Ares I (CLV) - status

RedStreak · 2006-08-11 20:42:23

Right. Testing with 4-segments isn't nessicarily bad -it would at least give engineers an idea how the vehicle would behave relistically in flight.

I'm willing to try the stick, but if it proves too complicated switch to the lower stage of the CaLV.

SpaceNut · 2006-08-11 20:45:17

There was a link on the Nasa Spaceflight.com site titled "NASA sets Ares test flight roadmap" By Ross B Tierney, 8/10/2006 9:04:00 PM which gave a real clear picture of the assembly issues and construction of the Frankenbooster as Jeffrey F. Bell put it in his article.. This is some of it... the link I bookmarked no longer worked.
http://www.NasaSpaceFlight.com/content/?cid=4697

While testing some flight hardware systems is an obvious aspect to these tests, NASA intends to use these test flights to gather a lot more valuable information about the processing of the vehicles.

The challenge will be to build the first one followed by a second in a 6 month period after the first.

Flight Hardware:
The new 5-segment variant of the Space Shuttle SRB's will not actually be ready in time for these flights. NASA intends to utilise a standard 4-segment booster with an empty 'dummy' fifth segment mounted on top, to simulate the correct aerodynamic, mass and center-of-gravity properties of the final design. The design has been selected to mainly simulate the configuration during the post-separation phase of the flight.
Above the booster, the pilot, drogue and larger main parachutes will be housed in a series of skirts, topped (possibly) by a new 'Aero Shell' cover intended to protect the 'chutes from any damaging blast produced when the Upper Stage main engine is ignited immediately after separation occurs. These test flights will provide the first opportunity to gather hard data on how a 5-segment SRB tumbles away after separating from a single-stick configuration launcher.
These flights will also provide valuable data for both the Recovery Ships and the SRB-Slip facility at the Cape, regarding recovery operations of an SRB stage noticeably longer than previously used, and with considerably larger parachutes.
Above the SRB will be a Frustrum, whose purpose is to offer a tapered transition between the 3.7m diameter core of the SRB, out to the 5.5m diameter of the Upper Stage. When the SRB separates and falls away, the Frustrum remains attached briefly to the Second Stage, and when safely clear, it too will be separated to fall away into the ocean.
Next comes a new Reaction Control System (RCS) in the Interstage. This new system is planned to solve the complicated issue of roll-control for the new vehicle. Based on a scaled-up Post-Boost Propulsion System (PBPS), originally made by Rocketdyne for the 'Peacekeeper' Inter-Continental Ballistic Missile (ICBM), the new system will consist of a total of 72 small hypergolic (monomethylhydrazine fuel and nitrogen tetroxide oxidizer) thrusters located in two clusters of 36.
Each cluster is mounted opposite the other on the sides of the Interstage. By controlling the firing of different numbers of these simple and already flight-certified thrusters, very precise roll-control can be achieved. It is not clear from available documentation yet, whether the Interstage will separate from the Upper Stage on these test flights, although for operational flights later in the program, it will be separated swiftly.
Above that will be the Upper Stage Simulator (USS), designed to mimic very accurately the shape, mass and center-of-gravity of a real Upper Stage, with a set of Development Flight Instrumentation (DFI) systems, TV cameras and other equipment, will provide flight data throughout the test flights.
A few different designs appear to exist at this point, but it seems likely that the final design of the USS will consist of an accurate mass model of the J-2X main engine at the bottom, a large water tank to simulate the mass of the propellant, and a series of identical segments, referred to as 'Tuna Cans', which are designed to allow full access to the inside of the stage, and which are designed to easily join together and be assembled by workers inside, without the need of any new external work platforms in the VAB or at the Pad. The USS is not being designed to be recovered after the flight.
Detailed mass models of the final parts will be constructed to be placed on top. A Spacecraft Adapter (SCA), the CEV Service Module (SM), CEV Command Module (CM) and Launch Abort System (LAS) will be constructed, again accurate in terms of shape, mass and c-of-g. None of these elements are planned to be recovered.
Early versions of the Avionics systems will be aboard both the First stage and the Upper Stage Simulator. They will be designed to fly the various stages as accurately as possible, collect data from all the various systems throughout the vehicle by both radio signal and hard-wire backups to ensure data is received, and then to transmit the data back to Launch Control.

gaetanomarano · 2006-08-14 14:10:07

.

I've found a VERY INTERESTING report on the NASA website about the only (REAL) 5-segments-SRB tests made in 2003 at the ATK test facility of Promontory, Utah.

The REAL tests of a 4+1 SRB (a standard SRB with a 5th segment and only small changes to its nozzle) show a small increase of peak thrust over the 3.3 Mlbs. of a standard SRB with a burning time only a few seconds longer (details and full comment in the 3rd update of my article about the 5sSRB at the same link).

However, some rocket experts say that, the small increase of thrust, doesn't appear dramatic for its use on the Ares-I.

.

SpaceNut · 2006-08-15 20:21:28

The 4 segment plus 1 was meant to test safety limits as from this quote thou I have not found the test data as of yet.

A five-segment engineering test motor demonstrated in October 2003 pushed the motor to its limits so engineers could validate the safety margins of the four-segment motor used to launch Space Shuttles.

As for stumpy the 3 segment srb is most likely the one used for the titan iv.

The SRMU is a three-segment, 10.5 -foot diameter solid rocket motor. A flight set consists of two SRMUs. When fully assembled, each SRMU is approximately 112 feet tall and weighs over 770,000 pounds. With the SRMU, the Titan IVB low-earth-orbit payload exceeds 47,000 pounds and its geosynchronous orbit payload capability ranges up to 12,700 pounds.

RedStreak · 2006-08-15 20:25:49

Between what's being reported it sounds almost like its anyone's guess how well a 5-segment SRB will perform. A 50/50 senerio, figures...

I think this is where the actual engineering tests will solve things.

publiusr · 2006-08-17 10:38:44

I wonder what Rutan will say when the mere abort tests of the Stick wind up faster than his main craft...

gaetanomarano · 2006-08-19 14:13:26

...4 segment plus 1 was meant to test safety limits...

that only because in 2003 the use of the 5-seg. SRB for the Ares-I was unknown or unplanned... but it IS a test of a possible 5-seg. version

...is most likely the one used for the titan iv...

from the specs you quote it appears more similar to the Ariane5 boosters than SRBs
every rocket is different and must be tested, man-rated, etc.

gaetanomarano · 2006-08-19 14:29:23

I wonder what Rutan will say when the mere abort tests of the Stick wind up faster than his main craft...

I think he can't say nothing... so far, privates have NOT any comparable technology
I'm sure that privates will have a bright future in space... but (so far) ...we have ONLY two ('60s) X-15-like suborbital flights, one ('50s) failed rocket launch and a balloon in space...

gaetanomarano · 2006-08-19 14:33:12

...anyone's guess how well a 5-segment SRB will perform...

after thinking, writing, talking and posting around for weeks about the 5-segments SRB... I think that it has no future and will be one of the next things scrapped from ESAS 2.0 (or 3.0, 4.0, 5.0...)

RedStreak · 2006-08-20 14:35:07

...use of a 4 segment for the CLV/CEV would also require some engineering changes...
true, but less work than build the 5-segments since they must only adapt the standard SRB, not redesign it from (near) zero (the new SRB needs changes to grain, dimension, nozzle, propellent shape, recovery system, etc.)

How much work will be debateable, but either way work needs to be done so its a "damned if you do, damned if you don't" situation in short.

However...NASA will damn itself moreso if it backs out now and returns to the original "reuse the shuttle until we burst all our astronauts into flame" senerio. If it comes out a billion overrun I would be willing to look the other way...however if it gets into 5+ billion overrun definetely take concern.

The plan is not flawed, neither is the CEV. To me its the best compromise using what we got now with what space advocates...at least those with a sensible brain (such as Zubrin on one of his more sane days)...have been preaching and begging for years on end.

Rutan and his commercial bretheren are promising...but at this moment they're not up to much more beyond taking tourists on costly trips.

RedStreak · 2006-08-20 14:37:58

...anyone's guess how well a 5-segment SRB will perform...
after thinking, writing, talking and posting around for weeks about the 5-segments SRB... I think that it has no future and will be one of the next things scrapped from ESAS 2.0 (or 3.0, 4.0, 5.0...)

*cough* says the guy who advocates the Ariane V even though the Hermes it was designed to carry was canceled decades ago *cough cough*

Seriously though, I would be willing to bet more money on the 5 segment-SRV for carrying crewed vehicles than the Ariane V...and I'm betting with American dollars too not Euros either.

gaetanomarano · 2006-08-20 15:31:53

...to bet more money on the 5 segment-SRV for carrying crewed vehicles than the Ariane V...

true if you bet on the Ariane5 that launch the CEV... NOT if you bet on a (generic) "capsule" launched (maybe, the ACTS)
but (I think) to win million$$$ you must bet on the 5-seg. SRB deleted in favour of the 4-seg.

gaetanomarano · 2006-08-20 15:46:19

...NASA will damn itself...

the best way for NASA to "damn itself" (soon) is:
1. insist to launch the Shuttle until another crew will die
2. scrap all the ready available hardware (SSME, SRB, etc.)
3. design all vehicles around new hardware (J-2x, 5-seg.SRB, etc.) that need many billion$$$ and many years to born

RedStreak · 2006-08-20 17:11:45

The SSME is not practical enough to be reused, that's why it was eliminated.

As for the 5-seg SRB and J-2X they're updates on old hardware.

I think this sums up how we think to paraphrase some StarWars ....

*RedStreak Skywalker* "Your overconfidence in Ariane is your weakness."

*Darth gaetanomarano* "Your faith in the SRB is yours."

gaetanomarano · 2006-08-20 17:53:39

The SSME is not practical enough to be reused, that's why it was eliminated.
As for the 5-seg SRB and J-2X they're updates on old hardware

an "expendable SSME" is only a reusable unit used for one launch only
the "updates" of the 5-seg. and (recent news) also of the J-2x will cost over FIVE YEARS of delay to the Ares-I (and tons of billion$) that will fly manned (recent rumors) only in 2015
Ariane5 is only the fastest way to launch the CEV
I think it's simply ridiculous that NASA needs TEN YEARS to launch the first CEV, while, in the same time, Russia and China will launch 50+ crew and cargo vehicles! (and China will build its own space station...)
(however... I prefer to have the Ian Solo role... )

RedStreak · 2006-08-20 20:08:49

Ariane5 is only the fastest way to launch the CEV
I think it's simply ridiculous that NASA needs TEN YEARS to launch the first CEV, while, in the same time, Russia and China will launch 50+ crew and cargo vehicles! (and China will build its own space station...)

*just rolls over on his back and laughs*

First off...China has launched diddle-e-squat. It has done nothing with the Shenzou modules the flights left in orbit. China may boast much but it will at best become a minor partner in the ISS zoo. Perhaps it will establish a space station, but likely not until the CEV is up and running and en route to the Moon whether it be in 2014 or 2020+. It may have some success with unmanned probes but, in all fields, it has alot of catch-up to play. If Japan got its space program together I'd have more faith in it than China.

Russia is more respectable. Its Progress and Soyuz certainly support the ISS, but Russia is still crippled - it will recover but just look at its budget: if you think we have trouble affording the CEV their developement of their Klipper spacecraft will be nearly as troublesome as the Biblical camel-through-the-eye-of-the-needle. Also, in terms of humans launched, one shuttle launches 7 people - more than the manpower of 2 Soyuz and more cargo than the Progress...ALL AT ONCE. I'm not saying Russia is barely space worthy, but we regularly outperform it at its best even when we're at half-best (i.e. the current state of the space shuttle), it will have trouble keeping up.

On a final, minor note, ESA had attempted a shuttle of its own, the Hermes as I'm sure you're aware. It was canceled. ESA may have possibilities if the ATV vehicle they're developing is adapted for crewed flight but that will take equally as long as you're suggesting the CEV will in your pesemistic POV.

50+ indeed...only if you count unrelated commercial flights of MTV-esque satellites and the occassional Landsat. The only thing even remotely spaceflight related launched to the Moon was ESA's SMART-1, but not so much as an ounce of metal has landed on a planetary body; no cargo vehicles, no habitat modules, nothing. I'm not talking scientific probes I'm talking useable equiptment directly adapted for human use - there's a world of difference, or should I say two worlds since the Moon's involved.

Pardon my flames but I always try to inject logic into my conversations. You have your moments as well gaetanomarano.

gaetanomarano · 2006-08-22 13:58:20

...one shuttle launches 7 people - more than the manpower of 2 Soyuz and more cargo than the Progress...ALL AT ONCE...

I agree 200% on that point as you can read in this article: www.gaetanomarano.it/articles/008visual.html
and, despite it's too old and dangerous, the Shuttle is the absolute winner for LEO missions also compared with the CEV (that will costs twice+ a Shuttle launch to send only three astronauts to the ISS)
but, since the Shuttle will be retired soon, the comparison in my post is "capsule vs. capsule" (and I don't talk of costs...)
with a retired Shuttle and a bigger ISS, the number of Progress/Soyuz launches will (probably) increase of +50%, so, only these vehicles may reach the 50+ missions target in the next 10 years
about China... now they clearly are in their "Gemini era", but... (don't forget) after Gemini there was Apollo... and the moon landing in six years...
now the China space program is slow, but China has the money and the engineers to do more and (I think) in the next decade their space program will grow VERY QUICKLY

RedStreak · 2006-08-22 18:38:31

now the China space program is slow, but China has the money and the engineers to do more and (I think) in the next decade their space program will grow VERY QUICKLY

The only reason China has much of anything is because they copied a signifigant portion of hardware from the Russians and managed to update it marginally.

Money is debateable - I don't think they have any more money than the Russians if not less.

Never hurts to keep an eye out on 'competition' but China is not a concern for the immediate future. 10 years maybe, but not now.

gaetanomarano · 2006-08-23 01:51:52

...10 years maybe, but not now.

this is exactly the time China needs (from now) to become the 2nd economic power of the world and the 2nd country for investments in space ...while waiting to become the 1st (in both areas) in the following 10 years ...ask an economist

Grypd · 2006-08-23 07:29:52

gaetanomarano economically China has a lot more to spend its money on than just the space industry. As China gains in power and wealth there will be increased demands that will hinder this growth and China will have to make a lot of trade-offs to actually get these to operate and if that means cutting back on the space side then they will do it. Prestige is what the space industry gives China now and they really have no need to go further than earth orbit.

gaetanomarano · 2006-08-23 07:39:30

gaetanomarano economically China has a lot more to spend its money on than just the space industry. As China gains in power and wealth there will be increased demands that will hinder this growth and China will have to make a lot of trade-offs to actually get these to operate and if that means cutting back on the space side then they will do it. Prestige is what the space industry gives China now and they really have no need to go further than earth orbit.

China has (and will have) many problems to solve (and "land on the moon" is not the first) but in the next 20 years they will have the money to do that and (don't forget) the importance of prestige in the (common) business
now "the race" to the moon is not "military" (like in '60s between USA and Russia) but "commercial"... the race is to establish the BUSINESS LEADER of the XXI century, then, China will try to be the "Number 1" in all things, from space to science, from luxury to car industry, from electronics to wine, etc.

RedStreak · 2006-08-23 10:16:52

Suffice to say gaetanomarano you're trying to make a point of China being, at the least, a potential candidate for future space domination.

Lets save further comments on China for another forum - we're starting to get off track from the Ares I which IS the actual topic here...

gaetanomarano · 2006-08-23 10:30:50

...a potential candidate for future space domination...

(good or bad) China WILL dominate this century (and we can't do nothing to avoid that)
however, "China" IS on-topic with the Ares-I since I suggest to build it in the faster and easy way (with ready available parts) to save time and money and land (again) on the moon sooner (to win the new "commercial" moon-race)

dicktice · 2006-08-23 19:31:41

Please define exactly what you mean by "space domination." George W. Bush might say such a thing, and think he knows, but you...?

John Creighton · 2006-08-23 19:59:53

Please define exactly what you mean by "space domination." George W. Bush might say such a thing, and think he knows, but you...?

Our rockets are bigger then there’s lol. :shrug:

New Mars Forums

Announcement

#126 2006-08-11 20:42:23

Re: Ares I (CLV) - status

#127 2006-08-11 20:45:17

Re: Ares I (CLV) - status

#128 2006-08-14 14:10:07

Re: Ares I (CLV) - status

#129 2006-08-15 20:21:28

Re: Ares I (CLV) - status

#130 2006-08-15 20:25:49

Re: Ares I (CLV) - status

#131 2006-08-17 10:38:44

Re: Ares I (CLV) - status

#132 2006-08-19 14:13:26

Re: Ares I (CLV) - status

#133 2006-08-19 14:29:23

Re: Ares I (CLV) - status

#134 2006-08-19 14:33:12

Re: Ares I (CLV) - status

#135 2006-08-20 14:35:07

Re: Ares I (CLV) - status

#136 2006-08-20 14:37:58

Re: Ares I (CLV) - status

#137 2006-08-20 15:31:53

Re: Ares I (CLV) - status

#138 2006-08-20 15:46:19

Re: Ares I (CLV) - status

#139 2006-08-20 17:11:45

Re: Ares I (CLV) - status

#140 2006-08-20 17:53:39

Re: Ares I (CLV) - status

#141 2006-08-20 20:08:49

Re: Ares I (CLV) - status

#142 2006-08-22 13:58:20

Re: Ares I (CLV) - status

#143 2006-08-22 18:38:31

Re: Ares I (CLV) - status

#144 2006-08-23 01:51:52

Re: Ares I (CLV) - status

#145 2006-08-23 07:29:52

Re: Ares I (CLV) - status

#146 2006-08-23 07:39:30

Re: Ares I (CLV) - status

#147 2006-08-23 10:16:52

Re: Ares I (CLV) - status

#148 2006-08-23 10:30:50

Re: Ares I (CLV) - status

#149 2006-08-23 19:31:41

Re: Ares I (CLV) - status

#150 2006-08-23 19:59:53

Re: Ares I (CLV) - status

Board footer