Author Topic: Ares IX: Single Launch CxP  (Read 19936 times)

Offline kraisee

  • Expert
  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 10560
  • Liked: 807
  • Likes Given: 40
Re: Ares IX: Single Launch CxP
« Reply #20 on: 01/16/2009 04:36 am »
LOM is already down around 1 in 80 for the 6-engine Ares-V.   This would be something like 1 in 60, maybe?

Ross.
"The meek shall inherit the Earth -- the rest of us will go to the stars"
-Robert A. Heinlein

Offline MATTBLAK

  • Elite Veteran & 'J.A.F.A'
  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 5362
  • 'Space Cadets' Let us; UNITE!! (crickets chirping)
  • New Zealand
  • Liked: 2239
  • Likes Given: 3883
Re: Ares IX (9): Single Launch CxP
« Reply #21 on: 01/16/2009 05:23 am »
I should think that instead of 3x 5.5-Segment SRBs, a far better arrangement would be 2x 4-Segment SRBs with an additional 2x Atlas V or Delta IV corestages as strap-ons. They wouldn't have the thrust of a third SRB, sure, but they'd weigh a HELL of lot less, even fully-fuelled and would have a much-higher Isp than the solids. Not having to haul all that brutally-heavy solid propellants kilometers into the sky would be a blessing. Also, with three SRBs NASA would need a third ship to recover them.

Or if you wanted to do-away with solids altogether, 6x Atlas V corestage-derived, RD-180-powered strap-ons would kick the ass of ANY Ares V config with SRBs, probably even composite ones. Would that many 3.9m strap-ons fit around a 10m diameter corestage? Or would you need a 12m corestage instead? With a 12m corestage, you might as well go to 7x RS-68Bs and then... "Stop all this at once -- it's getting TOO silly!!" (Monty Python ;) )
« Last Edit: 01/16/2009 05:27 am by MATTBLAK »
"Those who can't, Blog".   'Space Cadets' of the World - Let us UNITE!! (crickets chirping)

Offline simonbp

  • Science Guy
  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 7138
  • Liked: 314
  • Likes Given: 183
Re: Ares IX: Single Launch CxP
« Reply #22 on: 01/16/2009 01:55 pm »
LOM is already down around 1 in 80 for the 6-engine Ares-V.   This would be something like 1 in 60, maybe?

Says who? Is there an analysis somewhere?

At any rate, Ares IX has one less launch event, two less staging events, one less loiter event, and one less rendezvous event than Ares I+V or Direct. The combination of these should at least cancel out any negative effect due to the extra SRB.

Simon ;)
« Last Edit: 01/16/2009 01:56 pm by simonbp »

Offline bad_astra

  • Full Member
  • ****
  • Posts: 1926
  • Liked: 316
  • Likes Given: 553
Re: Ares IX: Single Launch CxP
« Reply #23 on: 01/16/2009 03:50 pm »
Replace with the 3 SRB's with 4 Titan SRMU's and you have a vehicle. :D
"Contact Light" -Buzz Aldrin

Offline beb

  • Full Member
  • **
  • Posts: 271
  • Liked: 12
  • Likes Given: 8
Re: Ares IX: Single Launch CxP
« Reply #24 on: 01/16/2009 03:59 pm »
LOM is already down around 1 in 80 for the 6-engine Ares-V.   This would be something like 1 in 60, maybe?

Ross.

So we're down to shuttle level safety? I guess that means we're good to go! :-)

Offline Jorge

  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 6404
  • Liked: 529
  • Likes Given: 67
Re: Ares IX: Single Launch CxP
« Reply #25 on: 01/16/2009 04:05 pm »
LOM is already down around 1 in 80 for the 6-engine Ares-V.   This would be something like 1 in 60, maybe?

Ross.

So we're down to shuttle level safety? I guess that means we're good to go! :-)

Do not confuse LOM with LOC.
JRF

Offline beb

  • Full Member
  • **
  • Posts: 271
  • Liked: 12
  • Likes Given: 8
Re: Ares IX: Single Launch CxP
« Reply #26 on: 01/16/2009 04:05 pm »
I still like the idea of pushing Ares just a little bit farther and putting Orion on top for a single-launch to the moon. Earth Rendezvous always sounded like a bad idea since you have to wait for days - weeks - to get the rest of the mission in place.

If three 5.5 segment SRBs can't to mounted why no four 4-sgment SRBs? That would be 16 segments versus 16.5 and the criss-cross mounting pattern would probably be easier to engineer.

Offline Kaputnik

  • Extreme Veteran
  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 3079
  • Liked: 722
  • Likes Given: 821
Re: Ares IX: Single Launch CxP
« Reply #27 on: 01/16/2009 04:12 pm »
Is it still the plan to launch Orion first, to be followed by EDS/LSAM? If so, Orion should be cheaper so a mission scrub would be less costly than if you lost an EDS/LSAM. Safer, too, because there's less pressure to launch the manned craft.
"I don't care what anything was DESIGNED to do, I care about what it CAN do"- Gene Kranz

Offline simonbp

  • Science Guy
  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 7138
  • Liked: 314
  • Likes Given: 183
Re: Ares IX: Single Launch CxP
« Reply #28 on: 01/16/2009 06:28 pm »
Is it still the plan to launch Orion first, to be followed by EDS/LSAM? If so, Orion should be cheaper so a mission scrub would be less costly than if you lost an EDS/LSAM. Safer, too, because there's less pressure to launch the manned craft.

Last I heard it was Altair/EDS first, followed by Orion a few days or hours later, but I could be wrong.

With a single launch, you have roughly half the total chance of loosing a vehicle, so the chance of wasting an Altair (most expensive piece of kit in the entire enterprise) also goes down. Plus, there should be much less launch time pressure than with two-launch, as you're not trying to get off two vehicles in the same window...

If three 5.5 segment SRBs can't to mounted why no four 4-sgment SRBs? That would be 16 segments versus 16.5 and the criss-cross mounting pattern would probably be easier to engineer.

Three 5.5-seg is more practical, as four 4-seg would either need the LOX on bottom and a long thrust structure, or a 12-meter core, which is pushing it a bit too much. Besides, rockets don't always have to have orthogonal symmetry. Look at Proton (six-fold symmetry) or Atlas 5 (when launched with SRBs, it always has asymmetric thrust)...

Simon ;)
« Last Edit: 01/16/2009 06:35 pm by simonbp »

Offline Kaputnik

  • Extreme Veteran
  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 3079
  • Liked: 722
  • Likes Given: 821
Re: Ares IX: Single Launch CxP
« Reply #29 on: 01/16/2009 08:03 pm »
Last I heard it was Altair/EDS first, followed by Orion a few days or hours later, but I could be wrong.

Any reason for this? Maybe the more complex larger rocket and payload likely to take longer to get off the pad? I can see a lot of advantages in launching crew first to avoid pressure to launch, and if you cannot get the second launch away in time you've 'only' lost a 'cheap' Orion.
"I don't care what anything was DESIGNED to do, I care about what it CAN do"- Gene Kranz

Offline Mark S

  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 2284
  • Dallas, TX
  • Liked: 396
  • Likes Given: 80
Re: Ares IX: Single Launch CxP
« Reply #30 on: 01/17/2009 12:44 pm »
WRT to plume impingement, you could stick three of the RS-68Bs on the side of the core stage (like the outboard F-1s on a Saturn V), and other three in the centre (like the inboard H-1s on a Saturn I/IB). Again this is challenging (in that it requires some actual engineering), but not a killer.

Simon,

As long as we're being hypothetical, here is my interpretation of your Ares-9 engine layout.  I even borrowed your intertank schematic for this sketch.  I placed all of the RS-68 engines on an equilateral triangle, with the outer three centered on the tank diameter, and the inner three at the midpoints of the triangle sides.  Depending on the minimum required distance between RS-68 engines, the inner ones could be moved inwards to increase the distances from the SRB plumes.

The question of the minimum spacing required for the RS-68 has been brought up before, but I haven't seen a definitive answer yet.  On the actual Delta-IV Heavy, they are spaced about 5.2m center to center, one under each core.  On the J-232, they would be spaced at 4.2m on center.  My trig-fu is weak, so I haven't calculated proposed distances here.  Any volunteers?

Mark S.

Offline Jim

  • Night Gator
  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 37440
  • Cape Canaveral Spaceport
  • Liked: 21450
  • Likes Given: 428
Re: Ares IX: Single Launch CxP
« Reply #31 on: 01/17/2009 03:03 pm »
The 3 SRB is not viable

Offline Mark S

  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 2284
  • Dallas, TX
  • Liked: 396
  • Likes Given: 80
Re: Ares IX: Single Launch CxP
« Reply #32 on: 01/17/2009 05:40 pm »
The 3 SRB is not viable

Just having some fun, Jim.  Besides, if someone showed up at your office and said "Here's $30 billion if you can make this work", would you show them the door?

As an engineer, when the boss comes up with something like this, you don't say it's not viable.  You say "Sure we can do that.  It will take X years, cost Y dollars, and means we have to tear down and rebuild all the launch infrastructure.  But we can do it!"   Personally, I think that's how the whole Ares project got started.

Mark S.

Offline Jim

  • Night Gator
  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 37440
  • Cape Canaveral Spaceport
  • Liked: 21450
  • Likes Given: 428
Re: Ares IX: Single Launch CxP
« Reply #33 on: 01/17/2009 05:43 pm »
  It will take X years, cost Y dollars, and means we have to tear down and rebuild all the launch infrastructure.


Hence it is non viable
Especially since it can't fit over the flame trench
« Last Edit: 01/17/2009 05:44 pm by Jim »

Offline Capt. Nemo

  • Member
  • Full Member
  • *
  • Posts: 143
  • USS Nautilus
  • New Jersey
  • Liked: 0
  • Likes Given: 0
Re: Ares IX: Single Launch CxP
« Reply #34 on: 01/17/2009 06:21 pm »
Hmm, a single launch CxP? Ok, how about this. I call it Saturn Five Junior

1st stage - 5 RS-84's (+2 SRB's ?)
2nd stage - 5 J-2X's
3rd stage - 1 J-2X

The third stage could/would be the same as the Upper Stage of the Ares 1, The second stage would be a redux of the S-II, and the 1st stage would be similar to the S-1C.

This design wouldn't be any more outlandish, IMO, than the Ares 5, and it has the benefit of using a Kerosene 1st stage for more oomph*.


*oomph - more thrust. a technical term.  :D
"You can't declare yourself the boss of a chicken farm when you've only got one egg."  - Chinese saying

Offline Magnus_Redin

  • Regular
  • Full Member
  • *
  • Posts: 146
  • Liked: 0
  • Likes Given: 2
Re: Ares IX: Single Launch CxP
« Reply #35 on: 01/17/2009 10:52 pm »
Just having some fun, Jim.  Besides, if someone showed up at your office and said "Here's $30 billion if you can make this work", would you show them the door?

How about dreaming of something realy sexy like a production line for Direct cores turning them out like a giant cookie cutter and reusable flyback boosters instead of giant roman candles that puts tons of crap into the atmosphere?

Offline simonbp

  • Science Guy
  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 7138
  • Liked: 314
  • Likes Given: 183
Re: Ares IX: Single Launch CxP
« Reply #36 on: 01/18/2009 02:48 am »
Especially since it can't fit over the flame trench

If this can't fit over the flame trenches, then neither can Ares V, meaning any necessary widening of the flame trench should have already been budgeted for...

But again, the point of this idea is to pay more up front in infrastructure costs (crawlerway, flame trench, etc.), so that you pay less recurring costs over time, because you're launching half the rockets...

Simon ;)
« Last Edit: 01/18/2009 02:49 am by simonbp »

Offline Jim

  • Night Gator
  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 37440
  • Cape Canaveral Spaceport
  • Liked: 21450
  • Likes Given: 428
Re: Ares IX: Single Launch CxP
« Reply #37 on: 01/18/2009 03:26 am »
Especially since it can't fit over the flame trench

If this can't fit over the flame trenches, then neither can Ares V, meaning any necessary widening of the flame trench should have already been budgeted for...

Incorrect, Ares V can fit.  The vehicle is skewed on the MLP so one SRB is on each side of the flame deflector.  This is not possible with 3 SRB's

Offline kkattula

  • Member
  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 3008
  • Melbourne, Australia
  • Liked: 656
  • Likes Given: 116
Re: Ares IX: Single Launch CxP
« Reply #38 on: 01/18/2009 06:04 am »
I thought recent issues with the flame trench bricks suggest they may need rebuilding anyway?

Offline Patchouli

  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 4490
  • Liked: 253
  • Likes Given: 457
Re: Ares IX: Single Launch CxP
« Reply #39 on: 01/19/2009 04:03 am »
The flame trenches are pretty old now rebuilding them might be the only option anyway esp considering the fact shuttle already damages it sometimes.

I think Ares V would likely damage the existing flame trench beyond repair after a few flights.
Ares V's total lift off thrust is similar to the Saturn V but solids generally are harder on things acoustically and the fact the flame trenches are now 40+ years old.
« Last Edit: 01/19/2009 04:12 am by Patchouli »

Tags:
 

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