How are the Japanese doing that?

On Jun 16, 6:24*am, Jeff Findley wrote:

Look at SpaceX. *$400 million to develop and fly the first Falcon 9. *
NASA spent that on the Ares I launch tower alone (a big steel
structure). *NASA has pi$$ed away billions on Ares I with what to show
for it? *All we've seen fly so far is one shuttle SRB topped with a
dummy fifth SRB segment, a dummy second stage, and a dummy payload. *
Sounds like a dumb waste of money to me.

I'm not the biggest fan of Ares and Constellation as a whole, but you
do go a bit over the top here. Comparing Ares I and Falcon 9 is a bit
fallacious since they are in two different lift catagories all
together; F-9 is 23,000 lb while Ares I is 56,000 lb. Ares Ares I-X
was more than just what you describe, it also had a rather successful
and as it turned out largely unneeded roll control system. It also
proved out that the "stick" configuration could fly (remember all the
naysayers who claimed and hoped that Ares I-X would crash into the
launch tower?) and that the seperation system worked. Also recall that
in addition to the Ares I tower, there was quite a bit of work done to
rebuild LC-39B and one of the MLPs for that flight. Oh yes, and
speaking of flying, the one thing the Ares I-X flight helped to put to
rest was the dreaded flight oscillation scare. So through incremental
testing, a large number of concerns were put to rest. And it's a cheap
shot, but at least Ares I-X's first stage recovery system has worked
better than Space X's Falcon 1 and 9's.

In addtion, the Constellation program as a whole has developed quite a
bit, such as the highly successful launch escape systems that were
recently tested. Given that Constellation was working towards
developing a deep-space exploration series of vehicles, while Space X
was developing an unmanned one that might be developed for a billion
more dollars for LEO ferry and resupply work, you are comparing apples
and oranges.
-Mike

Mike DiCenso wrote:

rebuild LC-39B and one of the MLPs for that flight. Oh yes, and
speaking of flying, the one thing the Ares I-X flight helped to put to
rest was the dreaded flight oscillation scare.

The I-X flight didn't use the lengthened SRB, the last segment was a
dummy.

--
Mvh./Regards, Niels Jørgen Kruse, Vanløse, Denmark

On Jun 24, 3:24*am, (Niels Jørgen Kruse)
wrote:
Mike DiCenso wrote:
rebuild LC-39B and one of the MLPs for that flight. Oh yes, and
speaking of flying, the one thing the Ares I-X flight helped to put to
rest was the dreaded flight oscillation scare.

The I-X flight didn't use the lengthened SRB, the last segment was a
dummy.

Kind of irrelevant since the oscillations were supposed to be the
result of the SRB segments no longer being attached to the sides of
the ET, and that any kind of payload riding on top of a four or five
segment stack would experiance them. The fact that the oscillations
were far below what was expect, even for a four-segment SRB stack
speaks to the overly conservative engineering that postulated their
existance in the first place as it should be. But some people with an
all too obvious agenda picked up on it and ran it as though it were a
real show-stopper, when it clearly wasn't.
-Mike

In article 8f57a0d6-44c4-43c2-9fb7-54062c608147
@y11g2000yqm.googlegroups.com, says...

On Jun 16, 6:24*am, Jeff Findley wrote:

Look at SpaceX. *$400 million to develop and fly the first Falcon 9. *
NASA spent that on the Ares I launch tower alone (a big steel
structure). *NASA has pi$$ed away billions on Ares I with what to show
for it? *All we've seen fly so far is one shuttle SRB topped with a
dummy fifth SRB segment, a dummy second stage, and a dummy payload. *
Sounds like a dumb waste of money to me.

I'm not the biggest fan of Ares and Constellation as a whole, but you
do go a bit over the top here. Comparing Ares I and Falcon 9 is a bit
fallacious since they are in two different lift catagories all
together; F-9 is 23,000 lb while Ares I is 56,000 lb.

Falcon 9 Heavy would have a LEO payload capacity of 71,000 lbs, which is
far in excess of Ares I. I'd bet that developing Falcon 9 Heavy would
still cost far less than Ares I development.

Ares Ares I-X
was more than just what you describe, it also had a rather successful
and as it turned out largely unneeded roll control system. It also
proved out that the "stick" configuration could fly (remember all the
naysayers who claimed and hoped that Ares I-X would crash into the
launch tower?) and that the seperation system worked.

Data point of one for all of those things "proven". Remember that the
SRB's were "proven" until the Challenger disaster. The RCC leading
edges and the foam on the ET were both "proven" until the Columbia
disaster. I believe it was Henry Spencer who liked to say, "You can
draw any curve you like through a single data point".

Also recall that
in addition to the Ares I tower, there was quite a bit of work done to
rebuild LC-39B and one of the MLPs for that flight. Oh yes, and
speaking of flying, the one thing the Ares I-X flight helped to put to
rest was the dreaded flight oscillation scare.

I call b.s. on this. Not only is it a single data point, but the 4
segment SRB flown on Ares I-X would not behave exactly the same as an
Ares I five segment SRB. Not only were the SRB's different lengths, but
they would have different thrust versus time curves and the flight Ares
I would not have all of the other "dummy" parts on top of it.

So through incremental
testing, a large number of concerns were put to rest. And it's a cheap
shot, but at least Ares I-X's first stage recovery system has worked
better than Space X's Falcon 1 and 9's.

One test of hardware which is non-representative of any actual Ares I
flight hardware is not an incremental test program. It's a stunt.

In addtion, the Constellation program as a whole has developed quite a
bit, such as the highly successful launch escape systems that were
recently tested. Given that Constellation was working towards
developing a deep-space exploration series of vehicles, while Space X
was developing an unmanned one that might be developed for a billion
more dollars for LEO ferry and resupply work, you are comparing apples
and oranges.

No, I was talking about developing Ares I, not about other parts of
Constellation. How much do you think NASA will need to spend just to
develop Ares I? Here's a quote (from
http://www.spacepolicyonline.com/pages/index.php?
option=com_content&view=article&id=817:how-much-would-ares-i-cost&catid=
67:news&Itemid=27):

The report also said that Ares I would "cost $5-6 billion to
develop assuming that all common costs are carried by the Ares V."

That's an order of magnitude more money compared to Falcon 9 development
costs for a bit more than 2x the payload. That's not terribly
impressive, in fact, it's quite pitiful.

I stand by my original statements and would like to add that I believe
that NASA should not develop and operate any new launch vehicle *at
all*. Even ignoring Falcon 9, there is also Atlas V and Delta IV to
choose from. Let them buy commercial launches and spend the bulk of
their development money on technologies useful for actual exploration.

Jeff
--
The only decision you'll have to make is
Who goes in after the snake in the morning?

In article fd6fe08f-6d8e-4e5e-bc59-8e01c2e56ef7
@i28g2000yqa.googlegroups.com, says...

On Jun 24, 3:24*am, (Niels Jørgen Kruse)
wrote:
Mike DiCenso wrote:
rebuild LC-39B and one of the MLPs for that flight. Oh yes, and
speaking of flying, the one thing the Ares I-X flight helped to put to
rest was the dreaded flight oscillation scare.

The I-X flight didn't use the lengthened SRB, the last segment was a
dummy.

Kind of irrelevant since the oscillations were supposed to be the
result of the SRB segments no longer being attached to the sides of
the ET, and that any kind of payload riding on top of a four or five
segment stack would experiance them. The fact that the oscillations
were far below what was expect, even for a four-segment SRB stack
speaks to the overly conservative engineering that postulated their
existance in the first place as it should be. But some people with an
all too obvious agenda picked up on it and ran it as though it were a
real show-stopper, when it clearly wasn't.

I've done vibration analysis work in the past as part of my job. One
(of the many) problems you can run into is something in the system can
end up driving a natural frequency of the system. This is a "bad
thing" and can lead to structural failure in extreme situations.

The four segment SRB will have higher frequencies for its mode shapes
than the larger five segment SRB. Also, the dummy SRB segment, dummy
stage, and dummy Orion will not have natural frequencies and mode shapes
identical to actual flight vehicles.

Because of all of the above differences, you simply cannot claim that
because Ares I-X was successful that Ares I will be successful too. If
the bigger Ares I has a natural frequency which corresponds to the
frequency which the SRB first stage is resonating (due to combustion in
that huge pipe organ like SRB casing), then "bad things" could happen.

Jeff
--
The only decision you'll have to make is
Who goes in after the snake in the morning?

On Fri, 25 Jun 2010 11:09:53 -0400, Jeff Findley
wrote:

Falcon 9 Heavy would have a LEO payload capacity of 71,000 lbs, which is
far in excess of Ares I.

Does that include payload penalties to prevent upper stages coming
down on populated areas? Ares I's did.

I'd bet that developing Falcon 9 Heavy would
still cost far less than Ares I development.

Probably. But to whom do you charge the cost of developing the Launch
Escape System and the J-2X upper stage, needed for manned flight and
beyond earth orbit missions? Ares I pays for them. Falcon 9 does not,
and neither will be cheap. You also have to ask what kind of manned
launch pad SpaceX plans for Falcon 9, and how much will it cost. I
doubt it will be Pad 40, as then they'd have to stop launching Falcon
9s (and stop making most of their money) for a significant period of
time while the upgrades are being done. (Look how long SLC-6 was down
while they upgraded it from Delta IV-Medium to Delta IV-Heavy.)

Data point of one for all of those things "proven". .

Of course. Remember also the doom and gloom about Ares I being
unworkable, "it will shake itself to pieces", "it won't be
controllable in the slightest of breezes!", "it will crash into the
tower!" were all accusations of the Anti-Ares (or "Antares") brigade
based on a data point of zero. A little latitude for Ares I supporters
from the Ares I-X success is called for, I think.

One test of hardware which is non-representative of any actual Ares I
flight hardware is not an incremental test program. It's a stunt.

That's a bit harsh. The data gathered from a real-world test flight,
albeit significantly different than the ultimate flight version, is
still hugely useful in refining computer models of how the real McCoy
will work. Ares I-X gave the engineering teams a huge vote of
confidence. At least now they know that the fears Ares I will
vertically oscillate itself into oblivion were seriously overstated.
It might still happen, but the odds are much lower now.

That's an order of magnitude more money compared to Falcon 9 development
costs for a bit more than 2x the payload. That's not terribly
impressive, in fact, it's quite pitiful.

It depends on what's included in the cost and if you still plan a
heavy lift booster for BEO. If you still need J-2X, then someone needs
to pay for it, and you have to figure in that cost when choosing
Falcon 9.

I stand by my original statements and would like to add that I believe
that NASA should not develop and operate any new launch vehicle *at
all*.

I still think we should have gone to an updated Shuttle-C design circa
2007. I said that at the time Ares V started going off the rails, but
at that time DIRECT was all the rage.

Brian