Ares I (CLV) - status

cIclops · 2007-01-14 17:15:40

Stanley also commented on the cost of development:

The DDT&E costs for the ESAS CLV is a factor of over 3 less than $16.8B

Which by simple arithmetic means that the development cost of Ares I will be about $5B.

cIclops · 2007-01-16 00:20:08

Some numbers:

NASA has switched from an intertank structure between the upper-stage liquid oxygen and liquid hydrogen tanks to a common bulkhead with a resulting mass saving, including residual propellant, of around 635kg (1,400lb). At 79.4m (260ft) long, the Ares I is now about 1.83m shorter with the common bulkhead.

RedStreak · 2007-01-16 16:37:48

The primary design concept behind Ares I is safety and reliability. A solid first stage is a sound way to achieve that. Using more engines increases risk.

I have to agree. Although the SRB had the O-ring it didn't actually kill the astronauts - that was the ET exploding. Also, versus the ET's notorious shedding, the SRBs never inflicted any damage to STS and nor will they Ares. I also can't recall when an SRB was cited for delaying STS. The O-ring, itself, was more NASA management f***ing up an excellent rocket's performance.

With two SRBs firing simultainiously at every shuttle launch...and tell me how many times has the shuttle been launched? That's a damn good record that'd outrank any Atlas any hour of the day out of the whole year. The Atlas isn't bad but the SRB has blatantly proved itself already - why not use something that good? And no b.s.-ing on EELVs either - the Delta IV screwed up on its maiden launch which speaks volumes.

cIclops · 2007-01-16 16:49:51

I have to agree. Although the SRB had the O-ring it didn't actually kill the astronauts - that was the ET exploding. Also, versus the ET's notorious shedding, the SRBs never inflicted any damage to STS and nor will they Ares. I also can't recall when an SRB was cited for delaying STS. The O-ring, itself, was more NASA management f***ing up an excellent rocket's performance.

Yes the bottom of the ET tank fell out and the LO2 exploded, but all that happened because the SRB was leaking hot exhaust gas over it.

With two SRBs firing simultainiously at every shuttle launch...and tell me how many times has the shuttle been launched? That's a damn good record that'd outrank any Atlas any hour of the day out of the whole year. The Atlas isn't bad but the SRB has blatantly proved itself already - why not use something that good? And no b.s.-ing on EELVs either - the Delta IV screwed up on its maiden launch which speaks volumes.

117 flights - so that's 234 SRB firings, all successful except one. The key advantages of these SRBs is that they have been examined, tested, reexamined, redesigned and worked on intensively especially after Columbia. Another major plus is that they are recovered after use and thoroughly checked, that more than anything gives them tremendous reliability. On top of all they are inherently simple, no dangerous pumps and cryogenic valves and plumbing waiting to explode. They can do the job.

ftlwright · 2007-01-16 16:55:45

You also get storability, repeatability, inexpensive labor cost. The savings in support cost alone will reap benefits immediately.

RedStreak · 2007-01-16 19:04:16

Yes the bottom of the ET tank fell out and the LO2 exploded, but all that happened because the SRB was leaking hot exhaust gas over it.

...and in turn due to management ignoring engineers' requests for the sake of schedule. Bang a hammer against a safety-rated item and pretty soon it will no longer be safe either.

The key advantages of these SRBs is that they have been examined, tested, reexamined, redesigned and worked on intensively especially after Columbia. Another major plus is that they are recovered after use and thoroughly checked, that more than anything gives them tremendous reliability. On top of all they are inherently simple, no dangerous pumps and cryogenic valves and plumbing waiting to explode. They can do the job.

Damn straight!

cIclops · 2007-01-18 05:14:03

Current Upper Stage design ripped from Ares I Upper Stage Presolicitation Charts (PDF) - 17 Jan 2007

DAC = Design Analysis Cycle
MPS = Main Propulsion System?
PTO = Power Take Off
TPA = Turbine-Pump Assembly
TVC = Thrust Vector Control

Michael Bloxham · 2007-01-18 06:30:21

Could the Ares-V main tank use a common bulkhead to save weight?

SpaceNut · 2007-01-18 09:03:06

Stockton aerospace firm wins NASA Orion contract has been selected as one of the earliest subcontractors on Lockheed Martin's new space capsule for the Orion project.

The company's contract is for construction of part of the launch abort system, a nose cone above the four- to six-person crew module that will be capable of pulling the spacecraft and its crew to safety in the event of an emergency on the launch pad or at any time during ascent up to 300,000 feet, or roughly 60 miles, according to NASA and Applied Aerospace.

Applied Aerospace Structures Corp

cIclops · 2007-01-18 09:27:17

Could the Ares-V main tank use a common bulkhead to save weight?

Probably. Ares V is at the very beginning of design activity, unless NASA can get more funding it will be years before such details are decided. Meanwhile the Ares I design is being refined and will provide key components for Ares V, namely the 5 Seg SRBs, the J-2X and avionics - and all for a development budget around $5B.

1.5 for the price of 1

cIclops · 2007-01-19 14:24:23

Current graphic of Ares I lifting Orion to orbit - ripped from Ares I Upper Stage Presolicitation Charts (PDF) - 17 Jan 2007

Nice huh.

GCNRevenger · 2007-01-19 15:30:24

Could the Ares-V main tank use a common bulkhead to save weight?

Possible, yes. Worth it? No. The SRBs are sized such that the upper attachment lug will be right between the LOX and LH2 tanks, as with Shuttle. This reduces the amount of structure required to transmit thrust, so in the end you would probably gain nothing.

RedStreak · 2007-01-20 15:46:22

Well if there's a modification that can benefit the system do it, but if it adds a burden go with whatever STS gives. Keep the best balance that minimizes cost without jeapordizing safety...which itself is not easy.

What about the EDS? Will it be anything like the upper stage on the Ares I or will it be considerably larger?

GCNRevenger · 2007-01-20 15:57:40

Larger tanks, but similar (identical?) electronics and engine.

cIclops · 2007-01-24 01:28:08

A comprehensive non NASA summary of the Ares I system now available from Ed Kyle.

The Ares I/Orion stack is expected to weigh about 907 tonnes at liftoff and stand more than 94 meters to the tip of the launch abort system mast. The launch vehicle itself will be about 79.4 meters from its base to the top of its Instrument Unit. The first stage will be 3.71 meters in diameter, the upper stage 5.5 meters in diameter, and the Orion spacecraft will be 5 meters in diameter.
The first stage will produce 1,627 tonnes of thrust at liftoff and will average 1,245 tonnes of thrust during its roughly 130 second burn. Approximately 630 tonnes of polybutadiene acrylonitride (PBAN) solid propellant will be consumed during the burn. The movable RSRB nozzle will provide pitch and yaw control while a new monopropellant roll control system located in the interstage will control vehicle roll during the first stage burn.
First stage separation will occur at roughly 59 km at a velocity of about 2,024 meters per second. Booster separation motors will back the stage away from the upper stage and interstage, tumble motors will cause it to enter a slow spin, and the tapered frustum section at the top of the stage will separate. The stage will reach a 99 km apogee before beginning its descent. A drogue chute will begin to deploy when the RSRB passes 4.6 km, having already been slowed by the atmosphere to a speed of about 195 meters per second. The stage will impact the Atlantic Ocean under a triple ringsail main chute canopy about 7 minutes 45 seconds after liftoff.
A cylindrical interstage will connect the RSRB and upper stages. It will be composed of composite materials, marking the first large-scale use of a composite structural element in a U.S. human-rated launch vehicle. The interstage will contain important propulsion elements, including the first stage roll control system, the booster separation motors (the 8.39 tonne thrust motors currently located in the RSRB nose), and two interstage separation systems. Current plans call for the roll control system to use monopropellant hydrazine thrusters. Thrust will be produced by the decomposition of hydrazine as it passes through a catalyst bed.
The upper stage J-2X engine will burn liquid hydrogen and liquid oxygen for about 463 seconds, producing 133 tonnes of thrust at a 448 second vacuum specific impulse. A 125 tonne thrust J-2XD version may be used for initial flights. Velocity at shutdown will be somewhere in the range of 7,800 meters per second.

First Stage    5 Segment RSRB
GLOW (tonnes)    734 t
Propellant Mass (tonnes) 630 t
Dry Mass (tonnes)    104 t
Diameter (meters)    3.71 m
Height (meters) (to top of frustum) 53 m
Liftoff Thrust (vac. tonnes) 1,632 t
Average Thrust (vac. tonnes) 1,245 t
Specific Impulse (sea level/vacuum, seconds) 237s/268.8 sec
Second (Upper) Stage
GLOW (tonnes) 143.41 t
Propellant Mass (tonnes) 128.05 t
Dry Mass (tonnes) 15.41 t
Diameter (meters) 5.5 m
Height (meters) (including interstage) 26.4 m
Thrust (vac., tonnes) 133 t
Specific Impulse (vac., seconds) 448 sec
Total
GLOW (tonnes)(including payload) 908 t
GLOW (tonnes)(not including payload) ... 877 t
Height (meters)(including payload) ... ~95 m
Height (meters) (not including payload) ... 79.4 m
Payload (tonnes) to -55.56x185.2 km x 28.5 deg/51.6 deg ... 23.6 t/21.6 t

cIclops · 2007-01-26 02:52:20

Ripped from EMSD Charts 25 Jan 2007 (PDF from NASA WATCH)

SpaceNut · 2007-01-27 12:01:37

This one has reference to the Ares 1, 5 and of Orion testing as well as what could be deemed Ares IV, so I will add this to all. NASA Studies Early Moon Shot for New Space Capsule

Scott Horowitz, NASA’s associate administrator for exploration systems, said he asked engineers at the agency’s Marshall Space Flight Center in Huntsville, Ala., to study a rocket design that would combine the Ares 5 main stage with the Ares 1 upper stage to permit an around-the-Moon-and-back shakeout flight of the Orion Crew Exploration Vehicle [image] several years ahead of the first lunar landings.

With a fully tested upper stage in the area of 2012 with the orion being check out for 2015 all in prepration for the 2018 target dates for moon landings...

RedStreak · 2007-01-27 15:24:10

...Ares 5 variant, referred to by some people as Ares 4...

A fitting name for the specs of the mission.

“You could do an Apollo 8 kind of mission...You could test out the capsule and the service module all the way around the lunar environment as a build up to the actual landing … and you could have the capsule re-enter at lunar velocities.”

This would definetely be a signifigant step up from the LEO Gulog we've been stuck in for the past 30 years.

As quoted obviously this'd test the Orion's lunar capabilities but, using the same Ares 4, this'd be perfect for shuttling trips involving small cargoes and crew changes. This would bring it down from 1.5 to 1 - no seperate Ares I and Ares V with LEO rendevous; the only other vehicle required would be a RLSAM (Reuseable-LSAM) that'd be kept at the lunar outpost between flights.

This could quite possibly eliminate the need for Ares I altogether - an Ares 4 (or perhaps I should say Ares IV) sent to the ISS could bring a mother-load of cargo or perhaps even a 7-person crew if room allows. The only advanage Ares I would still offer would be reduced cost, and this'd only be applicable toward LEO operations. Barring a series of Bigelow-styled stations, once the ISS goes under so would the need for Ares I for better or worse. Given the 6-month crew exchanges on ISS this'd be no different than launch schedules for a lunar station.

I may not give a damn for Paris or an Ares X but I'm enthusiastic for Ares 4.

cIclops · 2007-01-28 08:28:05

As quoted obviously this'd test the Orion's lunar capabilities but, using the same Ares 4, this'd be perfect for shuttling trips involving small cargoes and crew changes. This would bring it down from 1.5 to 1 - no seperate Ares I and Ares V with LEO rendevous; the only other vehicle required would be a RLSAM (Reuseable-LSAM) that'd be kept at the lunar outpost between flights.
This could quite possibly eliminate the need for Ares I altogether - an Ares 4 (or perhaps I should say Ares IV) sent to the ISS could bring a mother-load of cargo or perhaps even a 7-person crew if room allows. The only advanage Ares I would still offer would be reduced cost, and this'd only be applicable toward LEO operations. Barring a series of Bigelow-styled stations, once the ISS goes under so would the need for Ares I for better or worse. Given the 6-month crew exchanges on ISS this'd be no different than launch schedules for a lunar station.

No, no no.

One: Ares IV is only a comparative study.

Two: IF and that's a very big if, it ever flies, it won't be used for crew. Ares V or IV will not be human rated. Ares I is the crew launch vehicle, its prime purpose is to provide crew launch as safely and reliably as possible.

Ares IV is just a launch vehicle, it has no cargo return capability. Ares I is not dependent on the ISS, it's for human missions beyond LEO. An Orion capsule may be attached to the ISS as a lifeboat with a capacity for 6 up to 10 crew.

RedStreak · 2007-01-29 18:13:05

Ares IV is just a launch vehicle, it has no cargo return capability. Ares I is not dependent on the ISS, it's for human missions beyond LEO. An Orion capsule may be attached to the ISS as a lifeboat with a capacity for 6 up to 10 crew.

Ares I may not be dependent on the ISS but neither can it launch the Orion much farther up without an EDS from Ares V to back it up.

cIclops · 2007-01-30 11:17:20

Ares I may not be dependent on the ISS but neither can it launch the Orion much farther up without an EDS from Ares V to back it up.

Exactly so. That's always been the plan as laid out in the ESAS. Ares I is sized to put Orion into an orbit where it can reach the EDS or ISS and no more.

Recently there has been talk about using Orion for NEO and L1 missions, a second Ares I/EELV would provide another SM/Airlock module.

cIclops · 2007-02-06 05:22:03

Update from the 2008 Budget request document (PDF 4.2MB)

Budget (2006-2012) in $ millions

2006 ..... 384.2
2007 ..... 916.1
2008 .. 1,175.2
2009 .. 1,077.8
2010 .. 1,220.0
2011 .. 1,817.2
2012 .. 1,334.9
------
Total .. 7,925.4

Program Commitments:
o First Lunar Mission Test Flight in September 2018
o 2 Flights per year for lunar sortie missions starting in 2020

Program Risk Management:
o Ability to operate the CEV by 2014.
o Launch vehicle operability
o Orion weight
o Ability for Ares I to meet performance requirements
o Lack of lunar sortie suit technology development
o J-2X development schedule

Project Milestones:
Preliminary Design Review (PDR) ........................... April 2008
Critical Design Review (CDR) ................................. September 2009
Ares I First Flight (Full Functional Configuration) .... September 2012
Ares I First Operational Flight ................................ September 2014

SpaceNut · 2007-02-06 08:44:13

With the dollar values we can now see where the money is going. We have many of the contract dollars as released by nasa to balance the info against to see if it is being wasted.

SpaceNut · 2007-02-07 10:19:01

NSF rumor has the ATK 5 Segment SRB, has lost 10,000 pounds and that the upper stage tanks due to mass saving of the bulk head is going to to be made larger. This in effect puts less of a burden on fuel supplies in the SM to reach ISS to reach high orbit and will also give more payload as well.

cIclops · 2007-02-07 12:35:24

Hopefully that rumor will be more accurate than the usual trash output of that site.

New Mars Forums

Announcement

#276 2007-01-14 17:15:40

Re: Ares I (CLV) - status

#277 2007-01-16 00:20:08

Re: Ares I (CLV) - status

#278 2007-01-16 16:37:48

Re: Ares I (CLV) - status

#279 2007-01-16 16:49:51

Re: Ares I (CLV) - status

#280 2007-01-16 16:55:45

Re: Ares I (CLV) - status

#281 2007-01-16 19:04:16

Re: Ares I (CLV) - status

#282 2007-01-18 05:14:03

Re: Ares I (CLV) - status

#283 2007-01-18 06:30:21

Re: Ares I (CLV) - status

#284 2007-01-18 09:03:06

Re: Ares I (CLV) - status

#285 2007-01-18 09:27:17

Re: Ares I (CLV) - status

#286 2007-01-19 14:24:23

Re: Ares I (CLV) - status

#287 2007-01-19 15:30:24

Re: Ares I (CLV) - status

#288 2007-01-20 15:46:22

Re: Ares I (CLV) - status

#289 2007-01-20 15:57:40

Re: Ares I (CLV) - status

#290 2007-01-24 01:28:08

Re: Ares I (CLV) - status

#291 2007-01-26 02:52:20

Re: Ares I (CLV) - status

#292 2007-01-27 12:01:37

Re: Ares I (CLV) - status

#293 2007-01-27 15:24:10

Re: Ares I (CLV) - status

#294 2007-01-28 08:28:05

Re: Ares I (CLV) - status

#295 2007-01-29 18:13:05

Re: Ares I (CLV) - status

#296 2007-01-30 11:17:20

Re: Ares I (CLV) - status

#297 2007-02-06 05:22:03

Re: Ares I (CLV) - status

#298 2007-02-06 08:44:13

Re: Ares I (CLV) - status

#299 2007-02-07 10:19:01

Re: Ares I (CLV) - status

#300 2007-02-07 12:35:24

Re: Ares I (CLV) - status

Board footer