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

[Neopeius]

Novitas said:
Actually the resemblances with Apollo are mostly superficial.

I disagree. I think the resemblance is uncanny, particularly given the range of proposals NASA was sent by contractors.

We are essentially recreating the Saturn 1B and the Saturn V to carry a slightly larger Apollo. This, in and of itself, is not necessarily a bad thing.

But this is 1968's space program all over again, except there's no political will, no funding, and no clear goal in mind. Unless the Ares program is substantially cheaper than its 60's era analogs, it will run into the same problems as its predecessor.

I certainly have no confidence that this particular space program will ever make it to the moon, much less Mars.

This doesn't mean I'm bearish on space in general, but a permanent space presence is going to require a revolution, not a ressucitation .

 

[Crazy_Uncle]

I have been reading some of the posts that have commented on the fact that NASA was just recycling the Apollo program. Which no matter which way NASA does it will in some way have to build upon how we got to the moon the first time.

Last term at Portland State University I did a speech on the Apollo and Saturn programs. What I found was that with waning public support, congress and the Nixon administration pushing for a cheaper reusable spacecraft, and the war that was raging the Apollo and Saturn programs were canceled.

I wish I could find the link but a while back IIRC correctly NASA's administrator, Michael Griffin, was in a senate committee hearing. During that hearing he was asked about the reason for Orion and Ares looking like the Apollo and Saturn programs. He stated it was is because we are having to rebuild the infrastructure, equipment, etc, that we had before the Apollo and Saturn programs were canceled. We had a system that worked with very few flaws none of which were related to the launch vehicle. Will the new spacecraft work just as well? We can only hope. I know NASA is using as much help as they can from the remaining engineers that helped with the first lunar program.

The biggest problem NASA has is the budget. If money was no object I am sure they would throw whatever they could and come up with something that would still in some way resemble the Apollo program. That's just the way it is from an engineering standpoint with the technology we have today, no matter how advanced we make it. NASA is using what it knows best to get a spacecraft ready to replace the shuttle in the shortest time possible and within the tight budgets they are running. That's why it is 'borrowing' some similar yet completely new in their own way components from the shuttle program. Like the 5 instead of 4 segment rocket boosters for the Ares 1 first stage.

I hope for our sakes that NASA is able to pull this off and at least get Orion into low or high earth orbit. They've had some pretty bad failures trying to develop a single stage to orbit vehicle, and the shuttle while a technical marvel is starting to show it's age. I would hate to see us lose our status as a nation that can put a man/woman in orbit for any longer than is necessary. Right now I think they are on the right path. They say imitation is the sincerest form of flattery. I think copying the basic ideas of the Apollo program with the Orion program while at the same time expanding on it with modern technology can only help us.

 

[John Picard]

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

It worked, didn't it? Sometimes, tried and true is better than the "WOW" factor. After all, the Shuttle didn't exactly deliver and these vehicles are more cost efficient.

 

[Irishman]

kv1at3485 said:
If it does the job more efficiently than the shuttle, I'm all for it.

Maybe so, but you don't inspire the American people with high-efficiency.

 

[John Picard]

Irishman said:

kv1at3485 said:
If it does the job more efficiently than the shuttle, I'm all for it.

Maybe so, but you don't inspire the American people with high-efficiency.

Actually, you do.

Go to any classic car show that presents exotic foreign cars, luxury cars, or even muscle cars and enter an old Volkswagen into the show. It can be a Bus, Beetle, Karmann Ghia, or the Type 3. The VW will get more comments, looks, and attention than anything else. It happens to everyone of us in the air-cooled VW community. People marvel at the simple little car.

People also want results at a good price. Sexy designs don't cut it. 10 trips per year with capsules versus 4 shuttle launches garners attention.

 

[RobertVA]

Novitas said:
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.

The Orion capsule is a cone with a curved base, even has approximately the same angle as a Apollo command module.

The Orion capsule has a docking port at the apex of the cone like the Apollo command module.

A escape tower will be mounted on the top of the Orion capsule during the launch, similar to the ones used for Apollo.

There will even be a protective shroud around the Orion capsule during the launch, very similar to the shrouds that ptotected the Apollo command modules.

The Orion will be attached to a cylintrical support module for consumable stocks (oxygen and electrical sources) attitude control during most of the flight antenna mounting and propellant/motors for major velocity changes. Major velocity changes will be accomplished with a single large rocket motor in the center of the service module's aft end. Attitude control will be accomplished with four clusters of four small thrusters each at 90° intervals around the service module's center. All very similar to the Apollo service module.

Engineers performing design work for Orion dissected an Apollo command module/service module museum display to study the umbilical that allowed Apollo oxygen, water and electrical connections to bypass the edge of the command module's heat shield. Their goal was to study the mechanisms used to detach the umbilicals when the service module was jettisoned immediately prior to re-entry.

But dispite ALL these parallels, the resemblance between Apollo and Orion is "superficial"!?

 

[Crazy_Uncle]

RobertVA said:

Novitas said:
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.

The Orion capsule is a cone with a curved base, even has approximately the same angle as a Apollo command module.

The Orion capsule has a docking port at the apex of the cone like the Apollo command module.

A escape tower will be mounted on the top of the Orion capsule during the launch, similar to the ones used for Apollo.

There will even be a protective shroud around the Orion capsule during the launch, very similar to the shrouds that ptotected the Apollo command modules.

The Orion will be attached to a cylintrical support module for consumable stocks (oxygen and electrical sources) attitude control during most of the flight antenna mounting and propellant/motors for major velocity changes. Major velocity changes will be accomplished with a single large rocket motor in the center of the service module's aft end. Attitude control will be accomplished with four clusters of four small thrusters each at 90° intervals around the service module's center. All very similar to the Apollo service module.

Engineers performing design work for Orion dissected an Apollo command module/service module museum display to study the umbilical that allowed Apollo oxygen, water and electrical connections to bypass the edge of the command module's heat shield. Their goal was to study the mechanisms used to detach the umbilicals when the service module was jettisoned immediately prior to re-entry.

But dispite ALL these parallels, the resemblance between Apollo and Orion is "superficial"!?

Well when you dig into the real numbers on the spacecraft I can see why he called them superficial. A lot of what you say is true from an engineering standpoint and have been that way, or very similar throughout all the US manned space programs. I don't know where else they can stick the escape tower except on top of the spacecraft with a protective shroud around the capsule. The only reason Gemini didn't have one is because it used ejection seats which was practical for a two person spacecraft. Orion can hold up to four astronauts on a moon mission and six on a mission to the ISS so ejection seats aren't practical. I'm sure if you put them side by side Orion would dwarf Apollo while looking cosmetically similar.

From the NASA link provided by the OP I found the following along with some information I had from NASA Apollo information.

-The capsule is 5 meters in diameter and has a habitable volume of about 11 cubic meters. The Apollo spacecraft only had a diameter of 3.9 meters and habitable volume of 6.17 cubic meters. The thing has 2 1/2 times the volume and well over a meter larger in diameter. Maybe that's just nitpicking but I can see how the term superficial applies.

A big difference between Apollo and Orion is that the Apollo spacecraft was powered by fuel cells to generate the electricity it needed. The shuttle uses fuel cells as well and is why the shuttle can only stay up for nearly two weeks before the fuel cells run out of consumables. Orion will use solar panels to generate electricity and thus be able to stay up for over six months before returning to earth.

One thing that is for sure a copy of the Apollo program is the upper stage rocket engine that the Ares I and V will use. NASA went with an uprated version of Pratt and Whitney's J-2 engine that the Saturn upper stages used. While not the most original idea the engine never had any major failures while it was in service. I really don't know what NASA can do differently here. They got burned in the 90's for trying something new and have nothing to show for it. Now with the Ares and Orion program they are getting scorned for looking back at what worked well before and not looking forward. They're trying to mitigate the risk inherent to spaceflight and also trying to get an actual spacecraft built this time. I don't envy their position.

 

[Neopeius]

John_Picard said:

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

It worked, didn't it? Sometimes, tried and true is better than the "WOW" factor. After all, the Shuttle didn't exactly deliver and these vehicles are more cost efficient.

You're missing my point. A 1968 space program only makes sense at mid-60's funding levels and with a mid-60's type of goal.

The commitment just isn't there. Unless Ares is an order of magnitude cheaper than Saturn, it's not going to go anywhere.

The shuttle cost about half a billion with every flight, at best, and could carry 40 tons and seven people into space.

A Saturn 1b would cost today about half a billion with every flight, and could carry 20 tons and three people into space.

An Ares 1 could carry 25 tons and six people into orbit. How much will it cost per launch?

 

[MANT!]

NASA is busy recreating the Space program they had in the 60's and early 70's better yet cheaper than they did before...with the retirement of the shuttle, NASA will get back to it's MAIN focus experimentation and exploration..with the shuttle NASA tried to get into the EXPLOITATION of space.. and governments are never efficent at exploiting any major resource..too inefficent compared to private industry..so enjoy the space program we should have had through the 70's...and leave behind the too compromised, designed by Congress, shuttle...Private industry will now be free to develop the Low Earth Orbit space...and about time too...let NASA explore..and Private Industry exploit...

 

[Neopeius]

goldbug said:
NASA is busy recreating the Space program they had in the 60's and early 70's better yet cheaper than they did before...with the retirement of the shuttle, NASA will get back to it's MAIN focus experimentation and exploration..with the shuttle NASA tried to get into the EXPLOITATION of space.. and governments are never efficent at exploiting any major resource..too inefficent compared to private industry..so enjoy the space program we should have had through the 70's...and leave behind the too compromised, designed by Congress, shuttle...Private industry will now be free to develop the Low Earth Orbit space...and about time too...let NASA explore..and Private Industry exploit...

Private industry wasn't prevented from exploiting before. It's just too expensive for corporations to tackle.

 

[syc]

Honestly I think the overall problem issue with NASA is being over looked. NASA is more concerned with nostalgia and... "Getting back to the excitement of Apollo..."

Consider this, The private aerospace company Armadillo(founded by video game legend John Carmack) was formed in 2000 and by 2004 they had a working design. Not some P.O.S. eight year program to design and test and blah blah blah. With $2 million dollars and less then 20 people on staff.

In 2004 Armadillo launched the "Quad Vehicle" similar to the old DC-X. Out of all of the VTOL attempts do you know how many were off target when the vehicle came back down?

ZERO!

Why? Because the computer systems the "Quad Vehicle" used were programed by arguably the best damn programmer on the face of the planet.
Also, Keep in mind that along with designing and test the Vehicles they also designed their own rockets...
So here we are seven... almost eight, years later and Armadillo is showing amazing results.

Point being? NASA may have all the Ph.D's they want... its no use if they have no experience. I know a lot of you will argue that most of them have worked on the space program for years and years... and before that at aerospace companies like Lockheed or Boeing. But the argument stands.

Thinking and working "Inside the Box" will only give you... Inside the Box thinking and results. I have lost all faith in the United States space program. If I had to put hard cash on who would end up maintaining a presence in space... I'd put it in the Private Sector. NASA may have the over priced, over superfluous, International Space Station, but its not match for the Private Sector.

So is the Ares and Orion a good idea? As far as I'm concerned the question is moot.

 

[John Picard]

Neopeius said:

goldbug said:
NASA is busy recreating the Space program they had in the 60's and early 70's better yet cheaper than they did before...with the retirement of the shuttle, NASA will get back to it's MAIN focus experimentation and exploration..with the shuttle NASA tried to get into the EXPLOITATION of space.. and governments are never efficent at exploiting any major resource..too inefficent compared to private industry..so enjoy the space program we should have had through the 70's...and leave behind the too compromised, designed by Congress, shuttle...Private industry will now be free to develop the Low Earth Orbit space...and about time too...let NASA explore..and Private Industry exploit...

Private industry wasn't prevented from exploiting before. It's just too expensive for corporations to tackle.

No, it is not. There are several up-and-coming private companies that are getting into the game. They have to attain certification from the FAA and other government entities. Keep your eyes peeled. There is a lot more going on than you are aware of.

As far as your comments about "going back to the 60's" -- there comes a time where you have to cut your losses (shuttle), and regroup. Bigger (40-tons per trip vs. 20 tons per trip) doesn't mean better or more efficient. As production increases, costs go down, meaning that in the long run, reusable capsules will be more cost effective than shuttles. I remember after the first shuttle flight the original schedules called for up to 20 launches each year when the fleet was complete. The 1990's were projected to be an absolute plethora of space launches. Never happened.

 

[Neopeius]

John_Picard said:


As far as your comments about "going back to the 60's" -- there comes a time where you have to cut your losses (shuttle), and regroup. Bigger (40-tons per trip vs. 20 tons per trip) doesn't mean better or more efficient. As production increases, costs go down, meaning that in the long run, reusable capsules will be more cost effective than shuttles. I remember after the first shuttle flight the original schedules called for up to 20 launches each year when the fleet was complete. The 1990's were projected to be an absolute plethora of space launches. Never happened.

I'm not sure why people think I'm a shuttle booster. I'm a shuttle hater. I predicted the Challenger disaster in '86 and hoped fervently it would lead to a new design. No such luck.

I'm also not sure why people think I'm against big dumb boosters. I'm not. But if we're going to have a successful, self-sustaining space presence using them, it will have to be on a huge scale, bigger than anything we've ever done, and that is not going to happen.

As for Armadillo and Spaceship One, et al, recreating the accomplishments of 1961 hardly blazes a trail for a presence in space. Tourism is never going to be the driving factor, any more than it was in the Gold Rush of '49.

Something will happen to make space profitable--either the expenditure of a lot of money on launches, the expenditure of a lot of money on R&D, or the passage of enough time for spinoffs from other industries to do the same job.

 

[Irishman]

John_Picard said:

Irishman said:

kv1at3485 said:
If it does the job more efficiently than the shuttle, I'm all for it.

Maybe so, but you don't inspire the American people with high-efficiency.

Actually, you do.

Go to any classic car show that presents exotic foreign cars, luxury cars, or even muscle cars and enter an old Volkswagen into the show. It can be a Bus, Beetle, Karmann Ghia, or the Type 3. The VW will get more comments, looks, and attention than anything else. It happens to everyone of us in the air-cooled VW community. People marvel at the simple little car.

People also want results at a good price. Sexy designs don't cut it. 10 trips per year with capsules versus 4 shuttle launches garners attention.

Um, maybe in your VW Bug bubble that's true, but not out in the real world. No disrespect intended, but it's precisely the muscle cars, the impossibly huge SUVs, et al that get the attention of the press and the public. If an advanced technology vehicle gets praise and purchases, it's not because it's more fuel-efficient. It's because it has an edge. Something visually, tactilly stimulating the driver to WANT to drive. THAT gets the pulse pumping and makes a man pull out his checkbook.

Besides, the above example is a false dichotomy. It doesn't have to be either or. Our choices are not limited to the gas-guzzler or the green electric car. Given a more realistic choice between two cars of reasonably similar efficiency, the public will tend to pick the one with better looks, plusher upholstery, better sound system, more head/leg room, more trunk space. Even at a higher cost.

The same analogy goes to the space program I believe. We just have never been given many choices. The privatization of space will change that.

Oh, and speaking of which, let's let our prayers go out to the families and co-workers of those who died in the Mojave just recently trying to advance our space options.

 

[USS Mariner]

I'm just scared of the interior designers who decide window arrangements without even wearing bulky coats, or gloves, or even fucking shoes.

My jaw was on the floor when I watched that segment of the Orion promo video on Comcast. I sure as hell hope people like that aren't running the whole damn thing.

 

[RobertVA]

Mariner Class said:
I'm just scared of the interior designers who decide window arrangements without even wearing bulky coats, or gloves, or even fucking shoes.

My jaw was on the floor when I watched that segment of the Orion promo video on Comcast. I sure as hell hope people like that aren't running the whole damn thing.

Sorry, we have trouble figuring out what you are talking about when you specify your cable service provider instead of the channel and program title.

If the head rest in the mock up compensates for the helmet material, thus hoding the enginier's eyes in the proper position, what difference would it make when designing the window orientation and shape? Also consider the fact that the most critical use of the windows will be for docking, when the crew probably won't be wearing pressure suits. The flight will probably be essentially on autopilot during launch, orbital insertion, retro fire and reentry/landing.

By now I would hope the engineers have enough numerical data to allow for gloves and other pressure suit clearances when designing switches, knobs, buttons and seat widths. I suspect the pressure suits worn during launch and reentry are A LOT less cumbersome than the one worn for EVAs.

 

[Novitas]

syc said:
Out of all of the VTOL attempts do you know how many were off target when the vehicle came back down?

ZERO!

Why? Because the computer systems the "Quad Vehicle" used were programed by arguably the best damn programmer on the face of the planet.

Ahem, well that would be me of course and it so happens that I did not work on that project.

But seriously folks...

I think you are onto something here. NASA of today is not your daddy's NASA. In the old days, when NASA was young it had not yet developed its culture and ways of doing things. It was made up of people from different industry segments and therefore there was a more broad based view of problems encountered. The atmosphere was very much like that of a startup industry. They had to invent as they went along and they drew from the diversity of experience they possessed.

Now NASA is a well-established institution. People enter it when young, get acclimated to its ways, and stay there for an entire career. I think what is needed to achieve "earth orbit for everyman(tm)" is a leaner more rough-and-ready approach that allows greater risk taking without automatic congressional oversight. Much like the early days of aviation. I don't think a government agency can do that.

 

[shipfisher]

Neopeius said:

The shuttle cost about half a billion with every flight, at best, and could carry 40 tons and seven people into space.

A Saturn 1b would cost today about half a billion with every flight, and could carry 20 tons and three people into space.

An Ares 1 could carry 25 tons and six people into orbit. How much will it cost per launch

I've always wondered how the cost of having kept churning out Saturn 1B's and V's to do the job of the shuttle would have compared to developing and flying the shuttle. I'd like to think there'd have still been another 14 astronauts still around anyway.

By the way:

You gotta love the Vulcan spinmasters. The have the Galaxy convinced the Vulcans are pacifists who never lie. The last enemy you want to face is a Vulcan with a logical reason to kick your ass.

Nerys Myk

 

[Meredith]

I like the Orion, the Ares seems think they are pandering to the solid fuel rocket makers Thor-Thikol I think. But it should work ok, also I kinda like now the first stage is smaller in diameter than the upper stage. plus no more damn ice worries

 

[FalTorPan]

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?

It should be to outdo China.