NASA hoses taxpayers again....

[Dr Mordrid]

So...NASA has been working on the Ares I launcher for their Orion spaceship for about 3 years now.

Idea one was that they would use a shuttle solid rocket booster (SRB) as the 1st stage and a liquid fueled 2nd stage to put the Orion in orbit. Here it would mate up with an Earth Departure State (moon-drive) and the lunar lander for the trip to the moon.

Supposed advantage of using the SRB: reusable (like with the shuttle), cheaper (already developed) and existing service facilities are already in place. The same solid fuel engines, using the same fuel, would be used as strap-on boosters for Ares V, the heavy lifter that would launch the EDS and lunar lander.

Sounded like a plan.

However, Ares I and Orion have had a fitful development; Ares I has been premised on the idea of being able to lift 26 metric tons to low earth orbit (LEO). Ares I didn't have enough power and Orion was too heavy. Correcting for these little oopsies has been a trip. Orion has been reduced in size from 5.5 to 5.0 meters and rumors are it may be going down to 4.5.

Ares I has gone from 4 segments (fuel "pellets") to 5, essentially making it a new rocket in about 8 versions since day one. Of course this makes it heavier complicating the weight of Orion.

Meanwhile the 'troops' (line engineers) at NASA came up with an alternative called "Direct" that uses shuttle parts unmodified and can lift much more than Ares I. NASA management of course has circled the wagons and has been resisting any and all attempts to scrap Ares I for Direct.

Today NASA management jumped the shark: they ordered a secret trade study for Ares I;

1. SRB's NOT reusable, violating a primary goal for Ares I and Ares V.

This of course will increase the cost/launch enormously.[B]

2. total redesign of the exhaust nozzle.

More expensive again.

3. DIFFERENT FUELS for Ares I and Ares V are now a possibility.

Costly (>development time/$) and unproven.

JEEEZZZZ.........

Now for the interesting part.

SpaceX just posted the specs for their upcoming Falcon 9 Heavy booster (see my post in Science & Military). Seems its LEO capability is 28 metric tons, 2 more metric tons more than Orion needs.

Cost: $90 million vs. at least $1 billion for an Ares I launch.

Would NASA scrap the troubled Ares I and help SpaceX speed development of Falcon 9 Heavy?

Not on a bet. They have their heads stuck up the rear end of ATK, the company that makes the SRB's

[KRSESQ]

That eerie chuckle you hear is William Proxmire laughing from his grave.

Kevin

[Dr Mordrid]

I used to love reading his "Golden Fleece Awards"

Seriously; if Congress wanted to do something useful they're force NASA to use existing, or future, boosters for the Orion launches. Even if they have to man-rate one (Atlas V comes to mind) it would be cheaper than Ares I.

OTOH we do need a heavy booster capable of more than Falcon 9 Heavy, something more like Ares V's 130 metric tons. Ares V could work, but other options include the Jupiter design put forward by a TeamVision, an aerospace consultant group.

Jupiter's would use existing shuttle fuel tanks, SRB's and for the Jupiter III a central core with existing Rocketdyne engines. Jupiter III's lift capability is 160 metric tons direct to the moon and for LEO it could lift 260 metric tons

Take a look at this baby

[Nowhere]

Hmm, I see empty space for 4 more SRBs on Jupiter III design (hey, if they're going overboard already... )

PS. I they'd went with the modular design, weight problems of Orion would be eliminated...
But I guess somebody wanted to "continue the tradition of Apollo" instead of "copying" Soyuz/Shenzou/Kliper/CSTS...

[Dr Mordrid]

IMO they'd hear the Jupiter III all the way back to Houston

[Dr Mordrid]

More news on this front.

Today FlightGlobal.com published this story;

NASA admits 'significant threats to performance' of Ares I launcher

By Rob Coppinger

NASA has admitted in an internal circular that there are "significant threats" to the performance of its Ares I crew launch vehicle (CLV), as Flight has learned that the preliminary design review for the CLV first stage has slipped by up to six months.

The Ares I first stage is based on the Space Shuttle's four-segment reusable solid rocket motor (RSRM), but with five segments. Initially intended to be largely unchanged from the RSRM, its insulation, throat diameter, propellant chemistry and geometry, and number of segments had all been changed by December 2006. NASA sources also say that, due to ascent stresses, areas of the segment casing are to be modified for strengthening.

The first stage is being designed to lift the CLV's upper stage, the Orion crew exploration vehicle (CEV) and its launch abort system to 129.5km (80.4 miles) before staging. The first manned flight is planned by March 2015.

The Ares I programme has been dogged by rumours of inadequate performance and blamed for repeated redesigns of the Orion's crew and service modules driven by the need to reduce mass. NASA has refuted the rumours and maintained that the Ares I CLV is capable of meeting requirements.

But now the agency's November internal circular says: "There are significant threats to the performance to be worked as the project works towards [PDR]."

The PDR delay is referenced in a report by CLV first-stage office deputy manager Thomas Williams. While unavailable for comment, Williams says in the report: "First-stage element analysis [ending January 2008 leads to] PDR data drop 16 February, [followed by first-stage] PDR on the 20th. [The design analysis cycle] DAC-2 element data drop is 1 April, [then] PDR data drop is on 15 May, [followed by full vehicle] PDR 22 July [2008]."

This differs from the multi-programme integrated milestones in NASA's fiscal year 2008 budget, covering the period 1 October 2007 to 30 September 2008. That shows Ares I first-stage PDR in the first quarter of FY2008 - in other words between October and December 2007.

The project office began its Ares I initial capability level one system definition review (SDR) on 10 September, completing it on 30 October. This SDR came mid-cycle during the DAC-2 design analysis cycle for the CLV first stage.