TheSonntag From Germany, joined Jun 2005, 3350 posts, RR: 30 Posted (4 years 4 months 2 weeks 3 days 13 hours ago) and read 5938 times:
Now where Obama is president, we have not yet heard much about the future of Constellation or Nasa altogether.
According to the Nasa-Hp, Ares-IX is getting closer to completion, so a complete cancellation seems growingly unlikely to me... It is also still undecided who is to become a new Nasa administrator, as it is quite certain Nasa will get a new one.
So, a lot of questions remain. Enough to start a new thread, I guess
Cloudy From , joined Dec 1969, posts, RR: Reply 1, posted (4 years 4 months 2 weeks 3 days 12 hours ago) and read 5915 times:
Quoting TheSonntag (Thread starter): According to the Nasa-Hp, Ares-IX is getting closer to completion, so a complete cancellation seems growingly unlikely to me.
It will have to be canceled if it simply doesn't work. The scuttlebut among the smart people here and at www.nasaspaceflight.com seems to be that the beast cannot lift Orion with sufficient margins. The Orion spacecraft will have to be radically changed to fit Ares I. It has already, in fact, a lot of safety equipment has been deleted to save weight. Or the Ares I will have to be radically changed to lift Orion. It already has, so much that it is now no longer shuttle derived. Even so, none of the changes have not been sufficient.
In other words.....The chances that Ares I as currently envisioned can lift Orion as currently envisioned are in essence zero. There is simply not enough mass margin too account for the inevitable weight growth encountered in later stages of development. Just about everything easy that can be done to remedy the situation has been done. This seems to be the opinion of every observer I have heard from who is in a position to know...yet it goes directly against the official line.
NASA is going to have to do something big to make Ares I work. Perhaps a new engine with SSME class performance in place of the J2X. Or a radical reduction in the requirements for Orion. The costs of these options will make Obama and congress look to the EELV. That will make it much more difficult to develop Ares V in the future, but Obama doesn't care about that. He cares about Florida votes, but those votes can be protected with a shuttle extension until he is safely reelected. He would cancel the whole Constellation program to fund a federal takeover of preschool if he could get away with it. That is essentially what he promised in the primaries. He called it a delay, but it would have amounted to cancellation. It was only later, under pressure, that he relented a bit.
Griffin wanted the The Ares I built for one reason and one reason only - to develop technologies for the Ares V and keep people at work until it is available. There are plenty of other cheaper ways to lift the required mass to orbit. Ares V is Griffin's baby. Now that Griffin is gone, NASA is not going to be as wedded to it. Get rid of the Ares V and there is no reason for Ares I.
Ares IX is essentially a stunt. Neither the booster nor the fake upper stage will have much in common with what is planned for the final vehicle. It will help fine tune some computer models, but that's about it.
Obama's transition team was briefed about Direct before the innaugeration. How attractive this option is to the administration depends a lot on who is picked as administrator.
Tugger From United States of America, joined Apr 2006, 4658 posts, RR: 7 Reply 2, posted (4 years 4 months 2 weeks 3 days 10 hours ago) and read 5884 times:
Quoting Cloudy (Reply 1): Obama's transition team was briefed about Direct before the innaugeration. How attractive this option is to the administration depends a lot on who is picked as administrator.
Who of the likely nominees supports, or doesn't support, Direct? If this is even known. I know I kept hearing Sally Ride's name mentioned but then saw this:
Quote: President-elect Barack Obama has asked retired Air Force Maj. Gen. Scott Gration, one of his top foreign policy and military advisers during his campaign, to take the helm of NASA, according to a source informed of the selection.
Thorny From , joined Dec 1969, posts, RR: Reply 3, posted (4 years 4 months 2 weeks 3 days 8 hours ago) and read 5844 times:
Quoting Tugger (Reply 2): I know I kept hearing Sally Ride's name mentioned but then saw this:
Gen. Gration seems to be out of the running now, having met resistance on the Hill regarding his lack of any experience with NASA or even milspace (not that I agree this should disqualify him.)
President Obama has since named a NASA Interim Administrator (Christopher Scolese) so it is likely to be a while before we get a NASA Administrator (probably early Spring.) When that happens, we'll probably have a much clearer idea of where President Obama wants to go regarding Constellation/Orion/Shuttle Extension/ISS.
DfwRevolution From , joined Dec 1969, posts, RR: Reply 4, posted (4 years 4 months 2 weeks 3 days 3 hours ago) and read 5799 times:
Quoting TheSonntag (Thread starter): According to the Nasa-Hp, Ares-IX is getting closer to completion, so a complete cancellation seems growingly unlikely to me... It is also still undecided who is to become a new Nasa administrator, as it is quite certain Nasa will get a new one.
Ultimately I don't think it matters how close Ares-IX gets to flight or if it even does get off the launch pad. There have been numerous other government projects of equal scope that have been canceled prior to demonstration or deployment. I'm thinking of programs like the X-33, Comanche helicopter, Crusader artillery system, etc.
TheSonntag From Germany, joined Jun 2005, 3350 posts, RR: 30 Reply 5, posted (4 years 4 months 2 weeks 2 days 17 hours ago) and read 5731 times:
Quoting DfwRevolution (Reply 4): There have been numerous other government projects of equal scope that have been canceled prior to demonstration or deployment.
Ok thats true, and they even built flightworthy Saturn V they turned into expensive monuments. I still would hate to see the moon vision disappearing, I do think we stuck to LEO way too long already (but I am not an US taxpayer, and ESA sucks if u ask me)...
Thorny From , joined Dec 1969, posts, RR: Reply 6, posted (4 years 3 months 3 weeks 2 days 15 hours ago) and read 5135 times:
President Obama's Fiscal Year 2010 budget proposal was released today. NASA is funded at $18.7 billion, not including the nearly $1 billion added by last week's economic stimulus bill.
The President's plan for NASA can be summed up as "Stay the Course". He will continue Project Constellation toward its goal of resuming manned lunar exploration by 2020. The President does not extend the Space Shuttle program beyond 2010, with the exception of the addition of STS-134 to launch the Alpha Magnetic Spectrometer to the Space Station (it is widely believed that recent Shuttle launch delays will not cut the number of remaining flights and that Shuttle will be allowed to fly out the manifest even if the last mission or two slip into 2011.) Other flagship missions, such as the Mars Science Laboratory rover mission and the James Webb Space Telescope remain fully funded.
The budget proposal voices support for Commercial Space, and leaves details about NASA's Project Constellation (continuing with the troubled Ares rockets or going in a different direction) unaddressed, probably pending a review by the forthcoming new NASA Administrator.
Nycbjr From United States of America, joined Aug 2007, 447 posts, RR: 0 Reply 8, posted (4 years 3 months 2 weeks 5 days 16 hours ago) and read 4894 times:
it is and it isn't really, I was hoping for a sweeping review of Ares, with money included to get the thing built sooner...
but I guess I'm just impatient he has his hands full with the economic mess we are in.
Those more in the know. is it too late to change the launchers? are we passed the point of ok we've spent this much.... when would a decision have to be made by him (new administrator) to either change course or provide the funding necessary to make it all work?
the additional shuttle flight is great.. but I'm starting to wonder if they can do 10 flights by end of 2010, and is that calendar or fiscal?
Thorny From , joined Dec 1969, posts, RR: Reply 9, posted (4 years 3 months 2 weeks 5 days 16 hours ago) and read 4883 times:
Quoting Nycbjr (Reply 8): it is and it isn't really, I was hoping for a sweeping review of Ares, with money included to get the thing built sooner...
The sweeping review must wait for President Obama to name a NASA Administrator. The rumor mill suggests he is getting close, but with his recent botched Cabinet nominees, other post announcements are a little behind schedule.
Quoting Nycbjr (Reply 8): Those more in the know. is it too late to change the launchers?
No, not at all.
Quoting Nycbjr (Reply 8): the additional shuttle flight is great.. but I'm starting to wonder if they can do 10 flights by end of 2010, and is that calendar or fiscal?
Fiscal, and no, not at current funding levels. But Congress will almost certainly "plus up" the NASA budget to finish the current manifest if (when) it slips into FY11, regardless of whether the President asks for it (Congress gave NASA more money than President Bush asked for, too).
Nycbjr From United States of America, joined Aug 2007, 447 posts, RR: 0 Reply 11, posted (4 years 3 months 2 weeks 5 days 14 hours ago) and read 4868 times:
Quoting TheSonntag (Reply 10): Fiscal, and no, not at current funding levels. But Congress will almost certainly "plus up" the NASA budget to finish the current manifest if (when) it slips into FY11, regardless of whether the President asks for it (Congress gave NASA more money than President Bush asked for, too).
Thanks Thorny, I figured it would slip into 2011, I need to get my butt down for a launch soon, I've never seen one and well only have 9-10 chances left!!
Thorny From , joined Dec 1969, posts, RR: Reply 12, posted (4 years 3 months 2 weeks 5 days 12 hours ago) and read 4838 times:
Quoting TheSonntag (Reply 10): But they will launch the Ares - Ix test vehicle, correct?
Right now, I'd say 'probably'. But if the President names a new NASA Administrator soon, that person could (very likely will) put everything on hold pending a review on how to proceed. That would include Ares 1X, which is presently scheduled for July but looks likely to slip a month or two at least.
Trigged From United States of America, joined Mar 2005, 497 posts, RR: 0 Reply 13, posted (4 years 1 month 2 weeks 2 days 14 hours ago) and read 3699 times:
I have seen the mock-up stuff and other hardware associated with the Ares I-X, pretty interesting stuff. I really can't see NASA getting something human-rated faster than what they have planned. Unless we plan on keeping the STS around for another 10 years or buying spots on the Soyuz, they need to keep going with what they have planned.
DfwRevolution From , joined Dec 1969, posts, RR: Reply 14, posted (4 years 1 month 2 weeks 2 days 11 hours ago) and read 3660 times:
Quoting Trigged (Reply 13): I have seen the mock-up stuff and other hardware associated with the Ares I-X, pretty interesting stuff. I really can't see NASA getting something human-rated faster than what they have planned.
Delta IV or Atlas V could be man-rated in a fraction of the time and cost of Ares I. 2012-2013 is very possible. The schedule problems with Orion would still remain, which would still result in a gap through 2015. However, there are some that would argue that a number of Orion's problems are the result of having to make due with the thin performance margins and launch environment of Ares I.
DingDong From United States of America, joined Jan 2007, 661 posts, RR: 0 Reply 15, posted (4 years 1 month 2 weeks 2 days 7 hours ago) and read 3612 times:
Quoting Trigged (Reply 13): Unless we plan on keeping the STS around for another 10 years or buying spots on the Soyuz, they need to keep going with what they have planned.
From what I've heard from a long-time KSC pad rat, the Florida oceanic salt water air is apparently doing a number on the airframe. Read: corrosion. Not currently an issue but a concern in some quarters is that it could be... but how soon? Could it be safely stretched another 10 years beyond the current planned retirement date? Don't know.
They've apparently done some NDE testing for this particular issue. As I haven't regularly checked in with the pad rat, I'm afraid, that's all I know right now and could be outdated information for all I know. So take with a grain of salt.
The point he made was that ultimately, the drop-dead date for end of the Shuttle program may be determined by more tangible, non-political things -- such as corrosion -- even if allowed to run for years past the original deadline and adequately financed.
ADent From United States of America, joined Dec 2006, 1187 posts, RR: 1 Reply 16, posted (4 years 1 month 2 weeks 1 day 23 hours ago) and read 3557 times:
The Shuttle Program (STS) is shutting down suppliers this month - so a continuation would require restarting those suppliers and money and delays - the longer you want the more of each it will require. An example is the External Tank facility run by Lockheed, but there are lots of others.
Why is the Orion so heavy 50K+ lbs? The OSP was going to be under 30K, possibly significantly under.
The shutdown of the STS is paying for the Ares development. If you want both Shuttle and Ares w/o a gap, then NASA needs 4+ Billion dollars extra for each year you fly the Shuttle (5 at least to close the gap). There is no money for that, unless NASA made some bad loans and needs a bailout.
Trigged From United States of America, joined Mar 2005, 497 posts, RR: 0 Reply 17, posted (4 years 1 month 1 week 6 days 20 hours ago) and read 3328 times:
Quoting DfwRevolution (Reply 14): Delta IV or Atlas V could be man-rated in a fraction of the time and cost of Ares I. 2012-2013 is very possible. The schedule problems with Orion would still remain, which would still result in a gap through 2015. However, there are some that would argue that a number of Orion's problems are the result of having to make due with the thin performance margins and launch environment of Ares I.
Has anyone seriously looked at this approach? If so, it would be fascinating to see why they did not choose this LV. The DIV would make sense for human-rated vehicles with no failures to this point. I do see the point of using a solid first stage though due to less risk. But then again, it is much less efficient. Don't ya just hate having to make trade-offs?
Trigged From United States of America, joined Mar 2005, 497 posts, RR: 0 Reply 18, posted (4 years 1 month 1 week 6 days 19 hours ago) and read 3326 times:
On a side note about NASA in general, I wonder if the Obama administration is going to push NASA into more of a regulatory role for space as the FAA is for aviation. Personally, I really see NASA going that route eventually. As more of the commercial side takes over the launches, I see NASA becoming the rule-maker. Thoughts?
Tugger From United States of America, joined Apr 2006, 4658 posts, RR: 7 Reply 19, posted (4 years 1 month 1 week 6 days 11 hours ago) and read 3275 times:
Quoting Trigged (Reply 17): Has anyone seriously looked at this approach?
Yes, it has been seriously looked into (boy do I miss Thorny! ). You can look at his input in many of the threads on this topic but if memory serves me, the Ares solution was chosen because initially it was cheaper and faster as it was to be a direct reuse of pieces from the shuttle. But as the years have gone by more and more of it is not that at all and it has become very expensive. (Thorny! Where are you! )
And now it looks like they are finally digging into it and we'll see in August if things change:
Quote: The White House has ordered a complete outside review of NASA's manned space program, including plans to return astronauts to the moon.
..... the new panel will look at the design of new spacecraft to replace the space shuttle and go to the moon.
Trigged From United States of America, joined Mar 2005, 497 posts, RR: 0 Reply 20, posted (4 years 1 month 1 week 6 days 10 hours ago) and read 3274 times:
Quoting Tugger (Reply 19): And now it looks like they are finally digging into it and we'll see in August if things change:
Quote:
The White House has ordered a complete outside review of NASA's manned space program, including plans to return astronauts to the moon.
..... the new panel will look at the design of new spacecraft to replace the space shuttle and go to the moon.
TheSonntag From Germany, joined Jun 2005, 3350 posts, RR: 30 Reply 21, posted (4 years 1 month 1 week 6 days 10 hours ago) and read 3272 times:
Sounds reasonable to me to review the whole project (Thorny come back, A.net needs you!!!)!
If you ask me, my idea would be to delay the moon project by 5 years and fund the ISS instead, so that the moon programme is ready after the ISS will finally be retired. I cannot believe Nasa will stop using the ISS in 2016, only 6 years after it is finished.
Trigged From United States of America, joined Mar 2005, 497 posts, RR: 0 Reply 22, posted (4 years 1 month 1 week 6 days 10 hours ago) and read 3267 times:
Well, the ISS oldest sections will be about 20 years old at that point. I really don't see it staying up there too long. However, I do see other countries using it and it turning into a space version of the YMCA. The Russians will probably keep supporting it with regular supply flights and the smaller countries will hop on board once the build is complete. I think we will just ease our way out of it and let the party continue without us.
I prefer the moon base, here's why. If there is an emergency and you have to abandon the station, the ISS will eventually fall out of the sky. OTOH, if you have the same emergency on a lunar base, you close the doors and leave. You can return 20 years later and return it to use (if it is built correctly). I think the space side of NASA just needs to focus on one thing for a while and get something big accomplished instead of a ton of small things.
My favorite line from "The Right Stuff" was "No bucks, no Buck Rodgers". If you do not get the Congress behind you for funding, you shrivel up and blow away. They need something positively spectacular to get the attention of Congress and the American public back.
Sponsor Message: 
From Germany, joined Jun 2005, 3350 posts, 
From , joined Dec 1969, posts, 
). You can look at his input in many of the threads on this topic but if memory serves me, the Ares solution was chosen because initially it was cheaper and faster as it was to be a direct reuse of pieces from the shuttle. But as the years have gone by more and more of it is not that at all and it has become very expensive. (Thorny! Where are you! 
Sponsor Message: 
Printer friendly format
