Does a solid-fuel Ares 1 make sense?

Ares 1 or the 'Stick' is based on the shuttle SRB. The grandfather of
manned space flight, Von Braun, was of the opinion that solid rockets
should not be used for personnel because they cannot be turned off when
ignited and they have a higher failure rate than liquid fuelled
equivalents. Of course the SRB has only failed once in STS operation,
but that was enough to cause the Challenger catastrophe.

So, does the use of the SRB for Ares make sense or not? Or are we
waiting on an accident in the future?

Stephen Horgan wrote:
Ares 1 or the 'Stick' is based on the shuttle SRB. The grandfather of
manned space flight, Von Braun, was of the opinion that solid rockets
should not be used for personnel because they cannot be turned off when
ignited and they have a higher failure rate than liquid fuelled
equivalents. Of course the SRB has only failed once in STS operation,
but that was enough to cause the Challenger catastrophe.

So, does the use of the SRB for Ares make sense or not? Or are we
waiting on an accident in the future?

There are two components to this question.

I don't claim to be competent to address the technical part fully.
However, solid rockets may have improved since the days of von Braun.

As well, the Challenger catastrophe was due to a failure of the
O-rings, one that related to a specific design issue. As we know, there
were people who were *consciously aware* of a serious elevated risk of
an accident in cold weather, and who *consciously chose* not to take
steps to avoid that risk by advising NASA against a launch in cold
weather until the flaw was corrected - for _trivial_ reasons of
avoiding embarassment and protecting corporate profits.

Thus, the Challenger disaster had specific causes that don't
necessarily imply that all solid rocket boosters are inherently unsafe.
It may be now that if solid rocket boosters are used in a conscientious
and ethical manner, they may have a role in space flight.

This brings up the non-technical component. People die in industrial
accidents all the time. Being a test pilot is a hazardous occupation,
and so is being a race-car driver. At least in the days of the Apollo
program, being an astronaut was glamorous - because astronauts were
regarded as brave people, taking risks.

Therefore, some have asked - and it is not unreasonable to ask -
whether or not it is justified to spend inordinate sums to make
astronauts "safe". Are their lives worth so much more than anyone
else's?

My take on *this*, though, is that that's asking the wrong question.

For one thing, a Saturn V booster happens to be a very expensive
beastie. Making sure it doesn't blow up on the launch pad, therefore,
is going to cost a *lot* of money. Observing from statistics that we
usually spend, on average, not more than $2 million on a precaution
that saves one life, and attempting to place that as a ceiling on the
space program, would simply lead to the rockets blowing up every time,
hence no space program.

In the case of launching space probes and satellites, we can simply
weigh dollars and cents against dollars and cents. The financial losses
involved in a launch failure times the probability of a launch failure,
plus the cost of a launch given a certain level of safety
precautions... is the quantity to minimize by a wise choice of safety
precautions.

We want astronauts to effectively carry out tasks when they are in
space. This means that being an astronaut cannot be an occupation
appealing only to reckless daredevils; such people aren't suited to do
the job.

But the main issue is this:

We quite properly resist explicitly and directly putting a "dollar
figure" on human life. We expect that everything that can be done,
unless it is utterly ridiculous and absurdly excessive, and can be seen
to be so, to address any avoidable risk to human life will be done.
Anything else would leave someone *morally to blame* should an accident
occur.

The continued existence of a space program rests on the goodwill of the
American taxpayer. (Of course, that statement, although seemingly
axiomatic based on past experience, is in itself debatable. And
decisions made by private persons with respect to their own lives, and
freedom of contract and all that, would allow the existence of a
different yardstick in the event of privately-funded manned space
activities.) And that good will cannot be abused. The safety record of
the Apollo program, along with the conscientious spirit it inspired, is
the goal to emulate.

A program to send someone to Mars is *long* overdue. If we waited much
longer, particularly thanks to ideas like Bob Zubrin's, the first man
to land on Mars might well have been Chinese... or even North Korean.
(If one can take his price tag seriously, it's a pity Canada didn't
accept the offer of the Turks and Caicos Islands to join our country.
They have a nice downrange to the East, just like Florida, and they're
much closer to the Equator than any part of Canada, therefore being a
much more suitable place to launch rockets from with ecliptic-related
tasks.)

But just as there might have been worries, had the program been started
under Bill Clinton, that it was all a plot to distract us from Monica,
despite a generally magnificent response to the terrorist attack of
September 11, 2001, the administration of George W. Bush has not
managed to entirely escape controversy. (Some wag might, of course, ask
how _that_ is supposed to be a scathing criticism of _any_ U.S.
President, but I digress.)

The effort to explore space must be carefully shielded from the
corrosive winds of cynicism. Despite what some revisionist historians
may claim, John F. Kennedy was very nearly universally beloved during
his tenure as President, not just after his shocking assassination.
Today, politics seems to be played more roughly than in the halcyon
days of my youth - back then, the party of the liberals would not have
thought to get so far ahead of public opinion as to openly embrace
legalizing abortion, or, sadly, even legalizing homosexual acts between
consenting adults. Back then, instead, one could point to real
injustice suffered by black people *that was still being actively
contributed to by the actions of some governments*. And, back then, the
party of the liberals recognized that the Soviet Union was no 'workers
paradise', but a cruel hoax played on those who looked for a better way
than the injustices and union-busting of the Depression.

In other words, since then, the Democrats have steadily been losing
respectability, and the Republicans have been gaining it - but we are
left without a political party with which we can be *fully satisfied*.
One that isn't led by people who will let political correctness get
ahead of national security - but that is led by people we can trust to
have their hearts in the right place.

If the American people could have a President they could *love*, then
were he to suggest bold new initiatives in space, all thoughts of a
base partisan motive would be banished, and we could proceed on this
bold adventure with our hearts properly singing.

John Savard

Stephen Horgan wrote:

So, does the use of the SRB for Ares make sense or not?

No.

Or are we waiting on an accident in the future?

Yes.

It's a perfect example of a rocket on steroids, huge bulging head,
skinny legs. Just the impression we need to give to the world.

America - high on steroids, totally irrational.

http://cosmic.lifeform.org

On 7 Sep 2006 01:09:51 -0700, "Stephen Horgan"
wrote:

Of course the SRB has only failed once in STS operation,
but that was enough to cause the Challenger catastrophe.

And part of the liquid propulsion system (the External Tank) caused
the Columbia accident. Call it a wash.

So, does the use of the SRB for Ares make sense or not?

Off the shelf, 4 segment SRB possibly, if only minimal changes are
necessary. The 5-segment booster now planned makes no sense
whatsoever. It's pork for Utah, plain and simple. When Ares 5 jumped
to 5-segments and dumped the SSME, NASA should have cut its losses and
switched to one of the EELVs.

Brian

Brian Thorn wrote in
:

On 7 Sep 2006 01:09:51 -0700, "Stephen Horgan"
wrote:

Of course the SRB has only failed once in STS operation,
but that was enough to cause the Challenger catastrophe.

And part of the liquid propulsion system (the External Tank) caused
the Columbia accident. Call it a wash.

So, does the use of the SRB for Ares make sense or not?

Off the shelf, 4 segment SRB possibly, if only minimal changes are
necessary. The 5-segment booster now planned makes no sense
whatsoever. It's pork for Utah, plain and simple. When Ares 5 jumped
to 5-segments and dumped the SSME, NASA should have cut its losses and
switched to one of the EELVs.

Hmm? Ares 5 was always 5-segment. Did you mean Ares 1?


--
JRF

Reply-to address spam-proofed - to reply by E-mail,
check "Organization" (I am not assimilated) and
think one step ahead of IBM.

On Thu, 07 Sep 2006 21:25:33 -0500, "Jorge R. Frank"
wrote:


Off the shelf, 4 segment SRB possibly, if only minimal changes are
necessary. The 5-segment booster now planned makes no sense
whatsoever. It's pork for Utah, plain and simple. When Ares 5 jumped
to 5-segments and dumped the SSME, NASA should have cut its losses and
switched to one of the EELVs.

Hmm? Ares 5 was always 5-segment. Did you mean Ares 1?

Whoops! Yes.

Brian

Brian Thorn wrote in
:

On Thu, 07 Sep 2006 21:25:33 -0500, "Jorge R. Frank"
wrote:

Off the shelf, 4 segment SRB possibly, if only minimal changes are
necessary. The 5-segment booster now planned makes no sense
whatsoever. It's pork for Utah, plain and simple. When Ares 5 jumped
to 5-segments and dumped the SSME, NASA should have cut its losses and
switched to one of the EELVs.

Hmm? Ares 5 was always 5-segment. Did you mean Ares 1?

Whoops! Yes.

I'm not exactly sure what the objection is, then. Although 5-segment and J-
2S increased the cost of developing Ares I, the fact that they're now
common between Ares I and Ares V decreases the cost of developing Ares V,
making the total cost difference a wash. It wouldn't make sense to switch
Ares I to EELV while leaving Ares V shuttle-derived - the cost of
developing 5-segment and J-2S would have to be eaten at *some* point, plus
the consideration for keeping the ATK SRB line open during the years when
EELV is flying and Ares V isn't.

Now, one could argue that EELV derivatives could replace both Ares I *and*
V, and I find the idea not unreasonable. The ESAS report says that would be
more expensive. The report could well be wrong, but I haven't seen data to
seriously dispute it.

--
JRF

Reply-to address spam-proofed - to reply by E-mail,
check "Organization" (I am not assimilated) and
think one step ahead of IBM.

In article ,
Jorge R. Frank wrote:
Now, one could argue that EELV derivatives could replace both Ares I *and*
V, and I find the idea not unreasonable.

Or, of course, Ares V could replace Ares I. If you moved *it* to the top
of the list, it really shouldn't take any longer to develop. SRB-5,
check. J-2X, check. New LOX/LH2 stage, check. Reduced modifications
to the SRBs, a bonus.
--
spsystems.net is temporarily off the air; | Henry Spencer
mail to henry at zoo.utoronto.ca instead. |

On Sat, 09 Sep 2006 14:28:38 -0500, "Jorge R. Frank"
wrote:

Hmm? Ares 5 was always 5-segment. Did you mean Ares 1?

Whoops! Yes.

I'm not exactly sure what the objection is, then.

It was sold as "safe, simple, soon" and is now none of the above, I
guess I'm just a little irritated by the bait-and-switch routine.

And the huge expense of FSB and Stage 2 for Ares 1, plus taking one
Complex 39 pad offline just when NASA will need it the most should be
objectionable. The high cost of Ares 1 development will bleed NASA dry
at a time when it needs every cent it can get for the trifecta of
Shuttle, Station, and Orion. By abandoning the
not-what-it-was-promised-to-be Ares 1 and investing instead in
accelerating Orion and uprating an EELV as necessary, we can minimize
the post-Shuttle downtime and dependence on Russia. And they might
even have a little left over to actually *gasp!* do something useful
on that expensive space station of ours.

Although 5-segment and J-
2S increased the cost of developing Ares I, the fact that they're now
common between Ares I and Ares V decreases the cost of developing Ares V,

In a future year when NASA's budget won't be under as much pressure as
it is now, thanks to retirement of Shuttle. Instead we're headed down
the Ares 1 debacle path of cancelling big programs and making pretty
much everything else zero-growth to pay for it. This oughta be a
no-brainer. Instead, Ares 5 has turned into something almost
completely different than what CLV started out being, but NASA is
clinging to the original projections, not unlike NASA's continuing to
promise weekly Shuttle flights at a time after it was clear the design
had changed so much that this was a pipedream. We need to learn from
our mistakes. It seems to me that NASA is not.

making the total cost difference a wash. It wouldn't make sense to switch
Ares I to EELV while leaving Ares V shuttle-derived - the cost of
developing 5-segment and J-2S would have to be eaten at *some* point, plus
the consideration for keeping the ATK SRB line open during the years when
EELV is flying and Ares V isn't.

So basically, we're dooming Constellation to future high operational
costs for just one reason: to keep SRB, a booster almost no one thinks
is good for humans or expensive payloads, alive.

Its not worth it.

Brian

"Brian Thorn" wrote in message
...
On 7 Sep 2006 01:09:51 -0700, "Stephen Horgan"
wrote:

Of course the SRB has only failed once in STS operation,
but that was enough to cause the Challenger catastrophe.

And part of the liquid propulsion system (the External Tank) caused
the Columbia accident. Call it a wash.

True, but that one is easy to avoid. Stick your sensitive payloads above
the tanks with SOFI, just like Saturn V and the proposed Aries designs.

So, does the use of the SRB for Ares make sense or not?

Off the shelf, 4 segment SRB possibly, if only minimal changes are
necessary.

New roll control package, redesign of the top of the SRB to support payloads
on the top rather than the side, elimination of the SRB separation motors,
etc.

The 5-segment booster now planned makes no sense
whatsoever. It's pork for Utah, plain and simple. When Ares 5 jumped
to 5-segments and dumped the SSME, NASA should have cut its losses and
switched to one of the EELVs.

Agreed. Also, while the planned J-2X is based off the venerable J-2, and
follow-on development done previously, it's not a flight proven engine. I
would have felt better if NASA had picked an engine being flown today, not
one where they pretty much have to scour storage facilities and museums for
hardware to examine. :-P


But all of that is beside the point. Aries I/V are designed to keep the
shuttle infrastructure intact. As such, it's going to be yet another NASA
only, high fixed cost, low flight rate vehicle that has little to no chance
of being economical and little to no chance of anyone outside of NASA ever
using it. That's not a recipe that will help the US launch industry in any
way, shape, or form.

Jeff
--
"They that can give up essential liberty to obtain a
little temporary safety deserve neither liberty nor
safety"
- B. Franklin, Bartlett's Familiar Quotations (1919)