Some discouraging news about the Ares rockets

[Johnny Rico]

Saw a brief report about the Ares rocket engine test on FOX News this morning. They said that the NASA guys said that the new Ares (I guess) rocket vibrated/shook so bad that they were afraid that it'd blow apart the crew capsule minutes after lift-off.

But they said they'd hope to get the problem fixed before March.

 

[Deleted 2]

Eh, who cares about Ares I? It's only interesting as a try-out project for a series of larger rockets they'll never build anyway.

 

[philbob]

other than they are built with the cheapest high end parts

 

[Mallory]

I was a little disappointed when I saw that on CNN myself. One would figure that after all these years NASA would at least be able to design and manufacture a reliable rocket.

 

[westwords2020]

I dislike the capsule crew module myself. I'd prefer a small winged crew vehicle with auxillary jet engines for good crossrange and boosters that can fly back to launch site after their job is done.

 

[All Seeing Eye]

Mallory said:
I was a little disappointed when I saw that on CNN myself. One would figure that after all these years NASA would at least be able to design and manufacture a reliable rocket.

Before long NASA's knowledge on space technology will revert back to the stone age, they're just not as smart as they used to be, must be all the budget cuts.

 

[Candlelight]

Should've given the contract to the Russians.

 

[FordSVT]

Jesus, people, it was a TEST. Tests showcase problems. It took them six month testing the revised parachute on the Mars Lander capsule because the first test was a complete failure.

And this isn't the final product, it's basically the first test unit before they build the prototype of the vehicle they're finally going to launch people with in several years time. None of us are privy to the engineering details of this problem, and I'm not going to rely on an observer's quote from a mainstream news source like Fox to pass judgment on the engineering prowess of an entire government agency. You're all acting like they're planning on putting this thing into orbit around the moon in a couple of months and this is some kind of last minute spectacular problem they've got to deal with.

Here's a great website for info about NASA flights.

 

[Johnny Rico]

FordSVT said:
Jesus, people, it was a TEST. Tests showcase problems. It took them six month testing the revised parachute on the Mars Lander capsule because the first test was a complete failure.

And this isn't the final product, it's basically the first test unit before they build the prototype of the vehicle they're finally going to launch people with in several years time. None of us are privy to the engineering details of this problem, and I'm not going to rely on an observer's quote from a mainstream news source like Fox to pass judgment on the engineering prowess of an entire government agency. You're all acting like they're planning on putting this thing into orbit around the moon in a couple of months and this is some kind of last minute spectacular problem they've got to deal with.

Here's a great website for info about NASA flights.

Oh I never meant the report to be an end all to an end all to the technology they're testing. It's just funny how they test what would seem to be a simple rocket engine and it nearly shakes the fillings out of their teeth, so-to-speak.

 

[FordSVT]

I don't think there's anything "simple" about a rocket engine, certainly not one this large and advanced. This isn't backyard physics or a clone of a 1960s lifter with some fancy fins on it.

 

[Timo]

...But it essentially is recycled hardware from the shuttle program.

And something that's eminently unadjustable to begin with. Man-rating one or both of the EELVs would have been easier going. As for recoverability, EELV engine packs could probably have been para-recovered over land for better financial return than the SBR sea recovery and recycling procedure.

When recycling, stick with something that's known to work. The proposed intermediate Ares IV would have been a smart move, with or without Ares V: less limitations on the crew vehicle, more scenarios for using that vehicle or its expanded versions for space exploration and exploitation.

I mean, the Ares I/V combo will probably work, eventually. And by making it work, NASA will have learned new skills, and preserved some old ones. But it's looking like an expensive dead end with insufficient flexibility, just like STS but worse. It's going to be expensive anyway, so why not concentrate on doing something to the inflexibility? Ares I is the worst offender, a minimum solution without any room for growth...

Timo Saloniemi

 

[FordSVT]

Johnny Rico said:
Oh I never meant the report to be an end all to an end all to the technology they're testing. It's just funny how they test what would seem to be a simple rocket engine and it nearly shakes the fillings out of their teeth, so-to-speak.

You weren't the one I was talking about really.

"Before long NASA's knowledge on space technology will revert back to the stone age, they're just not as smart as they used to be, must be all the budget cuts."

"One would figure that after all these years NASA would at least be able to design and manufacture a reliable rocket."

Ignorant comments.

However, I do appreciate what Timo said, I've also questioned the long term viability and usefulness of the Ares project. Seems they'd be better off thinking a bit more outside the box and forging ahead to a new generation of spacecraft instead of effectively moving in reverse with a few fancy new tricks.

 

[Meredith]

westwords2020 said:
I dislike the capsule crew module myself. I'd prefer a small winged crew vehicle with auxillary jet engines for good crossrange and boosters that can fly back to launch site after their job is done.

I dunno, Wings are an awful lot of dead weight on the craft.


As Rodney McKay would say, "Using power, using power, using power."




I wonder if the entire fuel chamber of the solid rocket is acting as a resonance chamber and it is due to the length of the rocket, making it longer makes it worse.

 

[Mallory]

FordSVT said:
"One would figure that after all these years NASA would at least be able to design and manufacture a reliable rocket."

Ignorant comments.

Perhaps it is ignorant. But since it's coming from someone who's actually paying taxes to fund NASA maybe they should be doing a better job of educating people like me. Otherwise both interest and budget for manned space flight will continue to decline.

I consider myself to be an enthusiastic supporter of manned space flight. I lived through the 1960's and watched us go from suborbital Mercury flights to the moon in less than a decade. I'm hoping (but not optimistic) that I'll live through another period like that before I move on. This project was sold on the basis of returning to known reliable technology. If that's not the case I'd rather know now than blow another two decades and a few more billion dollars and yet fail to achieve the project objectives.

 

[Docbrown777]

Year of Hell said:
Should've given the contract to the Russians.

Oh that would work out great. The thing would get half built and then sit in a warehouse for the next decade or two incomplete due to budget constraints.

 

[Timo]

So go pay the Russians. It would still be a bargain.

Man-rating Proton and keeping Soyuz flying would give roughly the same thing Ares V and I are offering, respectively. That is, if there actually were a need to get stuff up there on the double, and to keep the space program constantly active.

It wouldn't be inconceivable to simply stop for a while, though, and concentrate on things other than manned spaceflight. But to let ISS go to waste would be a damn shame.

Timo Saloniemi

 

[shipfisher]

Werner Von Braun, who had more to do with getting the Apollo program off the ground (and I mean that literally) than anybody else, was dead set against using solid rockets for manned launches for the obvious "no kill switch" reasons. I hope escape rocket tech hasn't atrophied too much during the shuttle years.

 

[Candlelight]

Docbrown777 said:

Year of Hell said:
Should've given the contract to the Russians.

Oh that would work out great. The thing would get half built and then sit in a warehouse for the next decade or two incomplete due to budget constraints.

The budget comes from the US, so whether it sits in US warehouses or Russian warehouses is a null issue.

 

[MANT!]

I for one am not enthused about the use of a solid rocket for a man rated spacecraft (and I'm no fan of that aspect of the STS either)..when solid rockets fail. they often do in a catastrophic way..
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=dtkhYzIkCR0

 

[137th Gebirg]

I understand this was a test and all that, but shit, NASA! You did this thing reliably with one hand tied around your balls almost 40 years ago. Now we have satellites that nobody has a clue where they're coming down, an aging Space Shuttle fleet (half of which is either sitting in a museum or incinerated) close to the end of its life cycle with NO viable successor, and test rockets threatening to blow up when they hit a bird on the way into the ionosphere!

I hate to say it, but now, more than never, I'm leaning towards the privatization of space exploration. The FedGov just don't seem to have it in them any more. Yes, there have been budget cuts, but that has always served in the past for those folks to get more creative. Not anymore, sadly.