Alternatives to the Ares I and Ares V?

cIclops · 2006-10-11 07:59:15

Just published online: Alternatives for Future U.S. Space-Launch Capabilities (PDF)

This study, by the experts in launch vehicle design at the Congressional Budget Office, proposes ... if you can figure this out please reply

The document has tons of pretty pictures and lots of very round cost estimates. If you can find the cost estimate for the Ares V please add that to your reply.

BTW they estimate the recurring costs of an Ares I (Five-Segment Single Stick) at $450m broken down as $200m hardware, $150m launch services and $100m NASA overhead (see table E-1)

noosfractal · 2006-10-11 14:20:37

Is that the most dismal graph you've ever seen, or what? At least they have it end with an uptick.

SpaceNut · 2006-10-11 19:46:12

Lot charts, graphs and make believe images of what could be.

The real need for heavy lift is in this quote:

Future Mars Missions
In nine NASA studies completed between 1988 and 2000, estimates of the weight of the payload that would need to be lifted into LEO for a Mars mission ranged between 470 mt and 1,500 mt.
Therefore, the lightest Mars mission would require that a minimum of three to four
times the mass of a lunar mission be launched into LEO.
NASA’s plans for return missions to the moon avoid the complexities associated with on-orbit assembly that is dependent on more than two launches. However, such challenges for conducting a manned mission to Mars remain. Instead of developing a launch vehicle in at least the 400 mt class, which is not anticipated, capability for on-orbit assembly would be needed.

GCNRevenger · 2006-10-12 06:26:00

I don't think the CBO are rocket scientists... a Mars mission wouldn't take any more orbital assembly than a Lunar mission, since the Earth-Mars and Mars-Earth vehicles would be sent seperately.

cIclops · 2006-10-12 07:22:59

I don't think the CBO are rocket scientists... a Mars mission wouldn't take any more orbital assembly than a Lunar mission, since the Earth-Mars and Mars-Earth vehicles would be sent seperately.

CBO are the Counting Bean Officials

Exactly so. Probably at least four vehicles:

1. Ares V + EDS + MSAM + ascent vehicle > LMO
2. Ares V + EDS + MSAM + HAB > Mars surface
3. Ares V + NTP + MTV > LEO
4. Ares I + Orion + crew > LEO

and the mission goes something like this:

1. Orion docks with NTP/MTV in LEO and make a fast (5 month) transit to LMO.
2. Crew transfer to MSAM/ascent vehicle waiting in LMO
3. MSAM/ascent + crew land on Mars near HAB
4. crew return to LMO in ascent vehicle and dock with NTP/MTV/Orion
5. NTP/MTV/Orion + crew fast return to Earth

EDS = Earth departure stage
HAB = Habitation module + supplies
LMO = Low Mars Orbit
MSAM = Mars Surface Access Module
MTV = Mars transfer vehicle + crew supplies
NTP = Nuclear Thermal Propulsion rocket

<Waving hands about and smiling>
Piece of cake.

GCNRevenger · 2006-10-12 08:24:57

I still favor the Mars "Semi Direct" plan, best refined as NASA's DRM-III, which calls for a seperate HAB and ERV like MarsDirect, except a third payload carrying a small acent vehicle carries crews from the HAB to the ERV, which waits in orbit instead of on the surface. This plan, with the addition of a reuseable acente vehicle some time down the road, permits the ERV to become a reuseable "cycler" transfer veihcle. Packing the mission into three payloads instead of two makes the mass numbers much more comfortable veruss MarsDirect. However, DRM-III would require six launches (three for the vehicles, three for TMI boosters), since the payloads weigh ~90MT (too much for direct launch).

MarsDirect's insane numbers could be improved likewise, by launching the two vehicles and TMI boosters for them seperately. Speaking of which... a single standard Ares-V doesn't have the push to deliver sufficently large vehicles directly (at least without a nuclear rocket) I don't think. Nuclear engines would be nice, but they really aren't nessesarry, small NTP engines like NERVA only decrease the "fuel bill" by about 1/3rd versus chemical engines and only shaves a month off travel time. I think its possible to get by with normal chemical engines for all Mars missions up to establishing a research base/fuel depot.

1-Build a stretch version of the EDS with a docking collar and stationkeeping equipment, launch it seperately from the vehicle. 125MT of fuel could push a ~90MT vehicle to Mars in 6mo. The second Ares-V would be launched with a small kick stage instead of a full Lunar EDS since it only needs to lift 90MT.
2A-Do the same, but put only liquid oxygen for TMI on the jumbo EDS. The Mars vehicle would carry a tank of liquid hydrogen when it is launched. This increases the boiloff window from 1mo to 6mo and makes it so the extra 35MT of payload the second Ares-V has isn't wasted nor a light varient development needed (which likely won't be any cheaper). I estimate the extra fuel increases total payload by ~10MT per vehicle (1/3rd of 35MT), which is a real windfall. It does however require cryogenic transfer and the Mars ship will be fairly big with the hydrogen tank.
2B-Do the same, but add a 25MT "second stage" EDS to the Mars vehicle. This skips the problem of cryogenic transfer, but retains the boiloff problem and adds another engine that might fail. You still get most of the increased payload bennefit and skip the "light" Ares-V, plus an attractive possibility is that if the first stage failed then the second stage plus the lander fuel should be sufficent for direct abort back to Earth. Perhaps keep the Orion capsule docked to HAB with the extra 10MT of payload for use as a reentry vehicle in the event of direct or free-return abort without leaving the HAB.

RedStreak · 2006-10-13 00:40:20

I still favor the Mars "Semi Direct" plan, best refined as NASA's DRM-III, which calls for a seperate HAB and ERV like MarsDirect

I do too. I can see as I believe I stated before the Orion playing the role of the Earth return vehicle. I think a dedicated HAB ought to be included along with a Mars lander that has ISPP with enough capability to reach high Mars orbit.

I'd suggest, for a Mars mission, 3 launches to assemble the crewed portion versus two for cargo. My suggestion as follows:

Cargo Element

1Ca) MAV launches into LEO - carrying all material nessicary for reentry and surface operations, larger than the Mars Direct or Semi-Direct versions to maximize cargo to surface and Ares V capability.

2Ca) A lengthened EDS is launches solo into LEO, carrying enough fuel to launch MAV to Mars.

3Ca) EDS and MAV dock and then launch to Mars.

4Ca) MAV lands and sets up an automonous operation focusing on ISPP and surveying immediate region.

Crew Element

1) The HAB launched into orbit on ARES V, possibly with a small node module to allow for orbital Martian operations.

2) A lengthened EDS launches into LEO, docking with HAB.

3) An Orion, optimized for Mars operations, launches with Crew on Ares I.

4) Orion, HAB, and EDS are all launched to Mars.

5) Nearing Mars, Orion and HAB seperate - the Orion breaks into a high preferably-aerosyncronus orbit while the HAB with crew aerobrake to enter Mars orbit ala Mars Direct.

6) HAB lands near MAV. Crew setup base and condtuct a long study.

7) MAV, fueled up long before, is used to ascend into high orbit and dock with the orbiting Orion.

8) Prior to Mars Departure, the Orion (especially if equipped with a smaller orbital module) could rendevous with the Martian moons for survey. This would be optional but given the minimal propellant involved and Deimos' near-syncronus orbit quite feasible.

9) Orion departs for Earth.

10) Nearing Earth Orion decelerates with most of remaining fuel to minimize strain on CEV capsule. Once spent SM detaches.

11) CEV capsule reenters and lands.

Hope that's simple enough. I thought a seperate launch for the EDS would give more fuel for launching since a Martian vehicle will likely weigh more than a Lunar. The orbital module I suggest would be small and utility-driven, but it could easily be left in Martian orbit and future modules done likewise could link ala Chinese Shenzou-design for a space station; however I'd rather think of their use for a Martian moon expedition.

cIclops · 2006-10-13 01:45:02

9) Orion departs for Earth.
10) Nearing Earth Orion decelerates with most of remaining fuel to minimize strain on CEV capsule. Once spent SM detaches.
11) CEV capsule reenters and lands.

Hope that's simple enough.

Yes it's simple, but as Einstein said: as simple as possible, but not simpler. What are the six crew going to breathe, drink and eat in Orion during the journey back to Earth? Hanford estimates about 5mT of consumables are needed for a six month journey for six crew. Cannibalism is not an option!

GCNRevenger · 2006-10-13 05:50:40

Yes, there needs to be a fully-fleged Earth return vehicle of the same scale as the HAB module. The easiest thing to do is build a copy of the HAB, except modifying the landing rocket to push you from Mars orbit to Earth instead ala DRM-III. "Small orbital module" isn't going to cut it.

cjchandler · 2006-10-13 11:13:14

Probably it doesn't belong here, but all these mars direct and semi-direct seem to have the same problem as apollo, if they don't find life, they could end up being one or two shot flag planting missions. How do you plan to keep everyone interessted and suporting it after it isn't so novel after awhile? Will a colony be established?

cIclops · 2006-10-13 14:11:44

Probably it doesn't belong here, but all these mars direct and semi-direct seem to have the same problem as apollo, if they don't find life, they could end up being one or two shot flag planting missions. How do you plan to keep everyone interessted and suporting it after it isn't so novel after awhile? Will a colony be established?

By ensuring that the recurring costs of missions fit within the NASA budget.

There is much to explore on Mars, it will take many missions before the basic surveys are done. By then costs should be reduced by ISRU and technology advances. First would be a permanent base. A colony will be a long way further into the future.

After all the first landing on the South Pole was in 1911 by Amundsen. Now almost 100 years later there is still no colony there, only a permanent scientific base. Establishing a colony at the South Pole would be child's play compared with Mars.

RedStreak · 2006-10-13 15:46:43

How do you plan to keep everyone interessted and suporting it after it isn't so novel after awhile? Will a colony be established?

I dunno...a grand canyon wide as the USA...volcanoes the size of Missouri...gee how could such things attract attention?

cjchandler · 2006-10-14 11:20:10

Makes sense. The moon seems pretty interesting too, but that didn't keep us there. My only fear is that is it is done too early without the right level of technology, the transporation costs will be too much and the program will be cancelled to save the money in the fedral budget.

RedStreak · 2006-10-14 11:48:48

With luck a short-term government program to the moon will attract the ambitions of space entrapenours (pardon spelling). Most government programs are short lived anyway, either being shut down for funding or otherwise or replaced by an entirely new program.

Hopefully The Vision will provide a focus for commercial spaceflight - floating in orbit is interesting for only so long, and paying a few hundred grand for a few minutes will make even the rich (once the initial 'thrill-period' passes) have second thoughts. Even the Moon would offer scenery free-floating space can't compare - the low gravity, craters spanning wider than the eye can see, the occassional ancient volcano, and there is a feature on the moon dubbed "The Wall" that wouldn't suprise me if it attracted extreme mountain climbers gallor.

RedStreak · 2006-10-14 11:51:51

Yes it's simple, but as Einstein said: as simple as possible, but not simpler. What are the six crew going to breathe, drink and eat in Orion during the journey back to Earth? Hanford estimates about 5mT of consumables are needed for a six month journey for six crew. Cannibalism is not an option!

Could you pass me a drumstick of Major Tom please....oh oh right... :twisted:

I suppose if a custom-built MAV is sent the same could be done for an ERV. As I said if an Orion is included in the mission it would be customized for Mars, and that could include a larger cabin or SM for more propulsive capability.

Commodore · 2006-10-14 19:43:36

Probably it doesn't belong here, but all these mars direct and semi-direct seem to have the same problem as apollo, if they don't find life, they could end up being one or two shot flag planting missions. How do you plan to keep everyone interessted and suporting it after it isn't so novel after awhile? Will a colony be established?

Thats been my assesment as well. The crews are too small to do anything productive. ISRU is not a priority. Interplanetary travel is somthing to be endured instead of an environment to thrive in. There is no plan for the wider exploration of the planet, nor now the individual missions they do plan for fit into it, nor how the exploration of the planet fits into the wider exploration of the solar system.

They focus soley on how to get even the smallest amount of results in the sortest amount of time, or political cycles, as possible. Naturally that means key technologies like nuclear propulsion/power, simulated gs, astroculture, active radiation shielding, and advanced ISRU gear never get off the drawing board, and we get stuck in a rut again of either repeating to same thing over again with diminishing returns, or returning to the same spot over and over again building something that is outdated and broken halfway in.

NASA is never going to colonize anything by itself, but if can establish self-sustaining installations capable of independant growth from ISRU and launching planetwide expeditions from a single foothold. All this sounds expensive (and it is), but all of it can be done on the moon first and all of it will reduce cost in the long run. With an establishment on the other end, we can cut the size and complexity of the transist craft because the passengers will have someplace to recover. Advanced ISRU will allow ridgid structures to be built out of local material, greatly lengthening the lifespans of ridgid habs built from Earth, and allow far cheaper inflatable habs from Earth to be delivered. Or, even structures built soley out of local materials. Furthur micromanufacturing gear can provide the inevitable spare parts. Astroculture eliminates the need for even comsumable resupply, with the exception of maybe a one time boost when the population expands. Within 15 years of the first landing, we can have a permanent population of 50-100 lifers at nearly no annual cost. At that point NASA can think about the Asteroid belt and Outer moons or Mercury, and the infrastructure is there if there is a demand for colonies. And much of the technology will be there as well.

SpaceNut · 2006-10-14 19:52:20

I think you hit it on the nail with your assement of the Vision of exploration quite right.

Now to be a fly and escape this planet as a stowaway to start where Nasa seems afraid to go... Colonization...

publiusr · 2006-10-27 12:21:10

I would accept the Direct method--but only if Sea Dragon were to follow. The Direct HLLV would launch the craft--and Sea Dragon the big Martian stage.

A two launch Mars mission. The spent sea dragon hull would remain in orbit around Mars as a station module perhaps (on Phobos maybe), and the return craft would come back more slowly with spin/tether gravity increasing to Earth normal g over time. The rugged Sea Dragon hull would be pointed towards the sun while inactive to serve as shielding.

http://www.directlauncher.com/

New Mars Forums

Announcement

#1 2006-10-11 07:59:15

Re: Alternatives to the Ares I and Ares V?

#2 2006-10-11 14:20:37

Re: Alternatives to the Ares I and Ares V?

#3 2006-10-11 19:46:12

Re: Alternatives to the Ares I and Ares V?

#4 2006-10-12 06:26:00

Re: Alternatives to the Ares I and Ares V?

#5 2006-10-12 07:22:59

Re: Alternatives to the Ares I and Ares V?

#6 2006-10-12 08:24:57

Re: Alternatives to the Ares I and Ares V?

#7 2006-10-13 00:40:20

Re: Alternatives to the Ares I and Ares V?

#8 2006-10-13 01:45:02

Re: Alternatives to the Ares I and Ares V?

#9 2006-10-13 05:50:40

Re: Alternatives to the Ares I and Ares V?

#10 2006-10-13 11:13:14

Re: Alternatives to the Ares I and Ares V?

#11 2006-10-13 14:11:44

Re: Alternatives to the Ares I and Ares V?

#12 2006-10-13 15:46:43

Re: Alternatives to the Ares I and Ares V?

#13 2006-10-14 11:20:10

Re: Alternatives to the Ares I and Ares V?

#14 2006-10-14 11:48:48

Re: Alternatives to the Ares I and Ares V?

#15 2006-10-14 11:51:51

Re: Alternatives to the Ares I and Ares V?

#16 2006-10-14 19:43:36

Re: Alternatives to the Ares I and Ares V?

#17 2006-10-14 19:52:20

Re: Alternatives to the Ares I and Ares V?

#18 2006-10-27 12:21:10

Re: Alternatives to the Ares I and Ares V?

Board footer