Slashdot Mirror
NASA Shuttle Replacement's Problems Are Worsening
ausoleil noted that NASA's replacement for the shuttle, the Orion, is slipping behind schedule "'We're probably going to have to move our target date,' NASA exploration chief Doug Cooke told The Associated Press on Wednesday after Nasawatch.com posted the 117-page internal status report (PDF) on the moon program. The cost problems include an $80 million overrun on a motor system. The Orion spacecraft's design remains too heavy for the proposed Ares 1 rocket. Software development, heat shield testing and other complex work remain behind schedule or over budget. There are dozens of such serious challenges, many of which are 'worsening.'"
but i'll play one on slashdot and come up with all kinds of rubber band and duct tape solutions and act like my 11th grade physics class bests nasa engineers.
wait, my friends, you'll see tons of posts just like this except for that the posters take themselves seriously.
Look, does this news really come as a surprise? NASA's been over-budget and behind schedule since the last Apollo flight. Without the unlimited checkbook that Mercury/Gemini/Apollo had, this should be expected.
Unlimited budgets have a way of clearing all obstacles in their path.
"Only two things are infinite, the universe and human stupidity, and I'm not sure about the former."
How long will there be no active US manned spacecraft - and will this get longer?
I am reminded of the gap between Apollo and the Shuttle - and look at what happened to Skylab...
We seemed more adventurous and capable in the 1960s than we are in 2008. Is this what has become of the great spacefaring nation that so many before us had envisioned? Despite serious technological advancements, have we lost our momentum? Maybe it was a passion for the unknown that enabled us before. I fear it has been replaced by disinterested private contractors, underfunding, and ambivalence. More so if this shuttle replacement isn't successful.
NASA has reported that the delay and the budget crunch has forced it to reconsider a prior option that will now be built on the shores of Cocoa Beach, FL. It will include two one hundred foot towers with a very elastic synthetic band extending between them. A state of the art human reclining space momentum chair will be attached in the middle to propel future explorers into space...or some where father out into the Atlantic Ocean.
Engineering of a very complex systems overrunning budget and schedule limits and this is news?
News would be if they were under budget and finished a year early.
I think the invisible hand of the market has its middle finger extended
--A wise old fart named SC0RN
Just set up a national tip jar on something akin to PayPal.
Citizens actually want to fund space activities, not the stuff that's killing us: http://perotcharts.com/
Dis-intermediating DC is step #1 in carrying out the will of the people.
Get thee glass eyes, and, like a scurvy politician, seem to see things thou dost not.--King Lear
Sure sure. Sounds great.
Now, just initial here that the 2008 mandatory stress testing has been done on each component, OSHA has approved the ergonomics of the seats, all modern safety systems are in place...and...hello? Where are you going?
No one (with power in NASA or gov't) is interested in getting back to the moon without a billion rules, regulations, and safety measures.
You can get rich if you own a politician, but you have to be rich to buy one in the first place.
and we haven't paid for much of a space program for several decades now. All that engineering knowledge has slowly, and literally, died as engineers have retired. Sending a handful of people to earth orbit every year is not exploration - any focus on anything other than how to advance human beings as rapidly as possible to every body in the solar system is simply spending money without garnering public desire to pay for more of it. We need people going places, and waiting five decades to get around to making it happen has wasted away all the good will those who write the checks had for doing this business.
You should see the contortions Grumman had to go through, to get the Lunar Module under the mission weight budget, well into the Apollo Program.
I figure the only thing that's changed between now and then is the Internet makes it much easier for the lay public to form entirely the wrong impression about highly complex and technical works-in-progress.
Any sufficiently well-organized community is indistinguishable from Government.
No one (with power in NASA or gov't) is interested in getting back to the moon without a billion rules, regulations, and safety measures.
Also consider that astronauts were looked on as rough and tough guys doing their national duty in the days of Apollo. Today they're seen as geeks wasting cash on expensive toys.
Dedicated Cthulhu Cultist since 4523 BC.
In fairly new technology a fairly good rule I observe is to always doubel managements estimated time. Therefore the first manned Orion to ISS will be 2018 (assuming ISS is still functional then).
Now, just initial here that the 2008 mandatory stress testing has been done on each component, OSHA has approved the ergonomics of the seats, all modern safety systems are in place...and...hello? Where are you going?
Actually, the real problem is the toxic fuels that were used, and a few other toxic components. It's the _environmental_ issues that prevent Apollo-era technology from flying today, not the safety issues.
It is dangerous to be right when the government is wrong.
Well, that's sucks I guess. But since NASA has something like a $17 billion budget, isn't that a colossal non-issue? I realize this was just the motor system, but if I had a $40,000 budget to furnish a new home, I don't think I would be concerned if the coffee table was $20 more than I was expecting.
From Wikipedia:
"NASA's current FY 2008 budget of $17.318 billion represents about 0.6% of the $2.9 trillion United States federal budget."
I'll let the reader come to his own conclusions about US priorities. Without linking to the DoD budget.
It is dangerous to be right when the government is wrong.
I think you're confusing Ares I and Ares V. Ares I isn't all that big. It's a single stack of capsule -> fuel tank -> stage 2 engine -> stage 1 solid rocket booster. If anything, it's quite a bit thinner than most rockets. However, it does make up for this by towering a massive 94m high. Which does mean a few upgrades to the scaffolding.
The Ares V, however, she's gonna be a beasty. With six (!) main engines, two outboard Solid Rocket Boosters, a plump width of 10m on the central stack, and a towering 116m tall, she's going to put every other rocket to shame. Personally, I can't wait. ;-)
Javascript + Nintendo DSi = DSiCade
There are existing commercial launch vehicles such as the Delta IV or Atlas V rockets that can be man rated or the potential upcoming commercial launch vehicles such as the SpaceX Falcon 9 that could replace Ares I. Although man rating isn't trivial it's insane for NASA to create a new rocket to compete with existing commercial launch vehicles. NASA should encourage making manned access to low Earth orbit a low cost commercial commodity rather than using government resources to discourage such access.
In fact, NASA should contract with two independent suppliers capable of lifting the CEV to low Earth orbit and buy launch vehicles from each supplier in near equal quantities. This would add some expense, but it would make sure that should a launch accident occur our manned space program isn't grounded for years as complex accident investigations occur and fixes are implemented on the failed launch vehicle.
The Ares I is an albatross that only exists because of pride and politics. It is harmful to the exact type of space development that this nation needs. In the early 60's NASA didn't lose any face by choosing to re-purpose ICBMs for the Mercury and Gemini programs. Instead, out of necessity, NASA it's rocket building teams on the Saturn series of rockets. It was the practical decision then and it is the practical decision to re-purpose existing vehicles now for LEO access.
If NASA wants to build a launcher (and whether they should be building any is a very debatable) then they should be concentrating exclusively on the Ares V/VI which actually goes somewhere and does something that commercial space companies may not be able to do economically today.
The Apollo astronauts _were_ tough guys doing their national duty.
Besides that. JFK was buried the day Armstrong set foot on the Moon. The goal set by him was accomplished, the Russians defeated and, thus, Joe Sixpack lost interest. There seemed to be a can-do attitude, a willingness to blow stuff up and to take risks that is no more.
It's really tragic thing. Maybe we don't deserve to be a spacefaring race.
http://www.dieblinkenlights.com
Copies of the manuals and the designs for the Saturn V still exist. And we've got one of the best examples out there. We still have original Saturn V rockets out at the space centers. Dust that damn thing off, REVERSE ENGINEER it. If NASA can't do it, HIRE MICROSOFT ENGINEERS! They've been doing it for YEARS.
Remember, it's not paranoia if they really ARE out to get you...
Did you look at how much payload each rocket can take to orbit before you made this post? Look at the payload capacity to GTO (not LEO)
Let me list the estimated maximum payloads since you did not:
Delta IV: 20,000 pounds or so
Atlas V: 18,000 pounds or so
SpaceX Falcon 9: 27,000 pounds or so
Ares I: 50,000 pounds or so
See the difference? Ares I is also rated for man-flight, which just makes everything much more complicated.
The article is from a florida newspaper. Of course florida newspapers are going to print doom stories because they don't want to lose Shuttle business. Losing business happens.
err, the S-1C was a Kerosene/LOX burner, and the upper stages were hydrogen/LOX. The Titan, which was obviously not part of Apollo, used some really toxic hypergolic fuels, but Apollo was relatively clean. I'm sure the spacecraft itself had plenty of toxic crap in it, but the booster was relatively safe.
It's much more complicated than your home furnishing project. NASA can't simply apply funds from elsewhere it its budget; that money is already spoken for, and appropriated by Congress for other projects. In other words, there is no way, within the law, to take money from another project to fix this problem; additional funding or reprogramming actions are required, both of which take time. Even in Washington, $80M is a big issue. As it should be.
It's not the heat, it's the futility.
The Ares V will even put the Sat V to shame.
The Ares V is going to be the large booster we SHOULD have built after the Saturn V. It's late, but it's finally coming. :-)
Javascript + Nintendo DSi = DSiCade
Damn it, I *JUST YESTERDAY* posted to correct this fallacy. When will the Internet learn?
The blueprints for everything, down to the last nut and bolt, are on file at MSFC. Source.
Further, rebuilding a Saturn from them won't work. You can't get the parts made any more, nor would you want to. You can't duplicate IBM's work and make another Instrument Unit--two tons of 1960s-vintage analog computers and gyroscopes, including equipment designed to determine the rocket's launch azimuth based on star sightings, not GPS like we'd use today. Then there's all the other analog and early digital equipment that's integral to the design. Remember, it's not just a giant fuel tank and some engines--it's a launch vehicle. It's got a flight manual, and it's designed to be used in conjunction with an Apollo command and service module pair flying it.
Re-design the rocket to use new technology? By the time you've de-Apollo'd Saturn, you've made a whole new launch vehicle. Which is exactly what Ares is.
The Saturn V is an awesome piece of technology, yes. An awesome piece of 1960s technology. Rebuilding it today would not work, period, no matter how cool it might be.
FYI, I found updated numbers for the six engine Ares V on NASA's site here:
http://www.nasa.gov/mission_pages/constellation/ares/aresV/index.html
The correct LEO figure is stated here:
Javascript + Nintendo DSi = DSiCade
Look through the discussion, and the term "man-rated" comes up, a lot. It's probably a good thing it does too, because it's generally a bad idea to lose life during launches, or any other time during the flight, for that matter.
But I question the path to man rating. For the US space program, as far as I can tell, only Mercury and Gemini turned previously designed boosters into man-rated. Everything else has been designed from the get-go as man-rated. It seems to me that though it can be done that way, it's a bit of a fallacy in the making. To some extent, parts is parts, and it should always be possible to tighten the specs on some number of parts to improve the reliability of an existing booster. For that matter, existing non-man-rated boosters likely have a much longer track record, more launches, etc. They really don't want to lose *any* of these things, because even if human life isn't on top of the stack, typically tens of millions of dollars are.
So I don't understand why we don't start with a non-man-rated booster with a large number of launches and study its track record, failure modes, etc. Then start work on a man-rated version of that same booster with the necessary spec and reliability tweaks. Seems to me that it would be faster and cheaper. It likely wouldn't have the launch capacity, but at the moment that's a separate issue. Even in the Aries program there's the Aries-I with relatively low launch capacity, and the Aries-V with much greater capacity. Better heavy launch programs would still need to go forward, but why have a new light-launch program?
The living have better things to do than to continue hating the dead.
It's really tragic thing. Maybe we don't deserve to be a spacefaring race.
Have some patience, man! It's like having the Vikings visit the Americas, get killed, never return, and then you complain that "Maybe we don't deserve to be a seafaring race."
A little over a century ago, man wasn't even flying airplanes. The first human was sent into space less than fifty years ago. There's no real reason to think that large-scale space exploration and even colonization won't happen. There's also no real reason to think that it will, or should, happen within the next fifty years, or even within the next two hundred years. The amount of time that humanity has so far been visiting space is but a blink of an eye in historical terms.
If you mod me Overrated, you are admitting that you have no penis.
Its an organisational one. They themselves are already complaining about their budget and they haven't even got a rocket off the ground yet. They've got teams off their own engineers who disagree so strongly with the direction NASA is taking they are designing an alternative rocket on their own time (DIRECT/Jupiter/Ares 2 or 4 or whatever). They've got staff airing their complaints to the press rather than their supervisor. I'd say the wheels have come off the plan to return to the Moon, buy NASA probably haven't even settled on what size wheels those would be yet.
I've mentioned this before. We can't do scale. Everyone is so invested in the orthodoxy of competition that cooperation automatically falls flat on its face. The idea of man as selfish and rational is a self fulfilling prophecy - if you believe that about other people it makes it almost impossible for you to trust and work with them.
So, in my humble opinion, neither the Americans nor anyone else is getting back on the interplanetary horse until we figure out the systemic, structural problems in our societies.
If we can put a man on the moon, why can't we shoot people for Apollo-related non-sequiturs?
They're screwed. MacGyver himself couldn't keep this project on schedule with all the duct tape, rubber bands and paperclips in the world.
The problem is, this project is massive. It was obvious from the beginning that their time estimates were basically based on everything working perfectly the first time and optimization studies showing that they'd already picked the most efficient design. There are always going to be problems, and the bigger the project the more you're going to have.
If they're serious about replacing the shuttle with only a couple years of downtime, they should already be gearing up to test the system as a whole. I'm not personally involved in the project, but it doesn't even look like they're ready to test big pieces yet. Maybe 2020 is a more reasonable date to actually begin flights.
Rich billionaires have yet to put anything into orbit. Big inefficient government has been doing it for 50 years. Reality contradicts your ideology, and I can take a wild guess which one you are going to disregard...
If we can put a man on the moon, why can't we shoot people for Apollo-related non-sequiturs?
Nonsense. The vast majority of people really want to see some cool pictures on the news every couple of years or so. If you substitute to 10c per person (or whatever the current budget works out to) with half a dozen multi-millionaires and a long (actually, short) tail of "enthusiast" types chipping in $50 or $20, you won't have enough for a single Delta launch, let alone fund design testing build and operation of two and a half new launchers, a new crew vehicle and the TLI / lander / ascent hardware needed for another moon landing.
I personally am of the opinion the moon landings will be jettisoned as soon as practical, and that that's a good thing. I just hope it's early enough to leave enough left for the increasingly delayed outer planets flagship mission and some more Mars landers / rovers, oh and a telecoms relay orbiter that will be desperately needed in 7-10 years' time. (Did you know there's nothing on the Mars launch schedule after MSL in 2010? That money's gone to Dubya's cock-eyed publicity stunt of trying to get Kennedy's rep by announcing another manned moon landing. But I realise that's unpopular around here.
My tool box has two items. Duct tape and WD-40.
If it moves and it's not suppose to Duct Tape it.
If it doesn't move and it is suppose to WD-40 it.
Paying taxes to buy civilization is like paying a hooker to buy love.
The difference is that the Saturn V stats reflect real performance, the Ares V figures are still hypothetical. Shuttle never got much more than about 80% of its originally advertised payload capacity.
And of course, Saturn V is 45 year old technology. Just replacing the Instrument Unit (guidance system) with modern avionics would add about 2000 kg to the payload.
-- Alastair
NASA has been on a long, uninterrupted downward slide ever since Reagan, when it became more heavily politicized. They somehow managed to get people to the moon in 1969 with a basic, brute-force, heavy-lift vehicle and almost enough computing power to run a pocket calculator. Since then, the manned program hasn't made it much past Low Earth Orbit.
If the current crop of idiots can't get their act together, why not blow the dust off those old Saturn V plans, save some weight by substituting new materials where it would work, and get freakin' going? Longer stays could be accommodated be using the Mars Express approach of sending automated supply missions on ahead.
I don't know if it's time to fire everybody in upper management and start fresh, but it's getting really tempting. And let's try to remember that space exploration is dangerous work. Test pilots die. Astronauts die. That doesn't mean you shut down and abandon your whole program for years on end whenever something goes wrong. They tried it with the Space Shuttle, and all that down time didn't ultimately make things a lot safer.
I've calculated my velocity with such exquisite precision that I have no idea where I am.
Annnnddd the thread comes full circle. You just confused Ares I and Ares V.
Ares I - Small, man rated rocket
Ares V - Heavy cargo rocket that is NOT man-rated
The profile for a moon launch requires two separate launches. The first is an Ares V launch to place the necessary equipment (e.g. Altair Lander) and boosters (Earth Departure Stage) into orbit. The Ares I rocket would then launch the Orion capsule carrying the crew. The capsule would dock with the cargo launched by the Ares V, then use the Earth Departure Stage to make a Trans-Lunar Injection burn.
As a result, the figures for the Ares V TLI burn are a bit misleading. The Ares V will be unlikely to send cargo directly to the moon. At least at first. Such capability might be used later on in support of a base or colony.
More information on the Constellation Project can be found at the usual sources:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Project_Constellation
http://www.nasa.gov/mission_pages/constellation/main/index.html
Javascript + Nintendo DSi = DSiCade
"No one (with power in NASA or gov't) is interested in getting back to the moon without a billion rules, regulations, and safety measures."
Even if that were true the cost of five really nice seats is not much. What costs is the thousands of people that stay on the ground. The flight hardware is "nothing"
Where do yo think those billions go? Almost all of it is paid in saleray to middle class enginers and technicains. Noe of those guys are ritch. Upper middle class mostly.
People always think of the big rocket as being the expensive part. It isn't. It's that army of people who support it. Just one simple little thing like inspecting a weld joint with X-ray. You need to maintain a whole lab and trained people. and then you have the mission asserace people who check that the work was done and that the correct weld was inspeced and so on and so on. And then you have to pay me (I'm typing this while waiting for a test to complete.) Me and 12 others work on getting telemerty from some data link to about 50 or 100 computer screens. Next you have the engineers that look at that data and not just durring flight. We support tests on the pad or hangers, several a week.
And yes we have to follow dumb OSHA rules like not placing large object on file cabinets that might fall on our heads and we have to hold fire drills twice a year and I've got to take a CPR class even if I'm a software engineer because we need 1 in 20 or so people to know CPR.
Oh, and recently the window washer outside is required to use a safety harness and helmet. Darn rules running up the costs. But would you change them?
OK back to work,....