web a referring to insinders who don't want to be named.
By the way, what would happen if Obamas plans fail? I mean, he is also going to fail with his health care reform. Doesn't he also need to get popularity to change the space program? I don't think he can't say: "we do it that way" and anybody just follows silently. NASA has a huge lobby in congress, and if Obama is going to cut US leadership in space, who would seriously believe that all politicians and decision maker in congress will just shut up and follow? I can't imagine that, if all the news are right and Obama is going to cut NASA, that this won't stir up outrage and political fights.
"Obama's NASA facelift faces tough fight in Congress":
http://www.spaceflightnow.com/news/n1001/28congress/
-
I don't want to speculate what Obama will do in either case. I think that I don't have the necessary tools to do that. I just broke the news about Obama's Admin's decision on NASA's future.
I know only one thing - if he will have this double failure, failing to pass the Health Reform AND failure to pass his NASA decisions, he will have a tough time ahead, at least politically.
What will he do in this case? Your guess I think, is as good as mine.
/Admin
-
Well this was a waste. Nice to see rocket launches and see it implemented into SSM but there is now no reason for the flight
Cancelled
-
Nice to see rocket launches and see it implemented into SSM but there is now no reason for the flight
There is: excitement. It still was an amazing launch. The great work of the SSM2007 crew was not for nothing. History is not "cancelable" ;)
And keep in mind that the results of that flight and its preparations will have an impact on future designs (especially wiser decisions...).
-
Nice to see rocket launches and see it implemented into SSM but there is now no reason for the flight
There is: excitement. It still was an amazing launch. The great work of the SSM2007 crew was not for nothing. History is not "cancelable" ;)
And keep in mind that the results of that flight and its preparations will have an impact on future designs (especially wiser decisions...).
I was not saying there was no reason for SSM to implement it. I was saying there is now no need for the results. Ares 1 is DEAD. You can not use the results for that flight for another rocket. And we will be going commercial so they already have their own rockets.
-
I was not saying there was no reason for SSM to implement it. I was saying there is now no need for the results. Ares 1 is DEAD. You can not use the results for that flight for another rocket. And we will be going commercial so they already have their own rockets.
Yes. Ares 1 is dead (but work still continues until its current budget will be exhausted). But NASA won't stop developing rockets and using SRB's in future just because Ares 1 is canceled. That's why Norman Augustine mentioned the importance and suggested to perform the Ares 1-X flight even if Ares 1 won't ever fly. Because the test flight is an engineering benefit for future developments. A lot of aerodynamic and rocketry data has been collected related to single SRB usage.
-
Nice to see rocket launches and see it implemented into SSM but there is now no reason for the flight
There is: excitement. It still was an amazing launch. The great work of the SSM2007 crew was not for nothing. History is not "cancelable" ;)
And keep in mind that the results of that flight and its preparations will have an impact on future designs (especially wiser decisions...).
I was not saying there was no reason for SSM to implement it. I was saying there is now no need for the results. Ares 1 is DEAD. You can not use the results for that flight for another rocket. And we will be going commercial so they already have their own rockets.
Spaceboy7441,
Don't forget that the Ares I-X test launch was the culmination of years of planning, testing, simulating, developing methodologies, policies and standards, experimenting with materials, learning and manufacturing. The accumulated benefit of all these is immense!
The test launch and the tons of measurements they took from the actual event, the experience the team got from actually building Ares I-X are useful and priceless for the future of Space Exploration - regardless whether it is done by NASA or by other "entity".
So that short 6+ minutes sub-orbital ride, packs the punch of tens of thousands of people behind it, their knowledge, experience, dreams, aspirations and professionalism - we should NEVER underestimate that!
/Admin
-
The American manned space program is dead for now. Ares-1 is canceled, not even valid replacement for an Earth-ISS back and forth mission possibility, not even as much as the Soyuz.
Make sure that you make at least one DVD of SSM 2007, unused and sealed, with some laptop to load it on, and leave it to your great-grandchild. It will be a heck of a collectors value :)
-
The American manned space program is dead for now. Ares-1 is canceled, not even valid replacement for an Earth-ISS back and forth mission possibility, not even as much as the Soyuz.
Make sure that you make at least one DVD of SSM 2007, unused and sealed, with some laptop to load it on, and leave it to your great-grandchild. It will be a heck of a collectors value :)
:)
Yes, it will be the FIRST release of a (hopefully) long franchise. Definitely a collector's item.
/Admin
-
Just like Ares 1, Orion also won't be in memory as a glory achievement:
http://www.nasaspaceflight.com/2010/02/unlucky-orion-crashing-space-program-drop-test-fails/
The situation is quite sad. NASA won't only have a launcher, they won't even have a crew vehicle at all. They will have exactly: nothing. And that for the very first time within its history. NASA won't get into space on its own for more than a decade. So people should realize why we need commerical companies to back up agencies.
-
This makes me ashamed to be American...
I shall call myself a Confederate from now on... How about putting a if of the first national Confederate flag in the avatars? No not that battle flag everyone has a thing about, but the star and bars?
(http://www.usflag.org/historical/stars.bars.gif)
This sucks...
-
You have a reason to be proud of being American, bjbeard. SpaceX is the first company in the world that launches rockets into LEO. They have even put a small satellite into LEO with their Falcon 1.
Watch this in 720p HD and full screen and you certainly will be amazed:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=SmkP6GySJe0
This is only the very beginning of commercial human space flight. The Flacon 9 launch window will start in early March, so not even one month from now ;)
-
Interesting, in this video there is a launch escape tower. If you go to their website you will not find that.
http://www.spacex.com/
Inaugural flight launch window will start in early March?
Hmm, they say "We expect to launch in one to three months after completing full vehicle integration" and they just initiated vehicle integration. I don't know how long is takes to fully integrate the vehicle, but add one month and launch would definitely not be in early march.
Their launch manifest still indicates 2009 as target date. Not very actual and not very precise. And what is the meaning of "Target date indicates hardware arrival at launch site"? ::)
I expect a date on a launch manifest as the day where the hardware is leaving launch site. ;D
/Armin
-
The crew escape system will be part of the manned Dragon capsule only. The cargo version won't use a crew escape system of course. The qualification vehicle also won't use one. It is the first vehicle which will be used for testing. It's already prepared to go fly:
(http://www.spacex.com/assets/img/20100104_9dragontrunk.jpg)
(http://www.spacex.com/assets/img/20100104_10hardware.jpg)
Although behind schedule (as usual in space flight mostly), both, Falcon 9 first and second stages have passed full duration and orbit insertion simulation tests successfully. The launch of Falcon 9 now depends on integration, weather and on NASA also. It's already a joint venture between SpaceX and NASA. The launch of Falcon 9 will earn at least as much attention and excitement as Ares 1-X. It certainly will become breaking news once lifted off and reached orbit. For now there is nothing closer to human transportation to the ISS than SpaceX. Not NASA nor ESA is closer. Sad but we at least have something to hope on ;)
For launch schedules visit:
http://www.webcitation.org/5mhrv708j
-
I will believe it when I see it fly. Virgin Galactic has put a really bad taste in everyone's mouth when it comes to "commercial spaceflight". Making money is one thing. Ripping people for $250,000 US for a ride in a cannonball is completely useless. Take a ride on Zero-G. It lasts longer and costs around $5,000. You get the same thing.
If any company were really serious about "commercial spaceflight" then one of them would get OV-105 after NASA has finished with it, and keep using it at least until 2014. That is when the current OMDP certifications run out. OV-103 has a ticket until 2012, while OV-104 has already flown past the expiration date. But not one company has expressed interest. Why?
Well at last accounting, the average cost of a shuttle mission was over $600 million US. Some estimates by opponents say $1.5bn. Proponents say $300 million, By those figures it costs between $5,750 and $28,100 per pound/half-kg to LEO. Most ELV costs are around $5,100 to $15,500 perlb/.5kg. However all the ELV can do is loft it up there. Without a capability like the STS, that is about all one can do.
One thing most people don't take into account is that the "commercial launch market" collapsed. And now, well last September, Obama started the final countdown to NASA's demise.
http://www.thespacereview.com/article/1493/1
Looks like China is getting some help from NASA and Obama is behind it.
Like I said, I am ashamed of America. I can only hope the change in Congress will save our collective butts. But we all know con is the opposite of pro...
So Congress must be the opposite of Progress.
What founding father missed this glaring mistake?
-
Virgin Galactic and SpaceX are two different companies. Virgin Galactic intentions is space tourism, still flying ballistically within the earths atmosphere. SpaceX is a serious space engineering company capable to send satallites into LEO, as well as cargo and humans to the ISS. That's why NASA has made a contract with SpaceX of 1.6 billion USD. The most sucessful company currently is Arianespace by the way, with more than 1 billion USD revenue per year. I guess everyone knows their Ariane 5 rocket operated by ESA (yes it's commercial and it works). In thise league (SpaceX and Arianespace), Virgin Galactic does not play any role at all, nor is it comparable. It's like trying to compare apples and pears. Commercial does not stand for tourism or non-governmental funded. It's just a different method to distribute money for serious space flight engineering.
As for the Space Shuttle: the Space Shuttle requires a huge and expensive infrastructure which only NASA has. There is no company which has such an infrastructure (consisting of several companies, space centers and facilities), the required know how and most importantly the required money to operate something like the Space Shuttle. The launch cost is ~1.5 billion USD. But most importantly there is no rational reason at all, neither for NASA nor for somebody else, to operate the Shuttle any further just for the sake of some fan-boys (which I am as well) to see it continue to fly and be happy. The reason for the Shuttle retirement beside aging is its risky design flaw and the massive costs. The only reason the Shuttle survived after STS-107 is NASA's commitment to use it for ISS assembly. Without the ISS in Orbit, STS-107 would have been the last flight of the STS program. Whilst with potential issues during the last Hubble servicing mission, that would have been the end as well even in case the ISS would not have been finished, as had been pointed out by the managers. The Shuttle operates on its final breaths technologially and costly. Not even Roscosmos would be interested to operate that money hungry brick.
As for China: the whole Chinese space program gets totally overestimated. Their program is not in a good shape (only 3 manned flights within nearly a decade and "0" science whilst they intend to fly into space manned for more than 4 decades already). China does not get any help. China is not an evil communist country that tries to be the king of the universe. There seems to be some mistaken enemy images by some people these days. China can be lucky if they manage to get more experience in space anytime in the future.
The leaders in space are, and will continue to be: NASA, ESA, and Roscosmos (and its smaller partners around the globe). They'll work together like they already do, and more commercial companies (beside Arianespace) will join.
-
Moonwalker I know VG and S-X are different companies... I didn't think I had to get really basic with people here.
BTW has the Ariane booster begun getting human-rated yet? I saw a thing about that a while back. Supposedy Boeing has done the basic stuff to human-rate Delta as well, and Lockheed-Martin is looking at the Atlas V getting human-rating as well.
-
BTW has the Ariane booster begun getting human-rated yet? I saw a thing about that a while back.
I think this won't happen before 2015 at the earliest. ESA does not intend to convert the ATV for manned flights before 2015 as far as I know.
Supposedy Boeing has done the basic stuff to human-rate Delta as well, and Lockheed-Martin is looking at the Atlas V getting human-rating as well.
That would be great. They have all that available for relatively low costs compared to the Ares launcher. If they would have think about that when Constellation was introduced they could have saved a lot of time and money and still would do so.
-
No kidding...But i hear the RS-68 has to be derated due to it acceleration. Haven't heard about Atlas yet.