It did seem odd that despite there being two operational Evolved Expendable Launch Vehicles, namely Atlas and Delta, that only the Delta IV was being considered during the Norman Augustine led review of US human spaceflight plans
And then yesterday at the House of Representatives' subcommittee on space and aeronautics we hear Jospeh Fragola, Valador Inc vice president and Augustine committee engineering analysis support team member, state that the United Launch Alliance Atlas 431 (watch an Atlas V 431 launch here) had been studied by the Orbital Space Plane programme and been rejected. Three solid rockets strapped to a liquid first stage was deemed a bad idea apparently
Have they not seen the Ares V Lite design? A liquid core with two solid rocket boosters
And then yesterday at the House of Representatives' subcommittee on space and aeronautics we hear Jospeh Fragola, Valador Inc vice president and Augustine committee engineering analysis support team member, state that the United Launch Alliance Atlas 431 (watch an Atlas V 431 launch here) had been studied by the Orbital Space Plane programme and been rejected. Three solid rockets strapped to a liquid first stage was deemed a bad idea apparently
Have they not seen the Ares V Lite design? A liquid core with two solid rocket boosters
This blog agrees with others that championing the Ares I first-stage, that is using an untested five-segment evolution of the Space Shuttle four-segment solid rocket booster (SRB), while questioning the reliability of an Atlas SRB that has never failed in the full knowledge that the Augustine report recommended a crewed Ares V Lite is a bit odd
And this blog had thought that the issue with Atlas was its Russian first-stage engines. And maybe it really is
The turn of events at the hearing has given rise to the view that the Congressional panel had already decided what they wanted to think and that Ares I was the better option
Hyperbola was struck by the apparent lack of knowledge of a number of the subcommittee members, when they should have been the experts as far as Congress was concerned. While Californian Congressman Dana Rohrabacher was the only subcommittee member to push on the EELV alternative his questions were easy for the anti-EELV witnesses to bat away
Meanwhile NASA's Wayne Hale takes a swing at the commercial crowd in his latest blog posting
Hyperbola had concluded recently that Ares I's days really were numbered but having watched the subcommittee, if this group has any real sway then Ares I really might not be dead after all
And this blog had thought that the issue with Atlas was its Russian first-stage engines. And maybe it really is
The turn of events at the hearing has given rise to the view that the Congressional panel had already decided what they wanted to think and that Ares I was the better option
Hyperbola was struck by the apparent lack of knowledge of a number of the subcommittee members, when they should have been the experts as far as Congress was concerned. While Californian Congressman Dana Rohrabacher was the only subcommittee member to push on the EELV alternative his questions were easy for the anti-EELV witnesses to bat away
Meanwhile NASA's Wayne Hale takes a swing at the commercial crowd in his latest blog posting
Hyperbola had concluded recently that Ares I's days really were numbered but having watched the subcommittee, if this group has any real sway then Ares I really might not be dead after all
on December 3, 2009 6:01 PM | Reply
--
the Atlas V payload is 9.7 tons. so, it needs also to develop a Soyuz-class Orion that can be ready to fly within 5-6 years and costs around 5-8 billion$
--
on December 3, 2009 10:53 PM | Reply
FYI, Wayne doesn't blog for spaceref.
He blogs at
http://blogs.nasa.gov/cm/blog/waynehalesblog
on December 3, 2009 11:43 PM | Reply
I'm not a fan of Congressman Rohrabacher, but I appreciated his line of questioning yesterday.
The company line (NASA + friendly congress) is to paint the Ares I as the safest vehicle, and they seem to be pushing this as their best way to win over others.
The question of safety is a relative one in my opinion, since no form of transportation is without risk. We are OK with American astronauts launching on a Soyuz for a long time, so why shouldn't we be OK with an American launcher that is most likely at least as safe (EELV or Falcon 9)?
Does anyone know if the safety projections relate to the possibility of launcher failure, or the likelihood of survival after the escape system separates? I know the Ares I has a punishing escape profile due to the use of the SRB, and I wonder if that is taken into account for crew survival?
on December 4, 2009 2:12 AM | Reply
Russian engines on the Atlas V is a deal-killer, plain and simple. The U.S. government will never put its manned program at risk of being cut off by a foreign power responsible for manufacturing a critical component.
Delta IV has problems all its own: The heavy variant has an agonizingly slow ascent from the launch pad, during which the booster is shrouded in flames. Astronauts who have watched Delta IV heavy launches have reportedly said there would be no way in hell they'd ride it to orbit. It's also enormously expensive and requires a large amount of launch pad prep, far more so than the proposed Ares I stick.
The only REALISTIC alternative Orion launch vehicle to the Stick would be the Falcon IX Heavy. If SpaceX can pull off the February launch of the Falcon IX core vehicle, with a boilerplate Dragon capsule, there will be increasing pressure to turn toward SpaceX as providing an alternative architecture to Orion/Ares, at least for NEO operations. It makes sense. Dragon, requiring only the core vehicle for launch, not the heavy, would be a far better approach to space station transport an other NEO missions than the overlarge Orion, which would be needed only for the proposed lunar and other deep space missions.
The Stick could then be scrapped and only Ares V built (although Musk reportedly has dreams of building an F-1 class engine, which means he has his heart set on a Saturn/Ares V class heavy lifter).
That's a big IF. Falcon IX is a quantum leap in complexity from Falcon 1, which suffered three high-profile failures before its first success. One wonders how many launch failures of Falcon IX SpaceX could sustain and remain viable.
I'm pulling for SpaceX. It's an amazing concept, something right out of science fiction -- a single entrepreneur building his own rocket AND man-capable spacecraft, from scratch, with no outside corporate or government help (aside from the COTS contract). If Musk can pull it off, my hat's off to him.
A successful Falcon IX, assuming Musk's cost and price structure could be maintained, would certainly be a huge blow to LockMart, Boeing / ULA and the Ariane coalition. If I were Elon Musk, I'd be very careful about corporate sabotage...
on December 4, 2009 6:39 AM | Reply
so, rockets with good safety records continue to be more dangerous than theoretical rockets.
on December 5, 2009 1:49 AM | Reply
Taken you guys' stand on Russian engines (although Pratt has the right to build them in the US - they have the drawings now and a location in Florida but decided not to go further because it turns out that the same engine produced in the USA would cost more! I wonder why),there is another question about the Atlas V.
The only version that merited consideration was not the one with a single core plus 3 solids, but the Atlas V Heavy with 3 cores. Which the Air Force neglected to buy so it was scrapped.
This is the same configuration that Energia is building to launch the Soyuz replacement from Vostochny. So US astronauts will probably end up flying on that stack anyway from time to time.
on December 13, 2009 5:18 PM | Reply
> Russian engines on the Atlas V is a deal-killer, plain and simple. The U.S. government will never put its manned program at risk of being cut off by a foreign power responsible for manufacturing a critical component.
It is worth noting that P&W has permission to build RD-180s, provided years ago as part of the original deal. It's simply that it's cheaper to get them from Russia; they already have production lines for them, along with the associated RD-171s and 190s, and are actually planning on stepping up production (presumably reducing unit cost) for their next-gen manned launcher.