Ares V (CaLV) - status

cIclops · 2006-12-19 03:13:53

I guess I was most surprised by the award of a contract with so little actually analysis done. "Hard" CAE methods haven't even been used, much less fabrication. Griffin is keeping thing under as much control, but there is only so much athority he can exert under today's aerospace establishment.

Award of a contract? Source please. AFAIK no contracts for Ares V have been made yet. NASA have specified 5 x RS-68B engines, 2 x 5 Seg RSRBs, 10m tank and a J-2X for the EDS but that's about it. The roadmap shows development not starting on ARES V/EDS until 2010/11, right now it's "early design activity".

ftlwright · 2006-12-19 08:07:58

Award of a contract? Source please. AFAIK no contracts for Ares V have been made yet. NASA have specified 5 x RS-68B engines, 2 x 5 Seg RSRBs, 10m tank and a J-2X for the EDS but that's about it. The roadmap shows development not starting on ARES V/EDS until 2010/11, right now it's "early design activity".

My apologies, Ares I and V look similar at midnight and with a couple classes of wine .

GCNRevenger · 2006-12-19 08:21:42

This rocket design doesn indeed have four FIVE SEGMENT SRBs with 4 SSMEs in the core.
Its LEO capability is estimated at 350,000 lbs. plus.
How much larger Hab could that send to Mars than the 288,000 lbs. capability Ares-V?
I would bet it would be somewhat larger.

No not really, that increases the total mass by about 20%. Since Bob's plan is already grossly under-weight just as is advertised then that extra tonnage would go to the anemic equipment manifest (nuke, ERV reentry equipment, etc) and mass margin needed to make the dinky baseline MarsDirect less-than-crazy. It wouldn't add a single square centimeter to the HAB/ERV volumes, you'd need even more mass to improve that. And even if you did, then the crew would stay glued together yet would still be useless, no real pressurized rover, no heavy drill, and only a measly ~25MT surface payload (fully half of whats possible with Ares-V chemical DRM).

And even then, we could do so much more with two additional crew. Those three "super Ares" rockets will cost far more than the smaller -V brethern since the support and launch staff will likely be no smaller, and they'll spend lots of time sitting on their fingers or playing solitare.

publiusr · 2006-12-22 15:54:54

More here:
http://www.safesimplesoon.com/heavylift.htm

SpaceNut · 2007-01-02 16:53:30

Is Nasa shooting for the Saturn V???

NASA quietly sets up budget for Ares IV lunar crew launch vehicle with 2017 test flight target

The proposed Ares IV would use the core stage from the Ares V heavylift launcher, two five-segment solid rocket boosters and the upper stage from the Ares I CLV to launch the Block 2 lunar mission Orion crew exploration vehicle.

GCNRevenger · 2007-01-02 22:56:02

Constellation programme budget information and Ares IV schematics have been passed to Flight International following disquiet over the transparency of presentations

This really sums it up, if you think about it...

Engineers can be headstrong people, and now suddenly after a billion years of the status quo NASA is finally given (just) enough political and financial support to finally do something besides the occasional robot.

And so there are bound to be... "disagreements." Strong ones. Lots of them. But in the end there are only enough resources for one plan, and so a whole lot of engineers' opinions must simply be ignored. Particularly the relatively sudden surge of enthusiasm surrounding the VSE, this is going to hurt some of their feelings. This is probably the source of the so-called "lack of transparency" cited (not consulting whiny engineers = back room conspiracy!!!) too.

Or in more extreme cases, when they believe the prevailing plan is doomed and that their way is the only way, or at least that the present plan must be "stopped." So they leak scary phrases and numbers and such to the aerospace media, in the hope that it will generate enough distrust or outrage that maybe it will apply nontrivial pressure to concerned congressmen.

This "backup" idea imparticular has a serious flaw in that the Lunar surface payload, which I think is critical to the usefulness of VSE, could be jeopardized if the Ares-IV vehicle turns out lacking. It also consumes an awful lot of rocket (four SRBs, eight to ten RS-68, two Ares 10m cores versus three, five, and one respectively).

This also seems to be an attempt to keep the "Direct" plan on life support.

Edit: Why is it that there is such horror over short-term storage of the EDS/LSAM in orbit?

dicktice · 2007-01-03 19:04:58

My experience has been that engineers, as a race, strive to get things going too early, and far from being "whiny" they do they damndest to get it done to the detriment of their health, marriages, and longevities. And talk about teamwork; the mix of immigrant engineers from all countries and of all races is nothing short of inspired. Scientists tend to be less so, but maybe that's just jealousness on my part. Hope not.

Now that NASA has pulled up its space sox somewhat, I'm not going to put them down while they're up, even if I'm impatient with them at times. But, like the UN, what's the alternative: back to square one? Yeah, if we lived a lot longer, but we're stuck with only 20 or so years of productive output, dammit.

cIclops · 2007-01-14 17:31:52

Performance data for the RS 68 REGEN engine (RS-68B?)

SpaceNut · 2007-01-27 12:11:27

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...

Not to meantion that we get the tooling for the main tank online sooner.

RedStreak · 2007-01-27 15:32:37

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...
Not to meantion that we get the tooling for the main tank online sooner.

It would certainly be an interesting hybrid of Ares I and Ares V - as I posted elsewhere I think an Ares IV could prove worthwhile and nearly as useful as Ares V itself.

Thinking further, an Ares IV could be a cheaper alternative to Ares V - we'd finally have the means to launch a substantial spacecraft into LEO just as the Russians have with their Soyuz - no longer limited by the shuttle's payload bay. A space station possibly (and one more quickly assembled), but I'm thinking more along the lines of a monster Earth-Observation or Space Telescope satellite. Russia may have the rockets but it's budget has been shot to hell so there'd be all kinds of applications for this hybrid beyond the VSE.

GCNRevenger · 2007-01-27 16:11:18

Why bother with Ares-IV when Ares-V is so similar? The only major difference is the size of the upper stage fuel tanks, the rest is avionics. In the longer term, Ares-V makes more sense.

In the shorter term, if you absolutely need a rocket capable of lobbing ~30MT to TLI, then Ares-IV would be quicker.

Michael Bloxham · 2007-01-27 16:41:22

Are there any projects in the works to take advantage of this inevitable heavy lift capability, besides the lunar missions?

Any 100 tonne space telescopes?

Any 100 tonne ISS modules?

Or how about some super-giant mars rovers?

Gee, this newfound heavy lift launch capability is really gonna embarrass NASA when it sheds light on all those wasted shuttle-flights that were just as expensive.

GCNRevenger · 2007-01-27 17:10:26

A side-note about the RS-68B, if that is indeed what it is: the vacuum Isp is only somewhat better than the "A" model, but its Isp at nonzero air pressure should also be considered.

At sea level for instance, RS-68 is just as efficient as the mighty SSME.

RedStreak · 2007-01-27 23:28:27

Why bother with Ares-IV when Ares-V is so similar?
In the shorter term, if you absolutely need a rocket capable of lobbing ~30MT to TLI, then Ares-IV would be quicker.

And likely cheaper, and considering the upper stage is optimised for a manned spacecraft safer even. That's why I'm thinking Ares IV might be handy.

By the same token ESA could use some Ariane Vs for all its launches but it didn't create the Vega for nothing.

As for Ares V aside from Lunar & Martian launches it ought to be able to handle GEO satellites and anything in high orbit - THEN I totally agree with you GCN. Is there any benefits that could be gained from a GEO space station for that matter?

RedStreak · 2007-01-27 23:33:46

Any 100 tonne space telescopes?
Any 100 tonne ISS modules?
Or how about some super-giant mars rovers?
Gee, this newfound heavy lift launch capability is really gonna embarrass NASA when it sheds light on all those wasted shuttle-flights that were just as expensive.

A major hell yes to all of the above.

With the Ares V already designated for cargo launches it would practically open the door to all the commercial opportunities slammed shut on the shuttle after the Challenger disaster. It would certainly outperform all the Titans and pinch, if not kill, buisness for the EEVLs like Detla IV and Altas V.

The Ares IV ought to be able to provide much of what you've suggested, mostly because it could be developed slightly faster than the full Ares V.

RedStreak · 2007-01-27 23:39:26

At sea level for instance, RS-68 is just as efficient as the mighty SSME.

I don't think the issue is so much efficiency as it'd be hell-of-a-lot-less complicated and expensive as the 'mighty' SSME.

If it performs as well as the SSME then all the better and that gives NASA's decision to use it that much more support in my opinion.

cIclops · 2007-01-28 07:42:47

Are there any projects in the works to take advantage of this inevitable heavy lift capability, besides the lunar missions?
Any 100 tonne space telescopes?
Any 100 tonne ISS modules?
Or how about some super-giant mars rovers?

Astronomers are more interested in the wide fairing that Ares V can offer, it can't be wide enough for them. 10m would be a great improvement, they are hoping that 12m will be possible too, that makes a pre-assembled 10m class space telescope feasible. The cost of inspace assembly is enormous, especially if it involves human assistance.

All the ISS modules are ready, none require 100 mT lift, and none would want to wait for Ares V. Size is also a problem with the ISS, the main truss is about 100m long, so Ares V won't help there unless it was completely redesigned. Several modules could have been stacked together, but they were designed for the low g accelerations of a Shuttle launch and for human assembly on orbit. With Ares V capability a completely different design would have been possible and the equivalent mass (400 MT) could have been launched in 3 or 4 flights. But that's all history now.

Super giant Mars rovers? A little more weight always helps, another step to say 5 mT would be useful. How much can Ares V deliver to the Martian surface? Dunno. Allowing more mass reduces the spacecraft cost and increases capabilities, but remember Ares V ain't cheap. Estimates vary from $400 million to about a billion per launch. The Atlas V for the MSL rover costs about $200m. As always total project cost is the bottom line.

Ares V class mission will shine when it comes to large Delta-V missions, such as orbiters/landers for the moons of the gas giants, and dare we dream, of an interstellar probe mission.

RedStreak · 2007-01-28 15:10:47

Are there any projects in the works to take advantage of this inevitable heavy lift capability, besides the lunar missions?
Any 100 tonne space telescopes?
Any 100 tonne ISS modules?
Or how about some super-giant mars rovers?
All the ISS modules are ready, none require 100 mT lift, and none would want to wait for Ares V. Size is also a problem with the ISS, the main truss is about 100m long, so Ares V won't help there unless it was completely redesigned. Several modules could have been stacked together, but they were designed for the low g accelerations of a Shuttle launch and for human assembly on orbit. With Ares V capability a completely different design would have been possible and the equivalent mass (400 MT) could have been launched in 3 or 4 flights. But that's all history now.
Super giant Mars rovers? A little more weight always helps, another step to say 5 mT would be useful. How much can Ares V deliver to the Martian surface? Dunno. Allowing more mass reduces the spacecraft cost and increases capabilities, but remember Ares V ain't cheap. Estimates vary from $400 million to about a billion per launch. The Atlas V for the MSL rover costs about $200m. As always total project cost is the bottom line.

Given the ISS will hardly last past 2020 a far superior successor could take advantage of Ares IV or V. With Orion capable of high orbit they could place the station higher to avoid atmospheric drag entirely unlike any prior space station. I kind of wonder what space station modules designed for an Ares launch would be like - the Russian MIR types were so claustraphobic although I doubt they'd be as spaceous as the Skylab was.

With $400 million yeah its not cheap but better that's a better fare than any STS launch offered.

I honestly hope for all the potential Ares V (and IV) offers.

cIclops · 2007-01-30 11:23:56

Yes if NASA ever recovers from the ISS project and Congress sees some point in replacing ISS. If such a facility ever manages to prove worthwhile then Ares V would make a big difference to putting it in orbit. The Russians are talking about a new space station after ISS, but they talk about many things after drinking vodka ...

cIclops · 2007-02-06 12:09:37

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

Clarification of RS-68 upgrade.

The Constellation Program Office has also selected the RS-68 engine for the core stage engine for the Ares V launch vehicle. NASA is engaged in a collaborative effort with the USAF to improve the existing commercially-developed rocket engine to meet future requirements of both agencies, as well as the U.S. commercial fleet. With the proposed joint upgrades, the RS-68 will deliver more thrust and be safer, more reliable, and more efficient than the current RS-68, while maintaining low manufacturing and operating costs. Cooperation between agencies will include sharing assets and resources to develop and certify the RS-68B engine, certified for use on both NASA's Ares V and the Air Force Delta IV EELV fleet. Development activity will incorporate NASA-required upgrades with existing AATS upgrades, making use of existing USAF hardware to provide a new launch capability at a considerable cost savings over separate development efforts. Merging requirements will enable the government to purchase a common engine in greater numbers, thereby increasing buying power.

cIclops · 2007-02-12 09:40:51

Ripped from Ares V charts September 2006

cIclops · 2007-02-15 03:54:34

RS68B DESIGN DEVELOPMENT TEST AND EVALUATION - solicitation 13 Feb 2007

NASA/MSFC has a requirement for the design, development, test, and evaluation (DDT&E) of an engine to support the Core Stage of the Ares V Cargo Launch Vehicle (CaLV).The RS-68 engine was selected for this DDT&E effort because it is a high-performance, simple gas generator cycle engine utilizing liquid oxygen and liquid hydrogen as propellants. The end item deliverable will be a certified engine design for the RS-68B. NASA will develop the RS-68B jointly with the United States Air Force (USAF).

SpaceNut · 2007-02-15 08:40:51

There should be concern for the funding of this work or at least how much either would be responsible for. I think the plans call for a man rated engine of a little better preformance.

The Government does not intend to acquire a commercial item using FAR Part 12. See Note 26.

This spells government use only, so how does that help the private industry gain access to space?

cIclops · 2007-02-15 10:32:13

AFAIK the cost of modifying the RS-68 is to be shared between NASA and USAF, with P&W doing the modifications, there is no plan to man rate the engine although this is possible. Yes it's for government use, virtually everything NASA and USAF do is for government use to meet their obligations. Boeing and P&W will have the benefit of the work, it ought to be useful for the Delta 4.

GCNRevenger · 2007-02-15 13:22:14

The private sector could never afford Ares-V rockets even if they were available to the public.

If you want private heavy lift, but don't want to go through the massive expense of developing new engines or government parts/facilities/contractors, then the way to go would be a triple-barrel Falcon-IX with a cluster of RL-10 engines for the upper stage. It wouldn't quite be "heavy" lift, more like medium (ca 50MT), but it would be affordable.

New Mars Forums

Announcement

#76 2006-12-19 03:13:53

Re: Ares V (CaLV) - status

#77 2006-12-19 08:07:58

Re: Ares V (CaLV) - status

#78 2006-12-19 08:21:42

Re: Ares V (CaLV) - status

#79 2006-12-22 15:54:54

Re: Ares V (CaLV) - status

#80 2007-01-02 16:53:30

Re: Ares V (CaLV) - status

#81 2007-01-02 22:56:02

Re: Ares V (CaLV) - status

#82 2007-01-03 19:04:58

Re: Ares V (CaLV) - status

#83 2007-01-14 17:31:52

Re: Ares V (CaLV) - status

#84 2007-01-27 12:11:27

Re: Ares V (CaLV) - status

#85 2007-01-27 15:32:37

Re: Ares V (CaLV) - status

#86 2007-01-27 16:11:18

Re: Ares V (CaLV) - status

#87 2007-01-27 16:41:22

Re: Ares V (CaLV) - status

#88 2007-01-27 17:10:26

Re: Ares V (CaLV) - status

#89 2007-01-27 23:28:27

Re: Ares V (CaLV) - status

#90 2007-01-27 23:33:46

Re: Ares V (CaLV) - status

#91 2007-01-27 23:39:26

Re: Ares V (CaLV) - status

#92 2007-01-28 07:42:47

Re: Ares V (CaLV) - status

#93 2007-01-28 15:10:47

Re: Ares V (CaLV) - status

#94 2007-01-30 11:23:56

Re: Ares V (CaLV) - status

#95 2007-02-06 12:09:37

Re: Ares V (CaLV) - status

#96 2007-02-12 09:40:51

Re: Ares V (CaLV) - status

#97 2007-02-15 03:54:34

Re: Ares V (CaLV) - status

#98 2007-02-15 08:40:51

Re: Ares V (CaLV) - status

#99 2007-02-15 10:32:13

Re: Ares V (CaLV) - status

#100 2007-02-15 13:22:14

Re: Ares V (CaLV) - status

Board footer