Ares I (CLV) - status

SpaceNut · 2007-03-30 10:08:35

"This document contains an integrated snapshot of Space Shuttle, Soyuz, Progress, ATV, HTV, COTS (RpK and SpaceX), Ares 1, and Orion flights between 2007 and 2015. "

NASA Multi-Program Integrated Milestones Revised 27 March 2007

http://images.spaceref.com/news/2007/MP … 7-04.m.pdf

"This document also shows key milestones for the development of Orion and Ares 1 systems as well as ISS completion and staffing. "

cIclops · 2007-03-30 10:44:07

"This document contains an integrated snapshot of Space Shuttle, Soyuz, Progress, ATV, HTV, COTS (RpK and SpaceX), Ares 1, and Orion flights between 2007 and 2015. "

This is another one of those internal NASA working documents that NASAWATCH put online without permission. During the Senate hearing last week NASA had to explain it was a planning exercise document.

cIclops · 2007-03-30 16:30:05

Contract for Hardware Assurance Testing - 30 Mar 2007

BAY ST. LOUIS, Miss. - On Friday, NASA announced the selection of Pratt and Whitney Rocketdyne, Inc., of Canoga Park, Calif., to provide hardware assurance testing at NASA's Stennis Space Center. The estimated total value of the contract is $80 million.
The cost-plus-award-fee contract is for a one-year period with four one-year option periods.
Pratt and Whitney Rocketdyne will perform space shuttle main engine testing and testing of Constellation Program engines and propulsion systems. The contractor also will perform engine and propulsion systems testing as needed for other NASA programs, as well as provide hardware assurance and engineering support, including design work.

gaetanomarano · 2007-03-30 19:24:03

The good news is that the House and Senate space committees fully support extra funding for NASA to close the gap. Given full funding NASA say they can have Orion flying with crew in 2013, earlier may also be possible.

all projects' delays are mainly due to... a) development problems, and... b) lack of funds ...some extra funds solve the latest six months delay (from 2014 to 2015) but not the development time that can be solved ONLY using ready available hardware (as I suggest in great part of my articles) ...also, don't forget that "three years" are just the delays of added in the "ESAS' year 01" (of twenty)
.

GCNRevenger · 2007-03-31 00:45:58

The good news is that the House and Senate space committees fully support extra funding for NASA to close the gap. Given full funding NASA say they can have Orion flying with crew in 2013, earlier may also be possible.
all projects' delays are mainly due to... a) development problems, and... b) lack of funds ...some extra funds solve the latest six months delay (from 2014 to 2015) but not the development time that can be solved ONLY using ready available hardware (as I suggest in great part of my articles) ...also, don't forget that "three years" are just the delays of added in the "ESAS' year 01" (of twenty)
.

No, those are the planned delays in the ESAS plan for the planned availability of Ares-I/Orion half way to the planned time for the Moon landings, approximately. Its not some kind of "delays are adding up, piling up, in addition to eachother, it is the end! NASA has failed and is doomed! If only they made my stupid rocket!" kind of thing, its just a small (not even 10%) estimated change to the schedule due to budget pressures.

And really, your rocket? Oh come on... and reading your website makes me want to kick the screen

-You can't use the same kind of LAS ACS as the regular ACS (really RCS), which requires approximately 1000 times (no exaggeration) less thrust; Orion's ACS system does not maneuver the vehicle after reentry occurs. All capsules perfect the entry trajectory before reentry. And in NASA's design, the LAS tower is not carried to orbit, but if yours is attached to the capsule, its mass must be lugged to orbit too, radically increasing total mass. Duh
-Truncated capsule is the wrong shape for skip trajectory, required for dry landing, nor saves as much mass as you claim due to heavier shielding. Likely higher reentry G-loadings too, preventing reuseability in conjunction with more heat stress. It will not be much lighter, if any.
-The Orion capsule with any configuration of SM cannot perform LOI and still ride on any variation of Ares-I. If we are at 25MT now, even reducing it by 25% would make Orion CSM no lighter than Apollo, which weighed in over 30MT, and the LSAM will weigh much more than the LEM did even without LOI fuel (thus requiring even more LOI fuel to ride on Orion on Ares-I)
-Ares-I cannot perform "Apollo 8 style" missions in any form anyway, because Ares-I does not carry enough fuel to perform the TLI burn, particularly with a 30MT+ Orion.
-Putting more fuel in the low-thrust, low-efficiency Orion SM cannot possibly make up for swapping the five-segment booster for the four-segment one.
-Lunar payloads: One reason why LOI is performed by the LSAM is so the LSAM can do unmanned surface cargo missions. Why is this hard to comprehend? Plus without the mass of Orion for LOI, this increases payload significantly. Also note, LOI will be performed with Hydrogen engines instead of inefficient Hypergolics, reducing total mission mass significantly. Oh and 220lbs of Moon rocks per mission is plenty too for science samples.

gaetanomarano · 2007-03-31 02:48:54

.

Q: No, those are the planned delays...
A: go back to our past discussions when you was SURE of the first launch in 2012 ...now you say that the delay was "planned"...
a delay is a delay and a delay NEVER is "planned" ...the ESAS plan already has a 3-years delay and other delays can happen (like in all complex projects)

Q: You can't use the same kind of LAS ACS...
A: I think their thrust will sufficient... however, in my article I suggest an option

Q: the LAS tower is not carried to orbit...
A: also the newLAS is not carried in orbit but jettisoned at the same altitude of the tower LAS

Q: Truncated capsule is the wrong shape for skip trajectory...
A: the new ESA/RSA ACTS design will be much more "bell-shaped" than my TBS-Orion but designed to reentry from the moon

Q: The Orion capsule with any configuration of SM cannot perform LOI...
A: not true, it only need a larger SM with bigger tanks for the extra (LOI) fuel (as suggested in my SwissKnife-Orion article)

Q: make Orion CSM no lighter than Apollo, which weighed in over 30MT...
A: that's true, it may weigh around 35 mT and needs an AresIV to fly for an Apollo8-like mission

Q: Ares-I cannot perform "Apollo 8 style" missions in any form anyway...
A: that's true (read again my article) ...the SwissKnife-Orion still needs the LSAM for LOI ...it can/must perform the LOI only when launched with an AresIV and without the LSAM

Q: because Ares-I does not carry enough fuel to perform the TLI burn...
A: never claimed that (read again my article)

Q: Putting more fuel in the low-thrust, low-efficiency Orion...
A: everything is smaller and lighter in my newAres-I and a smaller Orion + a smaller 2nd stage + the three stages configuration are more efficient, then needs smaller engines and much less propellent

BTW ... I remember you claims that a SINGLE DeltaIV 2nd stage engine is sufficient for the Ares-I 2nd stage to reach the orbit...

Q: One reason why LOI is performed by the LSAM is so the LSAM can do unmanned surface cargo missions...
A: read again my article ...when launched with the Ares-I, the LOI fuel is used for the "third stage" burn and the Orion SM in orbit will have ONLY the TEI fuel (like in the standard ESAS plan) so, it will still need the standard LSAM for LOI ...the full bigSM fuell will be used for LOI only when launched with an AresIV for an Apollo8-like missions (that will become 90% of all manned moon missions when the reusableLSAM will be available)

.

SpaceNut · 2007-04-02 20:43:21

ATK Highlights Progress on Ares I Crew Launch Vehicle Project on Track for Ground Tests and Development Flights

The company is primarily using existing RSRM hardware for the new stage, but has added some newly designed components to increase performance and meet a different flight profile. A number of these components are undergoing dimensional checks and verification at ATK's facilities in Utah. The parts currently being processed are destined for two full-scale engineering process simulation articles which will be shipped to NASA's Marshall Space Flight Center, Ala. in March 2008 to undergo loads testing and analysis of the motor.
Changes to increase performance and meet the new flight profile include an enhanced shape of the propellant grain in the forward section, and a larger nozzle throat diameter. The core tooling to be used to achieve the new propellant shape is in manufacturing, as are components for the new nozzle.
In addition, two mockups of the forward skirt, a section located at the top of the motor between the first and second stages, have also been constructed. The forward skirt is a structural housing for all the first stage electronics. The mockups will simulate the physical space available for the avionics and will be used to determine the optimal required space and placement of the electronics.

NASA confirms Ares date

NASA has assured Boeing it intends to award the Ares I crew launch vehicle's upper stage production contract this August despite budget problems, the company said during its competition team's announcement last week.
Boeing is leading four small specialist suppliers and Northrop Grumman, Hamilton Sundstrand, United Space Alliance and United Launch Alliance. The contract is for up to six upper stages per year and over 20 during Ares I's life.

Teams Compete to Build Upper Stage of NASA’s Ares I Rocket

Bids are due April 13 for the estimated $900 million contract, scheduled for award late this summer, to produce the hardware based on NASA specifications.
While the first Ares I test flight, Ares I-X, will carry a simulated upper stage, the subsequent Ares I-Y flight test will feature a full-up version lacking only its J-2X engine.
NASA intends to order two upper stages per year during the early years of the Ares program, and has asked the contractor teams to show how they would ramp up to support a production rate of six per year.

cIclops · 2007-04-03 10:27:29

Bids are due April 13 for the estimated $900 million contract, scheduled for award late this summer, to produce the hardware based on NASA specifications.

Only $900 m for the Upper stage development contract? The J-2X work would be extra but that still seems low as Griffin said recently that the total Ares I development cost would be about $9 billion. Perhaps the $9 B includes the $3.9 B for Orion development ...

gaetanomarano · 2007-04-03 11:31:54

...estimated $900 million...

it's not my money, but... how can they spend so much to develop two (simple) propellent's tanks ... ???!!!

.

cIclops · 2007-04-03 12:20:25

[it's not my money, but... how can they spend so much to develop two (simple) propellent's tanks ... ???!!!.

Because it's far more than two propellant tanks. The contract will also include the integrated thrust structure; cryogenic valves, pumps and plumbing; avionics that will be usable for Ares V; ullage settling motors etc etc. All these components require detailed design, integration and testing. Ares I has to be significantly safer and more reliable than current technology; it will be the primary US crew launch vehicle for the future. Safety and reliability ain't cheap.

gaetanomarano · 2007-04-04 05:28:52

[it's not my money, but... how can they spend so much to develop two (simple) propellent's tanks ... ???!!!.
Because it's far more than two propellant tanks. The contract will also include the integrated thrust structure; cryogenic valves, pumps and plumbing; avionics that will be usable for Ares V; ullage settling motors etc etc. All these components require detailed design, integration and testing. Ares I has to be significantly safer and more reliable than current technology; it will be the primary US crew launch vehicle for the future. Safety and reliability ain't cheap.

twice the entire COTS funds and 20+ times the FULL Falcon-1 rocket?
do you have added the NASA/contractors (100,000+ employees) bureaucracy costs?

.

SpaceNut · 2007-04-04 05:54:18

So maybe the quoted price is off for the upper stage.

I am more concerned thou with how the contract will get written in that Nasa has a habit of not paying per piece but writting that the company delivers per request but is paid full contract value regardless how many get made. Of course the contract that Nasa writes for the contractors gets written for the largest quantity value and the dollars are inflated to cover that number. The contractor laughs all the way to the bank knowing that there is extra cash in it for them.

cIclops · 2007-04-04 06:53:30

twice the entire COTS funds and 20+ times the FULL Falcon-1 rocket?
do you have added the NASA/contractors (100,000+ employees) bureaucracy costs?

COTS is only partly funded by NASA. SpaceX and RpK have to match NASA's funding plus of course all the money they have spent so far on Falcon and K-1. The $500m COTS phase 1 is only for cargo and therefore does not have the strict safety and reliability requirements of the human rated Ares I.

NASA has about 17,000 people working on Shuttle, the system that Ares I will replace, and another requirement for Ares is that it must be operational with a far smaller workforce.

(correction: AFAIK the Upper Stage contract being competed right now won't include the avionics, that will be a separate contract later this year.)

gaetanomarano · 2007-04-06 07:47:31

The $500m COTS phase 1 is only for cargo and therefore does not have the strict safety and reliability requirements of the human rated Ares I.

we're talking of the SECOND stage, NOT of the entire Ares-I ...and the 2nd stage costs TWICE the entire COTS program that (so far) is cargo-only but will build TWO different rocket with TWO stages each and launch pad, earth support, etc.

also, great part of the man-rating work will be made on the J-2x design and with the J-2x funds!

then, $900M will be spent to "man-rate" two tanks...

.

cIclops · 2007-04-06 09:49:32

we're talking of the SECOND stage, NOT of the entire Ares-I ...and the 2nd stage costs TWICE the entire COTS program that (so far) is cargo-only but will build TWO different rocket with TWO stages each and launch pad, earth support, etc.
also, great part of the man-rating work will be made on the J-2x design and with the J-2x funds!
then, $900M will be spent to "man-rate" two tanks...

NASA are paying $500m for phase 1 COTS, RpK and SpaceX will contribute about another $500m. IIRC Kistler have spent another $600m on K-1 and SpaceX probably around $200m .. that's $1.8 billion.

Yes, developing J-2X, 5 Seg RSRB and pad changes will cost a lot more. Human spaceflight is expensive. However much of the work on Ares I will be used for Ares V and this will save a lot of money.

gaetanomarano · 2007-04-06 10:46:19

...that's $1.8 billion...

if COTS will costs so much (or more) then they are NOT "cheaper" as claimed... however, $900M still seems too much to develop "two tanks" (since the man-rated J-2x will be developed with other funds)
.

cIclops · 2007-04-14 01:08:21

Boeing Submits Ares I Crew Launch Vehicle Upper Stage Production Proposal

ST. LOUIS, April 13, 2007 -- Boeing [NYSE: BA] today submitted its final cost volume bid to NASA for production of the Ares I crew launch vehicle upper stage.
The Boeing-led team provided a tailored proposal designed to meet or exceed NASA requirements by leveraging best-of-industry suppliers, including several with advanced technology development contracts on critical Ares I systems.
"We offer unique capability to NASA's Ares I team, bringing value based on our experience in commercial, defense and space programs, along with innovation and new advocacy and outreach efforts," said Jim Chilton, Boeing vice president of Exploration Launch Systems. "We are completely committed to delivering NASA a safe, affordable and producible upper stage."
Boeing's team of suppliers include Hamilton Sundstrand, a subsidiary of United Technologies Corp. [NYSE: UTX], Moog Inc. [NYSE: MOG.A and MOG.B], Northrop Grumman Corporation [NYSE: NOC], Orion Propulsion Inc., SUMMA Technology Inc., United Space Alliance and the United Launch Alliance.
"We recognize our suppliers are critical to our proposal, and we have worked closely with them to ensure they know our processes, approaches, people and tools and that their capabilities precisely match NASA's needs," said Chilton. "Boeing and its suppliers are fully prepared to continue our collaboration with NASA and are positioned to begin work immediately upon contract award."
Boeing submitted two earlier volumes: one on past performance on March 16 and another on mission suitability and plans on April 2. Delivery of this final Ares I upper stage production proposal volume culminates more than a year-long effort to bring Boeing's best lean manufacturing practices to NASA's Michoud Assembly Facility in New Orleans, La., where the upper stage will be built. NASA is expected to award the Ares I upper stage production contract in late August or early September.

Mars_B4_Moon · 2007-04-15 00:45:07

It is clear that there is not enough money in Washington to meet all of NASA’s priorities. Congress is now fighting NASAs plan to close Marshall robotics office and there have been various delays in the CEV/Orion program. The unmanned support missions like LRO in the robotic lunar exploration program look kinda boring, and they've even started outsource technology to third world nations with a launch-pad in order to save costs. Griffin's testimony before the Senate and Congress are finally starting to contradict himself. There is a space-gap looming and now cash-strapped NASA is looking to private industry like Musk's Falcon to keep their space payloads in orbit to support manned space station flights. There are still many in America who feel NASA should have instead selected a human-rated EELV derivative for at least the Ares 1. I don't think China or Russia or Japan or anyone can beat us to Mars right now but if NASA keeps shooting itself in the foot...well....you never know.

cIclops · 2007-04-15 03:34:05

That's quite a collection of negative points with little connection between them except NASA. With highly complex advanced programs like Constellation, ISS, Shuttle and the myriad of science missions that NASA is doing, it's not surprising that there are problems. Ok let's focus on the one point about Ares I that is relevant to this topic. Yes there are a few people who maintain that a quick cheap Shuttle replacement can be produced by using EELVs, but how safe and how reliable will such a crew launch vehicle be?

Atlas V has been proposed as the EELV of choice. This is a new vehicle with a very short, yet successful flight record ( 9 out of 9 ), however it can't lift the required weight and would have to be extensively modified thus reducing its safety. No analysis shows that a modified Atlas V would have the safety or reliability of Ares I. Furthermore, unlike Ares I, Atlas V does not provide a upgrade path through common components with Ares V.

The two Shuttle accidents caused very long, very expensive delays in the space program, nobody wants that to happen again. The only way that makes sense is to custom design a vehicle for the job, not rehash one designed for another task.

RedStreak · 2007-04-15 11:22:46

I agree Cyclops. NASA is going to be very very tight for a long while - it is supporting two manned spaceflight programs right now between the STS and Constellation, three if you count the ISS. Coupled with a war causing Congress and the White House to focus their attentions elsewhere what can you honestly expect?

I think things may improve comes 2010 once STS' budget becomes channeled straight to Constellation.

SpaceNut · 2007-04-15 19:30:22

Yes Atlas V would be the vehicle of choice as it were for an EELV launcher and when compared to the numbers on the proposed Ares I the only stage that reduces chance for failure in any real great amount is the SRB. I would say that the rest of the stages would need reworking on the Atlas V there by giving lower failure rate possiblity. I would hope that this would be comparable to the Ares I numbers from that point up.

With Bigelow puttin up money for man rating it I would guess Nasa could leverage from that point if they should wish. Then it comes back to comparative costs for the Ares I versus the Atlas V reworked to support manned launch. Since both concept vehicles would fly an Orion then the remainder of its cost come from what is needed to launch it with respect to developement costs.

Lest we forget Dreamchaser is also being looked at as well to ride atop Atlas V as well.

RedStreak · 2007-04-15 20:51:24

Yes Atlas V would be the vehicle of choice as it were for an EELV launcher and when compared to the numbers on the proposed Ares I the only stage that reduces chance for failure in any real great amount is the SRB. .
Lest we forget Dreamchaser is also being looked at as well to ride atop Atlas V as well.

I hope that goes well, but as previously stated I don't think an Atlas V would work well for NASA's Orion spacecraft, but if commercial spacecraft can fit something that can accomidate it by all means...the only worry in that case is validating its safe for humans which is a matter between Lockheed and Dreamchaser.

GCNRevenger · 2007-04-15 21:25:14

Yeah, neither of the EELVs have the lift needed, perhaps not even in any upgraded form. Remember that the man-rating guidelines call for more structural margin (40% vs 25%?), which makes the 20MT Atlas/25MT Delta heavies push even less. You would pretty much have to rebuild the entire Atlas-V airframe from pad to payload, perhaps switching to the bigger RD-180 engine and definitely 2+ RL-10's, but even then it might need multiple little plastic SRBs.

Delta-IV Heavy is much less practical than Ares just because it takes so long and so much trouble to build/launch the thing, less safe with its poor acceleration, and lacks an easy upgrade path to the required performance level without a gaggle of the icky dinky plastic SRBs.

Without a much lighter Orion, neither of the EELVs is a practical option, and thats to say nothing of the development not shared between Ares-I and -V. NASA's choice for Ares-I is a good choice.

Dreamchasers' only requirement for man rating: "does it have a window?"

cIclops · 2007-04-18 11:40:56

ATK, Lockheed Martin and Pratt & Whitney Rocketdyne Present Proposal for Ares I Upper Stage

HUNTSVILLE, Ala., April 17 /PRNewswire-FirstCall/ -- Alliant Techsystems (NYSE: ATK), Lockheed Martin (NYSE: LMT), and Pratt & Whitney Rocketdyne (NYSE: UTX) today presented to NASA an oral summary of their proposal for the Ares I Upper Stage. The proposal has been delivered in stages over the last month and culminated with the submittal of the cost volume last week.
The three companies have developed a complementary relationship, leveraging their strong experience and capabilities on NASA Human Space Flight programs to provide the Ares I project a springboard to minimize program costs, maintain aggressive development and test schedules, and reduce the technical risk going forward.
"We have been preparing for this procurement for nearly a year and announced our core team back in September 2006," said Ron Dittemore, President of ATK Launch Systems Group. "We have also built a strong team of subcontractors that have been hand-selected to round out our team. Together, we have developed a proposal that presents a seamless effort, and we are ready to perform on this crucial contract for NASA and our Nation."
Known as "Team Ares," the core companies are natural partners to support NASA on this upper stage effort, demonstrating unparalleled experience in system and subsystem design, development, manufacturing, integration, test, and risk management for human-rated hardware. The team members have participated in every U.S. human space flight program throughout NASA's history.
"By combining our core competencies and working together in a seamless manner, we can significantly reduce integration issues and system complexity -- and help NASA achieve the vision for Space Exploration at this critical point in the program," added Dittemore.

cIclops · 2007-04-22 09:50:23

Ares Quarterly Progress Report #3 (Real Video 10:35 mins)

* Ares I-1 Launch Abort System Mockup
* Reaction Control Thruster testing
* Ares I-1 avionics testing
* Ares I-1 Roll control system - 3D modeling
* Ares I wind tunnel work
* 5 Seg RSRB hardware - test firing
* Ares I Upper stage design - 3D modeling
* Stennis Test stand A-1 handover for J-2X power pack testing
* Dismantling of X-33 turbomachinery
* Ares V early design work

New Mars Forums

Announcement

#326 2007-03-30 10:08:35

Re: Ares I (CLV) - status

#327 2007-03-30 10:44:07

Re: Ares I (CLV) - status

#328 2007-03-30 16:30:05

Re: Ares I (CLV) - status

#329 2007-03-30 19:24:03

Re: Ares I (CLV) - status

#330 2007-03-31 00:45:58

Re: Ares I (CLV) - status

#331 2007-03-31 02:48:54

Re: Ares I (CLV) - status

#332 2007-04-02 20:43:21

Re: Ares I (CLV) - status

#333 2007-04-03 10:27:29

Re: Ares I (CLV) - status

#334 2007-04-03 11:31:54

Re: Ares I (CLV) - status

#335 2007-04-03 12:20:25

Re: Ares I (CLV) - status

#336 2007-04-04 05:28:52

Re: Ares I (CLV) - status

#337 2007-04-04 05:54:18

Re: Ares I (CLV) - status

#338 2007-04-04 06:53:30

Re: Ares I (CLV) - status

#339 2007-04-06 07:47:31

Re: Ares I (CLV) - status

#340 2007-04-06 09:49:32

Re: Ares I (CLV) - status

#341 2007-04-06 10:46:19

Re: Ares I (CLV) - status

#342 2007-04-14 01:08:21

Re: Ares I (CLV) - status

#343 2007-04-15 00:45:07

Re: Ares I (CLV) - status

#344 2007-04-15 03:34:05

Re: Ares I (CLV) - status

#345 2007-04-15 11:22:46

Re: Ares I (CLV) - status

#346 2007-04-15 19:30:22

Re: Ares I (CLV) - status

#347 2007-04-15 20:51:24

Re: Ares I (CLV) - status

#348 2007-04-15 21:25:14

Re: Ares I (CLV) - status

#349 2007-04-18 11:40:56

Re: Ares I (CLV) - status

#350 2007-04-22 09:50:23

Re: Ares I (CLV) - status

Board footer