Why We Need Better Rockets
Well, it looked spectacular.
I'm referring to NASA's recent launch of the Ares 1-X, billed as the prototype of the Ares 1 as a crew launch vehicle, a fancy term for a manned space booster. The rocket is said to have performed as planned, and ushered in the era of the Ares rockets to replace the Space Shuttle next year. Only it won't. In fact, the much-hyped Ares 1-X was much ado about nothing.
Yes, the rocket that thundered aloft from NASA's Launch Pad 39B sure looked like an Ares 1. But that's where the resemblance stops. Turns out the solid booster was - literally - bought from the Space Shuttle program, since a five-segment booster being designed for Ares wasn't ready. So they put a fake can on top of the four-segmented motor to look like the real thing. Since the real Ares' upper stage rocket engine, called the J-2X wasn't ready either, they mounted a fake upper stage. No Orion capsule was ready, so - you guessed it - they mounted a fake capsule with a real-looking but fake escape rocket that wouldn't have worked if the booster had failed. Since the guidance system for Ares wasn't ready either they went and bought a unit from the Atlas rocket program and used it instead. Oh yes, the parachutes to recover the booster were the real thing -- and one of the three failed, causing the booster to slam into the ocean too fast and banging the thing up. So, why you might ask, if the whole machine was a bit of slight-of-hand rocketry did NASA bother to spend almost half a billion dollars (that's billion with a "b") in developing and launching the Ares 1-X?
The answer: politics.
Technical problems, the kind that follow every new rocket's development, have haunted the Ares like leftovers from Halloween. The rocket as currently designed shakes so much during launch that shock absorbers are needed beneath its capsule payload. All of this takes time to fix -- and money, money that NASA really doesn't have. To stave off critics, three years ago the Project Constellation managers conceived of the 1-X flight to supposedly show some progress. They could instrument the rocket with hundreds of sensors gathering information never before obtained during a booster use in a Shuttle mission. It would give the launch team some practice in the assembly of an Ares. And NASA would find out if something as ungainly as the Ares 1 design - a thicker top than the bottom booster - could survive during ascent through the Earth's atmosphere. Of course, all of the changes to the Shuttle launch pad to accommodate the Ares wouldn't be ready in time, so they decided to just leave all of the Shuttle hardware, such as the rotating tower that envelops the Shuttles there. A success might just buy more time for Ares to fix its problems.
And that's just what happened.
Meanwhile, the huge Ares V super booster is just a series of drawings. Unlike the plan used to send Neil Armstrong, Mike Collins and me to the Moon in 1969, whereby we used just one rocket to lift all of the elements of our Apollo spaceships, the current return-to-the-Moon plan requires not one rocket but two-one launch of an Ares 1 carrying the astronauts in the Orion capsule, and an Ares V lifting a big upper stage, a sort of space tug, and the lunar landing craft called Altair. Together, the two ships dock in orbit and then the tug, called the Earth Departure Stage, fires up for the outbound trip to the Moon. Two rockets in development; two launching systems. And two price tags. Two ways for failure to occur. Or delays to develop.
Worse yet, neither rocket alone can accomplish a deep space mission. And deep space, such as Mars is, as our friends in the recent Augustine report stated, our destination in space. These rockets were originally supposed to all be derivatives of the Space Shuttle-using four segment boosters and Shuttle engines - but the designs were changed to save money and development time. Neither of which has proven to be the case today. Our Augustine panel colleagues stated flatly that some new heavy lift rocket would be needed no matter which direction President Barack Obama chose for the space program. But Ares 1 is too small, barely able to lift the crew space capsule. And Ares V is too weak to boost all of the elements together.
What do we need? One rocket for all our deep space missions. Save the taxpayer's money by canceling the Ares 1 and V. And go "back to the future" in designing the big beast. So how do we get to the space station without Ares 1? Let the commercial space firms develop their own crew launchers, and crew vehicles. Why should Uncle Sam be in the people hauling business?
Here's my plan -- and yes, I am a rocket scientist -- cancel Ares 1 now and the version of the Orion capsule that is supposed to fly astronauts back and forth to the International Space Station. Instead, unleash the commercial sector by paying them for transportation services to the station. Could be capsules. Could be winged ships like the Space Shuttle, capable of flying back to a runway with its crews and cargoes, not splashing in the ocean like a cannonball. With the money saved, start developing a true heavy lifter worthy of the Saturn V's successor. Could be a side-mount rocket like the Shuttles, with a tank-and-booster set flanked by a payload pod jammed full of cargo-or a space capsule with astronauts in tow. Or new upper stages capable of deep space missions. Let's open 'er up to a true competition, with designs from inside -- and outside -- NASA. If we bypass a foolish Moon race and let the development of the Moon be an international affair, we will have time to refine the super booster to make sure it is compatible with our deep space goals, like missions flying by comets or asteroids -- or to the moons of Mars. Such a rocket would be ready when the time comes to colonize Mars. No more false starts and dead end rockets.
Maybe use innovative elements like new upper stage engines, or entirely new propulsion systems. Or designs truly evolved from the Shuttle era. The idea is to get the best thinking from rocketeers before we start spending Uncle Sam's space bucks.
I confess I have a design in mind that I and my team have worked on for years. It's called Aquila, and it is a true offspring of the Space Shuttle. It makes maximum use of the existing Shuttle infrastructure -- unlike the real Ares -- and Shuttle boosters, engines and the side-mounted design where today the winged orbiter rides into space. If we need bigger rocket engines, Boeing's RS-68 behemoth is always available, flight proven and flight tested aboard the Delta IV commercial launchers. You see, heavy lifting doesn't need to be heavy spending, if we do the job right.
But let the designers take the field-and may the best booster win. To paraphrase David Letterman, we don't need any stupid rocket tricks. Just good sound engineering. For without good new rockets to carry our payloads and crews, nobody is ever going to follow in Neil, Mike and my footsteps into deep space. And that's where we are destined to go.
Follow Buzz Aldrin on Twitter: www.twitter.com/therealbuzz
Buzz Aldrin: Mr. President, Will You Lead Us to Greatness in Space?
It is time we sailed the sea of space once more in a bold, expansive space vision. To achieve such a goal we need strong leaders, for to sustain a growing and momentous effort in space requires that we reject a defeatist mentality.
NASA May Drop Ares I-Y Test Flight | International Space Fellowship
NASA's Ares 1-X Vs. the World's Tallest Rockets
Loading comments…
Want to reply to a comment? Hint: Click "Reply" at the bottom of the comment; after being approved your comment will appear directly underneath the comment you replied to
Until we do away with religion and money, humanity will never collectively do what it takes for any substantial travel of the solar system and beyond by humans. We hold ourselves back.
I am amazed by the amount of materials we extract and create from the earth. There apparently is a lot of it, but I doubt enough to sustain the inefficient method of chemical rockets.
Before thinking about lofting any more rockets into space, Buzz, we had better get a handle on, and start conserving, the finite resources here on Earth. The rising consumption curve is going to intersect with the depletion curve any time now, if it hasn't already. Because of this, if we keep going the way we are, depletion will keep us from massively converting to conservation and sustainability. And, considering the physics involved, no amount of increasing space consumption will garner sufficient resources from other bodies in space to make up the difference.
We have the technology, the time is now, we must blow up the moon.
I've been saying for years that NASA needs to be dismanted and privatized. There are too many pigs at the trough wasting taxpayer money continuusly providing antiquated technologs at grossly overpriced rates with no noticable advancement in rocket technology or any technology for that matter. It's pathetic how sub-par the space program has become.
The Russian's say they can build a nuclear powered craft for $650B by 2013. We can't build a replacement space shuttle with an Ares rocket for that price, primarily because of the $10,000 hammer issues from the same old contractors. It's a game of who's pockets are going to get lined, not the acheivement of real technological goals.
Sad.
Riiiight. I have a time machine in my back yard, too, and I'm best friends with George Washington.
Instead of believing everything that's said, let's look at Russia's recent history. Did you know their Phobos Grunt mission was recently delayed because of technical problems? Or that their Anagara rocket, the successor to the Soyuz, was just delayed today because Russia has cut back funds for launch pad construction? If they can't complete ordinary projects on time without funding issues, you really think they can do this in four years? Spending 30 years of NASA's budget in just 4? C'mon.
Yep, it's politics, but from the viewpoint of an engineer. From the viewpoint of the politicians, it's a risk. The engineer doesn't get funding unless the politician approves of the engineering.
The problem is that the engineering thought process (or the scientific method, for that matter) is straightforward and verifiable. Political thought is an oxymoron to an engineer.
The politician needs to avoid risk. After all, something bad happened a while back. Might not get reelected.
This, of course, is a big insult to the engineering profession. So the engineer bites his tongue. A big, noisy, prototype with zillions of instruments on it is built. This will show the politician that the design is ok. The number will prove it.
But politicians don't do numbers. They make them up and assume that everyone else does, too.
The engineers don't get enough money, so they suggest that the risky things that scare the politicians, like the manned missions, should be offloaded to the private sector. That mitigates a lot of the fear from the politicians.
The politicians refuse to give money to the private sector. The private sector can't do it without a guarantee. So we're back where we started.
NASA is like a dinosaur. It is like using incandescent bulbs instead of more efficient CFLs or even LED's or cold-cathode lights. It's propulsion systems are as ancient as and not much better than century's old Chinese firecrackers. NASA needs to be replaced by a precursor to StarFleet Academy. :-)
A question for Mr. Aldrin: How many folks are researching more exotic propulsion systems like ion, solar wind, magnetic, "warp drive", etc? What is the current status of such research?
Solar Sail: Planetary Society Plans Sunlight-Propelled Spacecraft
http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2009/11/10/solar-sail-planetary-soci_n_352087.html
You mean like the VASMIR engine that NASA is helping to develop?
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Variable_Specific_Impulse_Magnetoplasma_Rocket
If I understand correctly, the old Saturn rockets were quite good. It is not clear how the Ares is a superior design. Can somebody who has knowledge of these offer some insight?
Infrastructure for Saturn V no longer exists. We could rebuild it if we really needed to, but the amount of money involved would be a lot. More than NASA currently gets
F this noise, get the space elevator done. Screw the moon and mars, there's just rocks there. THe space elevator can make space and orbit cheap and space stations will become feasible and not 20 year bajillion dollar projects
That would require a HUGE investment and techology that doesn't even exist yet, so... not today.
the guy is a national icon but is way too obsessed with going to mars instead of the moon.
they are both good ideas. Just because we have been to the moon doesn't mean we shouldn't go back. And the moon would be a good place to test out the equipment that would be used to go to Mars.
And they didn't destroy the blueprints for the Saturn V, its all on microfilm.
Also, there is no rush. I know he probably wants to see a Mars mission before he dies but it probably won't happen.
He doesn't want to go to Mars. He prefers the flexible path of the report of the Augustine Commission. That means to visit deep space locations like asteroids and lagrange points. Its more about getting some experience of travelling and living in deep space than to land in a permament location (like the moon or mars). Mars is the ultimate goal, but not in the near future.
Mars is the express goal of the Augustine Commission as well....but long term, not now. Which I believe is also Aldrin's view. Mars will only be in the lifetime of those under 20, imo.
I get the impression that the U.S.A. can't do anything right anymore.
We can't educate our kids.
We can't maintain, let alone fix, our infrastructure.
We can't talk to other nations to resolve differences, we prefer to bomb them, and then occupy them.
We can't rescue our own drowning people after a hurricane.
We encourage modern day pirates to destroy our mortgage, banking, and investment systems.
And, it looks like the glory days of the U.S. space program are in the past. Most recently, we have lost entire Space Shuttle crews because a chunk of ice knocked a hole in the heat shield during lift off, and because of a poorly designed O-ring system.
An engineer in Mexico told me that they have a saying down there, that NASA now stands for "Need Another Seven Astronauts."
I remember as a boy growing up in the Fifties seeing the wondrous pictures in LIFE Magazine of a planet that American scientists would colonize and turn into a glorious eden, an ever-verdant paradise for all mankind. It was the planet Earth.
Then 25 years ago I saw the same pitch for Mars. Not holding my breath. Let's use the resources to patch up what a mess we've made here.
Personally, while I agree with you that the Ares 1 is a dog - in dogs clothing; and I too think that the mission of the Ares 5 would be better accomplished - and done so for less - by the Jupiter Groups proposal; and they're rocket scientists too - while I'm just a humble 'lay-polymath', with a physical disability (some one, a certain USAF SSgt and KKK who my Mom - that's MRS. CMSgt., to you! - got Court Marshalled, amongst them, got me labeled 'crazy' and 'held back in school' - to mess with me; anyhoo), I too have a 'plan' - and it too involes Private Industry.
Look at the price tag on the Falcon - 1 or 9; they're both very, very cheap.
NOW - why did you guys go to all that trouble, in the Gemini Program, learning to link up those Gemini Capsules with those spent Agenea booster, if you're going to INSIST on shoving EVERYTHING into ONE ROCKET?!?
Wouldn't it be better to launch 10 - or even a 100 - Falcon 9's; and then make a REAL LEO-to-LS (Low Earth Orbit to Lunar Surface) Shuttlecraft/Tugboat/Cargohauler?
One that could, you know, haul some proper ROBOTS (been readin ya, in "Earth" Buzz) - like a TBM (Tunnel Boring Machine), Machine Tools, Mirrors, Crucibles, etc. - so we can smelt Metallic Ores on site, etc..
One that would be reusable - to fly from LEO to LS thousands of times; being 're-cargoed' by dozens or
Do you have a refrigerator?
If so, then you are among the wealthiest 8% of this planet's population. You have possessions that even kings and emperors could not own until recently.
It makes no sense for anyone here to complain about spending money on advanced technologies when every single one of us are among the privileged minority already enjoying such advances... yes, even while so many on this planet are struggling to survive with far less than ourselves.
With the population climbing at an ever-increasing rate, this planet is not going to be able to sustain us all indefinitely. (In fact, only technology has made it possible for this many people to live even at subsistence level--and many others do not even have that.)
We're not going to raise the standard of living of the poor by lowering our own... instead we need considerably more resources if we want rising standards of living for everyone.
The resources have to come from somewhere, so unless you want to turn this planet into one vast stripmine, you better think seriously about supporting space development. (Including that "dirty word"... exploitation.)
Unless you want to tell 92% of the people on Earth they cannot have what you have.
This week's Economist has a cover story about falling population growth and it said it would actually level off by the year 2050. So much for Malthus....
From the state of the earth WE can't have what we have...unless there is a whole lot less of us.
At least Alternative Propulsion systems are mentioned as a possibility (someday.) But better rockets? It's like saying why don't we build more efficient combustion engines? This is no longer the 1940's, so let's stop pretending that rockets and combustion and burning fuel are the trends of the future. There are many scientists already doing amazing experiments with anti-gravity and other such "new physics" type projects that incorporate working "theory of everything" models. We know about torsion and hyperdimensional physics and quantum mechanics, and frankly, we don't need better rockets, we need to stop pretending like rockets will get us anywhere new or are worth spending our time and money on developing.
NASA, Never A Straight Answer. By the way, what about that moon water? Or are they still "analyzing the data"?
Nothing personal, Mr. Aldrin.
You got any reputable links regarding those "amazing experiments with anti-gravity"?
As far as the LCROSS results, there's a briefing scheduled for Friday:
http://www.nasa.gov/home/hqnews/2009/nov/HQ_M09-215_LCROSS_briefing.html
which you didn't hear about because it's not as sexy as crashing a rocket. Sorry about that, it's just the way science works.
But if you're really curious about whether there's water on the moon, we already know that there is:
http://www.nightskyobserver.com/water-molecules-discovered-on-the-moon.php -- it appears as an extremely thin "dew" during the lunar night. During the lunar day, it evaporates immediately, which means the water molecules bounce off the surface... and a little more everyday (we believe) gets added to the ice at the bottoms of craters where sunshine never reaches.
I'm guessing superconductivity is the anti gravity, but we need artificial gravity - the exact opposite. The early space program resulted in a myriad of technological advances that have been applied throughout civilization. Of late that has not been the case. The focus has been too much on pure science and it has not produced any meaningful help for general applications. The creation of the universe is interesting but understanding it doesn't translate into anything substantively meaningful or valuable. Its not advancing our lives.
Space Elevator more efficient than any rocket, if we want to take space seriously.
But we cannot have a space elevator without first using rockets to put an enormous amount of infrastructure into geosynch orbit.
(Besides still being a couple decades from having the tech to build one, of course.)
Carbon nano-fibers (tubes - a derivative of the Bucky ball) are thought to be strong enough to hold their own weight from a geosynch orbit. Thus far the longest lengths we've created are measured in microns - we need miles. Everything else we'd need for an elevator could be produced now. Launching a geosych satellite with dual cables on board is not that hard. One cable is lowered to earth while the other is extended away from it with a counterweight and small engine to keep it geosynchronous even tho its beyond the naturally geosych zone. Each of the early platforms raised to position would be designed to stay up there and form a gradually expanding space station. It's not necessary to do that in advance. Each platform would be like a single piece of candy in a candy bracelet. The final arrangement is a circular tube of interconnected platforms that spin to create artificial gravity.
You must be logged in to comment. Log in or connect with
