Aldrin: Ares 1-X Was Much Ado About Nothing

You have to agree with the comments made in that article.. I mean no 5th stage and a mock up that looked like a mock up the separation was highly suspect although I know it has been discussed already in these forums. It all just seemed very uh OK? The failed Parachute.. And correct me if I'm wrong but wasn't the original plan was to test the LAS? What happened to that? Or was I again fooled by fancy CGI ? It just seem like NASA is saying "Here's what you got for your money, no shut up".. I had a question is/was LRO/LCROSS included in the constellation program.. That's how they spin it on all the promotional media junkets. It leading the way back to the moon and so forth. Back to my original question is it under the same budget like included when you break it down or is it its own entity?I know NASA breaks down so much for this that and the other..

Well, I have to agree with Buzz about Ares 1-X but I'm afraid he's off the mark in many other areas. He states that we need serious heavy lift and that the Ares V won't do the job. He then goes on to recommend a sidemount based HLV even though we all know that it's lifting capacity is considerably less than the current Ares V design. He complains about the need for two launches (one for crew and one for cargo) but the sidemount would require the same. He calls for new upper stages and/or upper stage engines but we're already pursuing that with Ares V and the J2X. In fact, one could say that use of the J2X as opposed to an expendable SSME is part of the problem since it's a major pacing item.

I agree with him about Ares 1 and the LEO Orion. I believe commercial transport is the way to go. However, with regard to heavy lift, I don't have a major issues with the Ares V. If developed, it should be a reliable and powerful system. There are only so many ways to accomplish this mission and using our existing solid rocket booster technology and infrastructure makes sense. Sidemount makes sense too but it doesn't get us the capacity required.

Wow. Buzz's assessment of Ares-1x was basically what I said in the Ares 1x launch discussion we had last week. Wish I had his Phd. to go along with my common sense. Wish the NASA managers who gave the approval for this charade had both.
I agree with the other posters critique of Buzz's assessment of Ares 1/V architecture. I think that we are always going to need multiple launches, whether shuttle derived SDHLV, Direct, EELV, or others. The reason is that we will want a lot of equipment to get us where we want to go and to use once we get there.
NASA isn't going to get to a deep space location in a capsule. What NASA should be designing, with international partners if possible, is a true spaceship. Just as the ISS is able to be used for decades so should the next true spaceship. Capsules should be looked upon as "escape pods" to be used only in emergencies. The spaceship should have adequate space to allow for astronauts to perform science, personal hygiene and exercise without stress. It should have adequate shielding from solar and cosmic radiation. It should have docking ports for landers and transfer vehicles and provisioning vehicles. It should be built with new propulsion technology such as ion or plasma or drive or at least a nuclear reactor.

If there was rationale for Ares 1X, and there might have been, it should be easily findable. With all the criticism this has gotten, NASA PAO has not gotten the info out. I was even watching a Science Channel 'The Biggest Machine' program, recorded some time ago, and they described Ares 1X, 'well basically this is just an oversized simple model rocket ?' and the NASA interviewee responded, 'yes'. If that was all we got for $437 million, then NASA has serious problems.

Do we really need the super heavy lift ? Ares 5 would be great if it were affordable and could be done in a reasonable timeframe. Is 20 years a reasonable timeframe? And if it is only launched once a year, can you afford to maintain the infrastructure to keep it under construction and flying? And how many things would there be to launch on this class of booster? Right now all our eggs for the Ares 5 basket are human lunar missions and Augustine has ruled that they are not affordable on NASA's allowance.

It might be more reasonable to launch smaller packages more frequently on more launch vehicles, and assemble them in orbit. That way: (1) you keep an assembly line running. (2) If you lose a program, you've not wasted development of the launch vehicle. (3) If you lose a launch, the payload you've lost is not as significant as a lost payload X times the size.

I think the way NASA needs to go is to base the future program on the existing hardware and people it already has. That is a booster based on Shuttle and an in space vehicle based in some fashion on ISS.

We need to-- quickly-- get on with the job of replacing the current space shuttle while also developing the heavy lift capability that we lost after the Apollo era so we can start setting up a permanent human presence on the surface of the Moon.

After this new space architecture is completed, NASA should have billions of extra dollars (without any increase in the budget) to invest in new space architectures that could transport humans to Mars, access the valuable resources of the asteroids, and help develop simpler and safer space craft for the emerging private commercial human space flight industry.

Marcel F. Williams

I heartily agree with Buzz Aldrin's assessment of the Ares I-X and the need for NASA to switch to using more commercial competitive approaches instead of in-house designs and cost-plus single-source contracts. However, I disagree with the claimed need for a super-heavy lifter, as the use of propellant depots for refueling craft in space largely alleviates this need -- after all, most of the mass needed for deep space missions is propellant, and if you refuel in space you can have a lunar, NEO-based, or even Martian space architecture with already-existing commercial rockets and modest upgrades of them.

The Augustine Report discusses fuel depots positively, and they would also provide a market for commercial rockets to increase their launch rate (and hence launch economy) by making propellant deliveries to orbit. Here's some handy links regarding propellant depots and how they can help enable sustainable beyond-LEO human spaceflight:

http://www.ulalaunch.com/docs/publications/PropellantDepots2009.pdf
http://selenianboondocks.com/wp-content/uploads/2009/07/Depot-Centric_Human_Spaceflight.pdf
http://selenianboondocks.com/category/propellant-depots/

Listen all that is well and nice but until we learn to build IN space in isn't gonna happen.A space Station is one thing but a orbital refueling platform looks good on paper but The technical difficulties of keeping it there and maintaining it in orbit isn't easy by any means. I looked at those plans from said links. No problem on paper.It all comes down to money or threat.. IN the 60's it was the threat of a "red moon" which trumped money. Since then its about getting as much bang for your buck as you can and albeit parked in LEO NASA hasn't done so bad.With Methuselah(STS) retiring and a new program in place.The question is, is that program taking us in the right direction? Funny thing is back in the day NASA laid out a plan.. Mercury,Gemini,Apollo with each new program and each new mission testing a new technology ON EVERY mission en route to the moon.No one questioned it baring the APOLLO 1 accident. Again, now there is no "red moon" its all about money.

I heartily agree with DBooker, and I'd add that we need single-stage reusable (in the sense that an airplane is reusable) nuclear rockets for surface-to-orbit transportation. Make your surface-to-orbit payload fraction a fifth of what it should be and, no matter how good your orbit-to-orbit ships are, you multiply the cost of every mission by five. An oversimplification, but not far off.

I think he's both right and wrong.
We need something better than traditional rockets. Barring that, We need something notably better than the rockets we've been using.

Going with a smaller launch system just to save a buck probably wont pay off when anyone else can launch a similar sized rocket for less than our government can. So the more efficient plan would either be to get something more capable or more usable.

"NASA isn't going to get to a deep space location in a capsule. Just as the ISS is able to be used for decades so should the next true spaceship. It should be built with new propulsion technology such as ion or plasma drive or at least a nuclear reactor."

Boy, you are right ! I keep hearing discussions about Flex Path, which I am convinced is the right way, but then I hear about using Orion capsules which can just about make it all the way to an NEO which I am sure is not the right way.

An ISS derived deep space vehicle is the way to go for many reasons, chief among them: keep developing and extending the knowledge and systems we have in work today. It should be an extended use vehicle that can be used for years and years; not a throwaway capsule.

For earth to LEO transit, if its a government vehicle, derive something based on our Shuttle knowledge; perhaps a scaled up X-37. Make it smaller and simpler and less expensive to operate than Shuttle, but don't throw away everything we've learned how to do in order to revert to the capsules of 40 years in the past.

If the commercial newspace companies can do it, let them develop some alternatives. We may have to be reliant on them for awhile.

"single-stage" -- bad idea
"reusable" -- maybe, but not clear.

There's a reason Shuttle, EELV, Delta II, Progress, Saturn V, etc. have all used staged launch: you get better payload mass to orbit than with SSTO. It's very simple. After you empty the first stage tanks, you don't want to hoist the empty tanks and structure up to orbit with you; that's very costly. So jettison it. And likewise with later stages.

Building a system ab initio for SSTO will dramatically increase launch pad mass for a given payload mass. And with all that extra mass on orbit, it will place much greater burdens on the engineering for reentry.

Once you accept that 90% of the launch pad mass will not (should not) reach orbit, and at best will descend by parachute, then reusable flight hardware makes less sense. Reliability of reused space hardware is hard to ensure when there's a rough splashdown and maybe a scorching reentry in every flight. It's even difficult with Shuttle. Spaceflight places much harder demands on the structure than aviation does, and is much more vulnerable to a little added structural mass. It's entirely reasonable that launch vehicle reuse has been limited to first stages, and that building new upper stages from scratch is usually cheaper than making them reusable.