Ares I (CLV) - status

cIclops · 2006-09-27 00:46:53

More details released at Nasaspaceflight.com of the Ares I development from Danny Davis, manager at MSFC:

The key objectives of the (first flight) test are:
- Demonstrate ascent flight control system performance with dynamically similar 1st and 2nd stage CLV/CEV vehicle
- Demonstrate nominal 1st and 2nd stage separation and clearances
- Demonstrate 1st Stage motor parachute performance and separation/entry dynamics
- Characterize magnitude of integrated vehicle roll torque due to 1st Stage motor performance
- Demonstrate an operational flow of Ares I through KSC to launch

We are continuing to refine the EDS design to develop the appropriate requirements for systems that may have commonality. We intend for the J-2X engine and its TVC to be common. We intend for the main propulsion systems (feedlines, valves, actuators, etc) to have significant commonality (especially those on the aft end of the stage). The welding and spray-on foam insulation practices for the tanks will have direct applicability to EDS. Finally, we are developing an open avionics and software architecture to be able to evolve to support later EDS missions.

We desire a 'clean pad' for operability and cost reasons - that requires new a new lightweight MLP with LUT incorporated

notes:
EDS = Earth Departure Stage
LUT = Launch Umbilicle Tower
MLP = Mobile Launcher Platform
TVC = Thrust Vector Control

cIclops · 2006-09-28 13:59:05

Two comments today by Scott Horowitz at the House Science committee meeting :

Estimated cost of Ares I launch including Orion ... $200 million !

J-2X engine is the project highest risk element due to long lead time parts (cryogenic valves) and testing, it won't be available until 2012.

gaetanomarano · 2006-09-28 20:38:22

Estimated cost of Ares I launch including Orion ... $200 million

clearly a misunderstanding... (over!) $200M will be the price of EACH 5-seg.SRB launched...

12 (moon missions in 2020-2025) x 3 (5-seg.SRB/mission) + 15 (test and ISS launches) = 51 (5-seg.SRBs used in 2009-2025)

(optimistic) $60M (5-seg.SRB unit price) x 51 units = $3,060M + $3,000M (5-seg.SRB shared R&D costs) + $10,000M ($500M/year NASA/Navy sea retrieval costs x 20 year) = $16,060 / 51 = $314.9M per SRB launched!

only if we add the last 28 standard SRBs (of 14 further Shuttles' flights) the "price per SRB launched" falls to $203.3M each!

.

GCNRevenger · 2006-09-29 04:58:15

Now you are just waving your arms again gaetano,

The current SRB costs about $30M a flight to refurbish (including recovery), so the five-segment will probably not cost more than ~$40M or so per flight.

The CEV capsule itself is going to be reuseable ~10X times, and once the development is completed I think that $500M a pop is a reasonable cost for the command module.

Add another $50M a flight for the service module, which is basically just a communications satellite with an overgrown engine and a radiator bolted on...

And finally another $40M or so for the Ares-I upper stage, where the engine won't likely cost more than $10M each (RL-10 engines only cost ~$3M) and the tankage will be half the size and cost of the Shuttle tank which costs ~$60M.

Tack on ~$20M for miscellenous hardware, like avionics and roll-control jets... For a total hardware cost of $200M per flight.

SpaceNut · 2006-09-29 06:52:09

gaetanomarano the most new srbs constructed will probably be not more than 12 but on the order of 6 at the least making the remaining of the 51 just refills.

NASA parries criticism of Lockheed's shuttle pact

NASA officials Thursday defended the $3.9 billion contract given to Lockheed Martin Space Systems Co. against criticism from federal watchdogs that the award was too large and open- ended.

gaetanomarano · 2006-09-29 15:05:33

gaetanomarano the most new srbs constructed will probably be not more than 12 but on the order of 6 at the least making the remaining of the 51 just refills.

you're right, when we talk of "SRB price" that don't refer to the manufacturing cost but only to the SRB refurbishment
but this is "the price" of an SRB at each launch and the dozen (you evaluate) of new SRB manufactured will not cost like a refurbishment but (probably) $100M+ each

gaetanomarano · 2006-09-29 15:39:26

The current SRB costs about $30M a flight to refurbish...

you're the only in the world that talk of a so low price for the SRB refurbish since ALL other info I've read so far are of a $40M price per SRB (excluding recovery)
the price I've posted for the 5-segments version is too optimistic since they will be built/refurbished between 2014 and 2025 at the (growt) prices of that years (and don't forget the shared R&D costs...)

...CEV capsule itself is going to be reuseable ~10X times...

I doubt of that since NASA has claimed they need to verify if the CEV will be economically/technically "reusable"

...another $50M a flight for the service module...

you don't like (and never talk) of fixed costs and shared R&D costs... but they EXIST and influence to final price per launch
after the CEV contract assigment, we have some precise figures: $3.9 billion for R&D and four prototipes in 2006-2014 and the full 2006-2019 contract is $8.1 billion including ONLY eight missions' capsules (but, if NASA will decide, after test flights, that an Orion can't be safely reused, we must add some billion$$$ to build another dozen+ of capsules!)
then, since the (test, ISS and moon) Orion flights will be around 25 in the (GAO) range of years (2006-2025) the shared costs per launch (only of the capsule!) will be $324 million!!! (remember... ONLY the capsule!)
also if the ISS launches will be a dozen more than expected (but may be less!) that shared costs ALWAYS will be in the range of $250-300M per launch! (and... don't forget the 2006-2025 inflation and cost growt!)

...finally another $40M or so for the Ares-I upper stage, where the engine won't likely cost more than $10M each (RL-10 engines only cost ~$3M) and the tankage...

assuming you're right on hardware prices... again you lack from calculations the shared Ares-I R&D costs
NASA evaluated (one year ago) that costs at $5B including the ($1B) 5-seg.SRB development (now at $3B)
$4 billion / 25 flights are... $160M + $40M of hardware + $20M miscellenous = $220M per launch
then, EACH Ares-I/Orion launch will cost a minimum of $209M (SRB+retrieval) + $324M (Orion+SM) + $220M (rest of Ares-I hardware) = $753M per launch!!! (but this is an optimistic evaluation since my calculations lacks MANY annual Ares-I/Orion fixed costs and missions' support!)
.

RedStreak · 2006-09-29 16:06:16

In full honesty any government-funded space vehicle will likely be astronomically expensive compared with a commercial aircraft. The upcoming commercial spaceflights at best might be 100 times less expensive initially but even then that's beyond casual use for the average American (American buisnesses maybe).

However compared to the shuttle Ares & Orion will be a hell of alot less to contruct and maintain. The orbiter itself was STS' Achilles heal otherwise the SRBs and ET were not much worse than any other rockeyt. The point was to eliminate the weakest link and use what we have more efficently, and with human lives in the equation efficency is a better choice than cheaply.

There are bound to be little bumps and changes here and there to find what's the most efficent - what we have to remember is not everything we initially conceive may prove to be practical or for the best.

gaetanomarano · 2006-09-29 20:02:30

However compared to the shuttle Ares & Orion will be a hell of alot less to contruct and maintain.

I think that, when the Orion will fly, the "too high" Shuttles' costs-per-launch will appear a bargain, a true Christmas' gift!

RedStreak · 2006-09-29 20:22:47

However compared to the shuttle Ares & Orion will be a hell of alot less to contruct and maintain.
I think that, when the Orion will fly, the "too high" Shuttles' costs-per-launch will appear a bargain, a true Christmas' gift!

*opens his present and a toy shuttle flies out...promtly exploding*

Maybe a defective Christmas gift...

gaetanomarano · 2006-09-29 21:36:59

Maybe a defective Christmas gift...

1. all peoples know that great part of (both) Shuttles' accidents was due to bad managements and human mistakes

2. the Orion must fly 130+ times with less than two lethal accidents to be declared "safer than Shuttle"

.

cIclops · 2006-09-29 23:43:31

you don't like (and never talk) of fixed costs and shared R&D costs...

R&D cost is not included in product cost for several reasons:

1. it distorts the true production cost, and once in production that is the key driver
2. it is shared over several products and transfered from one generation to another
3. it is considered a "sunk cost", necessary to realize the project
4. it is difficult to determine due to #2

Constellation programme R&D cost is not hidden, it is there to be seen in the budget and of course will be very high. Once Ares I and Orion are developed the recurring cost per launch becomes the important factor. Recurring cost is product cost plus operations.

STS recurring cost consists principally of extremely high operational costs even though product cost was spread out due to reuse. Additionally of course STS has new R&D costs to fix safety problems. The main design criteria for Ares / Orion are safety and cost. Ares I / Orion aims to significantly reduce operational costs, and because it's an expendable system the true product cost is important to know.

cIclops · 2006-09-30 06:41:29

KENNEDY SPACE CENTER, FLA. – In the Assembly and Refurbishment Facility at NASA's Kennedy Space Center, the solid rocket booster aft skirt designated for use on the first stage of the ARES I-1 launch vehicle is being prepared for its first test flight. Ares I is the vehicle being developed for launch of the crew exploration vehicle (CEV), named Orion. Ares I-1 is currently targeted for launch from Launch Pad 39B in 2009 using the SRB first stage and a simulated second stage and simulated CEV. Ares I ascent tests and Ares I orbital tests will also take place at Kennedy at later dates. Photo credit: NASA/Jack Pfaller

Source

One small piece, one giant project for mankind!

GCNRevenger · 2006-09-30 08:19:55

Yes, gaetano appears to be speaking out of both sides of his head again...:

...how its okay to totally ignore Shuttle's huge development cost (~$40Bn in today's dollars) and the total disaster its ongoing upgrade program has been financially...

...but somehow its all right and well and good to hold Ares-I/Orion to the same standard that Shuttle isn't. And somehow that the ~$10Bn required to develop both is so awful compared to Shuttle.

If you amoratize Shuttle's development cost, in ~2006 dollars, then that adds up to over $300M a flight. Add in the cost of upgrades, and thats around another $200M a flight probably. So now that $800M "$300M" Shuttle launch doesn't sound so good, does it?

And you again ignore the simple fact that much of the Ares-I hardware will be identical in Ares-V, hence this development cost is shared over both rockets! The five-segment SRBs will be identical, the J-2X engine will be the same, and the avionics are being developed to control both rockets.

Then you ignore the fact that Ares-I/Ares-V/Orion won't fall victim to one of the greatest costs of the Shuttle program that you idolize, which is the expensive and incessant drive to upgrade the thing so its even borderline reliable; Ares-I/V and Orion will be built with sufficent reliability from the first operational launches, so this massive cost that Shuttle incured won't exist.

Its simply unconscionable that the hugely more complex and much larger Shuttle will somehow not cost much more to build and fly than the inherintly less involved Ares/Orion combo.

But I digress, your phony numbers are obviously wrong, how one SRB costs like $209M apiece or how the development cost you cite gets broken down into this 160/40/20 rubric as an hardware cost. I also find it interesting how you wave and flap your arms and hoot about how "ONLY THE CAPSULE!!!" but then turn around and say "CEV+SM" in your own calculations.

RedStreak · 2006-09-30 10:48:02

One small piece, one giant project for mankind!

You said it cI

Well looks like they're working the candle from both ends: the CEV at top and now the stage 1 skirt from the bottom!

gaetanomarano · 2006-09-30 18:45:27

...how its okay to totally ignore Shuttle's huge development cost...

no, I don't ignore it, but, simply, the costs to develop and build the Shuttles was already "paid" in the first 10-20 years and amortized in the past NASA budget
now the "price" of each Shuttle launch is around $600M (1/3 for the hardware and 2/3 for the maintenance, assembly and support)
someday, when all Orion/Ares costs will be amortized, also the Orion and Ares will cost less money per launch, but, in the next 20 years (as GAO said) the price of each launch will be very high

...the ~$10Bn required to develop both is so awful compared to Shuttle...

despite the total R&D costs of Orion and Ares-I will be higher than $10Bn, YES, they will cost LESS to develop than Shuttles, but the reason is SIMPLE: one Shuttle mission can lift TWO crew-Orion payloads + EIGHT cargo-Orion payloads!!! (+ space assembly tools, cargo-return, canadarm, airlock, etc.)
clearly, develop and build a vehicle (the Shuttle) that can accomplish TEN TIMES the work-per-launch of an Orion, MUST cost a few dollars more.........

...amoratize Shuttle's development cost, in ~2006 dollars, then that adds up to over $300M a flight...

as explained, the Shuttles' R&D and hardware costs was already amortized years ago, since the amortization can't be added every year, forever (only if NASA builds now a "6th Shuttle" the new costs must be amortized while on its flights' costs)

...you again ignore the simple fact that much of the Ares-I hardware will be identical in Ares-V, hence this development cost is shared over both rockets! The five-segment SRBs will be identical, the J-2X engine will be the same, and the avionics are being developed to control both rockets...

no, I don't ignore that, and, yes, Ares-I and Ares-V have some shared hardware, but the total R&D costs don't change so much
when the ESAS plan was published the (NASA) expected R&D costs was: $5Bn for the 4-seg.SRB-CLV and $10Bn for the 5-seg.SRB-CaLV ($15Bn total)
but, a few months after NASA has moved to the 5-seg.SRB for the Ares-I and the (extimated) R&D costs of the new motor has growt from $1Bn to $3Bn ($7Bn total for the Ares-I R&D costs)
since, now, the Ares-V boosters will be the same of the Ares-I, its R&D costs (including the EDS) will fall to $9Bn (remember the $10Bn was the R&D evaluation when the 5-seg.SRB evaluated R&D costs was $1Bn)
then, the (espected) total R&D costs of both rockets may be around $7Bn + $9Bn = $16Bn (+ inflation, cost grow, etc.)

...that Ares-I/Ares-V/Orion won't fall victim to one of the greatest costs of the Shuttle program...

that's true (since the Shuttle is an old vehicle) but the Orion/Ares (that will cost less to upgrade) will cost MORE "by design"

...much larger Shuttle will somehow not cost much more to build and fly than the inherintly less involved Ares/Orion combo...

yes, the Shuttle costs MORE because it DOES more (exactly TEN TIMES more-per-launch than Orion)

...how one SRB costs like $209M apiece or how the development cost you cite gets broken down into this 160/40/20 rubric as an hardware cost. I also find it interesting how you wave and flap your arms and hoot about how "ONLY THE CAPSULE!!!" but then turn around and say "CEV+SM" in your own calculations...

all products (from a pen to a spaceship) have their R&D and manufacturing costs and (both) are ruled by economics' laws that, like physics' laws can't be changed to match your desires
probably you know that, about 8-10 years ago, the 17" LCD computer displays prices was over $5000 per unit
then, after 5-6 years of very high prices, the 17" displays price falled to $1000 and (now) to $200
why that happened?
simply, because in the first 5-6 years the manufacturers have amortized the R&D and factories costs, while, now, the displays' price is ONLY the cost of MATERIALS and shared personnel's salaries to build it
the same laws must be applied to Orion prices:
the NASA-LockMart contract has a value of $3.9Bn in 2006-2014 (to develop the capsule and build four prototypes for unmanned tests) + $4.2Bn in 2014-2019 to build a fleet of eight (expected reusable) Orions
then, EACH Orion will cost $8.1Bn / 8 = $1012.5M (+inflation, cost grow, etc.) while, the simple "hardware price" (if NASA wants/nneds to build more fresh Orions) of EACH Orion will be $4.2Bn / 8 = $525M (+inflation, cost grow, etc.)
assuming that each Ares-I launch will cost (hardware + shared R&D costs + shared annual fixed costs) $300M and the Orion refurbishment (+ a new Service Module) $100M, the price per launch of the Orion will be:
First eight launches: $1012M + $300M = $1312M each (+inflation, cost grow, etc.)
From 9th launch up: $100M + $300M = $400M each (+inflation, cost grow, etc.)
but, if, after the first launches, NASA will realize that a refurbished Orion is not 100% safe (and decides to buy other EXPENDABLE Orions at the hardware-price-only of $525M per unit) the price of EACH new Orion launch (from the 9th-up) will be: $525M + $300M = $825M (+inflation, cost grow, etc.)
and ALL that are NOT "my opinions" but ONLY the (simple) application of the (most elementary) economics' laws!
.

cIclops · 2006-10-01 07:52:09

The only hard numbers in all of this discussion are the Contract price for Orion ($3.9B development $3B production) and the 2007 budget request. Everything else is a mixture of guesses, hand waving and exaggeration.

Beware the apparent simplicity of numbers, accounting is probably more complex than rocket science :> Accounts use a lot of different ways to budget and cost.
Just have a quick peek at NASA's Cost Estimating page to see what's involved.

This is the Constellation budget line from from the 2007 budget (in $million):

FY2005......422.3
FY2006...1,733.5
FY2007...3,057.6
FY2008...3,067.6
FY2009...3,612.9
FY2010...4,083.8
FY2011...7,698.4

Total.... 23,676.1

Note that these current costs estimates "include what NASA believes are conservative budget reserve to address problems that occur with such complex projects." Also NASA budget in “Full cost” which means that "each program’s budget estimate includes all of the program’s direct and indirect costs, including all civil service salaries and infrastructure costs."

The 2007 budget goes to 30 September 2012 and Ares V / LSAM / EDS / etc development will continue probably until 2018, but there are no numbers.

Now $23.7B - $3.9B = $19.8B = cost of developing the VSE minus Orion over seven years

Ok so the "hard" $19.8B number can be divided up between Ares I / Ares V / LSAM / EDS / KSC / Space Suits / ECANS (Exploration Communication and Navigation Systems) as you wish .. good luck!

BTW NASA FY begins 1 October, so today is the start of FY2007

RedStreak · 2006-10-01 14:13:30

I am so glad I am not a huge fan of math or its evil second-cousin accounting...

Still I hope someone will keep an eye on the budget. I am still confident Orion will prove to be an asset versus the shuttle's 20-odd-year fiasco.

I have more of the engineer's spirit than a politician. I want to see the vehicle built and better still in flight.

What is the schedule for Ares I testing thus far?

SpaceNut · 2006-10-01 20:11:09

Quotes from subcommittee hearings.

I would remind my colleagues that some 18 months ago, NASA testified before this Committee about its plans for acquiring the CEV, indicating that it had a well-thought-out approach to the CEV program.

Let me offer a quote from NASA's February 16, 2005 testimony: "[The CEV] will be developed in a 'spiral' approach, wherein early demonstrations and prototypes are used to demonstrate capabilities, validate technologies, and mitigate risk, all along an evolutionary path toward a mature design. The first spiral development planned will provide the capability to deliver humans to orbit in a CEV by 2014."

As you will recall, last year's approach was going to maintain a competition between two contractor teams until 2008 when there would be a competitive "flyoff" prior to award of the CEV development contract.

It's now 2006. NASA has eliminated the spiral development approach, has decided not to maintain the competitive flyoff, and has added almost $7 billion to the CEV and CLV program relative to what last year's five-year funding plan said would be needed. And after all of that, NASA is indicating that the CEV still will not enter operational service until 2014 due to budgetary constraints.

The Lockheed contract is expected to cost about $3.9 billion for development and testing of two test flight capsules;

The contract value of the options totals approximately $4.25 billion through 2019 assuming a schedule of five flights per year.

Selection documents show that NASA judged Lockheed Martin's bid superior based on cost, technical approach, and past performance.

NASA also has included explicit milestones for the contractor to meet and given the government the ability to terminate the contract if the project is not meeting NASA's requirements.

NASA predicts the Orion development effort will cost $18.3 billion from 2006 to 2020 at 65 percent confidence including both contractor and government costs.

NASA predicts that the cost of the Constellation program through 2011, when NASA would begin testing Orion and Ares I, is $32.1 billion with 80 percent confidence. Finally, NASA believes that the cost of returning to the Moon by 2018 may be around $104 billion, but NASA has not yet performed a detailed analysis of this cost. GAO estimates the total Constellation costs through 2018 total $122 billion.

NASA's preliminary projections show multibillion-dollar shortfalls for its exploration directorate in all fiscal years from 2014 to 2020, with an overall deficit through 2025 in excess of $18 billion.

SpaceNut · 2006-10-01 20:22:32

What is the schedule for Ares I testing thus far?

NASA's Constellation programme managers have been given the go-ahead to carry out up to two test flights of the Ares I launcher, at a cost of $300 million.

The Ares I-1 test flight, and a repeat launch if the first fails, have been scheduled for April and October 2009, respectively.

Other 2009 tests would include a five-segment motor ground firing, which NASA expects will prove it has 15% more thrust than needed.

An on-pad launch abort test will take place early in 2009, and in November or December of 2008 abort system testing will take place at the US Army's White Sands Missile Range in New Mexico.

A full Ares I atmospheric systems demonstration flight test (ADFT) is not expected to take place until mid-2012, because only then would the upper stage and its J-2 engine be "largely finished", says Hatfield.

The ADFTs will be followed by three orbital demonstration flight tests, with the third planned to be a manned flight to take place in September 2014

John Creighton · 2006-10-01 20:40:06

Other 2009 tests would include a five-segment motor ground firing, which NASA expects will prove it has 15% more thrust than needed.

Hmmmm….15% more thrust then needed. I wonder what the astronauts faces will look like during blast off. Anyone see the movie space balls.

gaetanomarano · 2006-10-01 21:26:25

...$3.9B development $3B production...

the contract figures are $3.9Bn for R&D and (right) TWO (not four) test capsules + $4.2Bn to build the eight Orions fleet for manned flights (total 8.1Bn + inflation, cost growt, etc.)

...a mixture of guesses, hand waving and exaggeration...

after the Orion contract assignment we know the REAL figures of costs, then, you can't talk of "guesses", "hand waving" and "exageration"
we have nothing to "guess" to know the price-per-unit of the Orion from the contract's figures and the calculations I've posted are not "exagerated" nor "hand waving"
if we buy ten computers for an office at the gross price of $5000 the "price per unit" is (simply) $5000 / 10 = $500 (and exactly the same we can do to know the Orions' price)

...so the "hard" $19.8B number can be divided up between Ares I / Ares V / LSAM / EDS / KSC / Space Suits / ECANS (Exploration Communication and Navigation Systems) as you wish...

you're right, the 2006-2011 budgets include many different things, so, we can't know/evaluate the cost of a single vehicle from it (but it's unnecessary since, about Orion costs, now we have some real figures)
.

RedStreak · 2006-10-01 23:16:27

Other 2009 tests would include a five-segment motor ground firing, which NASA expects will prove it has 15% more thrust than needed.
Hmmmm….15% more thrust then needed. I wonder what the astronauts faces will look like during blast off. Anyone see the movie space balls.

*Lord Helmet holding on for dear life* "MY BRAINS...ARE GOING INTO MY FEET!"

lol John.

I doubt it'll be that bad. If the average human being can endure a roller coaster an astronaut can handle a couple Gs of force with several months of training behind them easily.

cIclops · 2006-10-01 23:33:28

the contract figures are $3.9Bn for R&D and (right) TWO (not four) test capsules + $4.2Bn to build the eight Orions fleet for manned flights (total 8.1Bn + inflation, cost growt, etc.)

To be precise here is the news release fom NASA about the Orion contract with LM:

The contract is structured into separate schedules for DDT&E with options for production of additional spacecraft and sustaining engineering. During DDT&E, NASA will use an end-item cost-plus-award-fee incentive contract. This makes the award fee subject to final determination after the contractor has demonstrated that it meets the technical, cost, and schedule requirements of the contract.
DDT&E work is estimated to occur from Sept. 8, 2006, through Sept. 7, 2013. The estimated value is $3.9 billion.
Production and sustaining engineering activities are contract options that will allow NASA to obtain additional vehicles as needed. Delivery orders over and above those in the DDT&E portion will specify the number of spacecraft to be produced and the schedule on which they should be delivered.
Post-development spacecraft delivery orders may begin as early as Sept. 8, 2009, through Sept. 7, 2019, if all options are exercised. The estimated value of these orders is negotiated based on future manifest requirements and knowledge gained through the DDT&E process and is estimated not to exceed $3.5 billion.
Sustaining engineering work will be assigned through task orders. The work is expected to occur from Sept. 8, 2009, through Sept. 7, 2019, with an estimated value of $750 million, if all options are exercised.

This is a "cost-plus-award-fee incentive contract" which means that it should specify a target cost, a target fee, minimum and maximum fees, and a fee adjustment formula. AFAIK inflation and cost growth etc are both covered by this type of contract. Note that the number of production spacecraft has not been specified and that $750 million of the $8.15 billion is engineering support.

(post copied to the Orion thread as it has become specific to that topic)

cIclops · 2006-10-02 11:52:14

News release from ATK

ATK -- the prime contractor for the first stage of the Ares I crew launch vehicle, along with NASA, the US Army, and the United Space Alliance -- recently completed testing of a newly designed pilot parachute. The parachute was dropped from an altitude of 10,000 feet to ensure that it deploys correctly and provides adequate air braking capability. The parachute has an 11.5 foot diameter and is the first in a three-stage parachute system designed to ensure that the new five-segment solid rocket boosters splashdown safely in the ocean after separating from the Ares I. Just like the four-segment boosters for Space Shuttle, the new boosters will be recovered and reused on future missions. ATK and NASA have scheduled six additional pilot parachute tests.
Along with the parachute testing, ATK has modified hardware for Ares I. Since the new five-segment booster will generate more thrust than the current space shuttle Reusable Solid Rocket Boosters, ATK is making minor modifications to the propellant grain and some of the nozzle components.

New Mars Forums

Announcement

#176 2006-09-27 00:46:53

Re: Ares I (CLV) - status

#177 2006-09-28 13:59:05

Re: Ares I (CLV) - status

#178 2006-09-28 20:38:22

Re: Ares I (CLV) - status

#179 2006-09-29 04:58:15

Re: Ares I (CLV) - status

#180 2006-09-29 06:52:09

Re: Ares I (CLV) - status

#181 2006-09-29 15:05:33

Re: Ares I (CLV) - status

#182 2006-09-29 15:39:26

Re: Ares I (CLV) - status

#183 2006-09-29 16:06:16

Re: Ares I (CLV) - status

#184 2006-09-29 20:02:30

Re: Ares I (CLV) - status

#185 2006-09-29 20:22:47

Re: Ares I (CLV) - status

#186 2006-09-29 21:36:59

Re: Ares I (CLV) - status

#187 2006-09-29 23:43:31

Re: Ares I (CLV) - status

#188 2006-09-30 06:41:29

Re: Ares I (CLV) - status

#189 2006-09-30 08:19:55

Re: Ares I (CLV) - status

#190 2006-09-30 10:48:02

Re: Ares I (CLV) - status

#191 2006-09-30 18:45:27

Re: Ares I (CLV) - status

#192 2006-10-01 07:52:09

Re: Ares I (CLV) - status

#193 2006-10-01 14:13:30

Re: Ares I (CLV) - status

#194 2006-10-01 20:11:09

Re: Ares I (CLV) - status

#195 2006-10-01 20:22:32

Re: Ares I (CLV) - status

#196 2006-10-01 20:40:06

Re: Ares I (CLV) - status

#197 2006-10-01 21:26:25

Re: Ares I (CLV) - status

#198 2006-10-01 23:16:27

Re: Ares I (CLV) - status

#199 2006-10-01 23:33:28

Re: Ares I (CLV) - status

#200 2006-10-02 11:52:14

Re: Ares I (CLV) - status

Board footer