Sat 13 Sep 2008
NASA’s Ares I Launch Vehicle: U.S. Going back to the Moon
Posted by Jason Morgan under Current Events, Science, Technology
NASA’s plan to put astronauts back on the moon by 2020 hinges on their ability to develop a launch vehicle with the capability to deliver the Orion crew exploration vehicle and enough payload capacity to make NASA’s vision for a permanent moon base a reality. This past Wednesday, September 10, the Ares I launch vehicle passed a critical design review marking an important milestone in the development of the rocket.
The Ares I launch vehicle is a two-stage rocket topped by the Orion crew capsule, capable of carrying four to six astronauts. The first-stage booster is a five-segment, reusable solid rocket motor derived from the space shuttle. This first stage engine takes the vehicle into low earth orbit at which point the first stage booster separates and the second-stage J-2X engine ignites taking the crew capsule into circular orbit.
It is anticipated that the Ares I will be taking astronauts and small payloads to the International Space Station no later than the year 2015. From there, it is on to the moon in 2020. With a payload capacity of 25 tons, the Ares I may also be used to ‘park’ supplies in orbit for other space vehicles to retrieve and take on to the moon.
The Orion Crew Exploration Vehicle has been described as, “Apollo on steroids,” by NASA’s Michael Griffin. It is projected to be one and a half times as wide as Apollo with double the passenger volume. This means that Ares I has to have enough muscle to break the Earth’s gravity and get it into orbit. While there are many more reviews to go involving more than a thousand scientists and engineers, Ares I appears to have a bright future and may bring the promise of progress into a new era of space exploration.
Ares I rocket collage image courtesy of Flickr user nasa1fan published under the CC license.
Orion Crew Exploration Vehicle image courtesy of Flickr user Lockheed Martin published under the CC license.
About the Author
September 13th, 2008 at 9:21 am
It must be very gratifying for Apollo engineers to know that their core designs are still practical, useful, and workable even in the modern era. It is a testament to their knowledge that their designs still how weight today.
I also like how scientists are not taking an ‘if it ain’t broke don’t fix it approach’ to this scenario. Of course I’m sure the impetus for that mentality is NASA’s very tight budget.
Ares I is a clear improvement from the Saturn V rocket in that it has renewable elements.
I really look forward to man landings, bases, and hopefully new high yield energy prospects on the moon.
September 13th, 2008 at 9:39 am
What surprises me is how much NASA manages to get done with their relatively pitiful budget when compared with other government agencies. Over the past decade, NASA’s budget has hovered around $13 billion per year, which sounds like an enormous amount of money to the average citizen. Consider that in the US government’s fiscal year 2007, $20 billion was spent on “General Government”, while $43.5 billion was spent on “administration of justice”, and other such amorphous descriptions accompanied by unbelievably large dollar figures. NASA actually has one of the smallest government agency budgets, but somehow they manage to launch people into space, build multiple space exploration vehicles, Mars landers, etc. That is pretty awesome.
September 13th, 2008 at 9:47 am
Excellent point. They represent the one government agency that legitimately deserves more funding and a higher percentage of my tax dollars that are being collected by the government each year.
September 13th, 2008 at 10:10 am
Is it because of the sub-contracting to the private-sector (ex: Lockheed Martin) that allows so much accomplishment on just a $13 billion per year budget?
September 13th, 2008 at 10:24 am
Well they certainly do reach out into the private sector, but so does many other branches of government. I would venture to say most all government agencies have contracts out into the private sector in some capacity or another. It does not change the fact that NASA is very efficient in doing so. Not to mention, the Jet Propulsion Laboratory deals with many committed and top notch companies, such as Lockheed, that are not looking to rip the government off.
September 13th, 2008 at 11:20 am
Very true about all government agencies reaching out to the private sector. In grad school, I have worked with many IT professionals of companies who have contracted with the Department of Defense. Some of their contributions to classes are amazing!
On another note, think about how efficient all of the technology NASA uses is (fuel, oxygen, gravitational orbit propulsion, etc.). Maybe they apply such efficiency to their budgets too…lol.
September 13th, 2008 at 12:54 pm
NASA exhibits excellent budgetary control out of necessity. For some reason, the people of the U.S. would rather spend money on enforcing laws that large portions of the population don’t agree with than put those funds towards space exploration. Many do not understand the far-reaching technological advancements that have come from NASA including your microwave, satellite TV, GPS, duct tape, the list goes on and on. That said, NASA has not been given good funding since the Apollo missions and they have adapted by being excellent stewards of the funds they do receive.
Other government branches aren’t necessarily put under the same scrutiny because citizens don’t view them as “extraneous” or “frivolous” causes, whether the money is being spent wisely or not. Take Halliburton and Blackwater, for example, combined almost receiving as much funding as NASA, and producing almost nothing of worth. This is the difference between NASA and other agencies: NASA actually bids out their contracts fairly and intelligently, rather than lining the pockets of their political-private cross-border buddies, like many other government agencies.
September 14th, 2008 at 1:00 pm
Did you know there’s talks we’re going to have to pay Russia to get our spacemen to the space station seeing as how the old fleet will be retired in 2010 and these new shuttles won’t be ready till 2015?… We will also have to learn how to say “whats up” in Chinese seeing as how China has anounced plans to be on the moon before we get back to “our” moon.
September 14th, 2008 at 2:27 pm
Really? This is a shame, we are losing our grip on things.
September 14th, 2008 at 9:18 pm
how come it takes 9 years to go to the moon in the 1960’s and 15 years in today’s day and age? Do we really need 12 years from now to do what was done 40 years ago?
September 14th, 2008 at 9:53 pm
I think the difference is that in the sixties we were just trying to get to the moon, nothing more. This time, NASA is trying to think ahead and develop means to not just get to the moon, but to have the capability of building a long term base.
September 15th, 2008 at 8:07 am
How prominent a part will this Moon base play in getting ourselves to Mars?
Are we planning on using it as a potential rest stop? I’ve heard a lot in recent years about buying land on the Moon for future business development. I wonder how far we are from realizing those kinds of goals.
September 15th, 2008 at 10:42 am
Supposedly, the Moon has a lot of H3, which could be used as fuel for a trip from the Moon to the Mars. Man Overboard knows a lot more about this than I do.
If we are planning on building a base there and to mine for such elements, then the I guess the time allowance is justified.
If China thinks they are going to gain superiority over the US space program for doing something we did 40 years ago, well that’s just plain silly.
September 15th, 2008 at 11:10 am
Here’s some interesting info from CNN about this topic…
The Outer Space Treaty says governments cannot claim ownership of the lunar surface and that stations and installations on the moon shall be open to others. The Moon Agreement builds upon the Outer Space Treaty but also says that any natural resources found on the moon are part of “the common heritage of mankind” - in other words, they must be shared.
September 15th, 2008 at 11:20 am
“in other words, they must be shared.”
…or fought over.
September 15th, 2008 at 1:12 pm
…Blood for Moon-dust
September 15th, 2008 at 5:03 pm
Andrew -
you are right about NASA wanting to utilize the moon as a staging ground for Mars missions. Think of the physics. It takes far less energy to launch large mass objects from the moon than it does from Earth’s surface. A lunar assembly line for Mars missions would be awesome.
September 17th, 2008 at 4:36 pm
Andrew - thanks for the information about the Outer Space Treaty - I did not know such a document existed. Hopefully instead of war, it allows nations to put aside their egotistical and maniacal ways to further exploration into space. Hey it worked in Star Trek.
I first heard about the Orion space program when I was down in DC this past summer. NASA is going back to their roots of what made them so great and it is definitely exciting. The Apollo missions for the most part were a success, with a few hiccups. The shuttle program wasn’t as bad as a plan as most think because it was implemented with the idea to recycle everything from the launch including the rocket boosters. NASA just got away from racing to the moon because we already been there done that. The shuttle program also helped NASA maintain satellites that were crucial to understanding our universe. However, with Orion’s new parachute system (that enables it to be recovered on land just as on water) and to be reused up to 10 flights, it seems that NASA has truly combined the best of both worlds. I don’t know if you can tell but I’m excited to be here.
September 19th, 2008 at 5:12 pm
Sorry to rain on this guys, but the Ares is a disgrace to the American Space Program.
It consists of absolutely ZERO INNOVATION!
It is cop-out, half-assed, pathetic attempt at space travel using pre-engineered spare parts!
Lets take an existing Solid Rocket Booster (SRB) and bolt a lackluster crew module to it. But OH DRAT! - that causes excessive vibration between two parts not designed for each other…i know, we just put a big honkin spring AKA DEAD WEIGHT between the two of them. That will allow it to fly but virtually ELIMINATE it’s payload.
Budgets be damned, if NASA had any shadow of ingenuity left in it they would go back the drawing board and build a vehicle from scratch and remind the world who built the SECOND best space program in history!
We went to the moon in 1969! 1969! What the $%^#% have we done in four decades!…Nothing!…shame on us.
September 19th, 2008 at 8:30 pm
I hear what you are saying, but there is no “budgets be damned” unless you are George W Bush who spends without regard. NASA has limited resources and the government won’t increase its deficit to further space exploration and research (only war-mongering, death and global mischief are permitted budget deficit appropriations according to the Bush Doctrine - just ask Sarah Palin I hear she is an expert).
Anyway, I admit that the points you raise are valid upon further reflection. But that still doesn’t mean that NASA is suppsed to be McGyver and send people into space with a paper clip, gum and a condom. They need money to pay for research and development.
Where I disagree with you is that they haven’t done anything in forty years. If your measure of NASA’s success is how far and how fast they can send spaceships, then I believe you are sadly mistaken. NASA has made enormous progress in observing the universe and our solar system. Are you forgetting that fact that they have sent a serious amount of unmanned equipment to Mars? I mean, so what a person wasn’t on board? They got scientific equipment to another planet. I think that counts as doing SOMETHING, don’t you?