Should we wait to build a heavy lift rocket???

Graphic courtesy of NASA. Image depicts the
heavy lift rocket Ares V which is built largely
from existing Space Shuttle technology.

Space News recently reported of an August 19th meeting between NASA Commercial Crew Planning Lead Phil McAlister and a group of space industry executives where he pledged that regardless of what Congress does, NASA will be able to provide the $5.8 billion in funding to keep the commercial crew “space taxi” programs in place (click for article). While this is certainly welcome news to both companies such as SpaceX and Orbital, it is also welcome news to those of us who believe that pedestrian deliveries to the International Space Station can best be provided by NASA supervised commercial contractors.

What was troubling about this article however was a blurb inserted in the final paragraphs that quoted some group called the “Planetary Society.” This group has sent an open letter to legislators suggesting that they support the Obama plan to not build a heavy lift rocket until a extra orbital destination is decided upon. This is just ridiculous on its face. There are only a very few possible destinations for the cargo of an Saturn V or Ares V class heavy lift rocket and the one thing that they have in common is the fact that to get there, you need a heavy lift rocket. The rocket does nothing more than put large payloads into Earth orbit. What that payload does once it is up there has next to nothing to do with the rocket itself.

Image courtesy of NASA. Image depicts
the heavy lift rockets Saturn V on the
left and the Ares V on the right. To the
right of the Space Shuttle is the crew
carrying Ares I

This nation needs a heavy lift rocket to serve whatever purpose may arise. That purpose may be nothing more than putting large payloads into low Earth orbit, and there is nothing wrong with that. The rest of the world, and by that I mean Russia, China, India, Pakistan, North Korea, Iran, etc., seems intent upon becoming space-faring societies. I find it impossible to believe that the United States is so willing to cede the high ground to other nations when we currently enjoy such a huge technological advantage. Does anyone believe that any of these nations would be as dedicated toward peace and cooperation in space as the United States has been over the years? Has anyone looked at the distribution of the building and operational costs associated with the “international” space station?

A heavy lift rocket is a heavy lift rocket. While it certainly cannot be considered to be a heavy lift vehicle in the mold of a Saturn V, the much deserved retirement of the Space Shuttle has left the United States with no way to put large payloads into orbit. Do we as a country want to wait on politicians and NASA administrators (not sure that they are all that different) to decide on a extra-orbital destination before we build the capability to put large payloads into LEO? I personally cannot imagine why we should do that.

What Happened to Ares?

Please understand that I am not now, nor have I ever been a rocket scientist. I am also not a structural or aerospace engineer of any kind, but I do know how to read. Twelve or so years ago, I read a book by Robert Zubrin called "The Case for Mars" where Dr. Zubrin (who not so incidentally IS a rocket scientist and engineer) argued for what he called "Mars Direct" which was a plan for not only sending humans to Mars but also to extensively explore, set up colonies, etc.

A crucial component of Dr. Zubrins plan was a heavy lift rocket called "Ares" that was primarily a redesigned Space Shuttle stack. This heavy lift rocket was composed of the main engines off of the Space Shuttle, mated to a redesigned Space Shuttle external fuel tank, with the two solid rocket boosters also used by the Space Shuttle. The only difference was that instead of mounting an unbelievably complex Shuttle on the side, the payload would be mounted on the top as was done with the Moon bound Saturn V.

Now of course I realize that the stresses placed on the external tank in this new configuration are significantly different than those of the Space Shuttle, but seriously, is this really that big a deal? I have personally watched in awe as bridges, skyscrapers, supertankers and Airbus A380s have been built and put into service. I have watched an International Space Station be constructed in the vaccum of space and I have watched an underwater oil well leak be fixed ONE MILE beneath the surface of the ocean.

We, as a country, have now been arguing over Ares V for quite some time and in the meantime NASA's manned spaceflight operation has all but ground to a halt. With all that NASA and its suppliers now know about space travel and building rockets, I ask this question: why has this not been done already? Why do we not have Ares V vehicles sitting on their launch pads at this very moment? The components have all been proven over and over again and where there have been failures (ie Shuttle Columbia) there have also been corrections. The SRBs work, the main engines work, and I'm assuming that given the advances in electronics that have taken place in the last thirty years, the new avionics should be rather simple to design and build. It sure didn't take SpaceX long to develop the avionics that control the Falcon 1 and Falcon 9 rockets.

As I mentioned before, I am not a rocket scientist, I am a historian. I realize that I am enormously ignorant of the complexities involved with developing a new launch vehicle such as the Ares V. But as a historian however, I am rather good at ferreting out details from the past, even if they are from the recent past. I may now be ignorant of the specifics of why NASA has found itself without a launch vehicle but I won't be ignorant for long, and neither will you; the readers of this blog.

I am announcing that I will be focusing much of my efforts in this blog to try (if only to satisfy my own curiosity) to make sense of why NASA has not been able to cobble together hardware that it already possessed into a usable heavy lift rocket and a sister ship, light rocket, for placing humans into orbit. I have to tell you, that I am rather angry at what I have witnessed. The country that at one time had what Tom Wolfe correctly described as "the right stuff", has degenerated into a bunch of whimpering children unable to figure what to do with their Legos.

Stay tuned, there is more to come...