Author Topic: Could Ares 1 have Worked if things had been different?  (Read 195082 times)

Offline renclod

  • Extreme Veteran
  • Full Member
  • ****
  • Posts: 1671
  • EU.Ro
  • Liked: 17
  • Likes Given: 2
Re: Could Ares 1 have Worked if things had been different?
« Reply #220 on: 06/16/2013 10:08 pm »
I just had a odd thought.

Things started to go bad for Ares 1 once they ran into problem with the air startable SSME,

My data recorder says different ! Things started to go bad for Ares I, and for the whole Constellation program, when NASA realized that the administration would not fund the program as promised. More, Shuttle return to flight and other contingencies further diminished the available funding.

The solution was to reduce the number of program elements, to eliminate expensive elements, to enforce commonalities between CLV and CaLV, to find commonalities with external programs.

From 3 liquid fuel engine elements (RS-25 air start, RS-25 ground start, J-2S) they went to 2 (RS-68, J-2X).

Quote
[...]
 they could have still made the A1US, but it would be common with the Ares 1 liquid booster then.
This is quite a stretch. An upper stage must be optimized or it would not reach orbit with a significant payload, or at all. 

Quote
[...]
don't worry about the big solid

That would have been a bug, not a feature - wrt politics. The Constellation program was designed such that it would keep the "big solid" in the big picture. CLV was the funded project, not CaLV.

« Last Edit: 06/16/2013 10:10 pm by renclod »

Offline Lobo

  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 6915
  • Spokane, WA
  • Liked: 672
  • Likes Given: 437
Re: Could Ares 1 have Worked if things had been different?
« Reply #221 on: 06/19/2013 06:01 am »

My data recorder says different ! Things started to go bad for Ares I, and for the whole Constellation program, when NASA realized that the administration would not fund the program as promised. More, Shuttle return to flight and other contingencies further diminished the available funding.

The solution was to reduce the number of program elements, to eliminate expensive elements, to enforce commonalities between CLV and CaLV, to find commonalities with external programs.

From 3 liquid fuel engine elements (RS-25 air start, RS-25 ground start, J-2S) they went to 2 (RS-68, J-2X).


Well, I don't really have data, that's just what I understood.  When the air startable RS-25 started to look non feasible, then a relatively simple J2S program became a very complex J2X project, then the Ares 1 first stage needed more power to compensate and grew finally to 5.5 seg.  Then they had to start removing features from Orion to lighten it up, etc.

But again, that's just what I picked up from various discussion on these forums.


This is quite a stretch. An upper stage must be optimized or it would not reach orbit with a significant payload, or at all. 


Doesn't the Falcon 9 upper stage share tooling with the Falcon 9 booster?  And the 5m DCSS share tooling with the Delta IV core (the LH2 tank anyway)?
Perhaps my understanding there is mistaken.   But I'm mainly just saying using the same tooling, alloys, tank bulkheads, etc, as the booster and upper stage would be the same diameter.


That would have been a bug, not a feature - wrt politics. The Constellation program was designed such that it would keep the "big solid" in the big picture. CLV was the funded project, not CaLV.


Bummer...   That sort of limits options then for a crew launcher to basically Ares 1.  Not many other ways to get Orion to LEO with a 4 or 5 seg booster, unless you go with a Jupiter -130, but then you are looking 2 launch instead of 1.5 launch.

I'll take one last hail Mary pass at it though.  Given that a big solid was required and an RS-25 couldn't feasible be made to air start.

Maybe take a Delta IV core, modify it with a single RS-25 engine, and side mount it to an SRB with the RS-25 angled outwards like the Shuttle's were.  The SRB's are designed to be side mounted anyway, although obviously it wouldn't quite be the same.  But should be any harder than trying to inline mount it.
Then you remove the air-startable RS-25, and the J2X.  Ares 1 and Ares V both use RS-25 and SRB's.  You remove the extra 5.5m upper stage development too. 
With one RS-25, the Delta IV core should burn to disposable orbit, and then on ISS support missions, Orion does it's own EOI burn to get to the ISS.
For Lunar missions, maybe an EELV upper stage is used, or the Service Module is designed with enough prop to get itself to EOR, and then the TEI burn from LLO.

Put Orion above the top of the SRB So that it's not next to it...which would be undesirable.

Not that it would be a good LV...but perhaps more workable than Ares 1?

Offline Lobo

  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 6915
  • Spokane, WA
  • Liked: 672
  • Likes Given: 437
Re: Could Ares 1 have Worked if things had been different?
« Reply #222 on: 06/19/2013 06:06 am »
In theory, yes, but it would have failed in the ESAS guidelines they put down, namely "one engine per stage."

Anything more than that, then the ESAS would have been shown to have been in error, and could have opened up the entire thing to lawsuits by the losers of the competition.

Is that true?

I'm trying to remember the ESAS report off the top of my head.  They looked at several multi-engine per stage CLV's, and although they rejected them for various reasons, I don't recall one of the reasons was multiple engines per stage.
They looked at Atlas V Phase 2 which had two RD-180's.  And an 8m Atlas V with like 5 RD-180's on the core.  they also looked at D4H and A5H.  They each would have 3 engines on the first stage.  They showed them with existing DCSS and centaur, and with new larger upper stages (ACES-like I think) that I think had multiple RL-10's on them.  But I'd have to go back and look at it when I get time.

They seemed to evaluate a lot of multi engine CLV's and rejected them for various "reliability" and "black zone" and other reasons.  I don't recall engine count being a reason for the rejections though?


Offline renclod

  • Extreme Veteran
  • Full Member
  • ****
  • Posts: 1671
  • EU.Ro
  • Liked: 17
  • Likes Given: 2
Re: Could Ares 1 have Worked if things had been different?
« Reply #223 on: 06/19/2013 08:09 am »

I'll take one last hail Mary pass at it though.  Given that a big solid was required and an RS-25 couldn't feasible be made to air start.

Maybe take a Delta IV core, modify it with a single RS-25 engine, and side mount it to an SRB with the RS-25 angled outwards like the Shuttle's were.  The SRB's are designed to be side mounted anyway, although obviously it wouldn't quite be the same.  But should be any harder than trying to inline mount it.
Then you remove the air-startable RS-25, and the J2X.  Ares 1 and Ares V both use RS-25 and SRB's.  You remove the extra 5.5m upper stage development too. 
With one RS-25, the Delta IV core should burn to disposable orbit, and then on ISS support missions, Orion does it's own EOI burn to get to the ISS.
For Lunar missions, maybe an EELV upper stage is used, or the Service Module is designed with enough prop to get itself to EOR, and then the TEI burn from LLO.

Put Orion above the top of the SRB So that it's not next to it...which would be undesirable.

Not that it would be a good LV...but perhaps more workable than Ares 1?


He he... great minds think alike LOL !

Lobo, search this forum for
"1 1/2 SD CLV"
and you'll see the same crazy ideea explored 6 years ago.
Or something much like that.

I even toyed with moving the Lox tank out-of-axis wrt. the H2 tank so that the c-of-m would be as close as possible to the SRB axis; and that was because one of the critics said that if the RS-25 quits in the early stage, the rocket goes cartwheel.

But the basic principle still haunts me occasionally !

Yes, with such a stage-and-a-half-to-orbit CLV design,
- you have the great RS-25, ground started and firing all the way to orbit;
- you can adjust the sizing of liquid propellant tanks without growing to monster height, because the LH2 tank lies parallel to the SRB;
- you have Orion on top

Since this is a speculation thread, I will attach some of the graphics that I used to play with at the time, and no one needs to feel offended, OK ?
Just having fun !

« Last Edit: 06/19/2013 08:32 am by renclod »

Offline Lobo

  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 6915
  • Spokane, WA
  • Liked: 672
  • Likes Given: 437
Re: Could Ares 1 have Worked if things had been different?
« Reply #224 on: 06/19/2013 07:08 pm »

He he... great minds think alike LOL !

Lobo, search this forum for
"1 1/2 SD CLV"
and you'll see the same crazy ideea explored 6 years ago.
Or something much like that.

I even toyed with moving the Lox tank out-of-axis wrt. the H2 tank so that the c-of-m would be as close as possible to the SRB axis; and that was because one of the critics said that if the RS-25 quits in the early stage, the rocket goes cartwheel.

But the basic principle still haunts me occasionally !

Yes, with such a stage-and-a-half-to-orbit CLV design,
- you have the great RS-25, ground started and firing all the way to orbit;
- you can adjust the sizing of liquid propellant tanks without growing to monster height, because the LH2 tank lies parallel to the SRB;
- you have Orion on top

Since this is a speculation thread, I will attach some of the graphics that I used to play with at the time, and no one needs to feel offended, OK ?
Just having fun !



Heheheh...and here I thought it was a crazy idea.

I think it'd be a kludge (to use Jim's term) but it could be made to work easier than Ares 1 given the flawed criteria they were working under.

The whole situation could have been avoided if a 1.5 architecture using Atlas V and multiple Atlas boosters with an AJAX core were evaluated and chosen in ESAS.  Then you are able to use EELV for both the CLV and CaLV.  Really the only new elements to be developed would be new 5m wide EELV upper stage (ACES-41) for the CLV, and a stretched version for the CaLV, and then the new ET-derived core with multiple CCB boosters mounts.  I'm pretty sure Atlas Phase 1-552 or Atlas V-Heavy w/ 5m upp stage could have been developed far cheap and faster than Ares 1...even this sidemount Ares 1.

But that's for another thread...I just had to vent.

This is about making Ares 1 work....if possible.  ;-)

You have an interesting concept there with the merged adaptor on top.  I'm just wondering if it would be more trouble developing than it'd be worth.
I am thinking the 5m Orion, on a tall 5m spacer, directly over the 5m Delta IV core.  The top SRB attach point could be mounted to mount which would be similar to the ET/Ares V core top SRB mount, but the lifting would be done from the bottom because that's what the D4 core is already designed to be lifted from.  I'm guessing the SRB itself, being basically just a thick steel case, doesn't mind if it's lifting from the top or bottom.  So make the bottom mount the load bearing one, and the top just a stabilizer mount. 

The spacer on top of the D4 core would be to get the Orion CSM above the top of the SRB.  Maybe the SRB gets a sloped nose cone like Ariane 5's boosters to sreamline the air flow.  Even with the spacer this would be much shorter than in-line Ares 1. 

An alternative might have been to have chosen an NK-43/AJ26-59, as it had about 400klbs thrust in vacuum, and it was air-startable.  As it'd be kerolox, the upper stage for it could be much shorter than the hydrolox one.  It wouldn't have the vacuum ISP of J2X or SSME, but Ares 1 is only going to LEO, so I think it could work.  I think the AJ26-59 would have been available enough to have planned around in the mid 2000's?
Anyone know what the performance of that might have been?
Maybe I'm way off on if that could get the Orion CSM to LEO.

A 3rd option might have been to use a modified D4 core with a single RS-25 on it, and two 3-seg boosters on it where the outboard CCB's would be in a D4H.  This would look sort of like an H-IIA/B.  With two fat, short SRB's.  This would require the developent of a new pour for a 3-seg booster...but Ares 1 was going to have a 5.5-seg booster before it was cancelled anyway, so I don't know if a 2-seg would be any more difficult to develop from the base 5-seg than the 5.5-seg.  And using 6-segs total wouldn't be much different than using 5.5-segs for the Ares 1 that almost was.

This option might have been less of a kludge than the side mount configuration

As a side note, I wonder about a single D4 core with a single RS-25, and a cluster of GEM-60's.  Basically like a 5m Delta II/III.  I wonder what that LV would do with like 10 GEM-60's?
That gets away from the big SRB requirement, I know, just curious what such a thing would do.  The RS-25 could handle the heating of that many GEM-60's, although the base of D4 would be modified to mount that many.  And I think it'd be easier to develop than either a side mount, or two 3-seg boosters.  The clustering concept had be used already on Delta II, and to a lesser degree, D4 and Atlas V.  So it doesn't seem like too much of a reach. 





 

Offline Downix

  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 7082
  • Liked: 22
  • Likes Given: 1
Re: Could Ares 1 have Worked if things had been different?
« Reply #225 on: 06/23/2013 06:14 am »
In theory, yes, but it would have failed in the ESAS guidelines they put down, namely "one engine per stage."

Anything more than that, then the ESAS would have been shown to have been in error, and could have opened up the entire thing to lawsuits by the losers of the competition.

Is that true?

I'm trying to remember the ESAS report off the top of my head.  They looked at several multi-engine per stage CLV's, and although they rejected them for various reasons, I don't recall one of the reasons was multiple engines per stage.
They looked at Atlas V Phase 2 which had two RD-180's.  And an 8m Atlas V with like 5 RD-180's on the core.  they also looked at D4H and A5H.  They each would have 3 engines on the first stage.  They showed them with existing DCSS and centaur, and with new larger upper stages (ACES-like I think) that I think had multiple RL-10's on them.  But I'd have to go back and look at it when I get time.

They seemed to evaluate a lot of multi engine CLV's and rejected them for various "reliability" and "black zone" and other reasons.  I don't recall engine count being a reason for the rejections though?


The multiple-engine setups were rejected in part for reliability concerns. If you read the ESAS report, you'll note that the 2-engined Centaur was given a yellow-mark for safety and the 4-engined 5m Centaur-like stage (we'd today call it ACES) given a red, with the number of engines the specific reason given.

chuck - Toilet paper has no real value? Try living with 5 other adults for 6 months in a can with no toilet paper. Man oh man. Toilet paper would be worth it's weight in gold!

Offline Lobo

  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 6915
  • Spokane, WA
  • Liked: 672
  • Likes Given: 437
Re: Could Ares 1 have Worked if things had been different?
« Reply #226 on: 07/11/2013 06:21 pm »

He he... great minds think alike LOL !

Lobo, search this forum for
"1 1/2 SD CLV"
and you'll see the same crazy ideea explored 6 years ago.
Or something much like that.

I even toyed with moving the Lox tank out-of-axis wrt. the H2 tank so that the c-of-m would be as close as possible to the SRB axis; and that was because one of the critics said that if the RS-25 quits in the early stage, the rocket goes cartwheel.

But the basic principle still haunts me occasionally !

Yes, with such a stage-and-a-half-to-orbit CLV design,
- you have the great RS-25, ground started and firing all the way to orbit;
- you can adjust the sizing of liquid propellant tanks without growing to monster height, because the LH2 tank lies parallel to the SRB;
- you have Orion on top

Since this is a speculation thread, I will attach some of the graphics that I used to play with at the time, and no one needs to feel offended, OK ?
Just having fun !



Very cool pics.

Although, perhaps we are trying to be too cute by half.

What about a Delta IV core, fitted with an RS-25 engine like we had, but then put two 4-seg SRB's on it?
Firstly, it would use an existing core and existing SRB.  So no real new development, other than the new MPS for Delta IV to mount the RS-25, and a shorter upper thrust beam for the Delta IV core.  Here's a picture size comparson between shuttle and D4H.  Perhaps if you moved the upper attachment point on the SRB from the top segment, to the one below that, then you could put an upper thrust beam in the D4 intertank area, like it was on the ET intertank area?  Or move the boosters down so the upper attach point lines up with the D4 intertank.  Like an Ariane 5, with the core engine farther up?  Then you don't need the core core strengthening like you might if the SRB's were lifting from the bottom, they push up on the upper thrust beam like they did for STS.
The Delta IV core acts as a sustainer stage all the way to orbit.  And while this seems like overkill for launching Orion, with all of that margin, it could accomodate a lot of growth in Orion.  It should prefent the thrust oscillation issues of Ares 1, and could directly use the Shuttle boosters, and recover and reuse them.  I would think the amount of development of this LV would be -far- cheaper than Ares 1.  This LV could use extra RS-25D's until RS-25E's started production for the original Ares V. 

It would look kind of like a Titan IV.

With the original 5-seg SRB plan for Ares V with RS-25's, This LV could switch to a 5-1 seg booster for standardization.

And yes, in the greater scope of things, just man-rating the D4H or development of a man-rated AVH would have been much cheaper and better...but this thread is looking at making an "Ares 1" work better...so...

So, any major drawbacks to this new two SRB "Ares 1"? 
Would the acceleration be too high with two SRB's?  Although you could probably put ballast on this LV to reduce those, so they could keep using the same boosters as STS initially, and then the 5-1 segs from Ares V, without needing a different propellant pour to change how they throttle, as they are designed to throttle based on a much heavier load.  Load up a bunch of weight on top and throttle the RS-25 down to keep that in check?


Offline betaking12

  • Member
  • Posts: 9
  • United States
  • Liked: 0
  • Likes Given: 0
Re: Could Ares 1 have Worked if things had been different?
« Reply #227 on: 12/27/2013 05:48 pm »
I wonder if Aries 1 could have found some use as a cargo-only vessel, assuming that it would be realized that the mass of the LES would compromise the design of orion too much.

Offline Jim

  • Night Gator
  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 37440
  • Cape Canaveral Spaceport
  • Liked: 21450
  • Likes Given: 428
Re: Could Ares 1 have Worked if things had been different?
« Reply #228 on: 12/27/2013 07:55 pm »
I wonder if Aries 1 could have found some use as a cargo-only vessel, assuming that it would be realized that the mass of the LES would compromise the design of orion too much.

It would just unnecessarily duplicate existing capabilities.

Offline Patchouli

  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 4490
  • Liked: 253
  • Likes Given: 457
Re: Could Ares 1 have Worked if things had been different?
« Reply #229 on: 12/31/2013 02:29 am »
I wonder if Aries 1 could have found some use as a cargo-only vessel, assuming that it would be realized that the mass of the LES would compromise the design of orion too much.

If the first stage and second stage of Ares I were pretty much the same as the boosters and EDS of Ares V it might have been competitive but they diverged so much they became separate production items.

But then the Delta IV would be significantly cheaper if it were flown more often as the LV was designed to have low reoccurring costs.
« Last Edit: 12/31/2013 02:29 am by Patchouli »

Offline Danderman

  • Extreme Veteran
  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 10288
  • Liked: 699
  • Likes Given: 723
Re: Could Ares 1 have Worked if things had been different?
« Reply #230 on: 12/31/2013 02:44 am »
In aerospace projects, 90% of costs are incurred in the first 10% of the program.

This means that the strategic decisions made at the beginning are what generally control costs.

In the case of Ares, the strategic decisions were to:

Develop an interplanetary launch capability by re-using Shuttle hardware.

and,

The architecture would be two launch EOR/LOR.

Once those two high level requirements were in place, disaster was inevitable.



Offline Patchouli

  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 4490
  • Liked: 253
  • Likes Given: 457
Re: Could Ares 1 have Worked if things had been different?
« Reply #231 on: 12/31/2013 02:51 am »
Actually the 1.5 launch decision.
If they were willing to go with two HLV launches , use SEP tugs, or fuel depots for future capability etc they might have avoided disaster.

« Last Edit: 12/31/2013 02:58 am by Patchouli »

Offline M129K

  • Full Member
  • ****
  • Posts: 823
    • "a historian too many" blog.
  • Liked: 71
  • Likes Given: 290
Re: Could Ares 1 have Worked if things had been different?
« Reply #232 on: 02/05/2014 02:51 pm »
Actually the 1.5 launch decision.
If they were willing to go with two HLV launches , use SEP tugs, or fuel depots for future capability etc they might have avoided disaster.
No SEP or depots needed. Two 95 ton launchers where more than enough as well as cheaper than AresV/ Ares I.

Offline TomH

  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 2938
  • Vancouver, WA
  • Liked: 1868
  • Likes Given: 909
Re: Could Ares 1 have Worked if things had been different?
« Reply #233 on: 02/12/2014 09:26 pm »
Even with the 5.5 segment booster, Orion's mass was still problematic. I have to wonder what would have happened if ATK had proposed the Dark Knights at that point in time-for use on Ares V and Ares I. Composite casing, lower mass, simpler production with lower cost, and advanced propellant (I don't think the chemists have finalized their formula yet have they?).  I have no idea how problematic thrust oscillation might be for a single stick first stage of that design, though I realize that issue and development time might be significant problems. Still, it seems one Dark Knight stage 1 with 2 x J-2X or 1 x RS-25 (air started) US should get Orion CSM to LEO with margin.

Offline baldusi

  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 8356
  • Buenos Aires, Argentina
  • Liked: 2539
  • Likes Given: 8273
Re: Could Ares 1 have Worked if things had been different?
« Reply #234 on: 02/12/2014 10:20 pm »
But then it would have not been a legacy design and all the talks they had had been in vain. What's more, they went with that architecture only after a trade with very strict criteria, that not even Ares 1 met. After the restartable RS-25 failed to realize, they should have done the trades again, or go with the second best. They did neither.

Offline TomH

  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 2938
  • Vancouver, WA
  • Liked: 1868
  • Likes Given: 909
Re: Could Ares 1 have Worked if things had been different?
« Reply #235 on: 02/13/2014 02:26 am »
But then it would have not been a legacy design and all the talks they had had been in vain. What's more, they went with that architecture only after a trade with very strict criteria, that not even Ares 1 met. After the restartable RS-25 failed to realize, they should have done the trades again, or go with the second best. They did neither.

Yea, it wouldn't have been all legacy, but this entire thread is about hypothetical ways things may have been "different". You still have same sized boosters that are still solids. I just wonder whether and how well it might have worked from a technical standpoint.Things like:  Would advanced propellants in a composite casing have had better or worse oscillation? Could it have been dampened? etc.

Offline Zed_Noir

  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 5490
  • Canada
  • Liked: 1809
  • Likes Given: 1302
Re: Could Ares 1 have Worked if things had been different?
« Reply #236 on: 02/13/2014 07:20 pm »
I wonder if the mass of the Orion was the root of all the Ares-1's woes.

So if they gone with a light weight strictly launch & reentry capsule and use the Altair as a hab with a smaller crew. Even the J-2X could have work.

Oh wait. If they use a lighter capsule, Then why developed the Ares-1, when the EELVs could do the job.  ;)

Offline baldusi

  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 8356
  • Buenos Aires, Argentina
  • Liked: 2539
  • Likes Given: 8273
Re: Could Ares 1 have Worked if things had been different?
« Reply #237 on: 02/13/2014 08:25 pm »
But then it would have not been a legacy design and all the talks they had had been in vain. What's more, they went with that architecture only after a trade with very strict criteria, that not even Ares 1 met. After the restartable RS-25 failed to realize, they should have done the trades again, or go with the second best. They did neither.

Yea, it wouldn't have been all legacy, but this entire thread is about hypothetical ways things may have been "different". You still have same sized boosters that are still solids. I just wonder whether and how well it might have worked from a technical standpoint.Things like:  Would advanced propellants in a composite casing have had better or worse oscillation? Could it have been dampened? etc.
Then yes, sure. Just makr use of composite casing with improved formula, use a composite tank for the upper stage and develop a 1MN full stage and restartable H2/LOX engine for the upper stage. That could have worked more than fine.

Offline Wigles

  • Member
  • Posts: 52
  • Liked: 12
  • Likes Given: 5
Re: Could Ares 1 have Worked if things had been different?
« Reply #238 on: 02/21/2014 05:42 am »
In aerospace projects, 90% of costs are incurred in the first 10% of the program.

-snip-

Slight ammendment, in aerospace projects 90% of the decisions which most impact overall cost are incurred in the first 10% of the project. Not the actual cost.

Offline clongton

  • Expert
  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 12053
  • Connecticut
    • Direct Launcher
  • Liked: 7347
  • Likes Given: 3749
Re: Could Ares 1 have Worked if things had been different?
« Reply #239 on: 02/21/2014 08:45 am »
Actually the 1.5 launch decision.
If they were willing to go with two HLV launches , use SEP tugs, or fuel depots for future capability etc they might have avoided disaster.
No SEP or depots needed. Two 95 ton launchers where more than enough as well as cheaper than AresV/ Ares I.

We offered just such a solution. NASA wasn't interested.
Chuck - DIRECT co-founder
I started my career on the Saturn-V F-1A engine

Tags:
 

Advertisement NovaTech
Advertisement Northrop Grumman
Advertisement
Advertisement Margaritaville Beach Resort South Padre Island
Advertisement Brady Kenniston
Advertisement NextSpaceflight
Advertisement Nathan Barker Photography
0