Ares I (CLV) - status

SpaceNut · 2006-05-08 21:10:38

More wishy washy Nasa thinking...
CEV landing system re-evaluated

The Exploration Transportation System (ETS) consists of the four/six-crew CEV capsule, its CLV booster and the Cargo Launch Vehicle (CaLV), which will carry the Earth departure stage (EDS) and lunar surface access module into orbit. The capsule’s landing system currently consists of parachutes, airbags and retro-rockets for the planned touchdown on land.

So this is why Nasa is thinking about this again...pesky water..

But the CEV will also need the ability to land on water, which could occur after an aborted launch from Kennedy Space Center, Florida.

cIclops · 2006-05-09 06:00:00

The initial target weight value was put within the capability to fly on modified versions of delta and atlas but Griffin wanted to get away from the man rated issue and bumped the weight out of there capabilities. I think about late 2004.
(aka the "60 Day Study")

There was no initial target weight. These are all working estimates that were derived during the ESAS started by Griffin when he took over in 2005 and finished during that summer. There is no detailed breakdown of the 25 mt yet, no doubt even that number will change as the design evolves. NASA's unique experience with manned lunar space vehicles makes their numbers better than anyones. RTTM is hard. To do it with four crew and to do it well, safely and in a sustainable way, needs a capable vehicle and that means heavy.

cIclops · 2006-05-23 12:22:04

MSFC solicits information about the development and testing of a roll controll thruster and valve package.

In order to meet current Crew Launch Vehicle program critical milestones, the proposed development and test effort needs to be completed by November 2008. The Government anticipates an award will be made for the proposed procurement by the end on November 2006.

cIclops · 2006-06-05 13:38:57

New high resolution CLV / CEV graphic (230kb 1500x844 pixels)

SpaceNut · 2006-06-07 07:06:04

US Astronauts To Fly New Space Ship By 2014

NASA announced Monday that the space ship that will return astronauts to the Moon should be ready for tests in 2012 and for a manned flight in 2014. Which IMO has been delayed due to funding for the RTF of the shuttle fleet and ISS. This was about a $4 billion short fall indicated for the 2006 year budget cycle for future years.

"Our plan calls for first human flight of CEV in 2014, preceding that, is a flight test program that commences in 2012," said Jeff Hanley, director of Constellation, a program to prepare NASA for a return to the Moon as a stepping stone to Mars.
"We are studying right now a developmental flight test where we could fly as early as April 2009 ... a first stage with a dummy upper stage, with a dummy CEV on top, to validate the concept," he said.
A final decision will be made later this year, he said.

cIclops · 2006-06-07 09:23:45

NASA announced Monday that the space ship that will return astronauts to the Moon should be ready for tests in 2012 and for a manned flight in 2014. Which IMO has been delayed due to funding for the RTF of the shuttle fleet and ISS. This was about a $4 billion short fall indicated for the 2006 year budget cycle for future years.

Mike Griffin has already stated that the shortfall in NASA's budget due to STS & ISS overspending has affected the exploration budget. Congress is pushing for more money to cover this right now. Given the strong desire to reduce the "gap" between STS retirement and CEV startup, the CEV may be operational in 2011.

cIclops · 2006-06-09 04:55:31

Pratt & Whitney Rocketdyne news release about their contract to supply the J-2X for the CLV US and EDS.

John Vilja, director of advanced propulsion for PWR, said a number of
upgrades are being considered to meet all mission requirements. "We'll be
harvesting mature, flight-proven technologies to further enhance the J-2X's
performance," Vilja said, "including a channel-walled main combustion
chamber. And we'll be implementing many producibility techniques that have
been used with other current engines."

SpaceNut · 2006-06-09 06:47:01

Had mentioned that Pratt would be the contractor for the J2. This was from the typical space web sites with the inside sources. This is good news though that Nasa is moving forward with what is necessary to not only get the CEV to orbit nut as well as to plan for the eventual CaLV in the process.

One last point: CaLV flights would be much cheaper than using expensive man rated CLVs to deliver cargo to the Outpost..

From a hardware stand point the the CaLV will be more expensive since it has more SRB's , a larger Lox/LH2 tank with multiple first stage engines and the extra engines for the 2 nd stage to get to the moon and back plus thats not counting the LSAM. Now for the man rating of the CaLV it is said by Boeing that the RS68 which was made by Rocketdyne now a Pratt & Whitney product that it can be easily man rated. Though I can not find the quote for it at this time.

Launching a capsule on the CaLV would be way over kill but launching a mars habitat, mars lander or some other module to be joined together in orbit would probably not be a problem.

publiusr · 2006-06-09 10:49:11

There were plans for CaLV without the solids over at the ESAS Alternatives page at www.nasaspaceflight.com

CaLV will have many uses. I hope to see it used as much if not more than Titan IV.

cIclops · 2006-06-28 00:35:27

Wind tunnel and igniter testing work reported here by NASA 27 June 2006

Since June, engineers at the Marshall Space Flight Center's Aerodynamic Research Facility in Huntsville, Ala., have conducted 80 wind-tunnel runs on a partial model of the Crew Launch Vehicle. The model includes a portion of the upper stage, the spacecraft adapter, the Crew Exploration Vehicle and the launch abort system.
<snip>
Engineers at Marshall also have completed preliminary tests of an "augmented spark igniter," a critical engine component needed for in-flight ignition of liquid hydrogen and liquid oxygen propellants that mix and burn in engine combustion chambers.
The test apparatus and a similar igniter will be used in development of the J-2X upper stage engine

gaetanomarano · 2006-06-30 10:16:43

.

I don't like capsules for LEO launches (I prefer a new, little and safer Shuttle) and I think that a single-launch architecture is better than an 1.5-launch architecture for moon missions, but, since NASA insists to want the CLV and the 1.5 architecture, why they follow the worst way that needs too much money and many years to have the first orbital CEV launch only in 2014-up !!!

Why they don't use the Ariane5 of their European allieds and friends?

I think there are MANY advantages in the "Ariane5 solution" for the CLV:

1. Ariane5 is READY AVAILABLE NOW and FLY while the CLV will have its first unmanned test launches only in 2012-up.

2. The core stage of the Ariane5 has the same 5mt. diameter of the lunar CEV/SM.

3. The last evolution of the Ariane5 is able to launch up to 21 mT in LEO (like the ATV) that is the new weight of the resized 5mt. lunar CEV/SM (the total weight of the original 5.5mt. lunar CEV/SM was around 23 mT)

4. Ariane5 needs only to be man-rated and that may be done in two years and with less than $500M (since the Ariane5 was ALREADY designed to launch manned vehicles like Hermes)

5. With the Ariane5 the first orbital CEV launch may happen in 2010 (the year of Shuttle reirement) instead of 2014 (last official date) + further delays and the first moon mission may happen in 2016 instead of 2020 (last official date) + further delays.

6. Each Ariane5 launch costs about $200M instead of the unknown (but, I think, very high) cost of a CLV launch in 2014...

7. NASA don't needs to spend $7 billion of R&D costs (a figure that many think will grow to $10B+ within 2014...) and, with the money saved, NASA can buy fron 35 to 50 Ariane5 (!!!!!!!!!) ...in other words... only with the R&D saved, NASA can buy ALL the rockets they need for ALL orbital missions and ALL moon missions in the next 30 years after 2010 !!!!!!!!!!!!!!

8. Despite the cost of an Ariane5 is very low, NASA may have them FREEEEEEEEE by simply offer to ESA to send on the moon ONE European astronaut every two moon missions! ...ESA will give ALL rockets FREE and NASA will give some moon-seats FREE !!!

9. If NASA will use the Ariane5 will build its own Cape Canaveral launch pad, but, if they need another pad, may use the Kourou spaceport.

10. If NASA don't receive the giant funds to develop the CLV or the plan will be too slow, they risk the entire plan to be DELETED while, using the ready available Ariane5, they can accomplish the first CEV mission in less time and less money!

11. The CLV don't exist now and its design will be completely different from to-day's rockets... it may be better and works... but may have problems about stability, acceleration, aerodynamic, reliability, delays, etc. etc. etc... then, if the REAL rocket will be not good like "on paper" it will never fly (or never fly manned) and NASA must restart form ZERO with another design! ...while Ariane5 (like other EELVs) already fly!

12. And, if NASA will share with ESA the CEV/SM research and test work, maybe, also the CEV will borns one-two years before than planned.

I'm sure that we can found MANY other good reasons to adopt (NOW) the Ariane5 instead of the (future and uncertain) CLV but I give you ONE REASON that is BETTER than all the 12 already listed here...

LOOK AT THE IMAGE IN THIS POST... DO YOU WANT (AN LIKE) TO SEE THAT IMAGE TO BECOME REAL IN A FEW YEARS... OR WANT TO SEE THE CLV IN 2014-UP ...OR NEVER IF IT DON'T WORKS OR NASA DON'T RECEIVE THE FUNDS ???

GCNRevenger · 2006-06-30 11:23:58

Simple. Too much American tax payer money would go out of the country to buy Ariane rockets. For the US Congress, spending money which ultimately returns to the American economy is one thing, but spending money that stays in France/Italy/England is another. It doesn't matter how cheap the Ariane is, even if it were only $100M a flight that would still be more than Congress is willing to give other countries. The notion that they would simply give away the rockets in return for a seat or two now and then is preposterous too, given how Ariane is built by a private contractor and the ESA would not pay tens of billions for a handfull of seats.

Plus the cost of man-rating, which was deemed a major problem for Delta-IV, would also be a problem with this option. One of the characteristics for man-rating is structural margin if memory serves, that is, how "overbuilt" the rocket is. If you add more structural supports to Ariane (or EELVs), would it be able to lift CEV then? The CLV's first stage is a thick steel cylinder, and the upper stage is a miniature version of the man-rated Shuttel external tank. So no, no the Ariane-V isn't ready, and it probably wouldn't be ready much faster than the purpose-built CLV. Your assertion that it would take only two years and $500M is pure unfounded conjecture.

The main reason that CEV/CLV flights are several years away is not because they inherintly take that long for an efficient development, but because NASA doesn't have the money for an efficient development as long as they have to feed the Golden Goose and its progeny (Shuttle & ISS). If CEV/CLV will take a long time because money is tight, so will CEV/Ariane. Also, NASA is going to get "giant raise" for the VSE program - when Shuttle is gone! You also say that NASA would build launch facilities for Ariane, how much time and money would those cost? The launch facilities for CLV would require only minor modification from Shuttle.

Persuant to the 1.5 launch arcitecture, NASA also needs timely launch of the CEV, which should be much easier to achieve with the simpler CLV then it would the Ariane rockets. On multiple threads and on multiple occasions in big bold red capital letters you said that this was a major problem gaetano, and now it isn't?

But most importantly, partnering with the ESA to use their rocket without an operational American factory for them would mean we place NASA's throat in Europes' teeth, and if they should decide to "rebuke" us for whatever political hissy-fit of the week, they can simply stop sending us rockets. Then what? We already have factories for our rockets, paying to make new ones for Ariane would be expensive.

cIclops · 2006-06-30 12:39:09

Yes it's official NASA speak now, the CLV is called Ares 1... once they can decide if it is pronounced "Air-ees" or "Arr-ees".

Note the thread name change

Rxke · 2006-07-01 03:20:17

Wow!

I hope these names stick.

cIclops · 2006-07-04 10:58:02

Ripped from Ares 1 Factsheet (PDF)

During the first two-and-a-half minutes of flight, the first stage booster powers the vehicle to an altitude of about 200,000 feet and a speed of Mach 6.1 After its propellant is spent, the reusable booster separates and the upper stage’s J-2X engine ignites and powers the crew vehicle to an altitude of about 63 miles. Then, the upper stage separates and the Crew Exploration Vehicle’s service module propulsion system completes the trip to a circular orbit 185 miles above Earth.

cIclops · 2006-07-04 11:21:24

The J-2X LO2/LH2 fueled engine will be used to power the Ares 1 upper stage and Ares V EDS.

The J-2X is an evolved variation of two historic predecessors: the powerful J-2 upper-stage engine that propelled the Apollo-era Saturn 1B and Saturn V rockets to the moon and the J-2S, a simplified version of the J-2 developed and flight-tested in the early 1970s but never flown.

Rxke · 2006-07-06 04:29:19

developed and flight-tested in the early 1970s but never flown.

Heehee, flight-testing without flying!

(sorry, couldn't resist, sounded funny.)

From TFpdf:

the launch vehicle’s
25-ton payload capacity might be
used for delivering cargo to space,
bringing resources and supplies to the
International Space Station or drop-
ping payloads off in orbit for retrieval
and transport to exploration teams
on the moon.

So... Any alt.spacers working or planning to build a tug?

GCNRevenger · 2006-07-06 17:14:19

Or perhaps a light cargo lander able to put several tonnes on the Moon. Kind of a Lunar Progress.

Rxke · 2006-07-07 03:27:34

Ah, yes... There is that 'competition' to build a privately-built lunar lander system... So that'd be the ticket....

GCNRevenger · 2006-07-07 05:50:17

Take the stock Ares-I, stretch the second stage and use the restartable J-2X to make a "mini EDS" or else use an EELV-derived third stage with an RL-10 engine for a TLI stage, stick the commercial lander on top. Half a dozen tonnes from Earth to the Moon for a few hundred mil, not too bad a deal.

RedStreak · 2006-07-07 16:03:40

Well, sounds like Ares I is on the way. Hopefully the name will help soothe any further complaints from Robert Zubrin of the Mars Society.

From the sound of it I can see how redesigning the SRB to handle a drop from 200 thousand feet at six times the speed of sound could be a hastle. What can the current SRB withstand in comparison?

I find the irony of calling an engine flight-tested without an actual flight funny too. In seriousness I hope the J-2X will get real flight testing, and hopefully all the years of hypotethical testing and revisions of the J-2 will pay off.

Now let's see if they can light this candle... 8)

GCNRevenger · 2006-07-07 17:14:15

Amen

SpaceNut · 2006-07-15 22:22:11

I am wondering just how much of the changes are making to the 10 15 billion change in the developement dollars that the rumor mill is proporting.

NASA sets targets for new Ares infrastructure

April of next year has been set as the handover date for Launch Complex 39B from Shuttle operations to CLV (Crew Launch Vehicle) recommisioning, in the first step of Kennedy Space Center's transition back to a moon port.
However, it'll come at a price, with brand new "lightweight" MLPs (Mobile Launch Platforms) and infrastructure, plus up to four test flights in the 2009 through 2010 time frame, before Ares I launches on its debut manned mission in 2012.
The confirmation of 39B is yet to be made official by NASA, although sources note the decision has taken place, ruling out Launch Complex 40 - which was the other frontrunner for CLV operations.

Even the building of new transport pad crawlers is going to be needed it would seem...

gaetanomarano · 2006-07-23 09:27:06

.

latest news talks of a SM resizing and a CEV/SM mass reduction of 6500 lbs.

with the new, reduced, weight, the CEV/SM will exactly MATCH the Ariane5 payload without any rocket upgrade nor further CEV mass reduction!

a very good idea may be to launch ALL ISS/orbital CEVs only with the Ariane5 (to save time and money) and upgrade the Ares-V to launch the full moon-hardware with a single rocket, like Apollo

.

RedStreak · 2006-07-23 14:35:33

.
with the new, reduced, weight, the CEV/SM will exactly MATCH the Ariane5 payload without any rocket upgrade nor further CEV mass reduction!
a very good idea may be to launch ALL ISS/orbital CEVs only with the Ariane5 (to save time and money) and upgrade the Ares-V to launch the full moon-hardware with a single rocket, like Apollo
.

No offense but didn't the Ariane V have a bad launch record from the beginning? I know they've greatly improved upon that but I don't feel confident that with that kind of track record if you plan to man-rate the vehicle.

If ESA wants to give it a try, fine. Most likely I'll bet ESA just builds something on its own - i.e. a modified ATV.

New Mars Forums

Announcement

#51 2006-05-08 21:10:38

Re: Ares I (CLV) - status

#52 2006-05-09 06:00:00

Re: Ares I (CLV) - status

#53 2006-05-23 12:22:04

Re: Ares I (CLV) - status

#54 2006-06-05 13:38:57

Re: Ares I (CLV) - status

#55 2006-06-07 07:06:04

Re: Ares I (CLV) - status

#56 2006-06-07 09:23:45

Re: Ares I (CLV) - status

#57 2006-06-09 04:55:31

Re: Ares I (CLV) - status

#58 2006-06-09 06:47:01

Re: Ares I (CLV) - status

#59 2006-06-09 10:49:11

Re: Ares I (CLV) - status

#60 2006-06-28 00:35:27

Re: Ares I (CLV) - status

#61 2006-06-30 10:16:43

Re: Ares I (CLV) - status

#62 2006-06-30 11:23:58

Re: Ares I (CLV) - status

#63 2006-06-30 12:39:09

Re: Ares I (CLV) - status

#64 2006-07-01 03:20:17

Re: Ares I (CLV) - status

#65 2006-07-04 10:58:02

Re: Ares I (CLV) - status

#66 2006-07-04 11:21:24

Re: Ares I (CLV) - status

#67 2006-07-06 04:29:19

Re: Ares I (CLV) - status

#68 2006-07-06 17:14:19

Re: Ares I (CLV) - status

#69 2006-07-07 03:27:34

Re: Ares I (CLV) - status

#70 2006-07-07 05:50:17

Re: Ares I (CLV) - status

#71 2006-07-07 16:03:40

Re: Ares I (CLV) - status

#72 2006-07-07 17:14:15

Re: Ares I (CLV) - status

#73 2006-07-15 22:22:11

Re: Ares I (CLV) - status

#74 2006-07-23 09:27:06

Re: Ares I (CLV) - status

#75 2006-07-23 14:35:33

Re: Ares I (CLV) - status

Board footer