Constellation (Cx)

cIclops · 2007-12-20 06:06:43

Overview of Constellation’s Command, Control, Communications, and Information (C3I) Architecture (PDF 4MB) - 14 Nov 2007

o All Systems (space and ground based) will be able to communicate with (and through) any other System
• Network infrastructure (routers and radios)
• Security infrastructure (encryption, key management, information assurance tools)
• Information infrastructure (information model & framework)
o All Systems will contain a minimal set of unique data interfaces, any of which will be capable of flowing system data (including voice, video, telemetry, instrument data, etc…)
o Integrated System costs will be minimized through the use of open architectures, well defined industrial / open standards, and common product-line based systems
o “Plug-n-Play” interfaces will be developed to help facilitate the continual Systems evolution expected over the multi-decade life of the program
• The evolution of Systems will allow the introduction of new requirements and the timely leveraging of technology advances
• System designs will be constructed to allow the addition and/or removal of elements or element features with minimal impact to the System or integrated Systems
o Anyone, anywhere, can access any system or system information from anywhere in the Cx architecture (as constrained by the appropriate security policies).

cIclops · 2008-01-12 05:08:34

Mike Griffin, Keynote Address (PDF) - 10 Jan 2008

With the budgetary resources currently projected during the critical development years of 2009 and 2010, we can reasonably forecast the Orion and Ares systems coming online by early 2015. That being said, the engineering and design teams for the Orion and Ares here in Houston, Huntsville, Cape Canaveral, Cleveland, Denver and many, many other parts of the country are trying to beat this prediction. Godspeed to them.
My considered assessment of the Constellation architecture is that we are not facing any technical showstoppers, but we must – of course – make a number of engineering design choices as we reach the preliminary design phase this year. Constellation is primarily a systems engineering and integration effort, with a great deal of flight-proven hardware – the capsule design of Orion, the shuttle-derived Ares, and the Apollo-era J-2X upper stage engine – and I am extremely proud of the progress this multidisciplinary engineering team around the country has made thus far.

cIclops · 2008-01-22 13:51:07

Comprehensive speech by Mike Griffin about the Constellation architecture (PDF) - 22 Jan 2008

Elsewhere, I have written that a careful analysis of what we can do at NASA on constant-dollar budgets leads me to believe that we can realistically be on Mars by the mid-2030’s. It is not credible to believe that we will return to the Moon and then start with a “clean sheet of paper” to design a system for Mars. That’s just not fiscally, technically or politically realistic. We’ll be on Mars in thirty years, and when we go, we’ll be using hardware that we’re building today.

Audio of the speech and Q&A (79 mins)

GCNRevenger · 2008-01-31 18:28:57

Comprehensive speech by Mike Griffin about the Constellation architecture (PDF) - 22 Jan 2008
Elsewhere, I have written that a careful analysis of what we can do at NASA on constant-dollar budgets leads me to believe that we can realistically be on Mars by the mid-2030’s. It is not credible to believe that we will return to the Moon and then start with a “clean sheet of paper” to design a system for Mars. That’s just not fiscally, technically or politically realistic. We’ll be on Mars in thirty years, and when we go, we’ll be using hardware that we’re building today.
Audio of the speech and Q&A (79 mins)

Certainly, we will have launch vehicles (Ares-V), a reentry vehicle (Orion CM), and a reliable cryogenic-fueled lander (LSAM) plus the technology from the Lunar base (habitat module). Thats about half the technology needed to get to Mars, if not a bit more. We will also be better at building things like space suits, rovers, and possibly nuclear power.

cIclops · 2008-02-01 03:04:05

Certainly, we will have launch vehicles (Ares-V), a reentry vehicle (Orion CM), and a reliable cryogenic-fueled lander (LSAM) plus the technology from the Lunar base (habitat module). Thats about half the technology needed to get to Mars, if not a bit more. We will also be better at building things like space suits, rovers, and possibly nuclear power.

Indeed. Add to the list the Constellation spacesuit, LOX/LCH4 propulsion and ISRU and its well over half. Of course Altair (LSAM) won't work on Mars, but some of its systems should be helpful. The lander for Mars is probably the biggest technology challenge; the transit vehicle is just a habitation module with engines.

cIclops · 2008-02-05 04:17:48

Ares Quarterly Report - January 2008 - YouTube Video 5:22 mins

o Wind tunnel testing
o First stage main parachute testing & production
o First stage 4 segment test
o Ares I-X TVC tests
o New first stage nozzle construction
o Assembly of 5 segment motor
o Fabrication of US LH2 tank panels
o Evaluation of friction stir welding tool
o New vertical weld tool
o Valve testing
o E-3 subscale diffuser testing
o Construction of new A-3 test stand
o J-2X powerpack testing

cIclops · 2008-02-09 13:33:23

Constellation: It's for the new generation - YouTube video 8:58 mins

Swish video overview of the Constellation program with Jeff Hanley, Mark Geyer, Steve Cook and Lauri Hansen.

cIclops · 2008-02-13 17:24:52

Multi-Program Integrated Milestones (PDF 5 MB) - 25 Jan 2008

The BIG picture. Schedule of the main Constellation, Shuttle, ISS, COTS & Facilities milestones from 2007 to 2020.

o Orion, Ares I US & 1st stage PDR Q2 2008

RedStreak · 2008-02-14 13:54:20

I hope SpaceX's demo goes well. Anything that relieves our reliance on the Russians during the critical shuttle-to-Orion-gap I consider a good thing, although accelerating the Orion/Ares-I design & testing phase is even better.

I am also glad at least the initial testing for Ares-I will be about 1/2 complete by the time the shuttle is retired, but obviously the results of those tests will be the key factor.

cIclops · 2008-02-14 14:27:35

NASA's approach to replacing the Shuttle for access to ISS with Ares/Orion is low risk whereas the COTS solution is high risk. That's the main advantage of using Shuttle derived hardware.

Orion 1, the first full test of Ares/Orion, is planned for the end of 2012. Several months later in 2013, Orion 2 with crew on board will dock with the ISS. Two more manned flights are then needed to prove the system, with Initial Operating Capability set for March 2015. Griffin has said that with extra funding he can pull the schedule ahead about 20 months, that would make the first crew flight at the beginning of 2012, just over a year after Shuttle is retired. Congress are also pushing for an extra Shuttle flight to take AMS to ISS, so in fact there may be very little gap at all. Funding is the key.

Mars_B4_Moon · 2008-02-15 06:24:09

Sigh.... So it'll be overly expensive
The solicitation is for proposals, these will be competed on price as well as specification. The requirement is for a product that only NASA will use initially, which company is willing to develop such a specialized one off product with its own money? Cost plus is the traditional way of doing this, it works. What's the alternative?
NASA could sponsor an official Space Race with prize money, this was mentioned in the back of The Case for Mars. I think with current funds the prize could be "Gold" $40 billion, "Silver" $20 billion, and Bronze $10 billion - a total eventual expenditure of $70 billion dollars. Also NASA and other customers such as China and the ESA might want to purchase additional copies for further expeditions. Landing on the Moon has been done before, it is nothing new. Also the money is only rewarded upon completion of the mission, that means initially only private money will be spent. The compeditors can start now once NASA makes the official announcement with Congressional Authorization, NASA can continue launching the Shuttle while private companies begin building their spaceships, and it won't affect the next two years of expenditures as the companies will most likely not be ready to launch their missions.
Perhaps the Chinese and the Europeans might even be pursuaded to contribute to the pot.

Hearing Charter - Dr. Michael Griffin
http://www.science.house.gov/publicatio … ewsID=2075

During his opening statement, Griffin revealed that NASA will seek approval from Congress to purchase additional Soyuz flights beyond 2011 (the current limit as set by the Iran Nonproliferation Amendments Act of 2005), citing his skepticism that commercial entities will be able to provide crew transportation services starting 2012, despite the claims otherwise by companies developing or planning to develop such vehicles. “Our ability to sustain the station cannot be held hostage to hope,” he said. “Thus, given existing legislative restrictions, we will require explicit authorization by the Congress to make further extraordinary payments to Russia in order to provide crew transport on Soyuz to the station after 2011 for our astronauts as for those of our international partners to whom we have obligations.” Because of the 36-month lead time on manufacturing Soyuz vehicles, Griffin said such authorization will be required “prior to next January.”
www.spacepolitics.com
Gordon said that Griffin, in a conversation a few years ago, “poo-pooed” Chinese space capabilities, but now seemed much more concerned about China. “A few years ago I was not particularly concerned about Chinese primacy in human spaceflight relative to that of the United States,” Griffin admitted, something that has changed based on several factors, ranging from China’s accomplishments and plans to his visit there in 2006. “I have become convinced that it is possible for China to mount a human lunar mission towards the end of the next decade and quite possibly before we are able to return.” He promised to provide a more detailed analysis on that for the written record.

cIclops · 2008-02-15 06:47:37

These two factors, namely having to pay for more Soyuz/Progress flights, and China's increasing competitiveness in space, could be important in boosting funding for Constellation to get the new system online faster.

cIclops · 2008-02-29 07:51:56

From Exploration Update (PDF 3MB) - 26 Feb 2008

• NASA is moving from conceptual studies towards Preliminary Design Review (PDR) as required by our Program Management Framework.
• Completed a “season of System Requirement Reviews (SRR’s)” for the Constellation systems in May 2007
• Kicked off a “season of System Definition Reviews (SDR’s)” with the Orion SDR in August 2007
• Orion/Ares I main components are under contract - December 2007
• Lunar Reconnaissance Orbiter (LRO)/ Lunar Crater Observation and Sensing satellite (LCROSS) scheduled launch in late calendar year 2008
• Pad Abort 1 test: September 2008
• Ares I-X launch: April 2009

Many more detailed presentations about all the Constellation elements at the 3rd Space Exploration Conference archive

cIclops · 2008-03-10 06:10:45

SIMConstellation visualization

NASA's immense Constellation Program (CxPO) covers a broad range of focused architecture trades and analysis for multiple vehicles and missions. This presents a major challenge to those tasked to evaluate the big picture view across the broad system of systems. This challenge falls particularly upon the CxPO Architecture Trades & Analysis team (ATA). For example we understand there have been many models or tools used to support DAC1. This paper is Vision Systems' proposed design description for an immersive architecture trades presentation program, called SIMConstellation Architecture Viewer. It is intended to allow presenting architecture trades at a level that is more clear and useful than the current use of PowerPoint as a presentation tool.

Would be nice to see some good examples.

cIclops · 2008-03-26 06:37:24

From: Project Orion progress (PDF 2MB) - 26 Feb 2008

cIclops · 2008-04-04 00:23:18

NASA’s Constellation program has moved beyond being just a mere concept on paper; we are making real progress. We have tested hardware; we have tested landing systems; and we have logged thousands of hours in wind tunnels. So far, the Ares I project has conducted more than 4,000 hours of wind tunnel testing on subscale models of the Ares I to simulate how the current vehicle design performs in flight. These tests support development of the J-2X engine for the Ares I and the Earth Departure Stage of the Ares V. By December 2007, all major elements of the Orion and Ares vehicles were placed under contract. This year, Constellation will be busy with hardware activities which include fabrication of the First Stage Development Motors 1 and 2 for Ares I; complete construction of the Upper Stage Common Bulkhead Demonstration article and also deliver the first Ares I-X demonstration test flight hardware to KSC in October 2008. Orion will be just as busy, culminating the year with a test of its launch abort system at the U.S. Army’s White Sands Missile Range (WSRM) in New Mexico.

From: Richard Gilbrech statement to the House (PDF) - 3 Apr 2008

cIclops · 2008-05-01 03:40:48

From Test & Verification Approach (PDF 5MB) - PDF dated 19 Feb 2008

Flight Test Driving Principles
♦ Integrated flight test strategy encompasses development through operational validation
♦ Development tests inform design, models, adjustments
♦ Validation objectives:
• Does the system do what we want’?
• Does the system behave as expected’?
• Do we understand how to operate the system?
♦ A mission’s objectives (test, ops) are linked to manifested capability set
♦ Testing continues after transition into mission service

cIclops · 2008-05-09 01:13:39

Contract for Ares I Mobile Launcher - 8 May 2008

CAPE CANAVERAL, Fla. -- NASA's Kennedy Space Center has awarded a contract to Hensel Phelps of Orlando, Fla., for the construction of the Ares I mobile launcher for the Constellation Program. Ares I is the rocket that will transport the Orion crew exploration vehicle, its crew and cargo to low Earth orbit. The contract includes an option for an additional Ares I mobile launcher. It is a firm fixed-price contract with a value of $263,735,000, if all options are exercised.
The mobile launcher will support the Ares I and the vehicle's associated ground support equipment. It will be used in the assembly, testing and servicing of the Ares I at existing Kennedy facilities. The mobile launcher will transport the Ares I rocket to the launch pad and provide ground support for launches. The mobile launcher consists of the main support structure that comprises the base, tower and facility ground support systems, which include power, communications, conditioned air, water for cooling, wash-down, and ignition over-pressure protection.
Hensel Phelps will supply all labor, materials and equipment necessary for construction of the Ares I mobile launcher. Ground support equipment, such as umbilicals, propellant and gases, instrumentation, controls and communications, necessary to support the Ares I rocket will be provided and installed under a separate contract or contracts.
The tower of the mobile launcher will have multiple platforms for personnel access and will be approximately 390 feet tall. Construction will take place at the mobile launcher park site area located north of Kennedy's Vehicle Assembly Building at the space center in Florida.

cIclops · 2008-05-16 00:14:20

Program briefing - 15 May 2008 - audio 61 mins

Briefing participants:

- Jeff Hanley, manager, Constellation Program, NASA's Johnson Space Center, Houston
- Mark Geyer, manager, Orion Project, NASA's Johnson Space Center
- Steve Cook, manager, Ares Projects, NASA's Marshall Space Flight Center, Huntsville, Ala.

o Reaching end of the formulation phase
o Starting formal requirements definition of Ares V and Altair soon
o Lunar capability concept to be reviewed June 2008
o Finishing formulation for Orion and Ares I by summer 2008 and program approval review by end of 2008
o Improved confidence in March 2015 date of Initial Operational Capability for Orion/Ares I
o Excellent prime contractor (ATK, P&W, Lockheed Martin) performance
o KSC preparing for Ares I-X, hardware CDR June 2008
o Ares I-X main risk to launch date is availability of mobile launch platform (max slip 6 weeks)
o Construction continues at pad 39B and VAB
o USA will process Ares I-X stack
o Internal first flight date is Sep 2013 - unchanged - no impact due to slippage
o Biggest challenge is funding
o Orion PDR slip has no effect on other elements (Ares, ground operations, missions operations, spacesuit)
o Ares I-X test will validate dynamics models, trajectory and flight controls; also prove lean methods for manufacturing and operations
o Cx budget can manage 6 months of continuing resolution from Congress

Orion
o In preliminary design approaching PDR
o During 22 April checkpoint decided more time needed for integrated vehicle analysis (loads, power, structure)
o PDR now probably in November (slipped two months), another checkpoint in September
o Working to get as much capability, robustness and flexibility
o PDR must show lunar capable vehicle that closes on mass
o LIDS (low impact docking system) testing started on first engineering unit
o First friction stir welds on ground test article expected later this year at MAF
o LAS PAD Abort test now 11 December 2008 (slipped from 23 Sep due to late deliveries of LM electronics)
o No mass margin used to date
o Mass reductions in LAS motor because of reduced drag (reduces load and structure)
o Ascent abort 1 test planned for April 2010
o Landing mode - water nominal, contingency land (requires 200kg in design)
o Investigating cost of water landing (reuse) and changing back to nominal land mode
o Every extra kg in CM costs 9 kg elsewhere!
o TPS will either be PICA or Avcoat- both options are good, to be decided after PDR

Ares I
o Ares I vehicle stack PDR starts 14 July to be complete 10 September 2008
o 70% wind tunnel testing complete (5000 hours)
o First stage now in PDR to be complete 5 June 2008
o First drogue parachute tests in July 2008
o First inert 5 segment cast complete for ground vibration tests
o Nozzle tests complete
o First static test of 5 segment motor April 2009
o J-2X starting CDR component reviews, full engine CDR in November
o Testing J-2X gas generator
o Started production of powerpack #2 (J-2X)
o Upper stage PDR starting in June 2008, all subsystems PDRs complete
o Acceptance testing large scale robotic weld tools
o Wide panel structural tests starting July 2008
o Thrust Oscillation issue in work - design and tests - to be ready for Ares I stack review

SpaceNut · 2012-01-29 14:47:29

The rug was pulled out from under Nasa's Constellations program b the budget process but before it happened the congress made law that allowed a space launch vehicle to be made by utilizing what was left of the shuttle and Constellation work in one Space Launch System.
This work has continued dispite no money...
Expensive NASA rocket draws skepticism by choosing to build an expensive new rocket over the next decade, NASA is laying the groundwork for human exploration beyond the moon, or laying a gravestone for American human spaceflight.

As engineers at Marshall Space Flight Center in Alabama begin designing a rocket that would eventually be capable of blasting 130 metric tons into orbit, many spaceflight experts are questioning why NASA chose what could be the most expensive and riskiest approach to expanding the human spaceflight program beyond low-Earth orbit.

NASA's present plan is to build a heavy-lift rocket, initially with the capability of 70 metric tons but expandable to 130 metric tons, and the Orion spacecraft, suitable to bringing astronauts to and from low-Earth orbit.

Some analyses have shown that it would have been cheaper and quicker to develop a heavy-lift rocket using space shuttle technology, and there are those who advocate using one of several existing launch rockets, such as the Atlas V or Delta IV, to launch spaceship components into orbit, and build a vehicle there.

Using existing launch vehicles, proponents say, would save tens of billions of dollars in development costs, not to mention the high operations costs of an ongoing heavy-lift rocket.

GW Johnson · 2012-02-06 12:49:23

No one yet has any idea of the cost ($/kg) of payload to orbit with the new heavy lifter. We do know what ULA can do with its Atlas 5 series. It's around $2500/pound=$1135/kg for a 20 metric ton payload to LEO. Doesn't vary a lot amongst the different versions. It's the cheapest one in their stable, the Delta's are a lot more expensive.

Falcon-Heavy is about to fly this year or next, from Vandenburg AFB, last I heard. Their website projects 53 metric tons to LEOP at $800-1000/pound= $363-454/kg. Two of these could put 106 tons up for about $48 million.

The new heavy lifter is supposed to be able to loft 130 metric tons to LEO, roughly what two Falcon Heavies could loft. To do it competitively, their one launch price needs to be under $48 million, and their per kg price needs to be under about $370/kg. That's about factor 2.5 cheaper than the cheapest ULA launcher currently flying: Atlas 5.

In other words, they need to be as lean and productive as Spacex. The logistical tail to support each launch of the heavy lifter needs to be the size of a village (like Spacex), not a major city (as is usual with NASA). The chosen heavy lifter design (thank you Congress!) being recycled shuttle hardware and technology, I have zero confidence NASA and its favorite ULA contractor could ever pull that off. They have zero history of doing it. And things get especially dicey when Congress dictates the design- we saw that with Shuttle.

So, the smart way is to buy Spacex Falcon-Heavy launches and do a little orbital assembly (something already demonstrated with ISS). You can build on-orbit vehicles of any size and any complexity desired. That opens up any destination you want: Moon, Mercury, Venus, NEO's, and Mars. All are within reach.

Even closer if you ressurrect NERVA nuclear rocket technology.

GW

RGClark · 2012-02-06 13:49:23

GW Johnson wrote:

No one yet has any idea of the cost ($/kg) of payload to orbit with the new heavy lifter. We do know what ULA can do with its Atlas 5 series. It's around $2500/pound=$1135/kg for a 20 metric ton payload to LEO. Doesn't vary a lot amongst the different versions. It's the cheapest one in their stable, the Delta's are a lot more expensive.
Falcon-Heavy is about to fly this year or next, from Vandenburg AFB, last I heard. Their website projects 53 metric tons to LEOP at $800-1000/pound= $363-454/kg. Two of these could put 106 tons up for about $48 million.

Your kilo to pounds conversion is in the wrong direction. The per kilo amount should be higher because each kilo weighs more than a pound.

Bob Clark

GW Johnson · 2012-02-06 22:24:46

I really am getting old. Divided when I should have multiplied! Sorry.

Falcon Heavy: $800-1000/lb = $1760-2200/kg for 53 metric tons

Atlas-5 5xx series: about $2500/lb = $5510/kg

Still about factor 2.5 apart. Same basic message. The size of the logistical tail (which reflects the simplicity-complexity issue) is crucial to low-cost LEO access.

GW

RGClark · 2012-02-07 02:33:14

GW Johnson wrote:

I really am getting old. Divided when I should have multiplied! Sorry.
Falcon Heavy: $800-1000/lb = $1760-2200/kg for 53 metric tons
Atlas-5 5xx series: about $2500/lb = $5510/kg
Still about factor 2.5 apart. Same basic message. The size of the logistical tail (which reflects the simplicity-complexity issue) is crucial to low-cost LEO access.
GW

Do you have a source for a ca. $100 million price for the 20 mT to LEO capacity Atlas 5? The reason I ask is because the argument I gave in the "SpaceX Dragon spacecraft for low cost trips to the Moon" thread on how a 40 mT vehicle could carry the 4 mT Dragon to the Moon also shows a 20 mT vehicle could carry a 2 mT capsule. Note then the Apollo LEM ascent stage had a dry mass of about 2 mT.
So the 20 mT to LEO capable launchers such as the Atlas 5, Delta IV Heavy and Ariane 5 could carry a 2 mT capsule to the Moon.

Bob Clark

Last edited by RGClark (2012-02-07 02:37:48)

GW Johnson · 2012-02-07 11:21:29

Bob:

Yes, I found it on the internet at one of the watchdog sites. ULA does not post costs the way Spacex does on their site. I don't have the data here at work, but I did record where I found it, at home, I think.

Falcon-9 has a 10 metric ton payload to LEO from Canaveral, for what I figured as $2400/lb. It could carry things in the 2-10 class fairly easily, although the payload shroud might or might not fit.

I found launch costs (as $/max payload weight) to scale down non-linearly with max payload size. It's really only fair to compare at comparable max payload weights.

GW

New Mars Forums

Announcement

#26 2007-12-20 06:06:43

Re: Constellation (Cx)

#27 2008-01-12 05:08:34

Re: Constellation (Cx)

#28 2008-01-22 13:51:07

Re: Constellation (Cx)

#29 2008-01-31 18:28:57

Re: Constellation (Cx)

#30 2008-02-01 03:04:05

Re: Constellation (Cx)

#31 2008-02-05 04:17:48

Re: Constellation (Cx)

#32 2008-02-09 13:33:23

Re: Constellation (Cx)

#33 2008-02-13 17:24:52

Re: Constellation (Cx)

#34 2008-02-14 13:54:20

Re: Constellation (Cx)

#35 2008-02-14 14:27:35

Re: Constellation (Cx)

#36 2008-02-15 06:24:09

Re: Constellation (Cx)

#37 2008-02-15 06:47:37

Re: Constellation (Cx)

#38 2008-02-29 07:51:56

Re: Constellation (Cx)

#39 2008-03-10 06:10:45

Re: Constellation (Cx)

#40 2008-03-26 06:37:24

Re: Constellation (Cx)

#41 2008-04-04 00:23:18

Re: Constellation (Cx)

#42 2008-05-01 03:40:48

Re: Constellation (Cx)

#43 2008-05-09 01:13:39

Re: Constellation (Cx)

#44 2008-05-16 00:14:20

Re: Constellation (Cx)

#45 2012-01-29 14:47:29

Re: Constellation (Cx)

#46 2012-02-06 12:49:23

Re: Constellation (Cx)

#47 2012-02-06 13:49:23

Re: Constellation (Cx)

#48 2012-02-06 22:24:46

Re: Constellation (Cx)

#49 2012-02-07 02:33:14

Re: Constellation (Cx)

#50 2012-02-07 11:21:29

Re: Constellation (Cx)

Board footer