Angry Astronauts Write Letter

Damien Valentine wrote:
I'm not sure what's so encouraging about this. *He's promising that at
the end of his second term -- which he may not actually have -- he'll
think about it. *The Shuttle is still being retired at the end of this
year, and Constellation is still out of the running. *So for at least
5 years, we won't even have plans for manned or heavy-lift vehicles,
and then it will be an indefinite period of time until the approved
design is actually built.

What am I missing here?



I don't think you have missed a thing. You are spot on. Obama's
speech yesterday ... and his ' plan ' for NASA is just his usual
gobbledygook. Personally I'm outraged. Who the hell does Obama think
he is ? A trillion dollars for Govt. run health care over the next
ten years. Hey no big deal. NASA's budget is 0.6% of the federal
budget. $19 billion. But hey ... were going to have to scuttle the
Constelation program ... it had cost overruns. WTF ?

Obama is directing NASA to focus on a space taxi to the space
station. I thought that was what Ares 1 was ( or is capable of ).
Obama says a decision will be made on a new " heavy lift " rocket in
2015. I thought Ares 2 was the new " heavy lift " rocket. My God.
Ares 2 can put more cargo in low Earth orbit than a Saturn V could.
How much more " heavy lift " does one need ?

Look fine ... want to cancel the Moon missions, I'm okay with that.
But I'm in the opinion that however flawed the Ares systems are ...
well ... we needed these damn rockets ! I was of the opinon that Ares
2 was ' flexable ' enough ( such as the Saturn V was ) either for a
moon mission, a visit to an asteroid, a Mars mission, or placing heavy
cargo in Earth orbit. Christ almighty ... I hope Congress has some
members with brains enough to stop this Obama nonsense.


WHAT am I missing ???


Chris

On Apr 16, 11:33*am, CCBlack wrote:
Damien Valentine wrote:
I'm not sure what's so encouraging about this. *He's promising that at
the end of his second term -- which he may not actually have -- he'll
think about it. *The Shuttle is still being retired at the end of this
year, and Constellation is still out of the running. *So for at least
5 years, we won't even have plans for manned or heavy-lift vehicles,
and then it will be an indefinite period of time until the approved
design is actually built.

What am I missing here?

I don't think you have missed a thing. *You are spot on. *Obama's
speech yesterday ... and his ' plan ' for NASA is just his usual
gobbledygook. *Personally I'm outraged. *Who the hell does Obama think
he is ? *A trillion dollars for Govt. run health care over the next
ten years. *Hey no big deal. *NASA's budget is 0.6% of the federal
budget. $19 billion. *But hey ... were going to have to scuttle the
Constelation program ... it had cost overruns. *WTF ?

Obama is directing NASA to focus on a space taxi to the space
station. *I thought that was what Ares 1 was ( or is capable of ).
Obama says a decision will be made on a new " heavy lift " rocket in
2015. *I thought Ares 2 was the new " heavy lift " rocket. *My God.
Ares 2 can put more cargo in low Earth orbit than a Saturn V could.
How much more " heavy lift " does one need ?

Look fine ... want to cancel the Moon missions, I'm okay with that.
But I'm in the opinion that however flawed the Ares systems are ...
well ... we needed these damn rockets ! *I was of the opinon that Ares
2 was ' flexable ' enough ( such as the Saturn V was ) either for a
moon mission, a visit to an asteroid, a Mars mission, or placing heavy
cargo in Earth orbit. *Christ almighty ... I hope Congress has some
members with brains enough to stop this Obama nonsense.

WHAT am I missing ???

Fah. You want to talk you neighbors into independently funding Ares?
That would be a useful move.

This "Obama nonsense" lines up better with the thinking I've absorbed
from sci.space.* (including ideas from savants that have left the
group ... google Henry's Brown Bess) and the realities of funding a
technology program that doesn't have an immediate threat to counter.

And why do we need these damn rockets? There is reason to believe
modular fueling systems which could be launched on Delta IVH, Atlas
5+, or maybe Falcon 9 would be much more useful than a single heavy
lift design.
Strap a few Leonardo's to it, put a bubble-wrap shield layer, and dock
your crew launch/return vehicle to it.

/dps

snidely wrote:
Fah. *You want to talk you neighbors into independently funding Ares?
That would be a useful move.


Where do you think the $9 billion over the past four years spent on
Constellation came from ? Tax payers like ME and my neighbors.
Democrats in congress were talking about ANOTHER $100 billion dollar
bailout for the U.S. . Talk about " Fah ".

" Clunkers 3 Billion $$ … NASA ‘ 0 ’ $$ "

Jeez ... seems like if the approach is to promote the "
commercialization " of spaceflight ... fine. But don't scuttle NASA
in the process. Like Gene Cernan has said about Space X and other
such programs ... " they don't yet know what they don't know ".


This "Obama nonsense" lines up better with the thinking I've absorbed
from sci.space.* (including ideas from savants that have left the
group ... google Henry's Brown Bess) and the realities of funding *a
technology program that doesn't have an immediate threat to counter.


In place of the Moon mission, The Narcissist in Chief's vision offers,
at least initially, NOTHING in terms of human exploration of the solar
system. What the administration calls a “ bold new initiative ” does
not spell out a next destination or timetable for getting there. NASA
a few years from now would be fundamentally different from NASA today.
The space agency would no longer operate its own spacecraft, but
essentially buy tickets for its astronauts. By canceling Ares, NASA
would have no backup if the commercial companies were not able to
deliver.

Mind if I call that " Obama nonsense " ?


And why do we need these damn rockets? *There is reason to believe
modular fueling systems which could be launched on Delta IVH, Atlas
5+, or maybe Falcon 9 would be much more useful than a single heavy
lift design.
Strap a few Leonardo's to it, put a bubble-wrap shield layer, and dock
your crew launch/return vehicle to it.


NASA has also not yet spelled out how it would go about verifying that
commercial rockets are sufficiently safe for carrying astronauts. A
worry is also that the decades of expertise and experience within NASA
in operating spacecraft will be lost, and that the commercial
companies might stumble as they learn. If the approach succeeds, it
could jumpstart a vibrant space industry, but it is also risky. The
Obama plan does not include any specific program to develop a Heavy
Lift booster. Instead, the plan vaguely mentions the pursuit of “ game
changing technologies ” that would one day enable faster voyages
beyond Earth.

Something to think about ... the total cost of the Apollo program was
approximately $136 billion in 2007 dollars. For comparison, the
International Space Station will cost around 157 billion dollars by
the time it’s completed. AND I don't even know what in the heck they
do up there in the Space station. It has very little scientific
value.

I'm sad to see the Constellation program go ... because at least it
was doing * something *. With a rocket like Ares V NASA could do all
sorts of things. Put a space station in orbit with one shot. Go to
the moon ... whatever.


Chris

On Apr 17, 8:17*pm, CCBlack wrote:
snidely wrote:
Fah. *You want to talk you neighbors into independently funding Ares?
That would be a useful move.

Where do you think the $9 billion over the past four years spent on
Constellation came from ? *Tax payers like ME and my neighbors.
Democrats in congress were talking about ANOTHER $100 billion dollar
bailout for the U.S. . *Talk about " Fah ".

" Clunkers 3 Billion $$ … NASA ‘ 0 ’ $$ "

Jeez ... seems like if the approach is to promote the "
commercialization " of spaceflight ... fine. *But don't scuttle NASA
in the process. *Like Gene Cernan has said about Space X and other
such programs ... " they don't yet know what they don't know ".

This "Obama nonsense" lines up better with the thinking I've absorbed
from sci.space.* (including ideas from savants that have left the
group ... google Henry's Brown Bess) and the realities of funding *a
technology program that doesn't have an immediate threat to counter.

In place of the Moon mission, The Narcissist in Chief's vision offers,
at least initially, NOTHING in terms of human exploration of the solar
system. What the administration calls a “ bold new initiative ” does
not spell out a next destination or timetable for getting there. NASA
a few years from now would be fundamentally different from NASA today.
The space agency would no longer operate its own spacecraft, but
essentially buy tickets for its astronauts. By canceling Ares, NASA
would have no backup if the commercial companies were not able to
deliver.

Mind if I call that " Obama nonsense " ?

And why do we need these damn rockets? *There is reason to believe
modular fueling systems which could be launched on Delta IVH, Atlas
5+, or maybe Falcon 9 would be much more useful than a single heavy
lift design.
Strap a few Leonardo's to it, put a bubble-wrap shield layer, and dock
your crew launch/return vehicle to it.

NASA has also not yet spelled out how it would go about verifying that
commercial rockets are sufficiently safe for carrying astronauts. A
worry is also that the decades of expertise and experience within NASA
in operating spacecraft will be lost, and that the commercial
companies might stumble as they learn. *If the approach succeeds, it
could jumpstart a vibrant space industry, but it is also risky. *The
Obama plan does not include any specific program to develop a Heavy
Lift booster. Instead, the plan vaguely mentions the pursuit of “ game
changing technologies ” that would one day enable faster voyages
beyond Earth.

Something to think about ... the total cost of the Apollo program was
approximately $136 billion in 2007 dollars. For comparison, the
International Space Station will cost around 157 billion dollars by
the time it’s completed. *AND I don't even know what in the heck they
do up there in the Space station. *It has very little scientific
value.

I'm sad to see the Constellation program go ... because at least it
was doing * something *. *With a rocket like Ares V NASA could do all
sorts of things. *Put a space station in orbit with one shot. *Go to
the moon ... whatever.

Chris

Well nasa was spending boatloads of money on a booster that burns so
rought it could kill the crew by shaking them..........

just what we DONT NEED

On Apr 17, 10:49*pm, " wrote:
On Apr 17, 8:17*pm, CCBlack wrote:





snidely wrote:
Fah. *You want to talk you neighbors into independently funding Ares?
That would be a useful move.

Where do you think the $9 billion over the past four years spent on
Constellation came from ? *Tax payers like ME and my neighbors.
Democrats in congress were talking about ANOTHER $100 billion dollar
bailout for the U.S. . *Talk about " Fah ".

" Clunkers 3 Billion $$ … NASA ‘ 0 ’ $$ "

Jeez ... seems like if the approach is to promote the "
commercialization " of spaceflight ... fine. *But don't scuttle NASA
in the process. *Like Gene Cernan has said about Space X and other
such programs ... " they don't yet know what they don't know ".

This "Obama nonsense" lines up better with the thinking I've absorbed
from sci.space.* (including ideas from savants that have left the
group ... google Henry's Brown Bess) and the realities of funding *a
technology program that doesn't have an immediate threat to counter.

In place of the Moon mission, The Narcissist in Chief's vision offers,
at least initially, NOTHING in terms of human exploration of the solar
system. What the administration calls a “ bold new initiative ” does
not spell out a next destination or timetable for getting there. NASA
a few years from now would be fundamentally different from NASA today.
The space agency would no longer operate its own spacecraft, but
essentially buy tickets for its astronauts. By canceling Ares, NASA
would have no backup if the commercial companies were not able to
deliver.

Mind if I call that " Obama nonsense " ?

And why do we need these damn rockets? *There is reason to believe
modular fueling systems which could be launched on Delta IVH, Atlas
5+, or maybe Falcon 9 would be much more useful than a single heavy
lift design.
Strap a few Leonardo's to it, put a bubble-wrap shield layer, and dock
your crew launch/return vehicle to it.

NASA has also not yet spelled out how it would go about verifying that
commercial rockets are sufficiently safe for carrying astronauts. A
worry is also that the decades of expertise and experience within NASA
in operating spacecraft will be lost, and that the commercial
companies might stumble as they learn. *If the approach succeeds, it
could jumpstart a vibrant space industry, but it is also risky. *The
Obama plan does not include any specific program to develop a Heavy
Lift booster. Instead, the plan vaguely mentions the pursuit of “ game
changing technologies ” that would one day enable faster voyages
beyond Earth.

Something to think about ... the total cost of the Apollo program was
approximately $136 billion in 2007 dollars. For comparison, the
International Space Station will cost around 157 billion dollars by
the time it’s completed. *AND I don't even know what in the heck they
do up there in the Space station. *It has very little scientific
value.

I'm sad to see the Constellation program go ... because at least it
was doing * something *. *With a rocket like Ares V NASA could do all
sorts of things. *Put a space station in orbit with one shot. *Go to
the moon ... whatever.

Chris

Well nasa was spending boatloads of money on a booster that burns so
rought it could kill the crew by shaking them..........

just what we DONT NEED- Hide quoted text -

- Show quoted text -


When Apollo 8 was launched 41 years ago, one of the primary test
objectives for that launch was to, “ Confirm the launch vehicle
longitudinal oscillation environment during the S-IC stage burn ”.
Another test objective was to verify new SI-C modifications that were
designed to suppress low frequency oscillations ( POGO ). The
previous, unmanned Saturn V shook so hard that SLA “ debris ” was
observed falling from the vehicle. In other words ... it was a manned
test flight.

NASA and contractor engineers had developed multiple options to damp
out the vibrations caused by the way Ares I solid rocket first stage
burns.

But ... but ... but ... it could drift into the launch tower on lift
off ... but, but, but, ... the crew wouldn't survive LES.

It all would have been worked out.


Chris

CCBlack wrote:

When Apollo 8 was launched 41 years ago, one of the primary test
objectives for that launch was to, “ Confirm the launch vehicle
longitudinal oscillation environment during the S-IC stage burn ”.
Another test objective was to verify new SI-C modifications that were
designed to suppress low frequency oscillations ( POGO ). The
previous, unmanned Saturn V shook so hard that SLA “ debris ” was
observed falling from the vehicle. In other words ... it was a manned
test flight.

Chris

You're comparing two very different issues. Pogo was solved by basically
eliminating it.

The issue with the SRBs is inherent to the design and requires dampening
(last I heard active) between the 1st stage and the crew capsule.

Also, in the worst case scenarios, the Apollo CM was pretty much always able
to clear the booster. Orion would have had the booster run through it or
burn the parachute.

Orion and Ares-I were a dog. I'm glad to see them on the trash-heap of
history, especially Ares-I.

Just remember, when the goal was a "shuttle derived booster" so that you
could minimize changes and you've:
Added a 5 segment
Changed the grain pattern
Changed the nozzle
Added active dampening
and other changes, about the only thing you're left with is the shape of the
casing, you really need to go back and question your original assumptions.
You're no longer saving money, time or effort. And you can toss out a lot
of your historical data since it no longer applies.



--
Greg Moore
Ask me about lily, an RPI based CMC.

On 4/17/2010 10:06 PM, Greg D. Moore (Strider) wrote:


You're comparing two very different issues. Pogo was solved by basically
eliminating it.

Or trying to eliminate it at least; it kept cropping up at unexpected
moments during the Saturn V flights:
http://www.pwrengineering.com/articles/pogo.htm
I still like the Titan II pogo that could nearly shake your testicles
off. :-D

Pat

On Apr 18, 1:06*am Greg D. Moore ( Strider ) wrote:
You're comparing two very different issues. *Pogo was solved by basically
eliminating it.
The issue with the SRBs is inherent to the design and requires dampening
(last I heard active) between the 1st stage and the crew capsule.
Also, in the worst case scenarios, the Apollo CM was pretty much always able
to clear the booster. *Orion would have had the booster run through it or
burn the parachute.
Orion and Ares-I were a dog. *I'm glad to see them on the trash-heap of
history, especially Ares-I.
Just remember, when the goal was a "shuttle derived booster" so that you
could minimize changes and you've:
Added a 5 segment
Changed the grain pattern
Changed the nozzle
Added active dampening
and other changes, about the only thing you're left with is the shape of the
casing, you really need to go back and question your original assumptions..
You're no longer saving money, time or effort. *And you can toss out a lot
of your historical data since it no longer applies.


The issue of thrust-induced vibration pertains to ALL rocket engines,
liquid and solid. Period. If it wasn’t an issue with liquids, then
there would have never been the need to elimininate/mitigate/design it
out in the first place. The fact that it is “ designed out ” does not
mean it is not an issue. What it means is that it is an issue with
known methods of mitigation and those are put into place during the
design phase. Is that correct? Yes it is. And gee, guess what…. that’s
exactly what they did with Ares I – coming up with options for
mitigation and “ designing it out ” in the second stage design. The
engineering ( rocket science ) process is no different between Ares I
and a liquid-fueled rocket.

We will never know if Apollo astronauts could have survived an LES
activation. Some have speculated that the chances of surviving an
Apollo launch abort were remote at best. Likewise, there is no sure-
fire way of safely escaping the catastrophic demise of a present-day
launch vehicle and there will always be critics will draw attention to
themselves by raising this issue, for as long as we have to rely on
volatile chemical rockets to reach space. The launch escape scenario
for Ares I is just another rallying point for the advocates of
alternatives. It’s one of those kind of arguments that nobody can win.
There are too many variables and uncertainties involved. Astronauts
are trained to endure high changes of acceleration. The people who
fretting over Ares I escape system Gs either had an anti-Ares I agenda
or they are just worry-warts. The opponents of Ares I were demanding
perfection. That is obviously an unrealistic expectation, even for
their “ perfect ” alternatives and commercial prospects. This effort
to demonize Ares I is classic human psychology.


Chris

On Apr 17, 5:17*pm, CCBlack wrote:

NASA has also not yet spelled out how it would go about verifying that
commercial rockets are sufficiently safe for carrying astronauts.

Well, as has been pointed out here a few times, those commercial
rockets are already carrying might expensive payloads. If you can
launch a few dozen comm sats and telsats and weather sats, there is a
certain amount of confidence that the launcher will work.

It's not accidental that Space X is launching less expensive loads at
first, but you can expect them to have a track record pretty soon,
too.

/dps