Ares V (CaLV) - status

Mars_B4_Moon · 2007-02-18 03:16:16

This spells government use only, so how does that help the private industry gain access to space?

Private heavy-lift is all hype, at least it will be for some time to come

Meanwhile most of us rational people will have to point out the weakness or flaws in Space Elevators, Spaceshipone, Armadillo Aerospace, Rotary Rocket's flashgordon style Single Stage to Orbit, Starchaser Industries...the biggest thing most of these guys will ever do is build a cheap LEO rocket that doesn't explode or cash in on the space tourism industry. Forget about getting people to Mars because these guys don't have it.

cIclops · 2007-02-20 02:30:27

Ares V Cargo Launch Vehicle, John P. Sumrall, Manager MSFC (8MB PDF)

This paper provides top-level information regarding the genesis and evolution of the baseline configuration for the Ares V heavy-lift system. It also touches on risk-based management strategies, such as building on powerful hardware and promoting common features between the Ares I and Ares V systems to reduce technical, schedule, and cost risks, as well as development and operations costs. Finally, it gives a summary of several notable accomplishments over the past year, since the Exploration Launch Projects effort officially kicked off in October 2005, and looks ahead at work planned for 2007 and beyond.

It also has details of the RS-68 modifications:

o 3D wrapped turbine nozzels - allows for increased nominal power level from 102% to 106%
o Higher Element Density - main injector
o Ablative Nozzle Redesign for Increased Mission Duration - option: Regeneratively Cooled Nozzle
o CaLV Cluster Specific - Modify turbine exhaust ducting for engine cluster application

While the upgraded RS-68 engine’s demonstrated reliability is less than that of the Space Shuttle Main Engine, by the time it has gone through testing and certification, its reliability will be more than adequate for the Ares V. The RS-68 engine’s capability for more direct modification preserves the path to human-rate the Ares V as part of a comprehensive production improvement process.

Safety and reliability benefits of the recommended approach:

RS-68 engine modifications are easier due to a simpler combustion cycle.
o RS-68 changes are not considered high-risk.
o Space Shuttle Main Engine changes are more difficult.
o Space Shuttle Main Engine changes increase risk significantly beyond known changes.

Greater potential to increase the safety of the RS-68 by bringing it up to Space Shuttle Main Engine safety level:
o Avionics modifications can be phased in to leverage advances in technology, increasing safety as the Ares v system matures.
o The regeneratively cooled nozzle option provides a significant safety increase due to the ability to green-run the nozzlel/engine combination and allows growth in the burn duration for missions and abort scenarios.

SpaceNut · 2007-02-24 15:11:51

There has been rumors of the desire to use the boosters, first stage as an unmnned launch vehicle and while it would give the ability to launch probes faster to far off locations its cost is a problem.

http://www.spacepolitics.com/2007/02/21 … e-science/

cIclops · 2007-02-25 05:14:25

There has been rumors of the desire to use the boosters, first stage as an unmnned launch vehicle and while it would give the ability to launch probes faster to far off locations its cost is a problem.
http://www.spacepolitics.com/2007/02/21 … e-science/

There is nothing in that link about using only the first stage as a launcher. How much payload could it orbit without an upper stage, if that is possible? The idea of using Ares V/EDS for other missions was suggested by Griffin some time ago, namely large space telescopes because of its ability to hold a 10m class instrument.

cIclops · 2007-03-10 04:58:10

Ripped from Launching to the Moon, Mars and Beyond - 29 Sep 2006 (PDF 5MB)

RedStreak · 2007-03-15 21:42:47

There has been rumors of the desire to use the boosters, first stage as an unmnned launch vehicle and while it would give the ability to launch probes faster to far off locations its cost is a problem.

I think it'd be fair, if not safe to say, that after developing the Ares V and havng the HVL capacity rocket scientists have been begging for it'd be obvious to apply it toward at least any BIG space projects.

In the case of the Saturn V (althought not the best example since it was a matter of using up spare parts) it heaved up the whole Skylab. How much mass did Skylab have compared to the present ISS or even the fully assembled one?

To me its just a matter of applying the right rocket to the right job. Delta IIs are obvious for small Discover-class probes and LEO satellites, Atlas V for larger craft or out-bound New Horizon-esque craft. I think, of the two, the Ares I probably would have better applications than the Ares V...economically that is. It's a smaller, simpiler rocket, no strap-ons. Just exchange the Orion for a composite shroud - the only element that'd question the cost would be recovering the lower stage if anything. Something huge like the V ought to only be used for a large custom mission - something akin to Hubble, a space station, or a Lunar-Martian expidition.

I don't think a rocket with the Ares' capability ought to be exclusive. That sound reasonable enough?

GCNRevenger · 2007-03-16 07:10:52

The A-I, sure, put probes on it... but the big A-V? I find it hard to believe any sort of unmanned science payload of any kind short of an interstellar solar sail would justify an HLV shot.

cIclops · 2007-03-16 07:12:30

In his recent article Human Space Exploration: The Next 50 Years - Mike Griffin talks about the costs of Lunar exploration:

For the sake of argument and nothing more, let us say that in 2022 we will begin a sustained lunar program of exploration and development consisting of three manned missions (two outpost crew rotations and one sortie) and one unmanned cargo mission per year, utilizing three Orion/Ares I vehicles and four Ares V launches. Present projections assume a cargo capacity of six metric tons on a lander carrying four crew members, and twenty metric tons on a cargo lander, at a marginal cost of about $750 million for a human mission and $525 million for a cargo mission. The marginal cost in Fiscal 2000 dollars for this nominal lunar program will thus be about $3 billion.
These marginal costs do not include an allocation of the fixed costs of production and operations which will be assigned to each flight. Let us assume a fixed-cost support base of $1 billion annually, about a third of that for the Shuttle today, equivalent to roughly 6,000 full-time employees at average Fiscal 2000 labor rates. We should all work to make it much less, but this is an appropriately conservative estimate for the present. This yields a sustained lunar program costing no more than $4 billion/year

So the full cost of an Ares V/EDS + cargo lander will be about $775m and an Ares I/Orion + LSAM about $225m

cIclops · 2007-03-16 07:24:52

The A-I, sure, put probes on it... but the big A-V? I find it hard to believe any sort of unmanned science payload of any kind short of an interstellar solar sail would justify an HLV shot.

The added cost of in space assembly for a 10m class telescope would probably offset the $775m or less for the Ares V/US to launch it ready to go. That $775m would of course in turn be offset by the cost of the alternate HLV.

Payloads currently are limited to around 20 mT, going to 130 mT is an enormous increase in capability, making all sorts of missions possible. Excess payload capacity could also be used to supply fuel to a LEO depot.

GCNRevenger · 2007-03-16 09:30:39

No, because I don't think a 10m space telescope or any other "Star Destroyer Class" robot mission is worth that kind of money. It is an enormous increase in capability, but one that is so huge that no reasonably sized mission could take advantage of it economically. Excess capacity to top up an orbital fuel depot makes limited sense either, since most of these gargantuan megaprobes wouldn't be headed to LEO. And if you are building such a monster probe, you would want to take maximum advantage of the payload wouldn't you?

If you want a big 10m telescope, build it on the Moon in sections.

RedStreak · 2007-03-16 10:52:32

And if you are building such a monster probe, you would want to take maximum advantage of the payload wouldn't you?
If you want a big 10m telescope, build it on the Moon in sections.

A lunar telescope of that size I'd welcome just as openly too, but from blogs and news quotes I've ready just as many people are advocating orbital is optimal...for space telescopes. I think the division between lunar v.s. orbital telescopes have two merits/flaws:

Orbital: More mass can be devoted directly to the instrument, no landing equiptment no multiple launches.

Lunar: As part of the Lunar Program continual manned servicing possible (which has aided the Hubble through its years whereas [particularly infrared sats. with a finite cryogentic storage] one-shot unserviceable sats. have lifespans cut short by their electronics and fuel). If the polar sites utilized a constant temperature can be kept (again infrared telescopes).

I dunno if JIMO could be revived, but the Ares V could easily launch a craft with double Cassini's mass to Jupiter or Saturn, solving the subsurface mysteries of Enceladus and Europa. A Martian expidition (while likely a cargo mission for a proceeding a manned one) could send a suite of probes like the Pioneer Venus multiprobe but on steroids.

Such expiditions may cost more, but ambitious missions often yield unprescedented findings; Hubble, Voyagers, Vikings - they all proved their worth and with the Titan IV out of commission and the meager ELVs barely up to the challenge...whatcha gonna launch on? 8)

GCNRevenger · 2007-03-16 13:06:11

I think that you've made the case for the next-next-generation space telescopes to be based on the Moon. Much much more bang-per-buck, with actual humans to tend the thing. And if you need cryogens to keep an IR scope' cold? How about the LOX that will be produced by the Lunar base?

JIMO was a bad idea from a science perspective to begin with, and would have been less effective than a set of smaller EELV-launched probes dedicated to a specific task or target. The USAF is going to buying the things anyway, so the marginal units NASA would purchase should be affordable. If you want to know if there are oceans or what their chemistry is, the solution is a small probe with an ice-melting sensor suite sent to the surface, not a gigantic super-powerful radar probe.

And you could send multiple probes at once, but what are the odds that the thing blows up and takes all of them out at once, or otherwise fails? All your eggs in one basket. Plus all these probes would all have to be ready and not have glitches all at the same time, whereas one "oops" or "maybe" from one probe hoses the launch window for all of them.

Meager ELVs? 25MT Delta-IV Heavy is not "meager," and with some relatively minor modifications it could be upgraded to the 40MT region without costing a great deal more per-unit. Back when O'Keefe was cooking up Moon plans, this rocket was the first choice.

RedStreak · 2007-03-16 13:37:08

JIMO was a bad idea from a science perspective to begin with, and would have been less effective than a set of smaller EELV-launched probes dedicated to a specific task or target. The USAF is going to buying the things anyway, so the marginal units NASA would purchase should be affordable. If you want to know if there are oceans or what their chemistry is, the solution is a small probe with an ice-melting sensor suite sent to the surface, not a gigantic super-powerful radar probe.
And you could send multiple probes at once, but what are the odds that the thing blows up and takes all of them out at once, or otherwise fails? All your eggs in one basket.

Bear in mind "faster, better, cheaper" and how it lead to the embarassing double-demise of MPL and MCO in 98. As I said before most likely there'll be many generations of small probes to come so its not the end of the ELVs...but there are bound to be advantages of the Ares rockets besides manned launchings. As far as the Atlas goes that series I can trust, but the only thing I've heard from the Delta IV is the slight embarassement their upper stage had on maiden launch. Between the ISS and their ELV something about Boeing makes me wanna keep my distance.

Surely a rocket designed to be safe enough for humans will have a good performance record, and without the elements that crippled the STS less to delay its schedule. Take a look at the Russian program; they use their Soyuz and Proton boosters not just for manned vehicles but satellites, probes, and in the past Zond - their unmanned Soyuz-sized craft that flew past the Moon and I think occassionally into interplanetary space.

Many of you fellow enthusiasts praise following the 'Russian model' of space management...well why not do so with the Ares? Obviously the Ares V is no turn-of-the-minute iddle booster but I'm willing to bet we could launch ALOT more of them than Russia has ever gone with its Energia HLV.

ftlwright · 2007-03-19 20:05:08

Just got back from a visit with some friends of mine a couple weeks ago. From what I'm hearing P&W is pulling every trick out of the book they can think of to get performance out of the J2X. The gas generator *may* need a redesign in order to get a higher chamber pressure; troubling considering the nozzle exp ratio is moving well above the 40:1 range. Obviously they're looking at adding a second J2X, which will most likely work.

The biggest challenge NASA is facing now is that they (or anyone really) lack expertise with using methane for propellant; many of NASAs contacts are intended to build experience in the aerospace community. Looking forward to discussing this further.

edit: for context.

cIclops · 2007-03-20 03:57:54

Just got back from a visit with some friends of mine a couple weeks ago. From what I'm hearing P&W is pulling every trick out of the book they can think of to get performance out of the J2X. The gas generator *may* need a redesign in order to get a higher chamber pressure; troubling considering the nozzle exp ratio is moving well above the 40:1 range. Obviously they're looking at adding a second J2X, which will most likely work.
The biggest challenge NASA is facing now is that they (or anyone really) lack expertise with using methane for propellant; many of NASAs contacts are intended to build experience in the aerospace community. Looking forward to discussing this further.

A second J-2X for the Ares V?

Methane is being considered for the Orion service module and the LSAM engines .. there are several posts about this in the Orion topic

ftlwright · 2007-03-20 08:38:52

A second J-2X for the Ares V?
Methane is being considered for the Orion service module and the LSAM engines .. there are several posts about this in the Orion topic

Apologies for not being clear. I meant to imply that NASAs current focus is on building expertise with methane rocket technology rather than some of the issues related to J2X. My intuition tells me NASA will roll with MMH/NTO and build in the option for methane/LOX if feasible.

WRT to J2X, if rocketdyne can get performance out of the turbomachinery we will be in good shape. If it does not, we looking at a good chunk of change to develop something that will.

cIclops · 2007-03-24 04:13:43

RS-68 engine hardware testing at Marshall East Test Stand - Ripped from Marshall Online

By Sheri Bechtel
NASA Marshall engineers recently conducted multiple hot-fire tests of subscale main injector hardware — testing that will aid in development of the RS-68 engine for Ares V, the cargo launch vehicle that will deliver large-scale hardware and systems to space for exploration missions to the moon.
The tests, conducted at Marshall’s East Test Stand on March 9-14, are part of a series investigating different injector designs. The main injector is a key engine component. It injects and mixes hydrogen and liquid oxygen propellants in the combustion chamber, where they are ignited and burned to produce thrust. This first series of tests was performed on a subscale injector that contained 40 individual elements for propellant flow. During the tests, engineers fired the injector horizontally for durations of 10 to 20 seconds. Engineers are also conducting a second series of tests, on a subscale main injector containing 58 elements. Those tests began March 16 and will continue through the end of the month. The hot-ﬁre tests of the injector hardware and the number of elements are part of efforts to investigate design options and maximize performance of the RS-68 engine.
A cluster of five RS-68 engines will power the core stage of the Ares V. The engine will be an upgraded version of those now used in the Delta IV, the largest RS-68 engine hardware testing at Marshall of the Delta rocket family developed in the 1990s by the U.S. Air Force for its Evolved Expendable Launch Vehicle program. Data from the tests also will be used to develop the J-2X engine system for Ares I, the crew launch vehicle that will carry the Orion and its crew of astronauts to Earth orbit.

Good to see the first real work begin!

cIclops · 2007-05-04 05:11:03

Engine tests and launch animation (5MB wmv)

publiusr · 2007-05-04 16:12:13

Ares V is getting a bit bigger. See it fly next week on Science Channel.

cIclops · 2007-06-08 07:11:12

At the exploration briefing update 7 Jun 2007, Jeff Hanley said the marginal cost of the Ares V will be $200-300 million.

gaetanomarano · 2007-06-09 15:56:45

...the marginal cost of the Ares V will be $200-300 million...

no ... also excluding all other (very high) "non marginal" costs (shared R&D costs, yearly on-earth support costs, assembly, etc.) and assuming a (modest) +25% extra-price for the 5-seg. SRB, the "marginal [hardware] cost" of each AresV can't be less than...

two 5-seg. SRBs $50M x 2 = $100M

five RS-68 $20M x 5 = $100M

1st stage tank = $100 (the smaller Shuttle ET costs $60M each)

one J-2x = $15M

EDS tank = $30M

mixed electronics, computers attitude jets, etc. = $5M (very optimistic)

so, the MINIMUM hardware price of EACH Ares-V launched will be (at least) $350M

.

cIclops · 2007-06-12 02:17:28

From Jeff Hanley's presentation at the Exploration briefing update 7 June 2007

publiusr · 2007-06-23 12:46:43

At the exploration briefing update 7 Jun 2007, Jeff Hanley said the marginal cost of the Ares V will be $200-300 million.

Same cost as Delta IV with 5-6 times the payload.

cIclops · 2007-06-27 00:32:33

Size comparison of an 8 meter class telescope with Hubble (2.4m)

Thinking Big about Space Telescopes - text and audio - 25 Jun 2007

Until now, such a mirror was too big to consider. The next-generation James Webb Space Telescope -- also headed for L2 -- was regarded as the path for future large space telescopes. Its 6.5-m primary mirror will consist of carefully folded segments that precisely align once on station. But future Ares V payload shrouds up to 12 m (39.4 ft) have been envisioned by NASA planners. That allows Stahl to consider an off-the-shelf mirror, like the single-piece, 8-m (26.2 ft) primaries in the ground-based Gemini telescopes.
While increasing size, the Ares V would decrease risk. "The constraints of current launch vehicles place risks on technical performance, cost, and schedule to get a lot out of a small package," Stahl explains. The generous size and mass afforded by the Ares V all but eliminates those constraints for most payloads.

gaetanomarano · 2007-06-27 01:46:58

At the exploration briefing update 7 Jun 2007, Jeff Hanley said the marginal cost of the Ares V will be $200-300 million.

HOW the total price can be LESS than the SUM of the single parts???

the price of the AresV hardware will be AT LEAST $350M ...and I don't include in that price the shared R&D costs and the fixed annual costs for the AresV launches' earth assembly and support (I've read an estimated $1.3Bn per year of fixed costs ...then, a further $650M per launch...)

.

New Mars Forums

Announcement

#101 2007-02-18 03:16:16

Re: Ares V (CaLV) - status

#102 2007-02-20 02:30:27

Re: Ares V (CaLV) - status

#103 2007-02-24 15:11:51

Re: Ares V (CaLV) - status

#104 2007-02-25 05:14:25

Re: Ares V (CaLV) - status

#105 2007-03-10 04:58:10

Re: Ares V (CaLV) - status

#106 2007-03-15 21:42:47

Re: Ares V (CaLV) - status

#107 2007-03-16 07:10:52

Re: Ares V (CaLV) - status

#108 2007-03-16 07:12:30

Re: Ares V (CaLV) - status

#109 2007-03-16 07:24:52

Re: Ares V (CaLV) - status

#110 2007-03-16 09:30:39

Re: Ares V (CaLV) - status

#111 2007-03-16 10:52:32

Re: Ares V (CaLV) - status

#112 2007-03-16 13:06:11

Re: Ares V (CaLV) - status

#113 2007-03-16 13:37:08

Re: Ares V (CaLV) - status

#114 2007-03-19 20:05:08

Re: Ares V (CaLV) - status

#115 2007-03-20 03:57:54

Re: Ares V (CaLV) - status

#116 2007-03-20 08:38:52

Re: Ares V (CaLV) - status

#117 2007-03-24 04:13:43

Re: Ares V (CaLV) - status

#118 2007-05-04 05:11:03

Re: Ares V (CaLV) - status

#119 2007-05-04 16:12:13

Re: Ares V (CaLV) - status

#120 2007-06-08 07:11:12

Re: Ares V (CaLV) - status

#121 2007-06-09 15:56:45

Re: Ares V (CaLV) - status

#122 2007-06-12 02:17:28

Re: Ares V (CaLV) - status

#123 2007-06-23 12:46:43

Re: Ares V (CaLV) - status

#124 2007-06-27 00:32:33

Re: Ares V (CaLV) - status

#125 2007-06-27 01:46:58

Re: Ares V (CaLV) - status

Board footer