Cost of the Ares-Z

Swoosh · 2008-02-28 07:45:53

I was just wondering if anyone has any idea what Zubrin's Ares rocket would actually cost (I'm calling it the Ares-Z to distinguish from the NASA varieties). Since it's all shuttle-derived, development costs should be relatively low compared to a completely new system. I've done a quick-and-dirty calculation based on a few wildly differing sources for component prices, and come up with the following for the first stage:

1 X External Tank = $170m (based on dividing the cost of the contract to Lockeed Martin by the number of tanks provided - $2.94b for 17 ETs)
2 X Solid Rocket Booster = 2 X $30m = $60m (not sure if this is variable cost or total cost, since they are reusable)
4 X RS-68 = 4 X $14m = $56m (cheaper than SSMEs at $50m each)
Connecting hardware = no idea
Upper stage = no idea
Development costs = no idea

So.... total cost per launch vehicle probably in the range of a half-bil to a bil???

That's as much information as I could find with some low-effort trawling on the net. Why are accurate costs for these things so hard to come by? I would have thought it'd be there in the first paragraph of the External Tank's Wikipedia page! I'm sure there are plenty of people out there with better information than me...

JoshNH4H · 2008-02-28 15:04:22

I don't understand why we don't use the shuttle configuration, but replace the shuttle with a hollow shell (shuttle mass = 100mT)

GCNRevenger · 2008-02-28 17:23:45

They did, and it was called Shuttle-C
http://www.astronautix.com/lvs/shuttlec.htm

The trouble is that Shuttle-C simply can't lift enough payload (<80MT), and has no good way to mount a heavy-duty upper stage like Ares-V.

JoshNH4H · 2008-02-28 20:19:42

OK then.

akinkhoo · 2008-02-29 10:57:29

the Ares V won't launch anything useful in 1 launch neither. it is still a 2 launch option. which imo, it's a wrong move.

since it is still gonna be a 2 launch, why not just go with 2 shuttle-C launch? the Ares is unproven, the SRB had to be redeveloped which really you might as well design a new rocket if you are still gonna pay to development cost with this option too. and now, they can't even figure out if the Ares I can work or if it even can carry enough load.

it is just crap.

[rant]
the reason NASA when with Ares and CEV is because of the NIH (Not Invented Here). the contractors offer better solution to achieve the goal of reaching the moon. but NASA just refuse they, and the stupid part is NASA actually pay them for that, i mean if you not going to listen, why ask?

then NASA has to pull from their arse the 6 crew requirement.... why 6? because 6 is needed for a mars mission... when is the mars mission? when the CEV is retired.... WTF!? :? seriously, it look like the space shuttle all over again... [/rant]

cIclops · 2008-02-29 12:57:20

the Ares V won't launch anything useful in 1 launch neither. it is still a 2 launch option. which imo, it's a wrong move.
since it is still gonna be a 2 launch, why not just go with 2 shuttle-C launch? the Ares is unproven, the SRB had to be redeveloped which really you might as well design a new rocket if you are still gonna pay to development cost with this option too. and now, they can't even figure out if the Ares I can work or if it even can carry enough load.

With one launch Ares V will be able to put a 15+ MT cargo module onto the lunar surface or lift large heavy payloads such as a 10m class space telescope or big Mars modules. See the Ares V topic for all the possibilities

A two launch heavy lift option requires splitting the payload, the 1.5 architecture keeps the large heavy cargo in one piece and separate from the small light crew. This makes a lot of sense and was recommended by the CAIB.

The Orion capsule is sized for future exploration missions, not simply 6 crew. It's as big as possible as it will be the main crew spacecraft for the next 30 years. Size and mass give flexibility for future missions including Earth return from Mars for a crew of six. It can also serve as an ISS lifeboat when six crew are on board. With full funding a Mars expedition can start in the 2020s, Orion will be in the middle of its operational life at that time. Shuttle will have flown for almost 30 years before it's retired, Soyuz far longer.

Ares I is meeting its CARD payload requirements with plenty of margin for both ISS and lunar missions.

GCNRevenger · 2008-02-29 14:23:43

Simply put, Ares-I will be safer and cheaper than Shuttle-C, and NASA must retain access to the ISS after Shuttle is retired. Spending a whole Shuttle-C to launch a capsule doesn't make much sense.

Shuttle-C will wind up be just as expensive or even more too, since it would have to use the pricey RS-25 "SSME" main engines that would cost more than the RS-68 engines on Ares-V. The boosters will cost about the same per flight, and the upper stage engine is much more efficient and powerful than the little OMS rockets on Shuttle-C.

The fuel tanks should cost about the same to build (Ares-V core + EDS versus two Shuttle-C) and you only have to build one avionics set instead of three (Ares-V EDS versus two Shuttle-C and EDS).

Hey, I'm not arguing that Shuttle-C would have cost less to develop, it would surely cost less, but after you pay that one-time expense then Ares-V will surely cost less per kilo to orbit.

Swoosh · 2008-02-29 20:21:32

But what about the Zubrin Ares? It's basically a space shuttle launch stack with an upper stage in an in-line configuration rather than piggy-backed. Shear stress on the ET would be much lower. That's got to cost less than the totally new Constellation systems to develop, the raw hardware costs are relatively low as detailed above, and (assuming Zubrin's calculations are correct) it can put 130mT into LEO. That's a big improvement on anything else currently on the table, and still the most viable for an actual Mars mission, IMO.

GCNRevenger · 2008-02-29 20:25:07

You forget that Zubrin's Ares rocket also called for the ASRM booster rockets and not the standard Shuttle four-segment boosters.

And the engine pod/avionics would be as all-new as the engines/avionics for Ares-V.

Swoosh · 2008-02-29 20:29:50

And the engine pod/avionics would be as all-new as the engines/avionics for Ares-V.

True, but it's a far cry from developing a completely new launch system. And additionally, it'd be a modular system, so if you only need to get, say, fifty tons to orbit rather than 130, just use smaller boosters or leave off the upper stage. It's got a lot of versatility without having to develop two completely new, completely different launchers (Ares 1 and Ares V).

GCNRevenger · 2008-02-29 22:27:12

No, its not

Ares-Z really won't be one bit easier to build than Ares-V. Both of them will need a new core stage, both need new boosters, both need a new upper stage. There is nothing preserved from present Shuttle hardware in Ares-Z except the diameter of the core stage, the SSME engine, and the position of the flame trench at Pad 39. Otherwise, every single piece of the rocket would have to be brand new.

Ares-V will cost less per-flight than Ares-Z since it uses less expensive engines (RS-68 & J-2X versus SSME), and Ares-I will cost a lot less than a "headless Ares-Z" (1 RSRM + 1 J-2X versus 2 ASRM + 4 SSME). I would wager that Ares-I will be quite a bit safer than a downrated Ares-Z as well.

A headless Ares-Z or Ares-V would be an awful waste just for crew launch too in the likely event NASA needs ISS access.

EDIT: Oh, and the Ares-Z needs the higher performance of the SSME main engine to get away with the smaller 8.4m fuel tank. Ares-V trades much cheaper but lower-performance RS-68 engines for a slightly more expensive 10m tank.

Swoosh · 2008-03-01 11:22:04

Aren't the RS-68s actually more powerful than SSMEs? Or is this offset by their increased mass?

GCNRevenger · 2008-03-01 11:30:49

RS-68's have more thrust, but significantly lower efficiency (Isp) than SSME. This was a conscious decision to trade a lower performing but much cheaper engine for larger but inexpensive fuel tanks.

cIclops · 2008-03-01 13:51:01

And the RS-68B is a far simpler engine that operates at lower pressures and is inherently more reliable. SSME reusability and performance comes at a high price in both production and maintenance cost. RS-68B is also a more modern design. It is used on Delta IV, so there will be additional flight experience in parallel with the Ares V.

GCNRevenger · 2008-03-01 14:04:38

Especially the performance part, SSME really pushes what is practical to the limit.

New Mars Forums

Announcement

#1 2008-02-28 07:45:53

Re: Cost of the Ares-Z

#2 2008-02-28 15:04:22

Re: Cost of the Ares-Z

#3 2008-02-28 17:23:45

Re: Cost of the Ares-Z

#4 2008-02-28 20:19:42

Re: Cost of the Ares-Z

#5 2008-02-29 10:57:29

Re: Cost of the Ares-Z

#6 2008-02-29 12:57:20

Re: Cost of the Ares-Z

#7 2008-02-29 14:23:43

Re: Cost of the Ares-Z

#8 2008-02-29 20:21:32

Re: Cost of the Ares-Z

#9 2008-02-29 20:25:07

Re: Cost of the Ares-Z

#10 2008-02-29 20:29:50

Re: Cost of the Ares-Z

#11 2008-02-29 22:27:12

Re: Cost of the Ares-Z

#12 2008-03-01 11:22:04

Re: Cost of the Ares-Z

#13 2008-03-01 11:30:49

Re: Cost of the Ares-Z

#14 2008-03-01 13:51:01

Re: Cost of the Ares-Z

#15 2008-03-01 14:04:38

Re: Cost of the Ares-Z

Board footer