Thrust Oscillation Issue Threatens Ares I Design, Aviation Week

George wrote:
"Pat Flannery" wrote in message
...

George wrote:

I'm certainly not a rocket scientist by any stretch, but it would appear
that some type of dampening needs to occur between the solid rocket
motors and the Orion. Can this be accomplished by placing the Orion in
some kind of dampening skid, possiibly made of vulcanized rubber? It
might even solve the problem of what to do with all those defective
Firestone tires. :-)

It would be best if the dampening occurred between the SRB stage and the
LOX/LH2 upper stage.
If these were hooked together by warren truss girders the way the
Russians attach the upper stage of the Soyuz booster to the basic R-7
lower stage, it might be possible to incorporate some sort of shock
absorbers into that support structure and isolate the vibrations created
by the SRB from the whole upper part of the vehicle... this would be
ideal, as you don't want high frequency vibrations going through the
lightly built cryogenic upper stage either.

Pat


Good points. I wasn't sure where exactly the isolation should occur, but
isolating the SRBs from the rest of the stack altogether seems to me to be
the best remedy.

On Ares I (the one with the vibration problem) there's only a single SRB
forming the first stage:
http://images.spaceref.com/news/2006/ares.1.chart.jpg

Good idea. I like the truss girder idea. Probably
cheaper and less impact on mass as well. Possibly they could be
constructed from vibration-absorbing composite materials. I think the
second vehicle from the left in the drawing at the link below may be
something like what you are describing:

http://www.friends-partners.org/part...l/lktksles.jpg


That's the lunar landing stage for the Chelomei UR-700 direct ascent
manned Moon mission from the 1960's USSR.
In that case the truss girders are to cut weight down rather than using
a solid cylindrical structure to join the two bottom stages to the
landing section of the spacecraft.
On the Soyuz core stage (which bears a uncanny resemblance to Ares 1
once the four strap-on boosters are jettisoned):
http://esamultimedia.esa.int/images/...2A_08182_H.jpg
The upper stage is attached by the girders so that its engines can be
ignited while still attached to the core stage, and their exhaust can
escape from the spaces between the girders prior to separation of the
upper stage. In this manner there are no ullage rockets needed to keep
the propellants in the upper stage seated during staging, as the rocket
is under trust during the whole ascent (we used the same technique on
the Titan II). Some Russian model rocket builders did a detailed metal
model of the truss frame that holds the core and upper stages of a Soyuz
boosters together, so you can see it's structural design:
http://www.rocket.aero/soyuz2big.jpg http://www.rocket.aero/soyuz4big.jpg
If you look to the right of the second photo, that's the end that hooks
to the upper stage. If you were to install some sort of vibration
dampening devices in those short cylinders that attach to the upper
stage base ring (shown detached in the first photo)
that would allow the vibrations to be isolated to the first stage.

Or possibly something like this:

http://www.friends-partners.org/part...r/r7ur5cut.gif

I believe the Soviet N-1 also used such trusses.


Yes, that shows Chelomei's Proton (UR-500), and both it and Korolev's
N-1 used the same "engine firing while stages still attached" technique
as the Soyuz Korolev designed. It was a very common feature on Soviet
space boosters and missiles.
I don't know if any had any sort of vibration dampening system
incorporated into the attachment trusses.
Its use on the RT-2 (NATO code name SS-13 Savage)
http://www.fas.org/nuke/guide/russia/icbm/rt-2.htm
Is interesting, as this was a solid-fueled ICBM... so it wouldn't need
any ullage rockets on it.
In this case one can wonder if its primary use was some sort of
vibration dampening.

Pat

George wrote:


"Pat Flannery" wrote in message
...


George wrote:
I'm certainly not a rocket scientist by any stretch, but it would appear
that some type of dampening needs to occur between the solid rocket
motors and the Orion. Can this be accomplished by placing the Orion in
some kind of dampening skid, possiibly made of vulcanized rubber? It
might even solve the problem of what to do with all those defective
Firestone tires. :-)

It would be best if the dampening occurred between the SRB stage and the
LOX/LH2 upper stage.
If these were hooked together by warren truss girders the way the
Russians attach the upper stage of the Soyuz booster to the basic R-7
lower stage, it might be possible to incorporate some sort of shock
absorbers into that support structure and isolate the vibrations created
by the SRB from the whole upper part of the vehicle... this would be
ideal, as you don't want high frequency vibrations going through the
lightly built cryogenic upper stage either.

Pat

Good points. I wasn't sure where exactly the isolation should occur, but
isolating the SRBs from the rest of the stack altogether seems to me to be
the best remedy. Good idea. I like the truss girder idea. Probably
cheaper and less impact on mass as well. Possibly they could be
constructed from vibration-absorbing composite materials. I think the
second vehicle from the left in the drawing at the link below may be
something like what you are describing:

http://www.friends-partners.org/part...l/lktksles.jpg

Or possibly something like this:

http://www.friends-partners.org/part...r/r7ur5cut.gif

I believe the Soviet N-1 also used such trusses.


Or, this. The Space Shuttle

http://www.gcs.k12.in.us/bholt/Space...%20diagram.JPG

The +X load path from the SRB to the ET is at the intertank at the top. The
+X load path from the Orbiter to the ET is at the bottom of the Hydrogen
tank. So the structure of the Hydrogen tank provides some isolates to the
Orbiter from the +X thrust vibrations.

Orbiter to ET attack points
Nose, Y and Z load paths
Tail, X, Y and Z load paths, and roll moments

SRB to ET attach points
Nose, X Y and Z load paths
Tail, Y and Z load paths, and roll moment.

"Pat Flannery" wrote in message
...


George wrote:
"Pat Flannery" wrote in message
...

George wrote:

I'm certainly not a rocket scientist by any stretch, but it would
appear that some type of dampening needs to occur between the solid
rocket motors and the Orion. Can this be accomplished by placing the
Orion in some kind of dampening skid, possiibly made of vulcanized
rubber? It might even solve the problem of what to do with all those
defective Firestone tires. :-)

It would be best if the dampening occurred between the SRB stage and
the LOX/LH2 upper stage.
If these were hooked together by warren truss girders the way the
Russians attach the upper stage of the Soyuz booster to the basic R-7
lower stage, it might be possible to incorporate some sort of shock
absorbers into that support structure and isolate the vibrations
created by the SRB from the whole upper part of the vehicle... this
would be ideal, as you don't want high frequency vibrations going
through the lightly built cryogenic upper stage either.

Pat


Good points. I wasn't sure where exactly the isolation should occur,
but isolating the SRBs from the rest of the stack altogether seems to me
to be the best remedy.

On Ares I (the one with the vibration problem) there's only a single SRB
forming the first stage:
http://images.spaceref.com/news/2006/ares.1.chart.jpg


Sorry about that. I didn't mean to imply that there was more than one SRB
on Ares.

Good idea. I like the truss girder idea. Probably cheaper and less
impact on mass as well. Possibly they could be constructed from
vibration-absorbing composite materials. I think the second vehicle
from the left in the drawing at the link below may be something like
what you are describing:

http://www.friends-partners.org/part...l/lktksles.jpg


That's the lunar landing stage for the Chelomei UR-700 direct ascent
manned Moon mission from the 1960's USSR.
In that case the truss girders are to cut weight down rather than using a
solid cylindrical structure to join the two bottom stages to the landing
section of the spacecraft.
On the Soyuz core stage (which bears a uncanny resemblance to Ares 1 once
the four strap-on boosters are jettisoned):
http://esamultimedia.esa.int/images/...2A_08182_H.jpg
The upper stage is attached by the girders so that its engines can be
ignited while still attached to the core stage, and their exhaust can
escape from the spaces between the girders prior to separation of the
upper stage. In this manner there are no ullage rockets needed to keep
the propellants in the upper stage seated during staging, as the rocket
is under trust during the whole ascent (we used the same technique on the
Titan II). Some Russian model rocket builders did a detailed metal model
of the truss frame that holds the core and upper stages of a Soyuz
boosters together, so you can see it's structural design:
http://www.rocket.aero/soyuz2big.jpg http://www.rocket.aero/soyuz4big.jpg
If you look to the right of the second photo, that's the end that hooks
to the upper stage. If you were to install some sort of vibration
dampening devices in those short cylinders that attach to the upper stage
base ring (shown detached in the first photo)
that would allow the vibrations to be isolated to the first stage.

Or possibly something like this:

http://www.friends-partners.org/part...r/r7ur5cut.gif

I believe the Soviet N-1 also used such trusses.


Yes, that shows Chelomei's Proton (UR-500), and both it and Korolev's
N-1 used the same "engine firing while stages still attached" technique
as the Soyuz Korolev designed. It was a very common feature on Soviet
space boosters and missiles.
I don't know if any had any sort of vibration dampening system
incorporated into the attachment trusses.
Its use on the RT-2 (NATO code name SS-13 Savage)
http://www.fas.org/nuke/guide/russia/icbm/rt-2.htm
Is interesting, as this was a solid-fueled ICBM... so it wouldn't need
any ullage rockets on it.
In this case one can wonder if its primary use was some sort of vibration
dampening.

Pat

Sounds like a plan to me.

George

"Craig Fink" wrote in message
...
George wrote:


"Pat Flannery" wrote in message
...


George wrote:
I'm certainly not a rocket scientist by any stretch, but it would
appear
that some type of dampening needs to occur between the solid rocket
motors and the Orion. Can this be accomplished by placing the Orion in
some kind of dampening skid, possiibly made of vulcanized rubber? It
might even solve the problem of what to do with all those defective
Firestone tires. :-)

It would be best if the dampening occurred between the SRB stage and
the
LOX/LH2 upper stage.
If these were hooked together by warren truss girders the way the
Russians attach the upper stage of the Soyuz booster to the basic R-7
lower stage, it might be possible to incorporate some sort of shock
absorbers into that support structure and isolate the vibrations
created
by the SRB from the whole upper part of the vehicle... this would be
ideal, as you don't want high frequency vibrations going through the
lightly built cryogenic upper stage either.

Pat

Good points. I wasn't sure where exactly the isolation should occur,
but
isolating the SRBs from the rest of the stack altogether seems to me to
be
the best remedy. Good idea. I like the truss girder idea. Probably
cheaper and less impact on mass as well. Possibly they could be
constructed from vibration-absorbing composite materials. I think the
second vehicle from the left in the drawing at the link below may be
something like what you are describing:

http://www.friends-partners.org/part...l/lktksles.jpg

Or possibly something like this:

http://www.friends-partners.org/part...r/r7ur5cut.gif

I believe the Soviet N-1 also used such trusses.


Or, this. The Space Shuttle

http://www.gcs.k12.in.us/bholt/Space...%20diagram.JPG

The +X load path from the SRB to the ET is at the intertank at the top.
The
+X load path from the Orbiter to the ET is at the bottom of the Hydrogen
tank. So the structure of the Hydrogen tank provides some isolates to the
Orbiter from the +X thrust vibrations.

Orbiter to ET attack points
Nose, Y and Z load paths
Tail, X, Y and Z load paths, and roll moments

SRB to ET attach points
Nose, X Y and Z load paths
Tail, Y and Z load paths, and roll moment.

Of course, with Ares, I don't think that is going to work, since the SRB
will be attached to the bottom of the tank assembly. In which case, I
think Pat's idea of truss girders with some sort of dampening devices
attach might do the trick. One concern there is the strength of the
assembly with so much weight sitting on it (plus how it will hold up to the
exteme vibration and flexing during launch).

George

On Tue, 5 Feb 2008 08:19:11 -0500, in a place far, far away, "George"
made the phosphor on my monitor glow in such
a way as to indicate that:


Or, this. The Space Shuttle

http://www.gcs.k12.in.us/bholt/Space...%20diagram.JPG

The +X load path from the SRB to the ET is at the intertank at the top.
The
+X load path from the Orbiter to the ET is at the bottom of the Hydrogen
tank. So the structure of the Hydrogen tank provides some isolates to the
Orbiter from the +X thrust vibrations.

Orbiter to ET attack points
Nose, Y and Z load paths
Tail, X, Y and Z load paths, and roll moments

SRB to ET attach points
Nose, X Y and Z load paths
Tail, Y and Z load paths, and roll moment.

Of course, with Ares, I don't think that is going to work, since the SRB
will be attached to the bottom of the tank assembly. In which case, I
think Pat's idea of truss girders with some sort of dampening devices
attach might do the trick. One concern there is the strength of the
assembly with so much weight sitting on it (plus how it will hold up to the
exteme vibration and flexing during launch).

Or whether or not it will be too heavy to get the designated payload
to orbit.

"George" wrote in message
. ..

"Pat Flannery" wrote in message
...


George wrote:
"Pat Flannery" wrote in message
...

George wrote:

I'm certainly not a rocket scientist by any stretch, but it would
appear that some type of dampening needs to occur between the solid
rocket motors and the Orion. Can this be accomplished by placing the
Orion in some kind of dampening skid, possiibly made of vulcanized
rubber? It might even solve the problem of what to do with all those
defective Firestone tires. :-)

It would be best if the dampening occurred between the SRB stage and
the LOX/LH2 upper stage.
If these were hooked together by warren truss girders the way the
Russians attach the upper stage of the Soyuz booster to the basic R-7
lower stage, it might be possible to incorporate some sort of shock
absorbers into that support structure and isolate the vibrations
created by the SRB from the whole upper part of the vehicle... this
would be ideal, as you don't want high frequency vibrations going
through the lightly built cryogenic upper stage either.

Pat


Good points. I wasn't sure where exactly the isolation should occur,
but isolating the SRBs from the rest of the stack altogether seems to me
to be the best remedy.

On Ares I (the one with the vibration problem) there's only a single SRB
forming the first stage:
http://images.spaceref.com/news/2006/ares.1.chart.jpg


Sorry about that. I didn't mean to imply that there was more than one SRB
on Ares.

Good idea. I like the truss girder idea. Probably cheaper and less
impact on mass as well. Possibly they could be constructed from
vibration-absorbing composite materials. I think the second vehicle
from the left in the drawing at the link below may be something like
what you are describing:

http://www.friends-partners.org/part...l/lktksles.jpg


That's the lunar landing stage for the Chelomei UR-700 direct ascent
manned Moon mission from the 1960's USSR.
In that case the truss girders are to cut weight down rather than using a
solid cylindrical structure to join the two bottom stages to the landing
section of the spacecraft.
On the Soyuz core stage (which bears a uncanny resemblance to Ares 1 once
the four strap-on boosters are jettisoned):
http://esamultimedia.esa.int/images/...2A_08182_H.jpg
The upper stage is attached by the girders so that its engines can be
ignited while still attached to the core stage, and their exhaust can
escape from the spaces between the girders prior to separation of the
upper stage. In this manner there are no ullage rockets needed to keep
the propellants in the upper stage seated during staging, as the rocket
is under trust during the whole ascent (we used the same technique on the
Titan II). Some Russian model rocket builders did a detailed metal model
of the truss frame that holds the core and upper stages of a Soyuz
boosters together, so you can see it's structural design:
http://www.rocket.aero/soyuz2big.jpg http://www.rocket.aero/soyuz4big.jpg
If you look to the right of the second photo, that's the end that hooks
to the upper stage. If you were to install some sort of vibration
dampening devices in those short cylinders that attach to the upper stage
base ring (shown detached in the first photo)
that would allow the vibrations to be isolated to the first stage.

Or possibly something like this:

http://www.friends-partners.org/part...r/r7ur5cut.gif

I believe the Soviet N-1 also used such trusses.


Yes, that shows Chelomei's Proton (UR-500), and both it and Korolev's
N-1 used the same "engine firing while stages still attached" technique
as the Soyuz Korolev designed. It was a very common feature on Soviet
space boosters and missiles.
I don't know if any had any sort of vibration dampening system
incorporated into the attachment trusses.

I seriously doubt it. The way you fix a pogo problem is you stick a pogo
suppressor in the fuel feed to the engine (essentially a space where the
fuel pressure variations are damped out, similar to the suppressors used on
water lines to prevent "water hammer".

Its use on the RT-2 (NATO code name SS-13 Savage)
http://www.fas.org/nuke/guide/russia/icbm/rt-2.htm
Is interesting, as this was a solid-fueled ICBM... so it wouldn't need
any ullage rockets on it.
In this case one can wonder if its primary use was some sort of vibration
dampening.

Pat

Sounds like a plan to me.

Except that I don't think that the Ares I design has mass margin available
to deal with this problem in the way you propose.

Jeff
--
A clever person solves a problem.
A wise person avoids it. -- Einstein

On Sat, 02 Feb 2008 18:37:05 GMT, h (Rand
Simberg) wrote:

Do you discount the possibility that it is indeed impossible, that
there is no fix? If so, why? They can't repeal the laws of physics.

I don't discount the possiblity that it can't be fixed, but I don't
consider it a certainty it can't be fixed. Unless someone has already
tried to build a man-rated rocket with a five segment SRB as a first
stage and a cryogenice upper stage, then there is no emperical
evidence about the vibrations for a working launcher. The only thing
we have is the same thing NASA has -- computer simulations that say
there might be a problem 1:40 into the first stage burn. First, they
have to figure out how accurate that model is and whether the problem
will be that bad. Then they have to look at that fixes, which the
article cited by the first poster mention; they haven't been sitting
on their hands, have they? And only a time traveler could say for
certain whether the fixes will work or not. The rest is arm-chair
quaterbacking.

If they vibration can't be fixed, so what? They'll still want the
five-segment SRB for the Ares V, so that will stay in development.
They could probably build Ares 1 with a liquid first stage powered by
RS-68 engines, so they can mainatane the technical continuity between
1 and V. But that assumes it can't be fixed, and because (A) I am not
a time traveler from 2015 who knows what happened; (B) haven't already
tried to build Ares 1 on my own and found out what happened; or (C)
don't have a supercomputer better than NASA's that makes infallible
simulations, I do not know what will happen with that. Maybe they'll
fix it; maybe they won't. But that is a long way from predicting they
won't as if that's an accomplished fact.



----== Posted via Newsfeeds.Com - Unlimited-Unrestricted-Secure Usenet News==----
http://www.newsfeeds.com The #1 Newsgroup Service in the World! 120,000+ Newsgroups
----= East and West-Coast Server Farms - Total Privacy via Encryption =----

or you forget about nasa, the bloated do nothing but waste money
agency.....

Bigelow Aerospace Wants Atlas 5 Rockets for New Space Station
By Brian Berger
Space News Staff Writer
posted: 04 February 2008
01:55 pm ET

WASHINGTON -- Bigelow Aerospace officials said Feb. 1 they are making
progress in their negotiations with United Launch Alliance for six
initial launches for their planned commercial space station, starting
around 2011.

Subsequently the company hopes to conduct as many as a dozen launches
per year as the new facility becomes fully operational.

Bigelow Aerospace and Denver-based United Launch Alliance (ULA) have
been working together for over a year studying what it would take to
human-rate the Atlas 5 rocket. Industry sources said Bigelow Aerospace
is ready to place an order that includes six launches starting in 2011
to begin assembly and early operation of the new station.

"Those [first] six launches will be comprised of two missions to
deploy hardware such as Sundancer itself and our node/bus combination
and four missions to dedicated to transporting crew and cargo," Robert
Bigelow, president and founder of Bigelow Aerospace said in a written
statement.

"Subsequently our launch rate will double, and we will require a dozen
launches, all for crew and cargo transportation missions over the next
12-month period. Our third year of active operations will again
require another dozen crew and cargo mission launches and, in our
fourth year of operations, we anticipate needing 18 such launches."

The company official said the negotiations with Lockheed apply only to
the provision of a man-rated launch vehicle and that the type and
manufacturer of the crew transport capsule Bigelow will need has yet
to be decided.

"I don't think anyone could deny the excellent record and pedigree of
the Atlas 5-401 as a quality choice to be upgraded to carry human
passengers," Bigelow said.

ULA spokeswoman Julie Andrews also confirmed Feb. 1 that negotiations
were under way.

"As a merchant supplier of launch services, United Launch Alliance is
very proud that our Atlas 5 is being considered for such a commercial
space venture," Andrews told Space News. "We will work closely with
Lockheed Martin Commercial Launch Services in implementing the
detailed design and development activities to provide a human-rated
Atlas 5 launch vehicle to be ready to support Bigelow's plan."

While ULA would supply the rockets, the deal is being worked through
Lockheed Martin Commercial Launch Services, also of Denver.

In a written statement, David Markham, president of Lockheed Martin
Commercial Launch Services, said: "The Atlas 5 is ideal to provide
commercial crew and cargo transportation for this pioneering
commercial space venture.

Bigelow Aerospace possesses an unparalleled vision and entrepreneurial
perspective that is crucial to truly opening the commercial space
market to a larger segment of the population. Targeting the Atlas 5
for use demonstrates a commitment to flight-proven domestic launch
services to ensure success."

Andrews said ULA is still evaluating what it would need to do on the
production side to support the 12 launches per year Bigelow says he
wants.

"We will study how to increase the production rate for the eventual
rates that Bigelow is talking about," she said.

On the operations side of the equation, Andrews said the Atlas 5
launch complex at Cape Canaveral Air Station in Florida is sized to
handle the number of launches Bigelow is talking about.

"We will be keeping all of our government customers informed as we go
forward, but Launch Complex 41 was designed to launch more than they
currently are," Andrews said, noting that Lockheed Martin conducted 11
Atlas 1 and 2 launches from Florida in 1995.

Bigelow Aerospace currently has two subscale expandable space modules
in orbit. The privately-financed Genesis 1 and Genesis 2 modules were
launched on July 12, 2006 and June 28, 2007, respectively, on Dnepr
boosters from the ISC Kosmotras Yasny Cosmodrome, located in the
Orenburg region of Russia.

Last year Bigelow cited the combination of rising Russian launch
prices and the success of Genesis 1 and 2 in announcing his plans to
skip the launch of additional subscale demonstrators and accelerate
the deployment of an expandable space station initially capable of
accommodating six people and eventually as many as 15.

His advertised price for a four-week stay: just under $15 million.

Bigelow did not disclose what type of spacecraft the company intends
to put atop the Atlas 5 to carry passengers

Jeff Findley wrote:
Yes, that shows Chelomei's Proton (UR-500), and both it and Korolev's
N-1 used the same "engine firing while stages still attached" technique
as the Soyuz Korolev designed. It was a very common feature on Soviet
space boosters and missiles.
I don't know if any had any sort of vibration dampening system
incorporated into the attachment trusses.


I seriously doubt it. The way you fix a pogo problem is you stick a pogo
suppressor in the fuel feed to the engine (essentially a space where the
fuel pressure variations are damped out, similar to the suppressors used on
water lines to prevent "water hammer".


They didn't know about that early on, as it was the water hammer effect
that caused all the plumbing to the central six engines on the N-1 first
stage to rupture when the engines were shut down late in the first stage
burn on the last flight to prevent over-stressing the vehicle due to too
much acceleration while low on propellants.
One of the hypothesized problems related to manned launches on the
Proton was supposed to be that its long thin design would lead to
excessive vibration at the top where the manned capsule would be just
from the normal firing of the six first stage engines.

Its use on the RT-2 (NATO code name SS-13 Savage)
http://www.fas.org/nuke/guide/russia/icbm/rt-2.htm
Is interesting, as this was a solid-fueled ICBM... so it wouldn't need
any ullage rockets on it.
In this case one can wonder if its primary use was some sort of vibration
dampening.

Pat

Sounds like a plan to me.


Except that I don't think that the Ares I design has mass margin available
to deal with this problem in the way you propose.


We are certainly getting very near the edge of what it can do without
lightening up Orion; but if the vibration problem is as severe as some
studies indicate, it's either lighten up Orion, or ditch the whole Aries
I booster.
Of course...maybe there is a way to lighten it up overall and still keep
Orion at full weight.
Now we know how reliable the SRB is - damn near 100%. And if the upper
stage fails the Orion will be at high enough altitude to just separate
from it and do a reentry. So I'm thinking we ditch the LES...it's
unnecessary...the vehicle's as safe as a airliner, so why should it need
as LES anyway? ;-)
You just wait, sooner or later someone at NASA will propose exactly that.

Pat

Michael Gallagher wrote:
On Sat, 02 Feb 2008 18:37:05 GMT, h (Rand
Simberg) wrote:

Do you discount the possibility that it is indeed impossible, that
there is no fix? If so, why? They can't repeal the laws of physics.

I don't discount the possiblity that it can't be fixed, but I don't
consider it a certainty it can't be fixed. Unless someone has already
tried to build a man-rated rocket with a five segment SRB as a first
stage and a cryogenice upper stage, then there is no emperical
evidence about the vibrations for a working launcher. The only thing
we have is the same thing NASA has -- computer simulations that say
there might be a problem 1:40 into the first stage burn. First, they
have to figure out how accurate that model is and whether the problem
will be that bad. Then they have to look at that fixes, which the
article cited by the first poster mention; they haven't been sitting
on their hands, have they? And only a time traveler could say for
certain whether the fixes will work or not. The rest is arm-chair
quaterbacking.

If they vibration can't be fixed, so what? They'll still want the
five-segment SRB for the Ares V, so that will stay in development.
They could probably build Ares 1 with a liquid first stage powered by
RS-68 engines, so they can mainatane the technical continuity between
1 and V. But that assumes it can't be fixed, and because (A) I am not
a time traveler from 2015 who knows what happened; (B) haven't already
tried to build Ares 1 on my own and found out what happened; or (C)
don't have a supercomputer better than NASA's that makes infallible
simulations, I do not know what will happen with that. Maybe they'll
fix it; maybe they won't. But that is a long way from predicting they
won't as if that's an accomplished fact.

It isn't worth fixing, and by pursuing this irrational path they have
ruined any chance they had for expendable heavy lift launch vehicles.

Not that it would be a bad thing if expendable heavy lift were canceled,
but I was kind of looking forward to that ten meter tankage for my
really gigantic reusable rocket ships, somewhere down the line.

Unless NASA really shifts gears on this, and I have provided them with
an excellent opportunity, and an excellent method of doing just that :

http://webpages.charter.net/tsiolkov...oposal/IPO.doc

This is the only way they can salvage their heavy lift.