Comments on: Piecing together NASA's Ares I rocket

CNET News' Daniel Terdiman is the first reporter to see the completed solid rocket booster designed for future missions to the moon, and maybe Mars.

[Harlan879]

Good article, except that you missed *all* of the concern and controversy regarding the Ares I. The solid fuel that you so nicely describe has a problem, which is that it causes the rocket to vibrate intensely as it fires. In the shuttle, the solid boosters are only a small part of the system, and so the vibration doesn't affect the crew or cargo much. But with the Ares I project, it does. NASA is having to spend huge amounts of time and money to put giant shock absorbers in the rocket, delaying it, reducing its capability, and increasing its cost. In fact, the Ares I-X test rocket that's supposed to fly later this year may not be allowed to launch by the Air Force, because the self-destruct system could be disabled by the vibrations! And that's just for a test!

NASA is currently undergoing a review of Ares/Constellation to see if the current plans are viable, or if alternatives may be better. The best guess of people outside the program is that Ares I is unlikely to ever fly.

[wizard9784]

IMHO, there are too many issues with the overall chosen Constellation program architecture. I don't believe Ares I will ever fly due to all of the safety and performance concerns. There is just no money to build Ares V. The Augustine Commission will certainly recommend we go with other alternatives.

The money we've spent on Ares I already is water under the bridge. Get rid of the stick and build a realistic architecture that is economic, sustainable, and can be evolved.

[majortom321]

That is one great looking rocket motor ready to be test fired. Sure is a huge milestone for the advancement of space and human space flight. To be able to actually test an Ares I motor receive all the data they must be getting from a test of this caliber will pay huge dividends for the program as a whole. To be able to test it on schedule unlike many of the so-called competitiors to the Ares rocket. This is truly amazing to see such hard work done in such a short time span. Kind of like the good old days of the Apollo, which celebrates a major anniversary this month seems quite fitting to be testing the future and celebrating the past all in one summer! Way to go NASA great work do not mind the skeptics they had their turn six years ago in front of congress and they lost then and might and right will win again. The stick will fly and it will advance us into the outer reaches of our imaginations!!

[scdecade]

So after 50 years of throwing resources down the NASA money pit the best plan they can come up with to launch people into space is to strap them to a giant solid rocket booster?!? NASA should be cancelled immediately and the money should be returned to the taxpayers. A solid rocket boost cannot be throttled back so what good is the "escape tower" going to do? They're best effort is to strap poor suckers to a bomb and hope it blow up the right way... Ugh, this is pathetic. After 50 years the best they can come up with is a return to the moon using the identical mission profile as Apollo?!? Ugh, pathetic. NASA is hapless and hopeless.

[MJDavis68]

This may shock you; but the shuttle has been launching people into space on solid rocket boosters for decades. Using heritage of a human-rated program (Apollo and Shuttle) and transferring the knowledge to the Ares program, increases safety, saves costs and provides mission reliability and SUCCESS. The hardware is being developed (not a PowerPoint make-believe rocket) and it will fly - to do otherwise is telling our astronaut corps that their safety is of no concern. This nation needs to venture back to the moon and beyond and NASA?s Constellation system is the way to get there.

[MagiMamoru]

Even with the burn through with Challenger's explosion, the booster did not blow up until after NASA set explosive charges on both solid boosters to protect the local populations.

[scdecade]

Um, the space shuttle has killed a lot of people (about 5% or something like that). That's a terrible record compared to Apollo. NASA is just going in the wrong direction and it has been for a LONG time. The shuttle has been an admitted disaster. Even NASA admits the shuttle was a ruinous disaster. So to hold that up as the candle of achievement is ridiculous. The tiles on the shuttle caused failure and the o-rings on the solid boosters caused failure. But regardless from a common sense architectural point of view it doesn't make sense to launch humans into space on solid boosters which can't be throttled down. There are also the vibration issues mentioned above which may be technically solvable but will further delay the program and likely degrade the operational capabilities of the booster. As it is the US is looking at at least a 4 year window in which it will not have the capability to launch humans into space. This is why NASA has contracted with the Russians to launch astronauts to ISS. So how can NASA excuse losing the ability to launch humans into space for 4 years (well, government years so multiply by your own fudge factor)? They're budget is like $16B per year. That's a sad travesty of waste and mismanagement. I'm sorry but I'm fascinated by space technology and exploration but NASA has no business remaining an ongoing entity. Tax breaks and industry support with testing and analytical capabilities should be step 1. But we've got to hold NASA to some sort of standard because it's incredible that the US won't be able to launch people into space anymore. I've been following this saga for too long to hope for some sort of reversal. If anything, it's getting worse because Orion and Ares are poorly conceived and expensive. In NASA years that's at least a 40 year program too. Just end it.

[woernrg]

From your lack of facts and your ugh, writing I can only assume you lied about the 13 year old age limit. To scrap the ARES program after invest several years into it would doom the U.S. to ride on the Russioan fleet for at least 10 years. You act like $16B a year is a hugh sum of money when in fact it is onl 1/10 of 1 cent of each tax dollar collected in this country. The benefits that have come from the space program have helped the entire world and all you can say is we are going backward. Try some facts rather than just your opinion (or something like that).

[puggus]

Great argument....Let me guess, you're part of the Obama plan, lay everyone off and live off the government. To make the above statements you just made demonstrates how ignorant you are about all the vital knowledge that we've gained because of our legacy in space........go visit with all your liberal friends on your My Space account.

[evilgenius2269]

I would like to comment on the reliability of Apollo v STS. First, we must look at the launch vehicle rather than the program. The Saturn V took a total of 36 people into space on 12 launches, and one failed ground test that killed 3. Those were on missions 7, 8, 9, 10, 11, 12, 13, 14, 15, 16, 17, and Skylab-1. There were 3 further missions to Skylab on Saturn 1-B launch platforms. STS has had to date 126 successful launches and has the 127th planned for tomorrow. STS has carried approximately 763 people into space (counted on wikipedia) and has lost 14. That means that the Saturn platform has a 92.3% live return rate and STS has a 98.2 live return rate. If you want to argue that Apollo 1 should not count, think about this: STS-1 was the first test flight of the shuttle and the only space vehicle to carry people on its maiden voyage. I think NASA is taking a step backward by getting rid of the shuttle, but expendable capsules are less expensive to operate. I also think that NASA is doing the right thing by making a small manned platform and a large heavy-lift platform. I think it will make going to the ISS much less expensive if all you are carrying is what is going there, while the Aries V will carry much larger objects. It's like designing something that exactly fits the need. I think this new generation of spacecraft is what is practical and can be done on a budget.
The next argument is against the "best plan they can come up with is a giant solid booster?!?". Why not? Solids are reliable and can be throttled based on a pre-determined thrust curve. if you look at the STS missions, the launches are planned down to less than a half second during the launch, so a thrust curve that fits the mission is not hard to calculate and implement. This also removes some human error because the solid motor can be checked while on the ground and changed if necessary. In fact, on STS, the SSME's are not the only thing to throttle back. The current SRB's have a "lack-of-thrust", if you will, built into the thrust curve. Not coincidentally, this reduction and subsequent increase in thrust happens around the same time as the SSME thrust change. Furthermore, a solid rocket is simpler, and thus more reliable because there are fewer things that can go wrong. Now one could argue that the SSME is a liquid rocket engine and is very reliable, and in fact it is. One SSME has been shut down once in flight, but it was later determined that a sensor went bad and that the engine was performing exactly as designed. However, if you look at any machine, like a car, what fails first, the engine or the frame? And which one has moving parts? The SSME is also taken apart and inspected every time it is flown so that every launch is basically on a new engine.
As for the "same mission profile as Apollo", again I ask why not? The problem was inspected back in the 60's, and they found a solution that worked. I happen to know that different mission profiles have been examined and more profiles are currently being looked at to ensure that we really have the best one, and that same basic template really stands out as being able to get the most mass to the moon. If you or anyone has a better idea with mass and time estimates, please share.
Finally, when the US switched from the Saturn platform to STS, the U.S. did not have a manned space flight vehicle from 1973 to 1979. That's 6 years in the middle of the Cold War vs. 4 years now when U.S. leadership in space is almost unchallenged. In fact when the transition occured, the last launch on a Saturn-1B was on May 14, 1973, and the first ready-for-flight shuttle arrived at KSC on March 25, 1979 but did not launch until April 12, 1981. The first several launches were test flights and the first 4 launches of the new STS were for R&D on the shuttle. The first operational launch had a payload of two commercial communications satellites and was launched on November 11, 1982. That means we had no operational manned space flights for almost 10 years during the Cold War compared to 4 years now.

[k9jdk]

Nice article (again). During the late 60s when I was in Huntsville AL I got to see a static test of the second, not the first, stage of the Saturn rocket that took us to the moon. Several diesel locomotives were used to pump water in the blast pit and the concrete base the rocket was mounted on was lifted out of the ground several feet and had to be "put back" after each test. Lots of water - lots of noise - lots of fire.

Can't imagine what this new one will do. They'd better hold 'er down good !! :)

[rafe]

As much of a challenge it will be to get back to the moon, where we last set foot 40 years ago, I fear it will not be challenge *enough*. I don't see it inspiring a generation of children to become engineers and astronauts, nor do we need radical new science to get there. And if there's no scientific, economic, or cultural payback, why go? Let's leave the moon to other nations to explore, and let them play catch-up with us, rather than participating in an inconsequential space race back to a place we've already been, that we may well lose. The moon distracts us from bigger and more important challenges.

We should head straight to Mars. The moon man says so: http://www.popularmechanics.com/science/air_space/4322647.html

[Len Bullard]

Sorry Rafe, but that's no good. The Moon is high ground. I think you aren't seeing the big picture that drives our return to the Moon. It is defense, not science.

[scorpiusUT]

Sure we were there before, but I don't believe we've learned everything we need to know about the moon in the <300 hrs total we spent on the surface, with no mission EVA longer than a 22 hrs. This time the plans are to go to the moon and stay there and make multi-day excursions in rovers, and set up habitats and science modules, and provide our own power while there. We'll learn plenty about how survive in a hostile environment while learning tons of new science, and the astronauts will enjoy knowing that they have anytime return capability to Earth in case something goes wrong. The journey to Mars is over 6 months long. Gotta crawl before we walk.

[fgwgner]

Hay scdecade so what are you are saying is let the private sector to take over the space program. If we do that we might get back to the space station within 20 years. Hell the fully privately funded space project that is space ship one which is just reached sub orbital flight and that was back in 2004 and they haven't been off the ground sense then and when they tested their engine for their new spacecraft it blew up and all of this is so they can fly rich tourests to space they don't care about the sientific exploration of space they only care about profit

[b_baggins]

Typical. One: Profit is not evil. Two: All major exploration throughout history was driven by the quest for profit. Three: the private space industry is floundering because of strangulating regulation. Four: the answer to cheap space travel is staring us in the face and it's called nuclear power. Five: We are so terrified of our own shadow that four will never happen. Six: As a result, we will continue to waste money and ridiculous and meaningless space missions.

[Len Bullard]

There is a critical engineering gap between sub-orbital ballistic flights and orbital flights. Burt Rutan stated publicly when questioned about this at an appearance at Moontown Airport after he won the prize that he would not attempt orbital flight until he knew how to do it safely and reliably and he didn't. SpaceShipOne is not a design for orbital flight.

Solve the shielding problems for nuclear engines, baggins, and you might be able to use that, but so far mass to orbit and thrust don't work. It isn't exactly a new idea. Marshall spent a lot of tax dollars on that one without a solution.

Range safety systems were not the cause of the Challenger explosion. The failure of the o-ring created a torch that burned through the rear strut. The engine pivoted out and pierced the tank at the front. If you like, run the video tape in slow motion and analyze the colors. The cause of the Challenger disaster was politics at Marshall where managers did not have the balls to inform Reagan he couldn't give his speech to the Teacher In Space, so instead, he had to give an obituary. We had never launched under icing conditions and we damm well knew not to do it.

One thing these comments reveal: we absolutely have failed to maintain good science and history programs in our secondary school systems. OTOH, there is a lot of snark and politics. It seems the only thing improving is our typing skills.

[Gantra]

I agree with Len Bullard. Many of the comments are surprisingly uninformed. The Constellation program is an excellent program. It was very well conceived and addresses the problems and shortcomings of the Shuttle program and gets NASA back on track to accessing the moon and other planets in the most simple and economical way possible.

Goto the NASA page on Constellation to learn actual facts about the program:

http://www.nasa.gov/mission_pages/constellation/main/index.html

1) The Constellation program will go forward, will fly and it will be a success. Constellation is built on the best of the extremely successful Apollo program and elements from the shuttle program all in an effort to drive costs down and maintain very high reliability and safety for the crew.

2) The supposed problem regarding vibration in the solid rocket booster is a nonevent for the overall Constellation program. Vibration is actually a problem with all rockets and can be dealt with via any number of engineering solutions. Solving technical issues like this is what engineers are paid for.

The review was ordered by the Obama Administration as is the custom when a new administration takes over (The Defense Dept. completed reviews of all of their programs too). After all the "alternatives" are evaluated, NASA will continue on the course they have set. With all programs, you will have detractors who naysay and second guess to their deathbed. This program is no different.

3) As for the Shuttle program, it was a success in many ways and an incredible engineering accomplishment. But it did not live up to the original hopes because of the enormous expense of preparing the vehicle for each launch. Though two shuttles and two crews were lost, the sad thing is that it really wasn't the shuttle's fault these events happened. It was NASA's program management that resulted in these avoidable catastrophes. The Challenger was launched on a very cold morning that violated NASA's own launch rules due largely to an atmosphere of political pressure from Washington to launch more frequently. The Columbia was lost after foam created a hole in the wing during launch and the NASA safety manager refused to allow any sort of attempt to allow satellite assets in orbit or the crew to examine the wing before returning to earth. Better safe than sorry apparently wasn't part of the NASA credo at the time. The shuttle certainly doesn't deserve the blame.

I plan on going to Florida to watch the last Shuttle launch. It was a great system and may well be the last of its kind for many years.

With the Constellation program, NASA is now back on track at doing what it does best, pushing the boundaries of human spaceflight and doing things that can't be done by the private sector. Going to the moon and later Mars is fantastic and will excite people of all ages for decades to come.

[woernrg]

Bravo Len and Gantra very informed comments. Nasa remains on track by using the best and least expensive method available. The return to the moon could be seen as the building block to make the jump to Mars.

[Brad Hansen]

Asbestos is not a "poisonous material" ? it's a carcinogenic material. And even then only if the small, fibrous asbestos crystals are in the air and you breath them in. I.e., you can touch asbestos without getting skin cancer, it only seems to cause cancer after those crystals have been lodged in lung tissue for decades.

[woernrg]

Thanks for the informative article and the chance to see the comments of some well informed as well as not so informed people.