Rocky Mountain Right, a member of the Rocky Mountain Alliance of Bloggers, announced yesterday "So Much For Hope for the Future" in regards to a report that Obama's transition team has requested information from NASA as to the cost of closing out some portions of the new Constellation Program, which consists of Ares I, Ares V, and Orion (two launch vehicles and a crew capsule).
As an insider into the Human Space Flight world (as an employee for Project Orion), I would cheer the cancellation of Ares I, which is what Obama is contemplating doing. Ares I is overweight, underpowered, and poor engineering design. A better alternative would be the Direct 2.0 (Jupiter) launch vehicle, which is an Ares V lite... or perhaps continuing the EELV program, though that would still be more engineering and longer lead time on a launcher...
Currently there has been a schedule slip due to the inability to perfect the Ares I launcher... based on these slips, the first manned launch of the Constellation program is potentially slipping from 2015 to 2017 - that is for the first manned TEST flight... that is 7 years of lag time between the shuttle and this program... Under Direct 2.0, first flights could be as early as 2011 - 2012... as well, it keeps the shuttle infrastructure in place, so we could extend the shuttle a few more flights - and thus there would be no gap in the US' ability for Human Space Flight.
NASA, under Bush, is currently mismanaged. I don't think that Obama can hurt - in fact, at this point, some slight change in direction may actually help expedite the manned space flight program, and eventually Human Mars Missions.
Showing posts with label ares. Show all posts
Showing posts with label ares. Show all posts
Friday, December 5, 2008
Tuesday, July 15, 2008
Is NASA wrong on the Moon/Mars Launch Vehicle?
NASA Director, Mike Griffin, is the father of the next moon vehicle. A design concept aimed at piecing apart the US Space Shuttle components into a series of launch vehicles aimed at returning the US to space after the retirement of the shuttle, and eventually back to the moon.
However, Griffin’s focus on the Ares I and Ares V launch vehicles may be the wrong path for the future of US space travel.
The Ares V, when complete, will dwarf the Saturn V in sheer size, yet will not allow for a single launch to aim for the moon. The Ares I will need to launch the crew in the Orion Capsule, which will dock with the Ares V upper stage (complete with lander), and the two will aim toward the moon. A complex ballet in space, made further more complicated by the Ares I development issues – most notably an acoustic envelope that exists in the early part of flight, causing vibrations that would kill the astronauts – a problem that NASA admits is part of dealing with new launch systems. The solution, says NASA, is reverse thrusters firing during launch… kind of the anti-booster. Leave it to the government to proceed with building a new launch vehicle that cannot launch without retro rockets used during launch – like building a new plane that cannot fly without anchors on it’s wings.
Since it’s inception, NASA has spent over $7 Billion on developing this new technology.
But is NASA wrong in scrapping the entire shuttle program? The shuttle itself is flawed, but the launch technology is proven, and perfected since the Columbia disaster. In fact, the changes made to the External Tank have improved flight safety and performance – for a program that has roughly ten flights left – sounds like a government fumble to me.
Enter the Jupiter DIRECT 2.0. When the Constellation Program was being conceived, there were a number of proposals to replace the shuttle. All incorporated shuttle technology, but none more so than the Jupiter Direct. The initial design proposal was questionable, and was cast to the side… however, a rogue group of NASA engineers (some of whom, no doubt, are working on Ares and see the unsolvable problems) may have fixed the issues with the DIRECT launcher.
The design uses the shuttle launch structure, minus the shuttle, placing a small engine pod attached below the tank and placing the payload above the tank. There is no vibration issue, no new configuration issue, and no expensive and time consuming development cost – it is the launch vehicle already in use.
However, NASA officials refuse to take a second look at the cost/schedule saving plan. They simply discredit the idea by citing the shortcomings of the DIRECT 1.0, claiming that there is no possible way that this design could be superior to the design which was chosen… sort of staying the course.
As an Aerospace Engineer (and employee of the Orion Program), I have had my doubts with the Ares-I launch vehicle from the beginning, and these problems/solutions are reason enough to build doubt in the success of this vehicle. We will find ourselves with an inefficient launch vehicle with questionable safety, and a price tag nearing $50 Billion and 5 years of development. It was my opinion from the start that the Ares be scrapped in favor of an Atlas V or Delta V launcher, slightly modified for human rating. NASA would not bite, as some components (notably engine parts) are Russian in origin and they demand an all-American design. The Jupiter DIRECT 2.0 solves this problem and has minimal development cost.
Perhaps we, the grassroots activists of the net, take some action on an issue that is less a “limelight” issue, and more a Taxpayer Friendly obligation – write your Congressmen, write NASA, and write the candidates – ask them if NASA is on the right track with Ares. Ask them if it is prudent that we are scrapping the Shuttle launch system in favor of an unproven and unsafe launch system. Ask them if they should consider an alternative that keeps the current manufacturing jobs and processes in place, keeps our launch infrastructure in place, and requires less time and money for development overall. Ask them about Jupiter DIRECT 2.0.
Public Communications Office
NASA Headquarters
Suite 5K39
Washington, DC 20546-0001
(202) 358-0001 (Office)
(202) 358-3469 (Fax)
However, Griffin’s focus on the Ares I and Ares V launch vehicles may be the wrong path for the future of US space travel.
The Ares V, when complete, will dwarf the Saturn V in sheer size, yet will not allow for a single launch to aim for the moon. The Ares I will need to launch the crew in the Orion Capsule, which will dock with the Ares V upper stage (complete with lander), and the two will aim toward the moon. A complex ballet in space, made further more complicated by the Ares I development issues – most notably an acoustic envelope that exists in the early part of flight, causing vibrations that would kill the astronauts – a problem that NASA admits is part of dealing with new launch systems. The solution, says NASA, is reverse thrusters firing during launch… kind of the anti-booster. Leave it to the government to proceed with building a new launch vehicle that cannot launch without retro rockets used during launch – like building a new plane that cannot fly without anchors on it’s wings.Since it’s inception, NASA has spent over $7 Billion on developing this new technology.
But is NASA wrong in scrapping the entire shuttle program? The shuttle itself is flawed, but the launch technology is proven, and perfected since the Columbia disaster. In fact, the changes made to the External Tank have improved flight safety and performance – for a program that has roughly ten flights left – sounds like a government fumble to me.
Enter the Jupiter DIRECT 2.0. When the Constellation Program was being conceived, there were a number of proposals to replace the shuttle. All incorporated shuttle technology, but none more so than the Jupiter Direct. The initial design proposal was questionable, and was cast to the side… however, a rogue group of NASA engineers (some of whom, no doubt, are working on Ares and see the unsolvable problems) may have fixed the issues with the DIRECT launcher.
The design uses the shuttle launch structure, minus the shuttle, placing a small engine pod attached below the tank and placing the payload above the tank. There is no vibration issue, no new configuration issue, and no expensive and time consuming development cost – it is the launch vehicle already in use.
However, NASA officials refuse to take a second look at the cost/schedule saving plan. They simply discredit the idea by citing the shortcomings of the DIRECT 1.0, claiming that there is no possible way that this design could be superior to the design which was chosen… sort of staying the course.
As an Aerospace Engineer (and employee of the Orion Program), I have had my doubts with the Ares-I launch vehicle from the beginning, and these problems/solutions are reason enough to build doubt in the success of this vehicle. We will find ourselves with an inefficient launch vehicle with questionable safety, and a price tag nearing $50 Billion and 5 years of development. It was my opinion from the start that the Ares be scrapped in favor of an Atlas V or Delta V launcher, slightly modified for human rating. NASA would not bite, as some components (notably engine parts) are Russian in origin and they demand an all-American design. The Jupiter DIRECT 2.0 solves this problem and has minimal development cost.
Perhaps we, the grassroots activists of the net, take some action on an issue that is less a “limelight” issue, and more a Taxpayer Friendly obligation – write your Congressmen, write NASA, and write the candidates – ask them if NASA is on the right track with Ares. Ask them if it is prudent that we are scrapping the Shuttle launch system in favor of an unproven and unsafe launch system. Ask them if they should consider an alternative that keeps the current manufacturing jobs and processes in place, keeps our launch infrastructure in place, and requires less time and money for development overall. Ask them about Jupiter DIRECT 2.0.Public Communications Office
NASA Headquarters
Suite 5K39
Washington, DC 20546-0001
(202) 358-0001 (Office)
(202) 358-3469 (Fax)
Saturday, February 9, 2008
Space, and the private sector
Following the inaugural flight of Spaceship One, in which Branson's rocket plane officially won the Ansari X-Prize, congress went to work placing restrictions on the public exploration of space. The government controls were touted as public safety measures... because we don't want a crazy astronaut Farmer incident taking place now do we?
But recent events have taken place that cause me to wonder if congress wants a private sector in human space flight, or if the government's idea of human space flight is a series of non-exploration high cost missions. I am left wondering if the government entities that be do not wish for human kind to become a space faring civilization.
One example of this comes from one man's obsession with creating a new and useless lifting vehicle, with little to no advantage over the current lifting technologies. That man is Mike Griffin, head of NASA. His obsession is with the ARES launch vehicles. The development costs are astronomical (pun intended), and the program time for a new complex launch vehicle is on the order of a decade. So why the obsession?
Griffin is a self-proclaimed visionary... He often comes up with his own solutions to problems, and insists that his engineers make them work. A great example outside of the ARES vehicles is the last minute change in the Orion Crew Exploration Vehicle's Launch Abort System (LAS). The LAS was having some minor engineering design issues, and instead of counting on the council of his highly skilled NASA engineers, Griffin took out a piece of scratch paper, drew some new design and said "Do this". It has been a hit to cost and schedule... but the army marches forward to his drum.
The Ares launch vehicle Ares I is a 5 segment solid rocket booster, with a small segment of liquid propellant and the Orion CEV aboard it. It is the first of two launch vehicles being designed for the over budget and behind schedule Moon Program. The problem: solid rocket motors vibrate at such an extreme frequency that without damping, Humans cannot survive, let alone the space vehicle riding on top. Once these vibrations were apparent in analysis, it was suggested that the costly ARES program be abandoned for a less costly and already existent Atlas V, from United Launch Alliance (a Boeing and Lockheed Martin joint effort). Little work would be needed to convert the once human rated launch vehicle back to a human launch vehicle... alas, Griffin has refused... opting instead to push forward with his legacy building candlestick.
Focus now on the private sector, where Bigelow Aerospace is planning on all but putting NASA out of business. Bigelow is listening to the reports on the Atlas V, and intend on using the launch vehicle to build their space hotel, and use the vehicle to shuttle space tourists to and from the inflatable space dwelling. Bigelow has survived, in spite of the increased rules and regulation from the US government when it comes to Space and the private sector. Other companies have not been so lucky... see Kistler Aerospace's issues with the K-1, and how they had to make a deal with Australia to launch as the US would not allow them to cost effectively launch in the US.
I give much respect to private space businesses. They are the explorers who are forging humanity onward into the next great frontier, much to the hesitation of the government.
Overregulation has done much to undermine the private sector in everything from plumbing to medicine... and now, before the industry has an opportunity to boom, the government is attempting to regulate the sector to death.
As good conservatives, we should all work together to end overregulation of private business by the government. We should support private space exploration, and demand that the government allow the start-up operations to research, develop, test, and fly without costly intervention by the bureaucracy of Washington. Without a private sector in the space exploration industry, we are left catering to the whims of whomever may be the visionary of NASA on any given day.
But recent events have taken place that cause me to wonder if congress wants a private sector in human space flight, or if the government's idea of human space flight is a series of non-exploration high cost missions. I am left wondering if the government entities that be do not wish for human kind to become a space faring civilization.
One example of this comes from one man's obsession with creating a new and useless lifting vehicle, with little to no advantage over the current lifting technologies. That man is Mike Griffin, head of NASA. His obsession is with the ARES launch vehicles. The development costs are astronomical (pun intended), and the program time for a new complex launch vehicle is on the order of a decade. So why the obsession?
Griffin is a self-proclaimed visionary... He often comes up with his own solutions to problems, and insists that his engineers make them work. A great example outside of the ARES vehicles is the last minute change in the Orion Crew Exploration Vehicle's Launch Abort System (LAS). The LAS was having some minor engineering design issues, and instead of counting on the council of his highly skilled NASA engineers, Griffin took out a piece of scratch paper, drew some new design and said "Do this". It has been a hit to cost and schedule... but the army marches forward to his drum.
The Ares launch vehicle Ares I is a 5 segment solid rocket booster, with a small segment of liquid propellant and the Orion CEV aboard it. It is the first of two launch vehicles being designed for the over budget and behind schedule Moon Program. The problem: solid rocket motors vibrate at such an extreme frequency that without damping, Humans cannot survive, let alone the space vehicle riding on top. Once these vibrations were apparent in analysis, it was suggested that the costly ARES program be abandoned for a less costly and already existent Atlas V, from United Launch Alliance (a Boeing and Lockheed Martin joint effort). Little work would be needed to convert the once human rated launch vehicle back to a human launch vehicle... alas, Griffin has refused... opting instead to push forward with his legacy building candlestick.
Focus now on the private sector, where Bigelow Aerospace is planning on all but putting NASA out of business. Bigelow is listening to the reports on the Atlas V, and intend on using the launch vehicle to build their space hotel, and use the vehicle to shuttle space tourists to and from the inflatable space dwelling. Bigelow has survived, in spite of the increased rules and regulation from the US government when it comes to Space and the private sector. Other companies have not been so lucky... see Kistler Aerospace's issues with the K-1, and how they had to make a deal with Australia to launch as the US would not allow them to cost effectively launch in the US.
I give much respect to private space businesses. They are the explorers who are forging humanity onward into the next great frontier, much to the hesitation of the government.
Overregulation has done much to undermine the private sector in everything from plumbing to medicine... and now, before the industry has an opportunity to boom, the government is attempting to regulate the sector to death.
As good conservatives, we should all work together to end overregulation of private business by the government. We should support private space exploration, and demand that the government allow the start-up operations to research, develop, test, and fly without costly intervention by the bureaucracy of Washington. Without a private sector in the space exploration industry, we are left catering to the whims of whomever may be the visionary of NASA on any given day.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)