Author Topic: Could Ares 1 have Worked if things had been different?  (Read 195106 times)

Online edkyle99

  • Expert
  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 15391
    • Space Launch Report
  • Liked: 8566
  • Likes Given: 1356
Re: Could Ares 1 have Worked if things had been different?
« Reply #160 on: 09/07/2011 04:52 am »

So, in effect you are saying Griffin lied, as it did not come in a close second, and instead came in near the bottom.  By switching, he guaranteed the budget issues. 

And no, if they had stayed, the cancellation is not a foregone conclusion.  For one, Orion would not have needed 9 redesigns, and the billions that consumed.  Another, the initial launch had a better chance of being done on time, and a flying launch system is difficult to cancel.

You must be reading a different ESAS report than I am reading.  (Different from the one Mr. Griffin read also.)  Mine shows that five segment-J-2S outperforms four segment-SSME (Figure 6-95).  Mine shows that the five segment rocket costs more to develop (nothing like twice as much as claimed elsewhere in this thread), but costs less to fly.  Mine says nothing about an RS-68 powered Ares V (costs or performance), so offers no comparison of the savings that would result from its use.

 - Ed Kyle 

Offline 93143

  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 3054
  • Liked: 312
  • Likes Given: 1
Re: Could Ares 1 have Worked if things had been different?
« Reply #161 on: 09/07/2011 04:55 am »
Quote
By dismantling NASA infrastructure now, especially during this long decade-plus of economic stagnation, he is having the ultimate say in NASA's future.  Who's going to rebuild it once its gone?

I said "assuming SLS survives".  That means I'm assuming the dismantling fails, at least partially, and NASA maintains its ability to do this sort of thing.

This is rather far from the question of whether Jupiter was a better choice than LV16.
« Last Edit: 09/07/2011 04:58 am by 93143 »

Offline Downix

  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 7082
  • Liked: 22
  • Likes Given: 1
Re: Could Ares 1 have Worked if things had been different?
« Reply #162 on: 09/07/2011 05:11 am »

So, in effect you are saying Griffin lied, as it did not come in a close second, and instead came in near the bottom.  By switching, he guaranteed the budget issues. 

And no, if they had stayed, the cancellation is not a foregone conclusion.  For one, Orion would not have needed 9 redesigns, and the billions that consumed.  Another, the initial launch had a better chance of being done on time, and a flying launch system is difficult to cancel.

You must be reading a different ESAS report than I am reading.  (Different from the one Mr. Griffin read also.)  Mine shows that five segment-J-2S outperforms four segment-SSME (Figure 6-95).  Mine shows that the five segment rocket costs more to develop (nothing like twice as much as claimed elsewhere in this thread), but costs less to fly.  Mine says nothing about an RS-68 powered Ares V (costs or performance), so offers no comparison of the savings that would result from its use.

 - Ed Kyle 
You just destroyed your own argument.  You just admitted that it shows that it costs more to develop, 39% more according to the ESAS report.  And yes, it costs 6% less to fly.  As for an RS-68 powered Ares V, you're glossing over the LV28 grouping, including the ones which utilize the larger tank and 5-segment SRB, included in the ESAS Appendices but not in the main report.  The Appendices are in L2 is you need a refresher.
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!

Online edkyle99

  • Expert
  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 15391
    • Space Launch Report
  • Liked: 8566
  • Likes Given: 1356
Re: Could Ares 1 have Worked if things had been different?
« Reply #163 on: 09/07/2011 09:28 pm »
You just destroyed your own argument.  You just admitted that it shows that it costs more to develop, 39% more according to the ESAS report.  And yes, it costs 6% less to fly.  As for an RS-68 powered Ares V, you're glossing over the LV28 grouping, including the ones which utilize the larger tank and 5-segment SRB, included in the ESAS Appendices but not in the main report.  The Appendices are in L2 is you need a refresher.

I haven't argued that 5-segment/J-2X cost less than 4-segment/SSME to develop.  I've argued that its use lowered total program costs for the complete Ares I/V architecture.  In addition, the J-2X Ares I cost less to fly than the SSME Ares I.  Over time, those savings would have added up.  The savings weren't just 6%, they were 7% for production and 15% for operations. 

The cargo vehicle costs are not in the Appendix, but the crew vehicle costs are.  The Appendix says "LV16 with the J-2S+ upper stage engine has the lowest production cost", and "the cost of launch operations is lowest for LV16 and greatest for LV13.1".   Etc.

 - Ed Kyle
« Last Edit: 09/07/2011 09:29 pm by edkyle99 »

Offline kraisee

  • Expert
  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 10560
  • Liked: 807
  • Likes Given: 40
Re: Could Ares 1 have Worked if things had been different?
« Reply #164 on: 09/07/2011 10:22 pm »
Griffin became NASA's Administrator by making a political deal with few key DC players, promising to protect the jobs by developing a new system based on Shuttle hardware and systems.   His plan was clearly stated that it was going to require about $3bn more each year for NASA -- extra money that would mostly end-up in the states of those political players.

The final Ares-I and Ares-V configurations ended up with virtually nothing at all to do with Shuttle, and actually promised to need even more than that $3bn plus-up for the agency in order to be affordable (with Altair and Orion).

The politicians though, FAILED to step up to the plate and increase the budget by the necessary amount.   They still wanted their increased pie slices, but they weren't willing to provide enough flour and eggs to make the larger pie in the first place -- so they actually screwed themselves (and the rest of us in the process, thank-you DC).

So Griffin and his political partners were responsible for planning something that was ultimately just plain-old "unaffordable".   They just bit off far more than they could chew.

Even though Griffin and most of his Lieutenants are gone, the same-old political cronies are still there and are still trying to increase their share of a now-decreasing pie.   Because of their continuing stupidity and down-right GREED, the new SLS-based program, is heading back in precisely the same direction for precisely the same reasons.

It'll take a few years, but I'm convinced that SLS (unless it is severely de-scoped) will be proven to be unaffordable as well.   Before then, I actually predict it will probably "grow", just like Ares-V did.   But that still won't be the reason it'll be killed.

The reason SLS will fail, is simply because the people defining it, are failing to plan the program's costs to fit comfortably within the expected budget.   End of story.   They failed to learn the lessons from Constellation.

Its also worth noting that they're also being maneuvered (very professionally) by their enemies who want SLS killed for competing reasons.   The latest MSFC vs. KSC issue is a perfect example of "Divide and Conquer" -- the oldest and most successful strategy in the book.

Man, am I the only one who thinks the Dilbert Principle is the only healthy thing remaining in this industry?

Ross.
« Last Edit: 09/07/2011 10:32 pm by kraisee »
"The meek shall inherit the Earth -- the rest of us will go to the stars"
-Robert A. Heinlein

Offline yinzer

  • Extreme Veteran
  • Full Member
  • ****
  • Posts: 1509
  • Liked: 3
  • Likes Given: 0
Re: Could Ares 1 have Worked if things had been different?
« Reply #165 on: 09/08/2011 06:53 pm »
You just destroyed your own argument.  You just admitted that it shows that it costs more to develop, 39% more according to the ESAS report.  And yes, it costs 6% less to fly.  As for an RS-68 powered Ares V, you're glossing over the LV28 grouping, including the ones which utilize the larger tank and 5-segment SRB, included in the ESAS Appendices but not in the main report.  The Appendices are in L2 is you need a refresher.

I haven't argued that 5-segment/J-2X cost less than 4-segment/SSME to develop.  I've argued that its use lowered total program costs for the complete Ares I/V architecture.  In addition, the J-2X Ares I cost less to fly than the SSME Ares I.  Over time, those savings would have added up.  The savings weren't just 6%, they were 7% for production and 15% for operations. 

The 5-segment/J-2X approach certainly lowered total program costs for the complete Ares I/V architecture, but probably not in the way that its proponents intended.

It looks like there was never support for a grandiose back-to-the-moon effort which meant that the theoretical program cost savings from commonality between Ares I and Ares V would never materialize.

Was this foreseeable at the time?  Or was an Ares I / Orion that could only go to ISS for years considered not much better than no NASA human spaceflight at all?
California 2008 - taking rights from people and giving rights to chickens.

Offline dks13827

  • Full Member
  • ****
  • Posts: 468
  • Phoenix
  • Liked: 16
  • Likes Given: 60
Re: Could Ares 1 have Worked if things had been different?
« Reply #166 on: 09/08/2011 09:17 pm »
" Or was an Ares I / Orion that could only go to ISS for years considered not much better than no NASA human spaceflight at all?  "

Extremely perceptive point.  Right now we are on the precipice to............................................

Offline Downix

  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 7082
  • Liked: 22
  • Likes Given: 1
Re: Could Ares 1 have Worked if things had been different?
« Reply #167 on: 09/08/2011 09:28 pm »
You just destroyed your own argument.  You just admitted that it shows that it costs more to develop, 39% more according to the ESAS report.  And yes, it costs 6% less to fly.  As for an RS-68 powered Ares V, you're glossing over the LV28 grouping, including the ones which utilize the larger tank and 5-segment SRB, included in the ESAS Appendices but not in the main report.  The Appendices are in L2 is you need a refresher.

I haven't argued that 5-segment/J-2X cost less than 4-segment/SSME to develop.  I've argued that its use lowered total program costs for the complete Ares I/V architecture.  In addition, the J-2X Ares I cost less to fly than the SSME Ares I.  Over time, those savings would have added up.  The savings weren't just 6%, they were 7% for production and 15% for operations. 

The 5-segment/J-2X approach certainly lowered total program costs for the complete Ares I/V architecture, but probably not in the way that its proponents intended.

It looks like there was never support for a grandiose back-to-the-moon effort which meant that the theoretical program cost savings from commonality between Ares I and Ares V would never materialize.

Was this foreseeable at the time?  Or was an Ares I / Orion that could only go to ISS for years considered not much better than no NASA human spaceflight at all?
Very foreseeable.  Anyone with half a brain would know that there is significant anti-exploration sentiment in several areas, and they would find any excuse to kill the program.  Not taking this into account, and by the regular and repeated attacks on any attempts to save the program from these forces, did nothing to benefit Constellation, and only gave ammunition to those who wished to destroy it.  They literally handed the weapons to their true enemies, in an attempt to defend themselves from their allies, such as DIRECT.

There were methods to save the program, at all points along the path.  What prevented it from happening was egos got in the way of common sense.  Once the Shuttle was gone, then Constellation was doomed if it was not flying, no matter whom was in the oval office.  You needed something flying, period, to keep it going.  Failure to understand politics, and whom the enemy was, is what doomed Constellation.  They thought to save money in the long term by spending huge up front, making the fiscal argument stick.  They thought to save time in the long term by living with a gap between shuttle and Ares, making the waste of time argument stick.  At all points, they played right into their true enemies hands, and crippled the efforts of those who would try and save the VSE, to save Constellation.
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 Patchouli

  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 4490
  • Liked: 253
  • Likes Given: 457
Re: Could Ares 1 have Worked if things had been different?
« Reply #168 on: 09/09/2011 01:23 am »
The main thing that is needed to fix Ares I's design two large kerolox engines of around 1 million lbs thrust also would simplify Atlas Phase II.

Even a dinosaur of a design such as the F-1A would seriously improve performance and safety.
Though the lower ISP would hurt Atlas vs the RD-180 that and the F-1 is built completely differently from modern engines.

I kinda like the idea of making a modern Jarvis with the Ares I upper stage.
« Last Edit: 09/09/2011 01:25 am by Patchouli »

Offline Downix

  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 7082
  • Liked: 22
  • Likes Given: 1
Re: Could Ares 1 have Worked if things had been different?
« Reply #169 on: 09/09/2011 01:43 am »
The main thing that is needed to fix Ares I's design two large kerolox engines of around 1 million lbs thrust also would simplify Atlas Phase II.

Even a dinosaur of a design such as the F-1A would seriously improve performance and safety.
Though the lower ISP would hurt Atlas vs the RD-180 that and the F-1 is built completely differently from modern engines.

I kinda like the idea of making a modern Jarvis with the Ares I upper stage.

indeed, a single F-1A using a stretched 5.5m tank would have met every single criteria listed in esas, and beaten the 5-segment srb in safety and performance even by the odd standards they used.
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 Patchouli

  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 4490
  • Liked: 253
  • Likes Given: 457
Re: Could Ares 1 have Worked if things had been different?
« Reply #170 on: 09/09/2011 03:45 am »
The main thing that is needed to fix Ares I's design two large kerolox engines of around 1 million lbs thrust also would simplify Atlas Phase II.

Even a dinosaur of a design such as the F-1A would seriously improve performance and safety.
Though the lower ISP would hurt Atlas vs the RD-180 that and the F-1 is built completely differently from modern engines.

I kinda like the idea of making a modern Jarvis with the Ares I upper stage.

indeed, a single F-1A using a stretched 5.5m tank would have met every single criteria listed in esas, and beaten the 5-segment srb in safety and performance even by the odd standards they used.

Too bad it would be a new engine program if brought back though I guess two RS-84s or TR-107 also would work.

The two RS-84s probably would be more expensive per flight then one F-1A but two TR-107s might actually be cheaper.

Though I was thinking two F-1As on a 8.3M core and going for a 40MT launcher.

That way you have lots of margin and if you need an HLV just cluster three cores.

Three Jarvis 1 cores plus the Ares I US should net about 80MT which is nothing to sneeze at.
« Last Edit: 09/09/2011 04:00 am by Patchouli »

Offline Downix

  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 7082
  • Liked: 22
  • Likes Given: 1
Re: Could Ares 1 have Worked if things had been different?
« Reply #171 on: 09/09/2011 03:46 am »
The main thing that is needed to fix Ares I's design two large kerolox engines of around 1 million lbs thrust also would simplify Atlas Phase II.

Even a dinosaur of a design such as the F-1A would seriously improve performance and safety.
Though the lower ISP would hurt Atlas vs the RD-180 that and the F-1 is built completely differently from modern engines.

I kinda like the idea of making a modern Jarvis with the Ares I upper stage.

indeed, a single F-1A using a stretched 5.5m tank would have met every single criteria listed in esas, and beaten the 5-segment srb in safety and performance even by the odd standards they used.

Too bad it would be a new engine program if brought back though I guess two RS-84s or TR-107 also would work.

The two RS-84s or even two RD-180s probably would be more expensive per flight then one F-1A but two TR-107s might actually be cheaper.
No more a new engine program than J-2X was, but with a significant advantage:

There are several warehoused engines that can be refurbished and readied for initial flight status.
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 Patchouli

  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 4490
  • Liked: 253
  • Likes Given: 457
Re: Could Ares 1 have Worked if things had been different?
« Reply #172 on: 09/09/2011 04:11 am »
I did decide to calculate what would one F-1A lift using this rocket calculator.
http://www.silverbirdastronautics.com/cgi-bin/LVPcalc.pl
Assuming the stage would be over all half the mass of a Jarvis 1 I got 23MT.

Just barely enough to lift Orion.

Though Orion can act as a third stage so this is probably not as bad as it seems.

Still can the F-1A be made with a modern nozzle without messing things up too much?

I guess for cheapness do the whole thing in channel wall as modern flight avionics probably would more then make up for the extra weight.
« Last Edit: 09/09/2011 04:14 am by Patchouli »

Offline Downix

  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 7082
  • Liked: 22
  • Likes Given: 1
Re: Could Ares 1 have Worked if things had been different?
« Reply #173 on: 09/09/2011 05:25 am »
I did decide to calculate what would one F-1A lift using this rocket calculator.
http://www.silverbirdastronautics.com/cgi-bin/LVPcalc.pl
Assuming the stage would be over all half the mass of a Jarvis 1 I got 23MT.

Just barely enough to lift Orion.

Though Orion can act as a third stage so this is probably not as bad as it seems.

Still can the F-1A be made with a modern nozzle without messing things up too much?

I guess for cheapness do the whole thing in channel wall as modern flight avionics probably would more then make up for the extra weight.
I used an AVP2 style vehicle, double dry weight of the AIUS with about 120% more fuel mass due to the density.  I got about 26 metric tons.
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 luke strawwalker

  • Regular
  • Full Member
  • ****
  • Posts: 1032
  • Liked: 9
  • Likes Given: 0
Re: Could Ares 1 have Worked if things had been different?
« Reply #174 on: 09/10/2011 06:07 am »
Slavish devotion to "simple" is exactly what led down the Ares I path. And the end result was a whole system which was NOT simple.

The pretty much sums it it up.

The people running the project would not change the design when it became obvious it was the wrong direction.

If the people doing Apollo had the same stubborn mindset we may have never landed on the moon and certianly would not have done so before the end of the decade.
Apollo originally was going to use a direct landing LOR was the underdog at first.

Kinda like Direct vs Ares.
The 1961 vehicle was a cluster of Saturn C-3 first stages with super upper stages. 

Do you have a link to a study or paper showing that?? I'd LOVE to see it!

Any information greatly appreciated!  OL JR :)
NO plan IS the plan...

"His plan had no goals, no timeline, and no budgetary guidelines. Just maybe's, pretty speeches, and smokescreens."

Offline luke strawwalker

  • Regular
  • Full Member
  • ****
  • Posts: 1032
  • Liked: 9
  • Likes Given: 0
Re: Could Ares 1 have Worked if things had been different?
« Reply #175 on: 09/10/2011 06:14 am »
There's a lot more to consider than the plain number of engines. You can have drastically different designs that both have two engines. In Ares 1's case the issue is compounded by a very poor first stage decision. (And looking at the number of small thrusters that have to fire during its ascent, and for its stage separation - one could actually argue that it has a LOT of engines that HAVE TO work)

Ares I uses a roll control thruster as I understand it, not a bunch of small thrusters, at least during first stage flight.  The second stage has thrusters, but so does Centaur (Centaur has 12 monopropellant thrusters for pitch, yaw, roll).

An Atlas V core fires eight stage separation motors.  Heavy would fire even more ordnance.

Atlas V Heavy would have more engines (high chamber pressure staged combustion engines on the cores), more separation events, more points of failure, and more complexity. 

 - Ed Kyle

And how many vehicles have we lost due to stage or booster separation failures in recent history?? (Excluding SpaceX). 

If we can't do simple pyros for stage/booster separation reliably by now, then we don't even need to be THINKING about going to the moon or anywhere else...

Total strawman argument...
Later!  OL JR :)
NO plan IS the plan...

"His plan had no goals, no timeline, and no budgetary guidelines. Just maybe's, pretty speeches, and smokescreens."

Offline luke strawwalker

  • Regular
  • Full Member
  • ****
  • Posts: 1032
  • Liked: 9
  • Likes Given: 0
Re: Could Ares 1 have Worked if things had been different?
« Reply #176 on: 09/10/2011 06:15 am »
Both Ares I and V had serious design issues that made them unviable designs.

I don't see the Ares I design in particular as nonviable.

It was.  The premise behind Ares-I was to take two existing engines and use their extensive flight experience to make a simple, reliable rocket for Orion.  Then they discovered their choice for the second stage engine (SSME) wouldn't work and that they'd have to design a new second stage engine.  Then they discovered that the new engine wasn't going to give the performance of the original so they'd have to design a new first stage engine as well.  So the entire premise was falsified and the entire project should have been re-evaluated at that point.  Instead, they chose to push forward on a project that was in direct violation of its original design premise.  To me, that's non-viable unless there are very compelling cost and reliability reasons it isn't.  In this case, it was going to be very expensive and not necessarily reliable because of all the technical problems and their solutions, and the total lack of flight experience with either stage or either engine.

Spot on...

As for Augustine-- well, ANYTHING can work if you throw enough money at it! 

OL JR :)
NO plan IS the plan...

"His plan had no goals, no timeline, and no budgetary guidelines. Just maybe's, pretty speeches, and smokescreens."

Offline luke strawwalker

  • Regular
  • Full Member
  • ****
  • Posts: 1032
  • Liked: 9
  • Likes Given: 0
Re: Could Ares 1 have Worked if things had been different?
« Reply #177 on: 09/10/2011 06:19 am »

Ares 1 design intent was to drastically increase crew safety during ascent.

So what??  STS's "design intent" was to radically reduce the cost of spaceflight and look how that turned out...

"Design intent" doesn't mean much... IMHO...

Later!  OL JR :)
NO plan IS the plan...

"His plan had no goals, no timeline, and no budgetary guidelines. Just maybe's, pretty speeches, and smokescreens."

Offline Downix

  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 7082
  • Liked: 22
  • Likes Given: 1
Re: Could Ares 1 have Worked if things had been different?
« Reply #178 on: 09/10/2011 06:47 am »
Slavish devotion to "simple" is exactly what led down the Ares I path. And the end result was a whole system which was NOT simple.

The pretty much sums it it up.

The people running the project would not change the design when it became obvious it was the wrong direction.

If the people doing Apollo had the same stubborn mindset we may have never landed on the moon and certianly would not have done so before the end of the decade.
Apollo originally was going to use a direct landing LOR was the underdog at first.

Kinda like Direct vs Ares.
The 1961 vehicle was a cluster of Saturn C-3 first stages with super upper stages. 

Do you have a link to a study or paper showing that?? I'd LOVE to see it!

Any information greatly appreciated!  OL JR :)
Found it in a book, actually:

http://www.amazon.com/Saturn-F-1-Engine-Powering-Exploration/dp/0387096299

Lots of good information on the engine, and the various uses they studied for it.  Adding some artists renderings of this design.
« Last Edit: 09/10/2011 07:15 am by Downix »
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 Jason1701

  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 2232
  • Liked: 70
  • Likes Given: 152
Re: Could Ares 1 have Worked if things had been different?
« Reply #179 on: 09/10/2011 06:58 am »
Looks like a US N-1!

Tags:
 

Advertisement NovaTech
Advertisement Northrop Grumman
Advertisement
Advertisement Margaritaville Beach Resort South Padre Island
Advertisement Brady Kenniston
Advertisement NextSpaceflight
Advertisement Nathan Barker Photography
1