Ares-F : The French Ares-I

gaetanomarano · 2007-04-19 18:05:13

...RS-68, SSME, Vulcain...

while you write your Bible-sized posts/replies, you forget a very little and simple detail: the air-started SSME is NOT an idea of mine but a NASA project !!!!!!!!

probably you know that, the idea of the "stick" and the (SRB+SSME) shuttle-derived rockets (to save time and money) is NOT new, NOR recent

both ideas are 5 to 10 years old, the ESAS plan was designed before the Bush announcement in 2004 and published at the end of 2005 after THREE MONTHS of thinking & writing of the BEST engineers and scientists of the NASA crew!

and, you remember that the early CLV in the ESAS plan was designed (by thousands engineers and scientists) with the 4-segments SRB and the air-started SSME

also, the ESAS plan (with the SSME's CLV) was published all over the world and read by (literally) hundreds' thousands engineers and scientists of the most important space agencies (Russia, ESA, China, Japan, India, etc.) aerospace companies (Boeing, etc.) universities (Harward, Princenton, MIT, etc.) experts, etc. etc. etc. ...but NO ONE of them have said nor written that use the SSME as a 2nd stage engine is impossible and/or that all NASA engineers and scientists are crazy or (at least) ignorant !!!!!

then (about ten months ago) NASA has changed the Ares-I design due to the SSME deletion (and also the 3years/$3Bn 5-segments SRB was a consequence of this choice)

and now, you pretend to teach us (me, the newmars users and all NASA/ESA/Russia/China/aerospace-companies' engineers and scientists) why the SSME can't be used for the 2nd stage... then, you're saying that you are right while all them are crazy, ignorant or (at least) wrong !!!

clearly, that's not true since the SSME (and other 1st stage engines like the RS-68 and the Vulcain 2) CAN be modified and used (without problems) for the Ares-I and other rockets' 2nd stage

maybe, other engines are better for the job... maybe, the J-2x is the best... but the thing you don't want to hear and understand is that an SSME or a Vulcain 2 don't need to be "PERFECT" but SUFFICIENT for its role

then, all your discussions about the extra-steps to modify the SSME, the better Isp of the J-2x, etc. are PURE NONSENSE since the NASA army of engineers and scientists have decided (after YEARS of studies and experience!) that an SSME is SUFFICIENT to drive the Ares-I (and the ENTIRE aerospace engineers and scientists' community of the world agreed with NASA on this point) so, if the SSME is good for that job, also the Vulcain 2 can be used for the Ares-I

and, about the ESAS timeline... please read again the past years' news... in the early ESAS plan (and in all NASA press conferences and NASA officials' claims) the right dates was: 2012 for the first manned Orion flight and 2018 for the first lunar landing

both dates was changed just a few months ago (after the Ares-I design change) to 2014 for the Orion flight and 2020 for the lunar landing (then, the first date was changed again to 2015 a few weeks ago due to the budget cut)

you're right about the 5-segments SRB since the Ares-I with the Vulcain STILL needs it in its current design... but in my article I suggest to use three (ready available and cheap) Ariane5 EAP (or TWO standard SRB with a ballast) and, however, the 5-segments SRB needs ONLY three years to fly, then (despite it R&D costs tons of money) it can't delay so much the first Orion flight (in 2012) nor force NASA to LOSE up to $20 billion for NOTHING in 2013-2015 while waiting your loved J-2x...

.

GCNRevenger · 2007-04-19 20:36:23

The idea of using Shuttle parts for new rockets is much older then that, like the Regan-era National Launch System and the ill-fated Shuttle-C which half-heartedly reached mockup stage. However, the idea of "TheStick" is a fairly new idea, cooked up by ATK circa the Columbia disaster, and is not "ten years old."

But I digress, you place huuuuuge weight on plans that only took weeks or a few months to come up with; well guess what? Its not that easy, it takes time for engineers, scientists, and accountants to decide the best details for a plan of this complexity. NASA started with a "baseline" plan that called for the smaller booster and SSME, but through more in-depth analysis later concluded that it was a bad choice versus the bigger booster and J-2.

Let me reiterate that: four-segment/SSME was the initial, rough plan but five-segment/J-2 is the in depth and more carefully (read: better) considered option. NASA did not know that 5-Seg/J-2 was better than 4-Seg/SSME until it better refined the plan. We are going for 5-Seg/J-2 because it is the better option.

One of the core reasons for this change was that modifying SSME to do the same job (air start etc) as J-2 would have been prohibitively difficult, time consuming, and expensive. I might also add that it was not cooked up by "thousands" of engineers, but rather most likely by dozens or a hundred who worked in specific NASA offices.

Vulcain suffers from many of the same problems as SSME in this regard, nor has better performance than J-2X. It is likely that modifying SSME (or Vulcain) is a possible thing, its just not as good an option for VSE as going the 5-Seg/J-2 route instead. The problem with SSME (and by extension, similar engines like Vulcain) is that they would be difficult to modify compared to 5-Seg/J-2, that the traits needed for the engine on Ares-I/V would take a lot of time and money to build into SSME. An upper stage engine has a number of abilities and differences that first stage engines simply do not have. It is not impossible, but it is expensive and time consuming. J-2 already has just about all of these abilities built-in. J-2 is easier to use than SSME.

then, all your discussions about the extra-steps to modify the SSME, the better Isp of the J-2x, etc. are PURE NONSENSE

No, the nonsense here is all yours. It is very simple, but I will spell it out for you anyway: if you took one of the SSME's out of the back of Atlantis tomorrow, drove down the Michoud and bolted it into the bottom of the Ares-I-US, and rolled the rocket out to KSC and tried to make it reach orbit it would not work. Neither SSME nor Vulcain are upper stage engines, so they can't be used in upper stages without major changes.

You are being willfully obtuse or else a blatant liar about the Ares-I/Orion timeline. Ever since VSE was first started, 2014 was the original "no later than" date. 2012 was and is the earliest credible estimate for how long it would take if everything went better than estimated.

Now this jibbering about using Ariane-V boosters or pairs of four-segment boosters is an entirely differen topic.

gaetanomarano · 2007-04-20 06:48:26

...the idea of "TheStick" is a fairly new idea, cooked up by ATK circa the Columbia disaster, and is not "ten years old."...

you can read in this Ed Kyle's page that the "stick" (the ATSS Solid Booster In-Line Concepts) was first conceived 14+ years ago (in 1993) while only the latest version was announced in 2004 (one year after the Columbia accident) but (clearly) a new rocket can't be designed in a few months, so, the CLV design (surely) started BEFORE Columbia, also, I've read of an academic speech where Mr. Griffin (as stick's co-designer) talks of this new rocket (please note that ALL the early stick's designs use the SSME as 2nd stage engine)

...but through more in-depth analysis later concluded that it was a bad choice...

no, your claim is completely false, since NASA has (really) made a (10+ years) "in-depth analysis" of the SSME version (and published in the official ESAS plan!) while the design change/shift to the 5.seg.SRB/J-2x was made last year in A FEW WEEKS without any "in-depth analysis" but due to: 1) costs problems ($60M SSME vs. $12M J-2x) as Ed Kyle state in his story... 2) the choice of the RS-68 for the Ares-V... and... 3) the (simple) fact that last year the SSME (and its production line) was DELETED ...then, not a "better" choice, but a decision FORCED by non-technical (external) problems

...four-segment/SSME was the initial, rough plan but five-segment/J-2 is the in depth and more carefully (read: better) considered option...

the reality was (exactly) the INVERSE: the SSME's CLV was a (10+ years) "in depth and more carefully (read: better) considered option" while the J-2x/5-seg. change was a "few-weeks-made ROUGH rush-plan-B" to solve the SSME costs/etc. problems

...did not know that 5-Seg/J-2 was better than 4-Seg/SSME until it better refined the plan...

NASA has "refined" so much "the plan" in the past ten+ years that (infact) they started from ZERO to develop the 5-seg.SRB and the J-2x ...
a plan "refined" in ten+ years (with its "refined" engines) must be (surely) able to launch the new Orion five years BEFORE the Shuttle retirement, NOT five years AFTER it ... !

...the core reasons for this change was that modifying SSME to do the same job (air start etc) as J-2 would have been prohibitively difficult, time consuming...

no ...everyone knows that (after 10+ years of study) the main reasons was those I've stated here

...by dozens or a hundred who worked in specific NASA offices...

assuming you're right on this point (despite I don't understand how you can know that if you dont work for NASA...) that could be happened in the early stages, NOT when the ESAS plan was written, published and read by THOUSANDS engineers around the world (NO ONE of which have said that NASA was crazy or wrong in the SSME choice)

...nor has better performance than J-2X...

assuming you're right, the Ares-I doesn't need the most "perfect" engine, but (simply) an engine SUFFICIENT for the job (like was the SSME in the past and like the Vulcain 2 is to-day)

...modifying SSME (or Vulcain) is a possible thing...

that's exactly my point...

...they would be difficult to modify compared to 5-Seg/J-2...

so "difficult" that they need three years LESS than the new plan to fly...

...J-2 already has just about all of these abilities built-in. J-2 is easier to use than SSME...

my point in the Ares-F article (and in my posts here) is NOT about which engine is "better" (despite, so far, there is no evidence that a J-2x really is better) but about which engine is FASTER to design, build, test and launch, also, the J-2x don't "HAS these abilities built-in" but (maybe) WILL HAVE them... in 2015...

Neither SSME nor Vulcain are upper stage engines, so they can't be used in upper stages without major changes.

I know that and I agree with you, also, these changes are not simple nor cheap, but, surely, they are faster an cheaper than (first) develop and build a new engine (despite the J-2x is a J-2 son, the NEW engine needs very much time and money to born!)

...2012 was and is the earliest credible estimate for how long it would take if everything went better than estimated...

that's exactly my point... they have evaluated, estimated, calculated, studied everything then claimed that (both) CEV and CLV would be ready to fly in 2012 (with the moon landing in 2018) ...everyone knows that, and entire world's press have published them... then, they have changed their claim (using the "2014 margin" delay) FORCED by the change from the SSME/4-seg. to the J-2x/5-seg. stages that (both) need MORE time to fly

...using Ariane-V boosters or pairs of four-segment boosters is an entirely differen topic...

no, it's only a different (and excellent) solution

...and now... just wait for your "War and Peace 2.0" reply...

.

SpaceNut · 2007-04-20 07:34:27

gaetanomarano the SRB issue comesback to its need for roll control, which is lots of sensors, computer plus software and roll control engines on the upper stage while SRB is burning. The time of 3 years has to do with all this intergration and planning not to mention testing.

Going to an inline Araine version will have all the same issues and the only difference is how much workers over there cost versus those over here. That is the thing we can not change anymore than we can change how much a soyuz costs to make there versus if we could make one here.

We are stuck with laws that stop technology from getting into the wrong hands even if we are freindly countries.

gaetanomarano · 2007-04-20 08:00:01

gaetanomarano the SRB issue comesback to its need for roll control, which is lots of sensors, computer plus software and roll control engines on the upper stage while SRB is burning. The time of 3 years has to do with all this intergration and planning not to mention testing.

the roll control, etc. problems do exist, but they are solved in parallel with 5-seg.SRB development, however, the main problem of the 5-seg.SRB is about its (big) R&D costs, not the time it needs to fly (that is compatible with the Orion's timeline)
most of the Ares-I problems comes from the J-2x choice

Going to an inline Araine version will have all the same issues...

both solutions have the same problem and need the same time to solve, but a single 5-segments SRB or two 4-segments SRB (both) cost MORE than three EAPs

We are stuck with laws that stop technology from getting into the wrong hands even if we are freindly countries.

ok, but that choice costs 3+ year of delay and $20+ billion lost for nothing
.

GCNRevenger · 2007-04-25 14:43:46

Ah here we go again

Sure sure a few badly sketched pictures out of MS paint plus some back-of-envelope figures from an office desperate to find some way out of the Shuttle debacle, using a booster that was conceived but not ever built (ASRM), constitutes a plan. They did a little analysis and then planning was stopped as per your own link. "TheStick" was actually planned by Lockheed, who did no more work on the idea until VSE.

There is no "ten years of planning," there was a little work done and then nothing until Columbia and VSE. But I digress, even if SSME were chosen, the context is different: In the past, Shuttle would still be flying probably to Space Station Freedom and so SSME (and at the time, ASRM) would be in production, but now with VSE the SSME engine won't be used on Ares-V and the five-segment booster has been selected instead of four-segment or ASRM. J-2X is the better choice.

Please, you don't think that all decisions occur in a vacuum do you?

despite I don't understand how you can know that if you dont work for NASA

And you do?

my point in the Ares-F article (and in my posts here) is NOT about which engine is "better" (despite, so far, there is no evidence that a J-2x really is better) but about which engine is FASTER to design, build, test and launch, also, the J-2x don't "HAS these abilities built-in" but (maybe) WILL HAVE them... in 2015

You keep on banging on this stupid point. The J-2 engine has more of the features needed in an upper stage engine than other off-the-shelf engines with comparable performance. Therefore, fewer changes are needed to make it compatible with Ares rockets. Because it would require fewer changes, it would therefore take less time to modify than first stage engines like SSME or Vulcain.

To put it another way, in two identical parallel worlds, one with SSME or Vulcain and one with J-2, supposing J-2X would be done in 2015 than SSME or Vulcain would take longer given the same development dollars. Considering that engines like SSME are some of the highest performance machines ever devised by man, any modification at all would be very expensive and time consuming compared to the simple J-2.

they have evaluated, estimated, calculated, studied everything then claimed that (both) CEV and CLV would be ready to fly in 2012

Can't you even read? No, you can read, you just like to lie. The estimates for when Ares/Orion would be ready are a range. A range is not a single number, but rather, all the possible numbers between two values.

They did not say it would be ready by 2012, but rather sometime between 2012 and 2014. You can't be so stupid as to not understand this simple concept.

gaetanomarano · 2007-05-15 20:02:37

.

May 15, 2007 - from Mark Wade Pausanias Blog: http://astronautix.com/blog/?p=22

"...there is buzz that NASA is looking at the Ariane 5’s Vulcain engine as an alternate solution..."

.

Yang Liwei Rocket · 2007-05-18 23:30:10

Space Policy Rises on EU Radar
http://www.defensenews.com/story.php?F= … C=thisweek

BROOKS TIGNER, BRUSSELS

Taboo for many years for reasons of national sovereignty, questions of space policy and security are rising rapidly on the European Union’s agenda. The threats of terrorism, organized crime, illegal immigration and global warming are pushing the 27 EU nations to cooperate on space assets and services that can serve both commercial and military users.
“We all agree that there is no security [in Europe] without space,” said European Commission (EC) space official Paul Weissenberg at a May 2 hearing on space organized by the European Parliament’s subcommittee on security and defense. “If we want to be independent, Europe must use space as an asset and it must offer a mixture of civil and military applications.”
Weissenberg heads the aerospace, security, defense and equipment policy office at the EC’s Directorate-General for Enterprise and Industry. His office was largely responsible for steering to completion the commission’s new European Space Policy, unveiled here April 26 after two years of sensitive negotiations with national capitals and European institutions involved in space research and operations.
The policy was presented by Gunter Verheugen, European commissioner for enterprise policy, and Jacques Dordain, the European Space Agency’s (ESA’s) director general. Dordain said the new space policy was “an important step forward for Europe; it brings an EU dimension to space and a space dimension to the EU.”
The 17-page document was defined by the commission and the Paris-based ESA in the wake of their strategic partnership in 2003 to oversee development of the European Union’s two main space programs: Galileo and the Global Monitoring for Environment and Security (GMES).
Galileo will be a global navigation network of 30 satellites and ground stations funded by the union and ESA. The GMES is a pan-European initiative funded by governments to harmonize information services based on Earth observation data for public-sector users.
Both programs have had delays, but Galileo’s have been worse due to bitter disputes over work-share and other industry issues within the industrial consortium managing Galileo’s commercial operation. The in-fighting finally forced Verheugen’s fellow commissioner for transport policy, Jacques Barrot, to issue an ultimatum in March, warning the companies to solve their issues by September or be expelled from the program.
Despite the project’s setbacks, Verheugen said, “We don’t have the option of giving up on Galileo. That is out of the question. We have to decide what kind of budget we will devote to it.”
The commission said it will propose an “appropriate legal and managerial framework” this year to meet the needs of Galileo’s industrial partners.
Galileo and GMES await definition of their security and military dimensions. While Galileo is overwhelmingly commercial in orientation, a small portion of its satellite communication bandwidth will be reserved for encrypted public-sector use, including the military.
GMES’ security applications are potentially much wider since the program’s raison d’être is to create a harmonized satellite services distribution system for public-sector users based on common software, data-sharing protocols and standardized parameters for earth observation and environmental measurements.
“The potential intelligence applications are obviously vast,” an EU official said May 3. “But there are a hell of a lot of public sector actors involved, so the coordination will be complicated. We’ll get there, bit by bit, but we’ll get there.”

The new European Space Policy sets out a number of key initiatives for the short term. These include:
• Definition by the EU nations of security-related requirements for GMES before the end of 2007.
• Identification this year of Galileo’s panoply of applications.
• Pilot phase start-up in 2008 of GMES’ first three operational services covering land, marine and emergency-response sectors.
• New research and development projects for integrated space applications to be proposed before the end of 2008.

publiusr · 2007-06-23 12:40:35

Lets hope for Ariane M.

New Mars Forums

Announcement

#26 2007-04-19 18:05:13

Re: Ares-F : The French Ares-I

#27 2007-04-19 20:36:23

Re: Ares-F : The French Ares-I

#28 2007-04-20 06:48:26

Re: Ares-F : The French Ares-I

#29 2007-04-20 07:34:27

Re: Ares-F : The French Ares-I

#30 2007-04-20 08:00:01

Re: Ares-F : The French Ares-I

#31 2007-04-25 14:43:46

Re: Ares-F : The French Ares-I

#32 2007-05-15 20:02:37

Re: Ares-F : The French Ares-I

#33 2007-05-18 23:30:10

Re: Ares-F : The French Ares-I

#34 2007-06-23 12:40:35

Re: Ares-F : The French Ares-I

Board footer