About Augustine Final Report

Review of U.S. HUMAN SPACEFLIGHT Plans Committee

Safety is of course of primary concern in any human-rated
system, and Orion, and its companion Ares I launcher,
are designed in accordance with NASAÆs latest human-
rating requirements. The design includes an abort capability
throughout ascent, as well as requirements to make
loss of crew a factor of 10 less likely than at any previous...

In its selection of a crew launch system,
ESAS correctly placed a very high
premium on crew safety, and the Ares I
was selected because of its potential
delivering at least ten times the level of
crew safety as the current Shuttle. The
launch vehicle confguration is one
that best allows for crew escape in the
event of a launch failure. The capsule
is mounted at the top of the stack, and
has an independent launch escape system.

Like almost all manned rockets so far, even back to Mercury. Thats no
news. But if the SRB of Ares I fails the crew has no "abort capability
throughout ascent". The Launch Escape System (LES) can for most of the
ascent only work after the SRB thrust is terminated. That means a self
destruct explosion of the SRB. Even then, there is a time window the
burning debris of the SRB will destroy the parachute of the crew capsule.

And what about a recontact of the SRB with the second stage? Like it may
happened at the Ares I-X flight? How much recontact will be acceptable
before one aborts the mission? A small dent to the second stage. Would one
abort a Moon mission with some billion $ still in orbit if there is no proof
that the dent is deadly? Once the LES is jettisoned it may be time to
remember Columbia.

Add the low wind criteria of only 20 knots and the still open vibration
problem. If the pressure oscilation of the first flight is like expected,
is that for sure it wont get worse some flights later? The pogo of the
Saturn V was not prdictable until they built the pogo surpressors in.
You cant build anything such like in a SRB. The vibration damper they
planned will only go to some limit. If that is exceeded the mission is
over.

All this ugly stuff would not be on the table if they chosed a liquid
first stage, like all manned rockets so far had.


In contrast, the Ares V Lite backs off on proposed performance
by using a five-segment SRB (already in development) and
five RS-68-family engines.

Whether Lite or not, to cluster a radiation cooled engine like the RS-68
and put it close to the hot SRB plume is a big call for trouble, I wonder
how the report could offer or support such an idea. It offered no way out.
Granted, its somewhat late now to revival the F-1. But the SSME could even
be more expensive in the long run then the F-1. "International cooperation"
to get the RD-170 family?

There are also important locations in free space
that are of interest, including the
EarthÆs Lagrange points. These are sites at the edge of the
EarthÆs infuence, which will be important future points
for observation toward the Earth and away from it. For
example, the James Webb Space Telescope, the successor
to the Hubble Space Telescope, will be placed at a
Lagrange point.

Once the James Webb Space Telescope is there you wont see any astronauts
there. Their ship may emit gases that could condensate on the mirror or
other cooled parts of this IR telescope. It has no flap like the HST to
protect it from such exhausts. Any visit could ruin it. Any repair or
update mission should be robotic with special (ion-) engines and Helium
thrusters.

The Lagrange points might also be the
nodes of a future space transportation
highway through the inner solar system.

NOOO! Not as long as our most expensive telescopes are there!!

[Mars:] Under current plans,
as many as 12 Ares V vehicles would be needed to launch
each biannual set of missions. It seems likely that some form
of advanced propulsion may also be needed to make travel
feasible.

But any "advanced propulsion" will need more mass to launch, not less.

A focused technology program almost a decade long
would be required before system design could begin.

Almost? Most are nuclear and may need well more. And it only cuts the
travel time, not the launch mass.

The absolute downpoint of the whole report this Voodoo graphic:

Figure 7.1-1. With technology investments, the mass required for
a Mars exploration mission decreases from eight times the mass of
the International Space Station to a mass comparable to the Station.
Source: NASA

What mass they choose for ISS is not given. Its not 350 mt like mentioned
before in the report. Doesnt matter. The time axis has no scale at all.
There is a lot of wishfule thinking listed by buzzwords like the spells
of Harry Potter. That load of **** shall lull the reader that with every
year we wait a mission to Mars gets cheaper and cheaper.

The whole report seems written by someone with limited technical insight
who wants just strech the current activities. No Mars, maybe somewhat
Moon but a lot of screwing like NASA did the past years. No options for
a clear cut and some realy new way. Was it written by a lawyer?


SENECA

## CrossPoint v3.12d R ##