U.S. Manned Space programs

Are we finished for good? Were the Orion.Ares programns hatcheted? I thought
they were but read something recently about future tests of the Orion capsule. I
hope we have a future in space which doesn't depend on hitching a ride with
Russians.

wrote in message ...

Are we finished for good? Were the Orion.Ares programns hatcheted? I
thought
they were but read something recently about future tests of the Orion
capsule. I
hope we have a future in space which doesn't depend on hitching a ride with
Russians.



Depends who you ask. Some of us believe that while we may be hitching rides
from the Russians for a few years, that the US will soon be developing its
own native COMMERCIAL manned launch programs.

For suborbital we have WhiteKnight 2/Spaceship 2
We also have Falcon 9/Dragon coming.

Boeing is talking about it's CST-100.

And there are others.

NASA keeps talking about stuff, but many of us are doubtful much will come
of it.


--
Greg D. Moore http://greenmountainsoftware.wordpress.com/
CEO QuiCR: Quick, Crowdsourced Responses. http://www.quicr.net

On 26/04/2012 8:14 AM, wrote:
Are we finished for good? Were the Orion.Ares programns hatcheted? I thought
they were but read something recently about future tests of the Orion capsule. I
hope we have a future in space which doesn't depend on hitching a ride with
Russians.

Constellation, the 'umbrella program' for Orion and Ares, was a joke
from the outset. It would have taken over 20 years for America to
return to the Moon (Apollo did it in eight years and two months) and
would have cost more than Apollo today, despite using existing (formally
Apollo) facilities and launch pads and hardware that was supposedly
derived from the Shuttle and, in the case of the Command Module, Apollo.

Ares 1 was based on the SRB (Solid Rocket Booster) from the Shuttle (the
long, white rocket seen at launch). It would have had a payload of 25
tonnes. There is an existing vehicle called the Delta IV Heavy which
meant that NASA would have spent billions re-inventing the wheel.

It was quickly pointed out to NASA that, in the case of an SRB as big as
the one used on the Shuttle or Ares 1, there is something called Thrust
Oscillation and that would make a trip on top of the SRB very
uncomfortable and possibly injurious to a crew. NASA came up with all
sorts of 'fixes' for that; involving springs and shock absorbers, but
that simply added weight and pushed the mass of Orion to near the
maximum capacity of Ares1.

Ares V, which was to have had a payload of up to 190 tonnes, was
originally to use the SRBs, a modified shuttle External Tank and
modified versions of the SSME (Space Shuttle Main Engine; the three big
engines at the back of the Orbiter).

Instead, the ET was found to be too small and the SSMEs were found to be
too expensive to simply throw away after each mission (the Ares V 'core'
was, like the ET, not recoverable).

More design changes resulted in the SSME being replaced by an engine
that is used on the Delta IV (called the RS-68) and the ET itself being
replaced by a stage with the same diameter as the first two stages of
the Saturn V. I don't know if the thrust oscillation problem would have
been worse for the Ares V, but it was a major problem for the Shuttle -
it has been reported that up to 50% of crews could not read the
instrument panel during the operation of the SRBs, but many crew members
commented on how smooth the ride was after the SRBs were jettisoned.

All of that added up to something that many people on this forum would
openly laugh at. Rather than being a practical system to get people
back to the Moon (and beyond), it became a joke. And it would not have
worked.

On Thu, 26 Apr 2012 12:29:53 +1000, Alan Erskine
wrote:

Instead, the ET was found to be too small and the SSMEs were found to be
too expensive to simply throw away after each mission

No, that wasn't the reason SSME was dropped. It was dropped because it
was found impractical to make the SSME *restartable* in space, a
requirement for Ares V, where SSME was to be the upper stage engine.

SSME (RS-25E) is back on SLS, but only on the core stage. It turned
out that RS-68 (from Delta IV) had its share of troubles, including
getting too hot for their ablative nozzle insulation when positioned
in a cluster, as on Ares V.

Brian

On 26/04/2012 2:37 PM, Brian Thorn wrote:
On Thu, 26 Apr 2012 12:29:53 +1000, Alan Erskine
wrote:

Instead, the ET was found to be too small and the SSMEs were found to be
too expensive to simply throw away after each mission

No, that wasn't the reason SSME was dropped. It was dropped because it
was found impractical to make the SSME *restartable* in space, a
requirement for Ares V, where SSME was to be the upper stage engine.

SSME (RS-25E) is back on SLS, but only on the core stage. It turned
out that RS-68 (from Delta IV) had its share of troubles, including
getting too hot for their ablative nozzle insulation when positioned
in a cluster, as on Ares V.

Brian

The SSME was going to be mounted on the bottom of the first stage.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ares_V

As for the RS-68 engines, the overheating problem was quickly corrected,
as was the hydrogen buildup under the CBC.

On Thu, 26 Apr 2012 17:11:38 +1000, Alan Erskine
wrote:

The SSME was going to be mounted on the bottom of the first stage.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ares_V

This was before the vehicles were called Ares I and Ares V. They were
still CLV (Crew Launch Vehicle) and CaLV (Cargo Launch Vehicle). SSME
was to be the common engine to CLV's second stage and both CaLV
stages. When they realized restarting the SSME in flight was
insurmountable without enormous expense, they went with J-2X, and that
caused a domino effect which ended with SSME being dropped completely.
And that is when the CLV/CaLV architecture should have been dumped
completely in favor a DIRECT/SLS system, because switching to J-2X
forced development of both J-2X and the Five Segment SRB, and costs
and timeline went out of control almost immediately.

As for the RS-68 engines, the overheating problem was quickly corrected,

No, it wasn't. The ablative cooling method of the RS-68 nozzle wasn't
able to handle the base heating levels from five engines in close
proximity. The need to pay for a new regeneratively-cooled nozzle for
RS-68 on SLS is one of the reasons they switched back to SSME/RS-25E.

as was the hydrogen buildup under the CBC.

Pay no attention to the Delta IV-Heavy that lifted off on fire last
year...

Brian

"Brian Thorn" wrote in message
...

On Thu, 26 Apr 2012 17:11:38 +1000, Alan Erskine
wrote:

The SSME was going to be mounted on the bottom of the first stage.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ares_V

This was before the vehicles were called Ares I and Ares V. They were
still CLV (Crew Launch Vehicle) and CaLV (Cargo Launch Vehicle). SSME
was to be the common engine to CLV's second stage and both CaLV
stages. When they realized restarting the SSME in flight was
insurmountable without enormous expense, they went with J-2X, and that
caused a domino effect which ended with SSME being dropped completely.
And that is when the CLV/CaLV architecture should have been dumped
completely in favor a DIRECT/SLS system, because switching to J-2X
forced development of both J-2X and the Five Segment SRB, and costs
and timeline went out of control almost immediately.

Ayup. This is when they really needed to step back and question where they
were headed.

You start with a basic set of assumptions: "oh let's use shuttle derived
parts to save dev costs, etc" 5 steps later you're using 1 bolt and washer
from STS and saying, "see, we're still shuttle derived."




As for the RS-68 engines, the overheating problem was quickly corrected,

No, it wasn't. The ablative cooling method of the RS-68 nozzle wasn't
able to handle the base heating levels from five engines in close
proximity. The need to pay for a new regeneratively-cooled nozzle for
RS-68 on SLS is one of the reasons they switched back to SSME/RS-25E.

as was the hydrogen buildup under the CBC.

Pay no attention to the Delta IV-Heavy that lifted off on fire last
year...

Brian



--
Greg D. Moore http://greenmountainsoftware.wordpress.com/
CEO QuiCR: Quick, Crowdsourced Responses. http://www.quicr.net

On 27/04/2012 8:34 AM, Brian Thorn wrote:

Pay no attention to the Delta IV-Heavy that lifted off on fire last
year...

You mean the one from Vandenberg? I've just looked at a couple of
Youtube vids and can't find anything wrong. Only a mention of
"inititial launch transients" within a few seconds after launch.

No mention of fire at all. Any references?

On Wed, 25 Apr 2012 18:14:39 -0400, wrote:

Are we finished for good? Were the Orion.Ares programns hatcheted?

Orion and Ares were hatcheted.

When the cost of terminating contracts were explained to the White
House, Orion was reinstated as a Space Station Lifeboat. When Congress
figured out we were spending 90% of the Orion money for 50% of Orion
(crew down only), they reinstated the other 10%. Orion is now
officially the Multi-purpose Crew Vehicle, but NASA is about the only
place you hear that acronym, to everyone else it is still Orion. An
unmanned Orion is scheduled for launch on a Delta IV-Heavy in late
2013, to verify the design and test the heat shield at close to
lunar-return velocities. There are no plans to launch manned Orions on
Delta IV-Heavy.

Ares I and V were belatedly (very, very belatedly) canceled (Ares I
was too underpowered... Orion had been gutted to make it light enough
to launch, Ares V was hideously large and expensive). In their place,
after ridiculously long ("the lost year") foot-dragging by NASA, they
adopted the DIRECT "Jupiter" launcher. Only they aren't calling it
that (not invented here, you know) they've given it the 100%
unmemorable and uninspiring name "Space Launch System" (SLS). SLS uses
the five segment SRB developed for Ares and will use the Space Shuttle
Main Engine (at first surplus engines from the Shuttle, later, a
cost-reduced throwaway model.) The first two SLS flights will carry a
Delta IV upper stage (DCUS) to boost Orion (ahem, I mean MPCV) on a
flight to the moon. The first flight (2017) will be unmanned. The
second is to be manned, probably in 2021 but there is some possibility
of sooner than that. A bonafide heavy-duty upper stage will be added
to later SLS rockets. This stage will use the J-2X engine developed
for Ares. Boosters for later model SLS rockets are to be competitively
bid, meaning the SRB might be the choice, or a liquid fueled booster
might be selected for the large SLS variants to follow.

I thought
they were but read something recently about future tests of the Orion capsule. I
hope we have a future in space which doesn't depend on hitching a ride with
Russians.

There are no plans to fly Orion (ahem, I mean MPCV) to the Space
Station, but it can do so if...

a) Commercial Manned Spacecraft fail to materialize, and
b) The Space Station is extended beyond 2020

Commercial Manned Spacecraft are in the pipeline, but Congress cut
their budget over 50% last year and things are shaping up for a cut of
about 40% less than what NASA said it needed for them this year. The
cuts have already pushed the first commercial manned spacecraft out to
a first flight in 2016 (from 2015) and the forthcoming cut will likely
force another slip until 2017. The Space Station is due to be retired
in 2020. The competitors in the Commercial Crew arena a

- SpaceX, with a manned version of its Dragon, to be launched on
Falcon 9

- Boeing, with its CST-100 to be launched on Atlas 5

- Sierra Nevada Corp., with its Dream Chaser lifting body spacecraft,
also to be launched on Atlas 5

- Blue Origin, with its New Shepard spacecraft, also to be launched on
Atlas 5

SpaceX and Boeing are probably the most mature programs.

Brian

The problem as I see it is that there are big problems for long duration
flights, and hence cost. If/when all of those are solved then things will
get underway. In the meantime, there will be private low earth orbit
vehicles and the Orion assuming it ever gets finished is supposed to at
least be a test bed to take people further out again. I note the Russians
would like to go to the moon and set up a base there, how much of this is
fluff and how much is real only time will tell.
Brian

--
Brian Gaff....Note, this account does not accept Bcc: email.
graphics are great, but the blind can't hear them
Email:
__________________________________________________ __________________________________________________ __________


wrote in message
...
Are we finished for good? Were the Orion.Ares programns hatcheted? I
thought
they were but read something recently about future tests of the Orion
capsule. I
hope we have a future in space which doesn't depend on hitching a ride
with
Russians.