NASA engineers work on alternative moon rocket
July 14th, 2008 By JAY REEVES , Associated Press Writer
This artist rendering shows NASA's next-generation of moon rockets being developed at the Marshall Space Flight Center (MSFC) in Huntsville, Ala. Ares I, left, is the crew launch vehicle that will carry astronauts to space. Ares V is the cargo launch vehicle that will deliver the lunar lander and other large hardware to space. By day, the engineers in Huntsville, work on NASA's new Ares moon rockets. By night, some go undercover, working on a competing design. These dissenters and their backers say their alternative rocket would be safer, cheaper and easier to build than the two Ares spacecraft, which have already cost NASA $7 billion. (AP Photo/NASA, Marshall Space Flight Center)
(AP) -- By day, the engineers work on NASA's new Ares moon rockets. By night, some go undercover to work on a competing design. These dissenting scientists and their backers insist they have created an alternative rocket that would be safer, cheaper and easier to build than the two Ares spacecraft that will replace the space shuttle.
Content from The Associated Press expires 15 days after original publication date. For more information about The Associated Press, please visit www.ap.org .
Similar stories from PHYSorg:
NASA Successfully Tests Parachute for Ares Rocket
Mar 02, 2009 |
4 / 5 (1) |
0
Final Piece Of NASA's Next-Generation Rocket Heads To Launch Site
Mar 13, 2009 |
not rated yet |
2
White House orders review of NASA space plans
May 07, 2009 |
4.8 / 5 (8) |
4
NASA to begin developing Ares rockets
Dec 17, 2007 |
3.5 / 5 (4) |
2
NASA's Ares I Rocket First Stage Igniter Successfully Tested
Mar 10, 2009 |
5 / 5 (2) |
1
This is disgusting.
a couple of years ago. Navigagte to it from
http://vulvox.tripod.com Will history repeat itself?
But ultimately, the plan to go to the moon first then mars was set by a certain president... Not from a group of expert scientists.
Oh and the 230 billion isn't going up as a payload. It goes to salaries, parts, testing, testing facilities, expensive toilets :-) and etc. So the money does go back into American pockets.
dirk: NASA isn't using 1960s technology. It isn't realistically possible to even recreate such such crude technology. The machinery, metallugy, organizational techniques, are all 45 years out-of-date. (The engines are a number of generations more sophisticated, as a quick example.)
Mike, going to the moon didn't yield "nothing". Maybe President Kennedy was acting from political motivations, but 10,000s of NASA employees were not. The goal is to return, and settle. Also, and apart from that, there are compelling economic reasons to make factories for space material there, rather than on Earth.
Neil, it's apparently true there are design problems. There were actually similar problems with "slosh" in the Saturn V. That vehicle was modified, and had a 100% launch success. We're hoping the same for the Ares, right?
Arikin. President Kennedy was not given an option to go to Mars. Werner von Braun, who had his, Disney's and almost everyone else's respect, had a fairly specific set of steps for getting to Mars. A space station, and going to the moon were intermediate steps.
The great amount of testing is an interesting subject. It happens because the American public is not willing to sacrifice the lives of a few people for the greater public good. On an Apollo mission, the astronaut-geologist asked to have the "emergency escape rocket" removed from the top of the spacecraft, to make enough weight for an experiment he wanted to take. His fellow astronauts were fine with that. It was almost done, except that NASA thought there would be such a big PR hit -- in the one in a thousand chance the escape rocket would be used -- they were unwilling to remove it. In later years, and I'm speaking here as someone who worked for one of the astronauts, there was a change of attitude among "The Right Stuff". I didn't hear any questions from astronauts about the extremely expensive emergency exit retrofitted in the Space Shuttle. Astronauts are now fat and happy, and expect millions to be spent so, to be blunt, they can return home to their bank accounts. It's not "the government", as such that's mandating the testing, it's popular public opinion.
The Ares system is too far along to turn back. To keep vacillating back and forth is to accomplish nothing that is why Michael Griffin took the reigns of this horse and has accomplish so much in so little time.
The Jupiter 2.0 is just a napkin drawing compared to the Ares system and it is obviously not as safe.
To separate the humans from the cargo is what enables safety (A No Brainer to me).
The Jupiter 2.0 is a system that has to be human rated and is a much more complex system than the Ares 1, it has two modified Shuttle SRBs and a modified Shuttle liquid fuel take just for taking humans into orbit. The Ares 1 is a much more basic system. One modified 5 1/2 segment SRB and one J-2X Main upper stage engine to safely get people into orbit. Along with the Human rated much more efficient simply designed Ares 1 the (non-human rated) Ares 5 separates cargo from crew and will be able to lift 176,000 pounds to lunar orbit and is much cheaper to design than a human rated vehicle.
And for those that think we should spend our money on more earthly things I say%u2026 Space is most definitely the final frontier or at least China, Russia, India, Japan and Iran think it%u2019s worth perusing but, I guess for some people becoming a third world nation is OK as long as the government pays for everything??? (NOT!!!) Smell the coffee and realize space is where we are going!!!
This lack of unity and open insolence is exactly what makes the general public turn their collective back from these giant and expensive projects. This kind of conduct produces bushel baskets of letters to Conress members pleading them to cut funding.
I think someone needs to step up and tell these engineers to get their act together. They are undermining the entire NASA mission with this juvenile treachery(perhaps that is their "mission?").
This is no way to run a railroad, let alone go to the Moon. And I think, given this open stupidity, that this nation should simply forget about going to Mars. Such an undertaking will take decades of unified dedication to a singular mission. This NASA "team" has proven that they are simply not capable.
I can just imagine the nonsense that is going unreported. I guess we'll find out at the end of the countdown. God help us.
"Jake1730" writes:
> The Jupiter 2.0 is just a napkin drawing
> compared to the Ares system and it is
> obviously not as safe.
It is obvious that you have never been to the DIRECT web site, nor do you know what a "napkin drawing" is, because if you had any knowledge of either of those things you would know that it is actually NASA engineers who designed this system YEARS ago, under the auspices of the National Launch Vehicle system. So, it was a NASA design study that has been developed into a modern, more reliable launch system. Strike one.
"Obviously not as safe" Obvious to whom? Do you realize that the computed LOC/LOM figures for DIRECT's Jupiter launch vehicles are actually better than those for either of the proposed Ares launchers? Were you remotely aware of the vibration, thrust oscillation, and engine-reliability issues that Ares keeps having, to the point that the requirements to pass NASA design reviews have to be lowered so that Ares can get past them?
> To separate the humans from the cargo is what
> enables safety (A No Brainer to me).
Well, if you admit you don't have a brain, then don't try to use it to spread false, misleading, and erroneous information, and act as if your opinion is the only one that matters, since all you're doing is parroting NASA's attempt to discredit it's own engineers.
> The Jupiter 2.0 is a system that has to be
> human rated and is a much more complex system
> than the Ares 1,
Wrong yet again. The only part of the system that has to be man-rated are the RS-68 engines. The rest of it is nearly identical to the existing STS stack. Not "more complex" at all. Complex, yes. But it's Rocket Science.
> it has two modified Shuttle SRBs
No, it doesn't. The SRBs are exactly the same. No alterations whatsoever. Ares can't say that with its new propellant mixture and additional segment needed. Ares is designed around SRBs that are a totally, completely NEW motor system. Jupiter/DIRECT uses existing, proven ones. Why lie about this, unless you are woefully misinformed or have an agenda?
> and a modified Shuttle liquid fuel take
> just for taking humans into orbit.
Presumably, you mean "tank". Stipulating that is what you mean, the addition of an engine housing and thrust structure, removal of the orbiter attachment points, and the addition of a payload support truss and fairing are the ONLY changes necessary. Ares does not even *use* any of the existing external tank structures, which is a blatant violation of the NASA Authorization Act of 2005. Clearly, Ares is not even close to being "Shuttle derived" while DIRECT is. Again you strive to lie, obfuscate, and mislead. Strike Two.
> The Ares 1 is a much more basic system. One
> modified 5 1/2 segment SRB and one J-2X Main
> upper stage engine to safely get people into
> orbit.
Given the amount of thrust oscillation, the fact you cannot shut off any SRB in the event of a launch issue, and the fact that the entire launch vehicle is fraught with serious technical and engineering problems, I (and no one else who knows the real facts) do not understand how you or anyone else can repeat this misinformation. Ares is unsafe to the point that many in the Astronaut Corps don't want to even ride it. I woudn't either, because it isn't remotely safe, given the serious problems in its design. Once again, you lie, mislead, and spread false information. Strike Three.
> Along with the Human rated much more efficient
> simply designed Ares 1 the (non-human rated)
> Ares 5 separates cargo from crew and will be
> able to lift 176,000 pounds to lunar orbit and
> is much cheaper to design than a human rated
> vehicle.
And once again, false information. Ares V is a completely NEW rocket design, not compatible with anything on Ares I, and not in compliance with the NASA Authorization Act of 2005. Apparently, you are also unaware that they are considering "man rating" it. Ares V is a completely untested, untried, and grossly expensive launch vehicle. It cannot do nearly what the Jupiter System can do. You get more capability for less money, and more launches with DIRECT than you do with Ares.
It is also being discussed that the Ares V is switching back to the SSME, which is another issue in and of itself. Do you not know anything about which you speak, or are you just spreading propaganda and misinformation on purpose?
Jupiter232, which is the DIRECT heavy lifter, has the ability to put more than 100mT of net mass into Trans-Lunar Injection, compared to Ares-I/V which only has the stated capability of 63.4mT to TLI.
What's bigger, 100 Metric Tons, or 63.4 Metric Tons?
But hey, I'm only mentioning facts. I'm not spreading false information, lies, or propaganda. It's all there for people to check for themselves, at the DIRECT website. Do a Google.