Do you like NASA's new Ares Launch Vehicles and Orion?

[Brent]

As you may know, NASA will be retiring the Shuttle in the next decade. They are hard at work on the replacement. Instead of making a next generation "shuttle" however, they have gone back to the 60's design of a "capsule".

The new launch vehicles are the Ares I and V - http://www.nasa.gov/mission_pages/constellation/ares/aresI.html and http://www.nasa.gov/mission_pages/constellation/ares/aresV.html

The new crew vehicle is the Orion - http://www.nasa.gov/mission_pages/constellation/orion/index.html

Videos and Pics here - http://www.nasa.gov/mission_pages/constellation/multimedia/index.html

So given this, do you like or agree with this replacement for the shuttle?

 

[James Bond]

Meh, aesthetically Orion is alright, but otherwise every thing else doesn't look kewl enough. Certainly it looks like a step backwards.

 

[Earl]

I like them and their intended operational capabilities.

Keeping in mind that the "NX-01" is still a couple of centuries, if not more, in the future.

 

[Neopeius]

It's 1968 all over again. Do we have a use for a 1968 style space program?

 

[T J]

Zed.P.M. said:
Meh, aesthetically Orion is alright, but otherwise every thing else doesn't look kewl enough. Certainly it looks like a step backwards.

Agreed. What's to like about a tube?

 

[kv1at3485]

If it does the job more efficiently than the shuttle, I'm all for it.

 

[Earl]

T J said:

Agreed. What's to like about a tube?

How about a write in campaign to NASA to have Tom Parris style fins put on it?

 

[Brent]

If the ultimate goal is to build a craft able to take off like a plane, fly to space, then return to Earth and land like a plane, then I feel that going back to "capsules" is one step backward from this goal.

Basically, I feel it is a step backwards in design. The shuttle was a forward looking device, design wise, even if it was expensive, it was on the right track. Capsules just don't seem to be to forward looking IMO.

 

[T J]

It's hard to go wrong with fins! :thumbsup:

 

[PlixTixiplik]

If I recall correctly, NASA made some efforts on more advanced re-usable "space planes" in the 1990s (and early 2000s?) but the technology's just not there to make them feasible right now. Work on scramjet engines is proceeding, both by NASA and other academic groups, but it would be foolish to go down the spaceplane route right now.

If NASA tried to get some futuristic-looking spaceplane, they'd likely just end up with nothing in 10 years and people would be complaining about the waste of money (as some did about the X-33 project when it was cancelled). Those kinds of projects are too experimental now - it could work if huge amounts of money were allocated, but unfortunately NASA's budget doesn't allow that.

NASA is damned if they do, damned if they don't in this situation. Use a simple tested design like the capsules and they get criticized for having no vision and not developing technology. Attempt an untested prototype and they'll get criticized for wasting money when it doesn't work.

Although a rocket/capsule design certainly isn't sexy, it's NASA's best choice until scramjet engines and the other technology required for single stage to orbit vehicles are ready, for the next generation.

-MEC

 

[FemurBone]

I like the new idea. Its a much smaller space craft than the space shuttle, so it will be easier to get it into orbit. And much easier to send it to the moon. Which means it will be cheaper to operate. Which means there can be more launches with money left over for other things.

The purpose of the space shuttle was to build a space station, among other things. The problem is because the shuttle is so big it cost alot of money to maintain and operate leaving little money left over for the space station. The shuttle was an unessessary expense.

The Soviets were smart. The just put the pieces of Mir on top of an unmanned rocket and launched them into space by remote control. Mir was completed in 3 years at a fraction of the cost the ISS. They used the extremely small Soyuz space craft to launch crews to and from Mir.

It looks like NASA is finally adopting the Russian method.

 

[Admiral Buzzkill]

Neopeius said:
It's 1968 all over again. Do we have a use for a 1968 style space program?

As much use as we have for any space program. At least in 1968 NASA had a reputation for achieving its goals.

 

[Neopeius]

UWC Defiance said:

Neopeius said:
It's 1968 all over again. Do we have a use for a 1968 style space program?

As much use as we have for any space program. At least in 1968 NASA had a reputation for achieving its goals.

Great. What's the goal?

 

[watermelony2k]

Neopeius said:

UWC Defiance said:

Neopeius said:
It's 1968 all over again. Do we have a use for a 1968 style space program?

As much use as we have for any space program. At least in 1968 NASA had a reputation for achieving its goals.

Great. What's the goal?

Establish a permanent human base on the moon and learn how to utilize the local resources. This time, it's not about just reaching the moon and coming back. We're going to be there to stay.

The Space Shuttle was a jack-of-all-trades. It could carry satellites, heavy cargo, and seven people into space -- but it didn't do any of them particularly well.

Orion will separate cargo and human transport. Unless I'm incorrect, there'll be different versions of the Orion, each tailored to a specific task: an unmanned ISS cargo transport, a moon version, and a mars version (?).

Orion is a modern upgrade of the Apollo capsules. It has a bigger interior volume that allows it to carry more crewmembers. It will be able to land anywhere on the moon, whereas the Apollo capsules were limited to areas along the equator. I also expect to see a lot of shiny touchscreen LCD's to replace the old analog buttons.

Sure, it'd be cool to build a totally advanced spaceplane, but it's hard enough to do anything without it being cut by Congress.

Basically, it comes down to this for me.
Shuttle = no interplanetary travel.
Orion = interplanetary travel.

So.. Orion.

This is a step forwards, not backwards. The shuttle -- its failure to lower the costs of delivering stuff into space -- was a step backwards.

 

[Squiggy]

Making another shuttle like design is pointless for going to the moon (again). What good would wings do on an airless hunk of rock?

Plus, we know capsules work. If you'd prefer to have a totally new resigned spacecraft...have fun waiting 15-20 years of no America flights instead of the scheduled 4.

 

[Earl]

Brent said:
If the ultimate goal is to build a craft able to take off like a plane, fly to space, then return to Earth and land like a plane, then I feel that going back to "capsules" is one step backward from this goal.

But NASA wants to go to Mars.

They don't want a "Space Plane" The "Space Plane" is a dead idea. Most programs were scrapped years ago. Both by NASA and "Boeing ET all."

 

[RobertVA]

Note:

Orion is to be the main "Crew Exploration Vehicle" (CEV) for missions like ISS crew releif, in space transit and Earth atmosphere rentry. the proposed design looks and functions much like an oversize Apollo Command/service module. Orion will carry up to six persons on Earth orbit missions, but only four to lunar orbit. Orion will remain unmanned on Lunar Orbit while the entire four person crew transfers to the Lunar Surface Access Module for the landing. Air bags will cushion the Orion's landing, probably on the SW US mainland.

The proposed vehicle for lunar landing/launch is the two piece Lunar Surface Access Module. Like the Apollo Lunar Module it will travel attached to Orion from Earth orbit to Lunar orbit. the ascent stage will dock to the Orion after its launch from the moon. Only the Orion will return from lunar orbit with the four person crew.

The Aries I lauch vehicle will lift Orion to Earth orbit. Aries I first stage will esentialy be an elongated Space Transportation System (Commonly called "Space Shuttle") solid booster.

The larger Aries V will carry the Lunar Surface Access Module to Earth orbit before the Aries I launch. The first stage of the Aries 5 will resemble the STS external tank with engines on its lower end AND solid propelant boosters on two sides. The upper stage of the Aries V will propel the docked Lunar Module and Orion into the trajectory towards lunar orbit.

 

[Johnny Rico]

PlixTixiplik said:
If I recall correctly, NASA made some efforts on more advanced re-usable "space planes" in the 1990s (and early 2000s?) but the technology's just not there to make them feasible right now. Work on scramjet engines is proceeding, both by NASA and other academic groups, but it would be foolish to go down the spaceplane route right now.

If NASA tried to get some futuristic-looking spaceplane, they'd likely just end up with nothing in 10 years and people would be complaining about the waste of money (as some did about the X-33 project when it was cancelled). Those kinds of projects are too experimental now - it could work if huge amounts of money were allocated, but unfortunately NASA's budget doesn't allow that.

NASA is damned if they do, damned if they don't in this situation. Use a simple tested design like the capsules and they get criticized for having no vision and not developing technology. Attempt an untested prototype and they'll get criticized for wasting money when it doesn't work.

Although a rocket/capsule design certainly isn't sexy, it's NASA's best choice until scramjet engines and the other technology required for single stage to orbit vehicles are ready, for the next generation.

-MEC

Good post. Probably the most reasonable post in this thread so far.

Here's my thought on the matter.

Would I like to see a "next Generation" space plane? Yeah sure, but like you said, the scramjet technology just isn't there yet. Maybe by the time the Ares system gets fully operation and somewhat into its lifespan, then maybe the next, next generation of spacecraft will be feasible.

The problem in future spaceflight beyond LEO is that we need a vehicle that is large enough (for crew comfort) and yet practical enough for extraterrestial planetary landings, beit the moon or Mars or beyond. For that we need the capsule design. More specifically the heatshield feature that a capsule uses.

For example, I was just watching the Val Kilmer movie "Red Planet" in HD the other day and if you recall, they had a large spaceship to get them to Mars, but they would then use a capsule thing with the big balloons as impact cushions for landing. So they used both craft designs in essence.

And keep in mind, this movie was supposed to take place in the 2050s IIRC. So I think we got some time before we're in that era of spacetravel.


With regards to the Ares vehicle system, for now, or at least in the next decade or so, it'll probably be the best we have with modern technology. My question really is about the Ares V vehicle and its cargo capacity. Will this thing be able to carry other things besides lunar landers? Such as expansion components/modules to the ISS or system racks for existing ISS modules?

 

[Johnny Rico]

Neopeius said:

UWC Defiance said:
Great. What's the goal?

Establish a permanent human base on the moon and learn how to utilize the local resources. This time, it's not about just reaching the moon and coming back. We're going to be there to stay.

Actually, the Apollo-era program WAS going to spur a permanent moon base program. Obviously, it never happened. NASA TV has been running a Q&A session with former Apollo astronauts and one of the questions (and answers) dealt with this very issue.

Why it never happened is sort of a mystery really. The Shuttle program was probably the main reason.

The Space Shuttle was a jack-of-all-trades. It could carry satellites, heavy cargo, and seven people into space -- but it didn't do any of them particularly well.

What do you mean? Sure it did/does. The shuttle has performed wonderfully for everything it was designed to do.

Orion will separate cargo and human transport. Unless I'm incorrect, there'll be different versions of the Orion, each tailored to a specific task: an unmanned ISS cargo transport, a moon version, and a mars version (?).

You mean the Ares system. Orion is just the name of the Crew (capsule) vehicle.

Orion is a modern upgrade of the Apollo capsules. It has a bigger interior volume that allows it to carry more crewmembers. It will be able to land anywhere on the moon, whereas the Apollo capsules were limited to areas along the equator. I also expect to see a lot of shiny touchscreen LCD's to replace the old analog buttons.

What??? You mean there won't be any humongous metallic computer panels with blinking lights and knobs? Damn!!!

Of course, this new system will be as modern in control surfaces and panels as they can. However, I expect there'll still be some mechanical controls in the event of computer failures.

 

[Novitas]

Actually the resemblances with Apollo are mostly superficial. The reusable concept has not really panned out and probably won't without technology at least some of which has not yet been invented. Orion is based on what we have available now.