Ares I Retained

[fasquardon]

A "multi-cultural and linguistic" visitor's center that had a grand-opening and then was shuttered and never used. Yep, that was a removal of funding by Congress from certain line-items, (IIRC one was the TransHab project) and transferred to that project which had not been originally budgeted by NASA. Once the place was built NASA was not given an increase in operating funding to cover use and maintenance on the structure so was unable to use it even if they had wanted to. (They didn't)

That's the one! I'd really been looking forward to seeing how TransHab progressed...

What they DID manage to hide was a lot of the costs and differences between the ICBM and the LV versions of the Titan. The general details were know, they just weren't advertised much and the costs, while higher than the 'standard' Titan were kept 'reasonable' by transferring some costs to the Titan II maintenance budget. Part of the reason the USAF proposed and pushed a "Titan" future for NASA was to rope them into under-writing the costs of the current and future planned Titan LV's which NASA was adamant, (for several good reasons) about avoiding. Even when the Shuttle was decided upon the Air Force tried to keep Titan alive in various concepts up to and including a 'booster' segment for high-payload polar missions based on Titan engines and torroid tank systems.

Huh. Wow. You know, I'd thought that that NASA opposition to Titan and Titan-derived hardware was half "not big enough rocket" and half "not our rocket". While I was a bit suspicious about the prices being quoted for the Titan in the mid 60s, I had thought it was just the same level of slippery accounting that NASA used (NASA's practice of charging most of their fixed costs to the "program of record" in this period, which so far as I am aware they still do, makes actually working out the costs of individual launches a bit of a pain, as does the unclear way prices are sometimes given as being for "launch" sometimes and just "for the hardware" other times).

Every seen the launch video's for the "Botany Bay" from STII? The booster cluster is based on one of the clusters from that study though it assumes Shuttle-SRB's and omits the actual 'staging' that would occur on such a launch.

I don't remember that sequence from the actual movie. I am guessing it looked a bit like this:

Even if we ignore all the above 'incentives' when ATK bought Thiokol they literally now had 95% of the US solid rocket motor production in their hands. (And if you think the government didn't notice you'd be wrong but then again despite DoD complaints over the matter no body did anything about the situation) Now maybe if "someone" in the DoD gets enough political ears around 1995 when ATK purchased the SRB and gunpowder segments of Hercules they can possibly provide an 'incentive' for Orbital to merge with Thiokol and the Alcoa divisions, (then known as Alcoa Industrial Components) but it took $2.9 million dollars from ATK in 2001 to get them from Alcoa so I'm not sure Orbital could afford the price and there doesn't seem to be much incentive for a merger at that point?

Still if AIC and Orbital merge in 1995, (Orbital AIC maybe?) that gives them enough time to get things settled that when the 2005 Ares 1 concept comes up they've had about a decade to really look at the Shuttle SRM and figure out what they can do with it...

Looking at Orbital's wikipedia page, it looks like the main stages that Orbital were using in the 90s were all manufactured by ATK as well. Maybe a necessary PoD for Orbital acquiring/merging with Thiokol would need to be Thiokol being an important supplier for Orbital? But did Thiokol offer the sort of small solid stages that Orbital was using at the time?

Though that does make me wonder what would happen if Hercules had been Orbital's major supplier, leading to a merger of those companies in the mid 90s. Looks like Hercules had products in the right sort of class (it produced the upper stage for the Minuteman, the Polaris and the Poseidon, as well, of course, as the fancy Titan IV boosters.

fasquardon

 

[Michel Van]

I want to say @Archibald or @Michel Van coined the term around here

yep that was me and Archibald goofing around in forum and from Saturn-Titan solids became SATAN (S-IVB with UA1205 soilds)

Oh by way @fasquardon
in early 1970s proposed UA cluster of UA1205 or UA1207 Solids as first stage for low cost rocket even as Shuttle Booster rocket

 

[RanulfC]

That's the one! I'd really been looking forward to seeing how TransHab progressed...

I as fuming when I found out it had been targeted for de-funding. Dana Rohrabacher, (whom for some reason Space Advocates see as a firm supporter of space flight despite mostly not really doing anything but spouting rhetoric they like to hear) as Chairman of the Subcommittee on Space and Aeronautics seemed to have a personal grudge against TransHab and literally went out of his way to see it killed. I remember he held an "open" Townhall meeting on TransHab that he ended up walking out of because he was getting no support for killing TransHab and then went back to Washington and said there was 'overwhelming' public support to terminate the program. His 'main' excuse was that NASA could use it for Manned Mars Missions which Congress had not authorized so therefor it must be terminated...

Good thing Bigelow was there to pick up the pieces as part of the shut-down was a direct order to destroy all samples, files and notes which none of the research team actually did.

Huh. Wow. You know, I'd thought that that NASA opposition to Titan and Titan-derived hardware was half "not big enough rocket" and half "not our rocket". While I was a bit suspicious about the prices being quoted for the Titan in the mid 60s, I had thought it was just the same level of slippery accounting that NASA used (NASA's practice of charging most of their fixed costs to the "program of record" in this period, which so far as I am aware they still do, makes actually working out the costs of individual launches a bit of a pain, as does the unclear way prices are sometimes given as being for "launch" sometimes and just "for the hardware" other times).

NASA learned from the best how to 'massage' a price quote And yes a LOT of opposition to the Titan was payload related and because the Air Force kept pushing OMB with how 'cheap' the Titan was even if it didn't carry the payload that NASA needed, well NASA could then spend "less" to upgrade the Titan to get what they wanted.... (Let's not mention what the Air Force gets out of that kind of deal ) Something I should also point out was that NASA and Cape Kennedy had no infrastructure or capability to launch Titan's and that only existed on the Canaveral (Air Force) side of the fence. Which you might guess might give disproportionate control over launch operations to someone other than NASA?

I don't remember that sequence from the actual movie. I am guessing it looked a bit like this:

It wasn't every in the movie or really anywhere but (originally anyway) a "fan" based concept. It made an appearance as a desk model in a "Voyager" episode and then a CGI sequence (which I suspect is the link I can't see on this computer ) of the launch. Of course the thing is the DY100 is quit obviously a ship you wouldn't launch from the surface of the Earth in the FIRST place but ....

Looking at Orbital's wikipedia page, it looks like the main stages that Orbital were using in the 90s were all manufactured by ATK as well. Maybe a necessary PoD for Orbital acquiring/merging with Thiokol would need to be Thiokol being an important supplier for Orbital? But did Thiokol offer the sort of small solid stages that Orbital was using at the time?

Eh, not really as the stages that Orbital was using in the 90s were provided by the government as a way to 'expend' ICBM stages that were either part of the post-Cold War downsizing or treaty obligations. Thiokol only did an X-ray examination of the boosters while Hill AFB depot maintenance inspected and approved the stages. (We also helped stack and transport them to the launch sites) But that makes me wonder if the government might not push a merger/buy of Thiokol/AIC by Orbital to keep a separate SRB manufacturing option basing it on Orbital maybe using 'new' SRB boosters from Thiokol and that's where Ares 1 originates?

Though that does make me wonder what would happen if Hercules had been Orbital's major supplier, leading to a merger of those companies in the mid 90s. Looks like Hercules had products in the right sort of class (it produced the upper stage for the Minuteman, the Polaris and the Poseidon, as well, of course, as the fancy Titan IV boosters.

Not what the thread is really supposed to end up with but I'd say it's likely more logical than trying to merge with Thiokol given it's costs. Of course that could easily lead to Ares 1 being suggested to be based on clustered Titan SRBs instead

Of course in context we have to remember that the Ares 1 was a late-comer to the Ares program as Griffen not only didn't want it or the ISS missions it was supposed to support he saw all that as 'distractions' from his main focus of the Ares V and the Mars Direct mission he was building. The only "up" side he saw to the concept was some work on the larger segmented solids being paid for by the Ares 1 instead of the Ares V line-items. A different booster with zero commonality to the Ares V would be even worse.

Randy

 

[fasquardon]

Of course in context we have to remember that the Ares 1 was a late-comer to the Ares program as Griffen not only didn't want it or the ISS missions it was supposed to support he saw all that as 'distractions' from his main focus of the Ares V and the Mars Direct mission he was building. The only "up" side he saw to the concept was some work on the larger segmented solids being paid for by the Ares 1 instead of the Ares V line-items. A different booster with zero commonality to the Ares V would be even worse.

Hmmm. That does suggest that a possible PoD is that Griffen doesn't rise to become head of NASA, and someone else more interested in orbital depots and the ISS does instead.

fasquardon

 

[Simon]

Good thing Bigelow was there to pick up the pieces as part of the shut-down was a direct order to destroy all samples, files and notes which none of the research team actually did.

Really? I guess there's something to credit Robert Bigelow with, even if he was by a number of accounts a fairly rubbish employer.

 

[RanulfC]

Hmmm. That does suggest that a possible PoD is that Griffen doesn't rise to become head of NASA, and someone else more interested in orbital depots and the ISS does instead.

It's possible but without Griffen is there even arequirement that could lead to Ares 1? Remember that Griffen was all about the Shuttle (and ISS) being a 'mistake' and a 'side-track' from a more focused space policy. (And he used Apollo as an example so we should have known where this was going) Anyone else would likely understood that despite what the President might suggest (2004 Vision of Space Exploration) there was little Congressional support for a Mars mission and that Congress was vastly more interested in the ISS than Mars so there was little likelihood of enough funding to really get anything going. (There was vastly more Congressional support for the previous Orbital Spaceplane Program than Constellation)

With anyone else something to 'replace' the Shuttle is likely a higher priority than something to 'augment' (which is all Ares 1 was) the Ares V. Griffen was a big fan of "Mars Direct" (so much so that his outlook of only few years before which had advocated things like propellant depots and orbital infrastructure had completely changed) and that was what the Ares V "Shuttle Derived" vehicle was based on. As "Mars Direct" specifically avoided orbital infrastructure and assembly, so did Constellation and Griffen only looked at Ares 1 when Congress mandated continued support of the ISS. (Both Griffen and H. W. Bush had suggested pulling out of the ISS before completion to which Congress responded by making the ISS a "National" laboratory which btw is 'technically' illegal since part of the "lab" is owned by another nation )

I'd say it's more likely we see NASA actually agreeing to launch the Orion on one of the EELV's in that case rather than development of the Ares 1.

Really? I guess there's something to credit Robert Bigelow with, even if he was by a number of accounts a fairly rubbish employer.

Ya, I'm NOT going to credit some of the speculation but he was really "right-there" to pick up the tech and run with it. I've heard he's not really a good 'employer' in most respects but you've got to give him credit for trying at least His goal has always been to build a "space hotel" but his focus and vision seems to be often at odds with what he's got to work with. I was rather surprised they partnered with SpaceX on space tourism packages more I suspect as "what took so long" as how they are doing it

Randy

 

[Athelstane]

I'd say it's more likely we see NASA actually agreeing to launch the Orion on one of the EELV's in that case rather than development of the Ares 1.

Possibly so, but you'll need to pair it with a NASA operated heavy lifter, to keep the usual feeding troughs fully stocked.

 

[fasquardon]

Possibly so, but you'll need to pair it with a NASA operated heavy lifter, to keep the usual feeding troughs fully stocked.

Does it really though? It doesn't seem unreasonable to me that a medium lift vehicle that ordered parts from the right people and could use the right NASA centers could fill the right troughs as well filled as the Shuttle program could during a low flight year, and might even be able to fill troughs better than the Shuttle program.

I would have thought that US flights to the ISS alone could easily come to 6 (two crew, 4 logistics) with a few probe launches on top. Especially if NASA were able to keep the costs below the Atlas V, which I suspect would be a coin toss. It's totally possible to produce all the hardware and assemble it for less than an Atlas V in OTL, but of course, most of the things driving up ULA launch costs could also drive up Ares I launch costs.

Are there any troughs in particular that you think an Ares I based program would miss out?

That does make me think of a real downside to this TL: there's a good chance Commercial Crew & Cargo doesn't go ahead in this TL.

fasquardon

 

[Athelstane]

Does it really though? It doesn't seem unreasonable to me that a medium lift vehicle that ordered parts from the right people and could use the right NASA centers could fill the right troughs as well filled as the Shuttle program could during a low flight year, and might even be able to fill troughs better than the Shuttle program.

I have to think that would not employ enough of the people in question.

 

[RanulfC]

Possibly so, but you'll need to pair it with a NASA operated heavy lifter, to keep the usual feeding troughs fully stocked.

I have to think that would not employ enough of the people in question.

Most of "those" folks were out of a job anyway once it was decided to retire the Shuttle. Yes it could be argued that Constellation/SLS was aimed at replacing that job but keep in mind the facts on the ground were that pretty much everyone involved with the Shuttle would end up getting laid off long before any possible successor vehicle could be deployed.

Yes the "heavy lift vehicle" will still be there, as a development program though and not anything that has any 'urgency' to it. (hack,wheeze,cough,-SLS-,cough-wheeze-hack) In fact it's arguable that it's even further 'out-there' in progress since we HAVE a means to access the ISS and don't need to depend on anyone but ourselves.

That does make me think of a real downside to this TL: there's a good chance Commercial Crew & Cargo doesn't go ahead in this TL.

Yep, look to SpaceX to be 'hurting' more in such a TL with struggling to compete with obviously subsidized and under-priced EELV's. Musk still has a shot but he'll have to get very smart AND avoid any 'side-tracks' which for him could be an issue since that would include anything about Mars until the mid-2020s at least. There's a "shoe-in-the-door" moment when the Atlas V has issues and maybe when the price of Delta-IV jumps but it will be a LOT harder to exploit in TTL.

Randy

 

[JEF_300]

Yep, look to SpaceX to be 'hurting' more in such a TL with struggling to compete with obviously subsidized and under-priced EELV's. Musk still has a shot but he'll have to get very smart AND avoid any 'side-tracks' which for him could be an issue since that would include anything about Mars until the mid-2020s at least. There's a "shoe-in-the-door" moment when the Atlas V has issues and maybe when the price of Delta-IV jumps but it will be a LOT harder to exploit in TTL.

Ironically, while the lack of commercial crew in TTL will hurt SpaceX, not getting sidetracked with a losing commercial crew bid will actually speed up Blue Origin's schedule by as much as a couple of years; it's possible that in TTL, New Glenn would have recently had its first flight.

Also, if Blue Origin starts on New Glenn earlier, they probably decide to go with the original version of the BE-4, which is about 4/5 the size of the current one in OTL. They upsized it so it could be used on Vulcan, so Vulcan probably ends up using the AR1... or does it?

See a lot of the early development spending on the AR1 engine came from the US government, who had national security concerns about relying on a Russian engine on the Atlas V for access to space. In this timeline, they not only have Delta IV as a backup all-American launcher, but as of 2010, they also know they will have the Ares I. So it's possible that the AR1 project never even starts.

So who do ULA go to for the Vulcan engine? I've had only two ideas:
1. They stick with Russian engines.
2. They use two modified J-2Xs as the first stage engines, and go a little more heavy on the strap-on boosters. Sort of like a bigger, American version of the Japanese H-II rocket.

Either way, SpaceX being delayed means the kick in the pants that got ULA working on Vulcan is also delayed.

And of course, I see no reason to believe that work would even begin on concepts like Liberty and OmegA if Ares I was still in development.


So here's an interesting hypothetical:

Pretend that its November of 2017, in this timeline, and you're NASA. The first Falcon 9 to land on a drone ship successfully did so earlier this year. The Falcon Heavy was supposed to fly this year, but it's been delayed again. Blue Origin is starting to build its big factory in Florida for New Glenn. ULA is working on J-2X powered Vulcan, which won't be ready until 2022. You expect the first Ares I flight, which is also the first uncrewed orbital flight of Orion, to happen within the next couple of years. And this time, you really mean it. (While it shouldn't be as bad in TTL, I expect we would still see SLS-like delays to the Ares I in the early and mid-2010s. Thus, the first flight would probably happen in 2018 or 2019)

Then, you're given a new directive. There's no reason Trump wouldn't still be elected, and if Trump is in the White House, there's going to be a pivot towards the Moon. So in December of 2017, the goal of returning to the Moon is set.

What do you do?

 

[e of pi]

Pray I got funding for depot technology development in 2010 as Obama proposed, and flew a Centaur-based long-duration storage demo sometime in 2014-2016. If I did, then all I need is to finalize fluid transfer, and I can use whatever vehicles are available to fill whatever EDS I decide to convert (Centaur, Delta IV Heavy Upper stage, New Glenn upper stage, Vulcan upper stage, or Ares I upper stage) to push my lunar vehicle to the moon. Use the Ares I upper stage as an EDS and the performance to the moon is incredible, given its 135 metric ton prop capacity turns into >100 metric tons TLI capacity. All I need is to design a lander suitable to launch on Ares I, Vulcan, or Falcon Heavy, and set the architecture around my desired lunar payload. If I'm starting nearly from scratch on prop storage and depot ops, on the other hand, then it's probably too late.

 

[fasquardon]

so Vulcan probably ends up using the AR1... or does it?

I do wonder. From what I've heard (which has been extremely vague) there were serious problems with the development program. In this TL the J2X (maaaybe), the Merlin, the 4/5ths scale BE4 and possibly license built RD180s (I do not know the exact terms of the license, it may be that if the US doesn't build its own RD-180 factory in the 90s, it's lost the chance forever) may be possibilities.

Pretend that its November of 2017, in this timeline, and you're NASA. The first Falcon 9 to land on a drone ship successfully did so earlier this year. The Falcon Heavy was supposed to fly this year, but it's been delayed again. Blue Origin is starting to build its big factory in Florida for New Glenn. ULA is working on J-2X powered Vulcan, which won't be ready until 2022. You expect the first Ares I flight, which is also the first uncrewed orbital flight of Orion, to happen within the next couple of years. And this time, you really mean it. (While it shouldn't be as bad in TTL, I expect we would still see SLS-like delays to the Ares I in the early and mid-2010s. Thus, the first flight would probably happen in 2018 or 2019)

If the Ares I hasn't even flown when the vastly superior Falcon 9 is landing on drone ships, I very much doubt that it would ever amount to much. Of course, the extra work developing that upper stage means that has a good chance of flying as an upper stage for other launchers and as an EDS and tug. Given the built-in problems that come from the big segmented solids, if a Falcon 9 or Falcon Heavy can do the job at lower cost and with less vibration, the solids are probably thrown under a bus as soon as possible and potentially with as few launches as it got in OTL.

Though if orbital fuel depots had formed a big part of NASA's plans as part of this, it would be better for the US space program than OTL. I don't think it leads to Ares I performing useful work though.

What do you do?

Tell the new administration we want to be free of the old technology first stage of Ares one and put money into developing the capability for commercial rockets to launch the ADS (Ares Departure Stage) and once orbital refueling is properly developed we can put US astronauts anywhere the administartion wants at budget rates.

Has Orion been stuck in development hell in TTL? If so, tell the administration we need that too.

And of course, I see no reason to believe that work would even begin on concepts like Liberty and OmegA if Ares I was still in development.

I dunno. If SpaceX and ULA are delayed relative to OTL, the launch market the OmegA is aimed at is much more open. And with big segmented solids being more seriously worked in, the production lines and engineering teams that support the Ares could also support the OmegA better. Heck, with the particular scenario you propose, where Ares I is still troubled with serious delays those production lines and engineering teams are likely to be under-utilized, making OmegA even more economical for Orbital ATK to develop. And given the problems that are sure to plague 5 and 5.5 segment solids, the first 2 OmegA stages made of 3 segments could be an attractive way for NASA to launch the J2X stage. Smaller segments mean less vibration and the OmegA stages will be easier than a Falcon variant to mate to the upper stage since it is the right diameter and derived from the same technology as the Ares I first stage.

OmegA might be an attractive back-up plan for NASA and I could imagine something like it (it may not have the same name) funded under Commercial Cargo.

(I am assuming that since there is a Falcon 9 and Ares I is so delayed, there would be a commercial cargo program in TTL.)

fasquardon