Ares I (CLV) - status

cIclops · 2006-03-24 01:28:00

I hope it's okay to start a new thread as CLV stuff is spread around the forum.

This is a project of vital importance for RTTM and hopefully Mars.

Ed Kyle has an excellent summary of the baseline concept released by NASA 20 March 2006

The new design, though heavier and taller than the old concept, provides a better balance of work between the first and second stages. The design offers potential cost advantages by using a lower-cost upper stage engine, by making the most costly part of the rocket, the upper stage, smaller, and by creating a single five-segment RSRM production line for both the crew launcher and the proposed heavy lift cargo launch vehicle..

SpaceNut · 2006-03-24 08:06:41

I have concerns for when the contacts will be issued when the J2 is sort of a museum piece.

Whats stopping or when will ATK start supplying the firsts 5 segment when they are the only provider?

The only good thing about the tanks going to michoud is that no foam will be used.

So when will we have more than a particial sized mockup of the CEV capsule?

GCNRevenger · 2006-03-24 08:25:14

The J-2X engine is relativly simple, it should not be that hard to rebuild them.

The five-segment booster, for it to be man-rated, requires some strengthening and redesign; the five-segment model test fired some time back was built using the extra engineering margins of the four-segment construction, and not be practical for manned flight.

And yes, the upper stage will probobly have foam. Why else would it be orange? But this time, it doesn't matter if foam falls off the thing, since the SRBs are solid, sturdy metal plates.

The NASA contract for who builds the capsule should be awarded by the end of the year at latest. It has taken a little while because of CLV changes (J-2X for SSME, five segment for four segment SRB, moved roll control to interstage), which would influence the capsule's design too. Booster first, capsule second.

cIclops · 2006-03-24 09:12:11

The NASA contract for who builds the capsule should be awarded by the end of the year at latest. It has taken a little while because of CLV changes (J-2X for SSME, five segment for four segment SRB, moved roll control to interstage), which would influence the capsule's design too. Booster first, capsule second.

That seems backwards. The purpose of the CLV is to launch crew, so logically shouldn't they be first, then their capsule and lastly the booster?

GCNRevenger · 2006-03-24 09:49:56

Ordinarily, but when you are using derivitives of other hardware (SRB, J-2, Shuttle tank construction), its probobly better to know what is possible and practical for the launch vehicle before comitting to a capsule design, instead only finding out later that the launch vehicle can't do the job without excessive (re)development.

cIclops · 2006-04-03 12:03:25

J-2X DESIGN, DEVELOPMENT, TEST & EVALUATION

Solicitation released by NASA/MSFC Mar 31, 2006

NASA/MSFC has a requirement for the design, development, test, and evaluation (DDT&E) of an engine to support the Crew Launch Vehicle (CLV) Upper Stage and the Cargo Launch Vehicle (CaLV) Earth Departure Stage (EDS). The engine, a J-2 (Saturn Heritage engine) derivative, will be a 250,000 pound thrust class human-rated engine and is planned to support a human launch of the CLV in 2012. The baseline DDT&E effort will require the delivery of seven development and qualification engines with two spares, two development test flight engines, and one human flight engine.

Mars_B4_Moon · 2006-04-06 17:05:31

The Ares Heavy Lift or CaLC or Magnum or whatever it's called looks great, but the CLV/CEV or "The Stick" is the problem and it is becoming a disaster that is sucking money away from the real Heavy Lift launcher and budget requests for the CLV/CEV are getting silly.. Almost 70% of the ESAS points won't survive to the end of the year, the CEV/CLV-SRB is now going out of control there are technical and design problems and it has now from a 1 Billion dollar PP-show to a 3 Billion Dollar power point show, and now another configuration is being studied.

John Creighton · 2006-04-06 22:28:30

The Ares Heavy Lift or CaLC or Magnum or whatever it's called looks great, but the CLV/CEV or "The Stick" is the problem and it is becoming a disaster that is sucking money away from the real Heavy Lift launcher and budget requests for the CLV/CEV are getting silly.. Almost 70% of the ESAS points won't survive to the end of the year, the CEV/CLV-SRB is now going out of control there are technical and design problems and it has now from a 1 Billion dollar PP-show to a 3 Billion Dollar power point show, and now another configuration is being studied.

Well, we need something to carry the crew aka the CEV. Doesn’t the CLV practically already exists. The solid rocket boosters have a long successful history. I am curious though of the break down of that cost. How much is CLV and how much is CEV and if most of the cost is CEV what do you propose?

cIclops · 2006-04-07 04:10:46

Mentioned elsewhere in the forum and included here for reference

Rumor from NASA Watch

According to reliable sources NASA's initial internal estimate of what it would cost to modify the current SRB used for Shuttle missions to serve as the first stage of the new Crew Launch Vehicle had been around $1 billion. That estimate has been revised up to around $3 billion.

Yang Liwei Rocket · 2006-04-07 05:57:04

Mentioned elsewhere in the forum and included here for reference
Rumor from NASA Watch
According to reliable sources NASA's initial internal estimate of what it would cost to modify the current SRB used for Shuttle missions to serve as the first stage of the new Crew Launch Vehicle had been around $1 billion. That estimate has been revised up to around $3 billion.

that is nuts !

GCNRevenger · 2006-04-07 08:35:58

The Ares Heavy Lift or CaLC or Magnum or whatever it's called looks great, but the CLV/CEV or "The Stick" is the problem and it is becoming a disaster that is sucking money away from the real Heavy Lift launcher and budget requests for the CLV/CEV are getting silly.. Almost 70% of the ESAS points won't survive to the end of the year, the CEV/CLV-SRB is now going out of control there are technical and design problems and it has now from a 1 Billion dollar PP-show to a 3 Billion Dollar power point show, and now another configuration is being studied.

Blah blah, there you go making sweeping "sky is falling" statements about VSE based on a little one-paragraph "news" from the anti-NASA people at NASA Watch, which is based off of a quote/unquote "reliable souce."

And where do you get this notion that "another configuration" is being considerd? Its really very simple, if NASA can't complete the CEV/CLV, they are done for in Congress. So, why would NASA seek to abandon it?

Hush up MarsB4Moon, come back and proclaim the end of the line for NASA when you actually have some facts and not anonymous sources on anti-NASA websites and wisperd rumors of plan changes.

Rxke · 2006-04-07 10:18:26

I was about to comment the same,... but in a more -ahem- restrained way.

NASA-Watch should rename itself NASA-Whine, they just CAN'T say anything positive, that gets rather tiring...

GCNRevenger · 2006-04-07 12:30:50

Yeah... did you read NasaWatch's moto?:

"Remember: It's YOUR space agency. Get involved. Take it back. Make it work - for YOU"

Take it back from who now? You mean, take it away from the administrators duly appointed by the elected government? And give control of the agency to who?

What it should say:

"Remember: It's OUR space agency. Get involved. Take it back. Then give it to US... since we're right. (or whatever reason)

Rxke · 2006-04-07 12:42:35

Sometimes they have good stuff up, but it looks more a "let's backstab our former employer in the back"

Oftentimes, when I visit one of their articles, I can't help thinking, 'sheesh, get over it, or do it yourself, mr. know-it-all-better-with-the-smug-grin'

I can hardly been described as a NASA fanboy, but I get soooo fed up with whiners with a chip on their shoulder the size of Florida

GCNRevenger · 2006-04-07 15:13:02

Yeah, I'm waiting for the headline:

"A reliable source today divulged that NASA plans to throw kittens out of airlocks to test the effects of decompression on mammals"

John Creighton · 2006-04-07 19:32:32

Yeah, I'm waiting for the headline:
"A reliable source today divulged that NASA plans to throw kittens out of airlocks to test the effects of decompression on mammals"

Of course you don't need to go to space to test that.

Commodore · 2006-04-07 19:41:29

Yeah, I'm waiting for the headline:
"A reliable source today divulged that NASA plans to throw kittens out of airlocks to test the effects of decompression on mammals"

You know, its distrubing that something so sick can at the same time be a completely appropreate caricature.

EuroLauncher · 2006-04-10 07:54:45

Mentioned elsewhere in the forum and included here for reference
Rumor from NASA Watch
According to reliable sources NASA's initial internal estimate of what it would cost to modify the current SRB used for Shuttle missions to serve as the first stage of the new Crew Launch Vehicle had been around $1 billion. That estimate has been revised up to around $3 billion.
that is nuts !

If you think that was bad,

then check out this

VSE: Less steroids or less Apollo
4/10/2006 4:54:00 AM
By: Chris Bergin / Daniel Handlin
Once characterized as "Apollo on steroids" by NASA administrator Mike Griffin, the architecture surrounding the ESAS (Exploration Systems Architecture Study) has grown too heavy for its launch vehicles.

nasaspaceflight

According to NASA internal review documents obtained by NASASpaceFlight.com, the architecture may be sheared of much of its "steroid" capability, or be replaced by a radically different kind of lunar exploration technique - based around rendezvous thousands of kilometers above the farside of the Moon.
The weight problems with the ESAS have led to a recent NASA trade study that indicates that any simple variant of the original ESAS vehicles are now too heavy to be flown to the Moon. The results of the study conclude that drastic changes are necessary to ESAS assumptions, in order to make the planned flights to the Moon feasible.

Mars_B4_Moon · 2006-04-10 08:28:52

CLV Update
http://www.usspacenews.com/index.html

April 10th, 2006
We are going to add about $800,000,000 to the CLV 1st stage cost estimate. This should put it at about $2.1 Billion.
The primary reason for this is the addition of a 5th SRB segment. We have to
assemble and test fire 3 1st stage boosters before 1st test launch. We also have to do a considerable amount of analysis to make sure it's safe, and that we have not introduce an unknown into the SRBs performance. All the right things to do. We also have to get more hardware.
Pad A will start it's modification for CLV in FY 2007. One OPF will also be transition over to support initial CLV/CEV test flights in FY 2007.

cIclops · 2006-04-10 14:15:09

VSE: Less steroids or less Apollo
4/10/2006 4:54:00 AM
By: Chris Bergin / Daniel Handlin
Once characterized as "Apollo on steroids" by NASA administrator Mike Griffin, the architecture surrounding the ESAS (Exploration Systems Architecture Study) has grown too heavy for its launch vehicles.
nasaspaceflight
According to NASA internal review documents obtained by NASASpaceFlight.com, the architecture may be sheared of much of its "steroid" capability, or be replaced by a radically different kind of lunar exploration technique - based around rendezvous thousands of kilometers above the farside of the Moon.
The weight problems with the ESAS have led to a recent NASA trade study that indicates that any simple variant of the original ESAS vehicles are now too heavy to be flown to the Moon. The results of the study conclude that drastic changes are necessary to ESAS assumptions, in order to make the planned flights to the Moon feasible.

Note that this is speculation based on leaked undated internal working documents (assuming these are true NASA docs). There is no such conclusion in the presented docs, furthermore it is unclear in what context this work is being performed. It is standard practice to work through complex problems in this way, creating scenarios and extreme cases in order to expose weaknesses and reduce risk.

(It's hard to see that this is in anyway helpful to NASA's work to have their files publicly distributed, although it clearly helps journalists make money and bash NASA)

GCNRevenger · 2006-04-11 12:50:40

I noted in a similar thread under Human Missions:

-The original ESAS plan didn't take ESAS propellant boiloff into account, and this new study does for a ninety day loiter before heading to the Moon. No doubt because NASA doesn't know how easy it will be to fly CLV yet.

-This study takes into account lower predicted performance figures from the "expendable SSME (RS-25F)," switch from two J-2S to one J-2X for EDS, and the switch from methane to hypergolics for CEV-SM/LSAM acent module.

-Proposes three options
1) A strip down "LEM 2.0" with only two crew and no ability to reach the poles. The only mission that currently fits within mass budgets.

2) Direct flight with a near-baseline LSAM with L2 redezvous for Earth return later. Very close to within mass budgets, CLV has excess payload and CaLV has a little less then needed; workable with propellant transfer?

3) Baseline ESAS plan with boiloff and lower performance propellants is unworkable and exceeds the payload of both CLV and CaLV.
_______________________________________________

Basically, NASA has some thinking to do before it goes and signs any contracts...

-Losing methane hurts the budget (though probobly doesn't tip any scales), can the methane engine be done if the CEV date is pushed back to 2014 instead of 2012? May the ISS be danged.

-Doesn't take into account a wider diameter CaLV core with RS-68 engines, does this make any difference?

-One J-2X instead of two J-2S for EDS, a good trade after all?

-A big reason for the decreased payloads is the 90day EDS loiter.

-Could LSAM acent be switched to Hydrogen?

Remember though, NASA faced the same problems back in the Apollo days that they face now, that the numbers don't add up unless you make more powerful rockets, which ultimatly resulted in the monster Saturn-V.

However, it seems that the rush to get the CEV flying that bumped the Methane engine might be more signifigant then I first though, and it seems more and more clear that "Shuttle derived" won't be.

One solution mentioned on the NASA SpaceFlight message board: add another pair of SRBs to the big CaLV. This would increase per-launch price by $60-80M+, but that would solve all the problems.

I will say however, that if NASA settles on the strip-down LSAM (and I hope they don't) it still won't be the end of the world, the LSAM/CaLV combo should still be able to deliver large enough payloads for a Lunar base, and the LSAM will still be big enough for four if all they are doing is shuttling to a Lunar base, the only "fatal" drawback is the inability to reach the Lunar poles.

John Creighton · 2006-04-11 18:51:04

Let’s hope for a revival of the methane engine.

Commodore · 2006-04-11 19:08:50

There are other options.

How difficult would it be to place recirculation systems in orbit? Something that would allow a tankload of fuel to dock and stay in orbit indefinately, minus orbital maintainance.

At the risk of making GCNRevenger explode, its the first step towards a fuel depot. When spacex finally gets the Falcon 9 off the ground we'll be able to send up several expendable loads of fuel for much less moeny.

GCNRevenger · 2006-04-11 19:13:08

No...

One of the #1 cheif problems that NASA has had since before, after, but not so much during Apollo was that they always build their rockets just big enough to do the job, if you go to great lengths to cut off the toothbrush handles and spend big bucks on ways to lighten the load.

And this is possibly a mistake, the Methane engine can't possibly save that much mass, since the smaller the vehicle becomes the less important Isp is compared to density. It surely makes some difference, but only a few tonnes of TLI mass at most. Its still cutting toothbrush handles off, saving only a few percent mass.

The cost of a somewhat bigger rocket is not much greater then a smaller one generally speaking. Instead, kick the Shuttle tank out another 60cm wider or go with quadruple four-segment SRBs perhaps.

It will cost more to develop the bigger CaLV and the methane engine later for Mars, but we get the bennefit of a launch vehicle much bigger then what is "just needed" for Mars, or perhaps would make a single-launch version of DRM-III/Semi-Direct possible, saving >$1Bn per trip to Mars.

Edit: Say if the big CaLV had its maximum LEO payload increased from ~120MT to ~150MT, that would eliminate the need for seperate launches for Mars transfer stage and payload in a NASA DRM-III style scheme, saving a several hundred million per sortie, since one big rocket costs less then two smaller ones and no need for autoated orbital rendezvous hardware.

Commodore · 2006-04-11 19:36:40

What will a 4 SRB CaLV get us in terms of tons to LEO?

If boil off is going to be a problem, we should just address it. Its a valuable tech that will be required sooner or later, and its better than just pushing the ball a few yards furthur down the field.

New Mars Forums

Announcement

#1 2006-03-24 01:28:00

Re: Ares I (CLV) - status

#2 2006-03-24 08:06:41

Re: Ares I (CLV) - status

#3 2006-03-24 08:25:14

Re: Ares I (CLV) - status

#4 2006-03-24 09:12:11

Re: Ares I (CLV) - status

#5 2006-03-24 09:49:56

Re: Ares I (CLV) - status

#6 2006-04-03 12:03:25

Re: Ares I (CLV) - status

#7 2006-04-06 17:05:31

Re: Ares I (CLV) - status

#8 2006-04-06 22:28:30

Re: Ares I (CLV) - status

#9 2006-04-07 04:10:46

Re: Ares I (CLV) - status

#10 2006-04-07 05:57:04

Re: Ares I (CLV) - status

#11 2006-04-07 08:35:58

Re: Ares I (CLV) - status

#12 2006-04-07 10:18:26

Re: Ares I (CLV) - status

#13 2006-04-07 12:30:50

Re: Ares I (CLV) - status

#14 2006-04-07 12:42:35

Re: Ares I (CLV) - status

#15 2006-04-07 15:13:02

Re: Ares I (CLV) - status

#16 2006-04-07 19:32:32

Re: Ares I (CLV) - status

#17 2006-04-07 19:41:29

Re: Ares I (CLV) - status

#18 2006-04-10 07:54:45

Re: Ares I (CLV) - status

#19 2006-04-10 08:28:52

Re: Ares I (CLV) - status

#20 2006-04-10 14:15:09

Re: Ares I (CLV) - status

#21 2006-04-11 12:50:40

Re: Ares I (CLV) - status

#22 2006-04-11 18:51:04

Re: Ares I (CLV) - status

#23 2006-04-11 19:08:50

Re: Ares I (CLV) - status

#24 2006-04-11 19:13:08

Re: Ares I (CLV) - status

#25 2006-04-11 19:36:40

Re: Ares I (CLV) - status

Board footer