backtop


Print E-mail del.icio.us 68 comment(s) - last by cguillemette.. on Aug 14 at 9:31 AM

Some NASA engineers working on competing rocket to the Ares-I

Some of the engineers who are working on the NASA Ares moon rocket leave the office in the evening and work on a new rocket that could be easier and safer to build.

The competing space effort, called Jupiter, is being worked on by 57 volunteer engineers and NASA employees.  The Ares team is made up of thousands of NASA engineers and government contractors, with one Ares project manager already dismissing the Jupiter design, saying it won't work.

Last fall, NASA took a look at the Jupiter design, and said it was a flawed plan that simply isn't feasible for real launches.  Until NASA offers a full review, however, workers who are on the Jupiter team are not ready to dismiss their work.

At least one Jupiter supporter has stepped forward to accuse NASA of trying to block information to help limit the success of the Jupiter project.

"Our concern is that by the time everyone figures this out, we will have destroyed our heavy-lift system," former NASA contractor and now supporter of Jupiter Steve Metschan told the Associated Press.   "At the end of the day, all we're asking for is an independent review of all this stuff."

The new design also could help NASA save $35 billion in development and manufacturing costs, at a time when NASA is struggling with budget issues.  NASA anticipates spending up to $230 billion to return to the moon over the next 20 years, with NASA already spending around $7 billion on Ares development.  

NASA officials said they take all proposals seriously, but they haven't found one that is able to compete with Ares.
 
The current generation NASA shuttle retires in 2010, and the Ares rocket won't be available until 2014 or 2015.  NASA research says there is a 65 percent chance of the Ares-I carrying the Orion spacecraft into space by March 2015.  NASA will have to rely on Russian shuttles and space capsules to get astronauts and food supplies up to the International Space Station (ISS).



Comments     Threshold


This article is over a month old, voting and posting comments is disabled

LOL
By dwalton on 7/16/2008 6:44:23 PM , Rating: 5
You know that the "Well, If you could really build a better rocket with 57 volunteers working part-time better than why does NASA need a team of a 1000 of your full time fully employed colleagues" mindset is in full effect and will undoubtly bias anyone who is persuading Congress and the president each year that billions in tax dollars are being fully and efficiently utilized.

If you did something for a 25 billions dollars in the 60s shouldn't the advancement of technology allow you recreate that experience at least at the same cost or cheaper 40 to 50 years later?

How much would it cost to recreate the same rockets and lander that were sent to the moon six times? I doubt that cost is anywhere what is cost in the 1960s. Taking that same technology and upgrading it with bigger and better safety and performance features shouldn't cost 230 billion dollars of today's money.




RE: LOL
By dwalton on 7/16/2008 6:48:23 PM , Rating: 4
additionally...

I bet if you commissioned NASA to build a Ford Model T you would have to sell it for a price of an Enzo to recoup costs.


RE: LOL
By lifeblood on 7/16/2008 7:05:50 PM , Rating: 5
NASA is building much of it based on current "off the shelf" technologies. For instance, the main part of the launch system (Aries) is basically an SRB from the shuttle. However, bear in mind that almost all the engineers who designed and built the Saturn rocket & Apollo spacecraft are now gone, taking their knowledge and experience with them. Because of that, NASA is going to have to relearn a few things.

But your still right, NASA is a government bureaucracy where thousands do the work of hundreds.


RE: LOL
By psychmike on 7/16/2008 8:10:27 PM , Rating: 3
Alas, last time I heard, very little of the new launch system will be off the shelf shuttle technology. Originally, they had planned on using the shuttle SRB for the manned flights but discovered that it doesn't offer adequate thrust so they went to a 5-segment design. Because of the way that solid motors work, it isn't simply a matter of bolting on another segment but changing and re-validating the solid fuel casting as well. Essentially, its a new rocket. Originally, they had planned on using a shuttle main engine for the second stage of the manned vehicle but then weren't sure about the air-start so decided to go with a new version of the Apollo engine. For the heavy lift vehicle, last time I heard, they were reconsidering the ET-derivative and instead going with a wider diameter tank.

Different handle, different head, but it's still Washington's axe I suppose.


RE: LOL
By KC7SWH on 7/17/2008 2:02:34 AM , Rating: 2
As far as I know it was simply a matter of bolting on another segment and ATK who builds the SRB has already test fired a 5 segment SRB some years ago.


RE: LOL
By FITCamaro on 7/17/2008 6:18:46 AM , Rating: 5
Any government employer is going to have some bloat. But that's because since today's political climate is so adverse to anything going wrong you have to have multiple layers of engineering, testing, validation, etc.

The people who say that if the accidents of Apollo happened today, the program would be canceled are right. Americans are so finicky about anything going wrong that they cry as to why an accident happened when so much money was spent. They don't understand the difficulties and dangers of space travel.

And a large portion of the people would rather that money be spent on handouts to them so they can be even lazier in their lives.


RE: LOL
By lifeblood on 7/17/2008 1:11:00 PM , Rating: 2
I so agree with your last statement. So few people understand how things we take for granted today are partially or fully derived by technology spearheaded by NASA (or other like agency). During the Apollo days it was $5 back for every 1$ spent on the space program. I doubt it's that high today but it's probably still good.


RE: LOL
By Some1ne on 7/16/2008 8:47:09 PM , Rating: 5
quote:
If you did something for a 25 billions dollars in the 60s shouldn't the advancement of technology allow you recreate that experience at least at the same cost or cheaper 40 to 50 years later?


It should, however you underestimate the impact of the bureaucracy that has slowly consumed NASA. For example, when the Columbia shuttle exploded, the entire fleet was grounded for over two year. By contrast, the Apollo program had its fair share of disasters and near disasters, but was never sidelined for nearly as long. When the first planned mission ended up killing the entire crew, it was only about 8 months before the next attempt, and when Apollo 13 almost ended in disaster, it was only 9 months until Apollo 14 launched. In today's climate you couldn't have something like that happen. In fact, the entire program would have probably been scrapped after the failure of Apollo 1, if it were all happening today.

NASA needs a good shake-up, and both they and the public need to be reminded that space exploration is risky business, and that sometimes things will go wrong. There will never be a foolproof way to send people out into space (or at least not for a long time yet), but as long as the astronauts going up give their informed consent, and as long as the NASA engineers are reasonably certain that things will work, there should be no other safety constraints allowed to prevent the program from pressing forward.


RE: LOL
By michael67 on 7/17/2008 5:43:38 AM , Rating: 5
Its everywhere Human live how precious it is is over rated

I work in the oil industry as a offshore piping foreman/supervisor and its getting grazier and grazier every year.

The safety and blame business has gotten a live of its own.
There are now hole HSE (Health Safety Environment) departments that are bigger then then the hole engineering departments in some companies.

Ware i would have done a job quick do to time pressure 25 years ago by bending the rules a little whit out doing it dangerous, and i would have gotten a pat on the back from management for doing a good quick job, i will get fired on the spot now a days.

2 examples from this year:

1. guy needs to cut a hole in grating to run new pipe thru it, he put up barrier tape to mark the spot he is working to keep others out, he cuts the hole in the grating, go's and gets the pipe that has to go thru it, when on the the spot walking backwards he steps in the hole by accident and cuts his leg, 6 stitches.
And for me 4 meetings how the hell this could have happened and about 12 hours of work and 8 hours traveling to office back and forward, i could have spend that time a lot better.
15 years ago it would have costed me 1 hour writing accident report and 15 min meeting over what had happened.

2. last trip i had to torque a flange whit a hydraulic torque machine, I dint had the right moment value and it was saturday afternoon so office was closed, so i did a assessment, calculating from other values i did had.
Some green brown nose operator i heard how i done it by overhearing what i told the lead operator, reported it to the head-office, i had to come to the office 2 times for what i had done and explain how i could have done something like that whit out the right table's.
It was that the platform manger backed me up otherwise i would have bin in trouble.
ps. i was off by less the 2%
20 years ago we dint had torque machines and did the same job whit sledgehammers and floggers (flogger is a spanner that you can hit whit a hammer)

I am not saying that everything should be done the same way as we did it 20 years ago, actually i think lot of the tings are a real improvement and the job got a lot safer.
But the ting is common sens has bin going out of the door and replaced by trying to make the rules idiot proof, the problem whit is there are always better idiots out there.
And people are following the rules instead of understanding them why they are there in the first place.
And if something is not covered by the rules its a great mixture for disaster.


RE: LOL
By murphyslabrat on 7/17/08, Rating: -1
RE: LOL
By Misty Dingos on 7/17/2008 12:52:49 PM , Rating: 2
In my industry (pharma) it is a negative. Yea try to have a meeting in English when for most of the room it is a second language. And everyone thinks they know the process better than the guy or gal sitting next to them.


RE: LOL
By ahodge on 7/17/2008 12:56:50 PM , Rating: 2
"managarial" Huh. So, maybe you're making a joke about his mis-spellings (quite poorly). Or, perhaps you are yourself, guilty of lacking "proper knowledge of the english written language". Regardless, your attempt to display your internet prowess has failed. Perhaps we can now carry on with legitimate discussion.


RE: LOL
By Misty Dingos on 7/17/2008 1:01:35 PM , Rating: 2
Now you makee the joke! Ha ha! You said legitimate discussion. ROFL

Jest wat web site you tink you at?


RE: LOL
By michael67 on 7/17/2008 3:23:58 PM , Rating: 2
In the operational layer there are not a lot of people that are part of the language Stasie.
And they apritiate my know how more and understand that i have dysorthographie problem and have no problem whit it, as long as its understandeble what i am writing.

And if i have to write a report that has to go to the management level, i just send my report to the office and have it spellchecked by a secretary and she will send it 5min later back to me.

But its always easy to attack some one's weak points, gives you a nice Uber-feeling doesn't it?


RE: LOL
By Murst on 7/18/2008 3:20:37 AM , Rating: 3
As long as you keep oil from spilling and people are not getting hurt on the job, it wouldn't make a difference to me if you wrote your reports in Klingon. :)


RE: LOL
By bohhad on 7/18/2008 9:43:08 AM , Rating: 2
its the interweb, you jerk. english is not everyone's primary language


RE: LOL
By always on 7/16/2008 9:51:41 PM , Rating: 2
25 billion in 1960 is approximately 175 billion today using an inflation calculator. but i'm sure that funding is also going towards other projects, that in essence will give us higher quality instrumentations. in the 60s it was simply a race to get us there... now its get us there and find out whats there.


RE: LOL
By Seemonkeyscanfly on 7/17/2008 3:11:35 PM , Rating: 2
You nailed what I was going to say, "price tag really is about the same."
I did not look into to it, however, I bet the amount paid to the average worker at NASA is higher today then in the 60's (after time value of money adjustments are made).


RE: LOL