Author Topic: Ares I Development Thread  (Read 315474 times)

Offline Danny Dot

  • Rocket Scientist, NOT Retired
  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 2791
  • Houston, Texas
  • Liked: 14
  • Likes Given: 1
Re: Ares I Development Thread
« Reply #40 on: 08/30/2007 03:44 PM »
Quote
MKremer - 24/8/2007  10:09 AM

Quote
clongton - 24/8/2007  9:46 AM
Computer modeling and analysis is great. Like I said, I make my living doing it. But after you’ve gone as far as you can with the modeling, there is just no substitute for the acid test. The interstage is the weakest point in the structural design (which is what I do), and it needs to be tested in the real world.

It's still called "Finite Modeling" for a reason.  ;)
The worst thing NASA could do, IMO is build a battleship interstage for IX, and then find out 15 or 18 months later (depending on how well their current schedule holds up) that the *real* interstage results in LOV, shifting test flights and the first operational flight even further to the right.


On testing the interstage, keep in mind a normal flight will not test the interstage to design limits.  The design limits will be based on off nominal winds aloft and probably a gimbal failure.  Both of these events will stress the interstage, and the interstage needs to be tested to these higher limits.  

Danny Deger
Danny Deger

Offline A_M_Swallow

  • Elite Veteran
  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 7975
  • South coast of England
  • Liked: 227
  • Likes Given: 84
Re: Ares I Development Thread
« Reply #41 on: 08/30/2007 05:28 PM »
Quote
Jim - 30/8/2007  1:30 AM

Quote
tnphysics - 29/8/2007  8:02 PM

In my opinion, Congress will cancel Ares I when the Falcon 9 Heavy comes along. NASA will be forced to buy F9 Heavies to launch the CEV.

Ares V will not be canceled.


Why?  That is ridiculous.  
Why not the Atlas V or Delta IV?  They already exist.  Congress is not going to show favoritism to Spacex and "force" NASA.

NASA was lucky and got away with not using the Atlas V or Delta IV, mostly due to a trick with terminology.
The difference is best described using ground vehicles.

The Atlas V and Delta IV carry cargo which makes then appear to be flying commercial vans.  The general public drives to work in cars rather than vans so will allow the same privilege to astronauts.

The Ares-I with Orion are a car.  When it carries people to the ISS the Falcon 9 will be seen as a flying car.
The general public understands cars.  Standard car like questions then get asked - which is the fastest?  Which is the cheapest?

The Falcon 9 Heavy price to LEO is $90 million.
http://www.spacex.com/falcon9_heavy.php

Add in Dragon and the price goes up to say $200 million a launch or $400 million a year for a manned space program to the International Space Station.  NASA will have to produce a very good reason why it is charging more than $500 million a year for manned launch vehicles.  Orion being bigger than Dragon as an excuse will not last more than 2 years.

Quote
Ares V doesn't exist without Ares I
Ares-V can launch Orion so Ares-I is a luxury option.

Quote
The F9 doesn't have the performance for the CEV.

Please think about the statement you made.

My question about taking Dragon to the Moon was not an idle one.  It was one of the more likely ways ahead.


Orion can go up on a man rated Delta IV or Atlas V so it may avoid cancellation.

People have been thinking about their unpopular statements.  They just start with the assumption that NASA has lost its monopoly on American space launches.

Offline Jim

  • Night Gator
  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 30310
  • Cape Canaveral Spaceport
  • Liked: 8575
  • Likes Given: 276
Re: Ares I Development Thread
« Reply #42 on: 08/30/2007 05:40 PM »
Quote
A_M_Swallow - 30/8/2007  1:28 PM

The Ares-I with Orion are a car.  When it carries people to the ISS the Falcon 9 will be seen as a flying car.

Ares-V can launch Orion so Ares-I is a luxury option.



Falcon will be flying cargo for many years before it is manned.  And there is a lot of if's before it can even do that

Ares V can't launch the Orion, LSAM and EDS on the same flight.  Ares I required

Offline mars.is.wet

  • Full Member
  • ****
  • Posts: 804
  • Liked: 0
  • Likes Given: 0
Re: Ares I Development Thread
« Reply #43 on: 08/30/2007 05:57 PM »
Quote
A_M_Swallow - 30/8/2007  1:28 PM

The Falcon 9 Heavy price to LEO is $90 million.
http://www.spacex.com/falcon9_heavy.php

Add in Dragon and the price goes up to say $200 million a launch or $400 million a year for a manned space program to the International Space Station.  NASA will have to produce a very good reason why it is charging more than $500 million a year for manned launch vehicles.  Orion being bigger than Dragon as an excuse will not last more than 2 years.


Wow.  Do you believe everything you read?  Would you like to invest in SpaceX? I guarantee they will take your money right now.  Take being the most likely operative phrase.

You are quoting prices for a vehicle that has lots of development ahead of it, no knowledge of its flight rate, and after the demonstrator (if you will) vehicle for the company has not yet reached orbit.

I offer that you should study the history of Kelley, Kistler, Rocketplane (pre Kistler), Rotary, Athena, Conestoga, Space Access, Vela, LMLV before investing.  Future looking statements and all.

Offline Marsman

  • Full Member
  • ***
  • Posts: 309
  • U.S.
  • Liked: 16
  • Likes Given: 2
Re: Ares I Development Thread
« Reply #44 on: 08/30/2007 05:59 PM »
NASA has been planning to man-rate Ares V from the start. Crew transfer to a lunar base or a NEO mission. I have a question of my own. If the J2 is going to be so expensive and is mostly new hardware anyway, why don't we just build an entirely new engine to the specs that we need?

Offline A_M_Swallow

  • Elite Veteran
  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 7975
  • South coast of England
  • Liked: 227
  • Likes Given: 84
Re: Ares I Development Thread
« Reply #45 on: 08/30/2007 06:07 PM »
Quote
Jim - 30/8/2007  6:40 PM
Falcon will be flying cargo for many years before it is manned.  And there is a lot of if's before it can even do that

Ares V can't launch the Orion, LSAM and EDS on the same flight.  Ares I required

Ares-I should also be making lots of flights before it is manned.  People will notice their absence at the first accident.

Two Ares-Vs can replace an Ares-I + Ares-V.  The same way that two J-232s can.

Offline clongton

  • Expert
  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 10179
  • Connecticut
    • Direct Launcher
  • Liked: 1805
  • Likes Given: 563
Re: Ares I Development Thread
« Reply #46 on: 08/30/2007 06:12 PM »
Quote
A_M_Swallow - 30/8/2007  1:28 PM

Quote
Ares V doesn't exist without Ares I
Ares-V can launch Orion so Ares-I is a luxury option.
That's like trying to ride a locmotive without first laying the rails.
Ares-I  = the rails
Ares-V = the locomotive.

You don't get to have an Ares-V unless you build the Ares-I first.
Chuck - DIRECT co-founder
I started my career on the Saturn-V F-1A engine

Offline A_M_Swallow

  • Elite Veteran
  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 7975
  • South coast of England
  • Liked: 227
  • Likes Given: 84
Re: Ares I Development Thread
« Reply #47 on: 08/30/2007 06:22 PM »
Quote
mars.is.wet - 30/8/2007  6:57 PM
You are quoting prices for a vehicle that has lots of development ahead of it, no knowledge of its flight rate, and after the demonstrator (if you will) vehicle for the company has not yet reached orbit.

I offer that you should study the history of Kelley, Kistler, Rocketplane (pre Kistler), Rotary, Athena, Conestoga, Space Access, Vela, LMLV before investing.  Future looking statements and all.

The Falcons have got off the ground which puts them a head of the Ares family.

I was careful to double the price of the Falcon 9 Heavy.  Even tripling the price only takes it to $600 million a year.
In financial year 2010 NASA is already asking for $1,220.0 million for launch vehicle development.

Offline gladiator1332

  • Mike Majeski
  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 2428
  • Raleigh, NC
  • Liked: 4
  • Likes Given: 3
Re: Ares I Development Thread
« Reply #48 on: 08/30/2007 06:27 PM »
Quote
Marsman - 30/8/2007  1:59 PM

NASA has been planning to man-rate Ares V from the start. Crew transfer to a lunar base or a NEO mission. I have a question of my own. If the J2 is going to be so expensive and is mostly new hardware anyway, why don't we just build an entirely new engine to the specs that we need?

That is a good question on the J-2. I am sure there is a logical answer to this, and I am sure it lies with the fact that the J-2 has some flight experience and is not a complete clean sheet design. A modernized-J2 is better than a complete new engine.

Quote
A_M_Swallow - 30/8/2007  2:22 PM

Quote
mars.is.wet - 30/8/2007  6:57 PM
You are quoting prices for a vehicle that has lots of development ahead of it, no knowledge of its flight rate, and after the demonstrator (if you will) vehicle for the company has not yet reached orbit.

I offer that you should study the history of Kelley, Kistler, Rocketplane (pre Kistler), Rotary, Athena, Conestoga, Space Access, Vela, LMLV before investing.  Future looking statements and all.

The Falcons have got off the ground which puts them a head of the Ares family.

I was careful to double the price of the Falcon 9 Heavy.  Even tripling the price only takes it to $600 million a year.
In financial year 2010 NASA is already asking for $1,220.0 million for launch vehicle development.

Can we try to keep the Falcon vs Ares I out of this thread, in all honesty Falcon / Dragon have nothing to do with Ares I development.

I do not think the US Government will put the National Space Program and the VSE into the hands of a private company like SpaceX. NASA has decades of experience, Musk has two "successful" missions under his belt. Congrats to SpaceX, but that is nothing compared to NASAs experience.
So Falcon is flying...so is Atlas V and Delta IV. Besides you could argue, the Shuttle SRB is currently flying as well.

Offline clongton

  • Expert
  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 10179
  • Connecticut
    • Direct Launcher
  • Liked: 1805
  • Likes Given: 563
Re: Ares I Development Thread
« Reply #49 on: 08/30/2007 06:35 PM »
Let's fix the Ares-I.

First stage is what it is. You just ain't gonna get no more from a solid.
So fixing the Ares-I has to center on the second stage.

We lost a LOT of performance when we lost the SSME for the U.S. engine.
So how do we fix that? The J-2X (which may or may not ever *actually* work) would be a good engine, but it definetely is not "good enough" for this job. We simply must have more performance and margin. We need something more akin to the SSME if the Ares-I is going to seriously get back on track.
Let's talk about engine options. What can we do?
Chuck - DIRECT co-founder
I started my career on the Saturn-V F-1A engine

Offline Jim

  • Night Gator
  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 30310
  • Cape Canaveral Spaceport
  • Liked: 8575
  • Likes Given: 276
Re: Ares I Development Thread
« Reply #50 on: 08/30/2007 06:39 PM »
Quote
A_M_Swallow - 30/8/2007  2:07 PM

Ares-I should also be making lots of flights before it is manned.  People will notice their absence at the first accident.


You are talking nonsense.  The Ares I will be manned on the 4th flight.  What first accident?

Please refrain from posting BS and post some useful information (that is based on common reality)

Offline vt_hokie

  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 3000
  • Williamsburg, VA
  • Liked: 81
  • Likes Given: 162
Re: Ares I Development Thread
« Reply #51 on: 08/30/2007 06:45 PM »
Quote
clongton - 30/8/2007  2:12 PM

Quote
A_M_Swallow - 30/8/2007  1:28 PM

Quote
Ares V doesn't exist without Ares I
Ares-V can launch Orion so Ares-I is a luxury option.
That's like trying to ride a locmotive without first laying the rails.
Ares-I  = the rails
Ares-V = the locomotive.

You don't get to have an Ares-V unless you build the Ares-I first.

I don't see why that is.  What would prevent us skipping Ares I altogether and getting Ares V that much sooner?

Offline clongton

  • Expert
  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 10179
  • Connecticut
    • Direct Launcher
  • Liked: 1805
  • Likes Given: 563
Re: Ares I Development Thread
« Reply #52 on: 08/30/2007 06:54 PM »
Quote
vt_hokie - 30/8/2007  2:45 PM

Quote
clongton - 30/8/2007  2:12 PM

You don't get to have an Ares-V unless you build the Ares-I first.

I don't see why that is.  What would prevent us skipping Ares I altogether and getting Ares V that much sooner?
Finances.

The development costs for the 5-segment SRB and the J-2X are absorbed in the Ares-I.
The Ares-V is on the edge of affordability as it is, without having to bear the "total" cost of it's own development *plus* the cost of the 5-seg SRB and the J-2X. Add in the costs for those 2 items and the cost of the Ares-V becomes unbearable to Congress. Yes, I know that it is symantics, but the Congress has a tolerance level for what they will pay for and what they won't. Even if the combined total is the same, the decision to do the Ares-V would be a dozen years later and be made by a different Congress. Therefore, THEY would not be looking at the TOTAL, just the remainder, and that would be within their tolerance level. But ask the Congress to approve the TOTAL, and they will quite literally choke (which may not necessisarily be a bad thing  :) )
Chuck - DIRECT co-founder
I started my career on the Saturn-V F-1A engine

Offline bad_astra

  • Full Member
  • ****
  • Posts: 1761
  • Liked: 176
  • Likes Given: 132
Re: Ares I Development Thread
« Reply #53 on: 08/30/2007 06:57 PM »
Quote
clongton - 30/8/2007  1:35 PM

Let's talk about engine options. What can we do?

Widen the frustrum and have a twin J2s (not x) 2nd stage. It would require less development and be available sooner (and lower the height of Ares I)

Yes, it would look funny, but the upper stage would turn an Ares IV varient into a real performer.
"Contact Light" -Buzz Aldrin

Offline clongton

  • Expert
  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 10179
  • Connecticut
    • Direct Launcher
  • Liked: 1805
  • Likes Given: 563
Re: Ares I Development Thread
« Reply #54 on: 08/30/2007 06:59 PM »
Quote
bad_astra - 30/8/2007  2:57 PM

Quote
clongton - 30/8/2007  1:35 PM

Let's talk about engine options. What can we do?

Widen the frustrum and have a twin J2s (not x) 2nd stage. It would require less development and be available sooner (and lower the height of Ares I)

Yes, it would look funny, but the upper stage would turn an Ares IV varient into a real performer.
Would you stick with the 5-segment SRB or go back to the 4?
Chuck - DIRECT co-founder
I started my career on the Saturn-V F-1A engine

Offline edkyle99

  • Expert
  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 12139
    • Space Launch Report
  • Liked: 2855
  • Likes Given: 497
Re: Ares I Development Thread
« Reply #55 on: 08/30/2007 06:59 PM »
Quote
clongton - 30/8/2007  1:35 PM

Let's fix the Ares-I.

First stage is what it is. You just ain't gonna get no more from a solid.
So fixing the Ares-I has to center on the second stage.

We lost a LOT of performance when we lost the SSME for the U.S. engine.
So how do we fix that? The J-2X (which may or may not ever *actually* work) would be a good engine, but it definetely is not "good enough" for this job. We simply must have more performance and margin. We need something more akin to the SSME if the Ares-I is going to seriously get back on track.
Let's talk about engine options. What can we do?

I'm having a hard time seeing how Ares I needs "fixed".  As far as I can see, Ares I *is* "on track".  NASA has a design that gets the job done.  It has awarded all but the Instrument Unit contracts - and IU is coming at year's end.  Some testing has already begun.  Ground breaking has occurred for some of the facilities (O&C High Bay rebuild at KSC, Test Stand A3 at Stennis, etc.).  Five segment booster testing will rev up in a few months, as will precursor J-2X testing.    

 - Ed Kyle

Offline marsavian

  • Elite Veteran
  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 3216
  • Liked: 1
  • Likes Given: 3
Re: Ares I Development Thread
« Reply #56 on: 08/30/2007 07:07 PM »
Quote
clongton - 30/8/2007  1:35 PM

Let's fix the Ares-I.

First stage is what it is. You just ain't gonna get no more from a solid.
So fixing the Ares-I has to center on the second stage.

We lost a LOT of performance when we lost the SSME for the U.S. engine.
So how do we fix that? The J-2X (which may or may not ever *actually* work) would be a good engine, but it definetely is not "good enough" for this job. We simply must have more performance and margin. We need something more akin to the SSME if the Ares-I is going to seriously get back on track.
Let's talk about engine options. What can we do?

How about larger fuel tanks as there's weight to spare at lift-off with the SRB's thrust. Although there would be greater gravity losses after staging, with enough extra fuel it could make a difference although they must surely have optimised this already I would have thought.

Offline clongton

  • Expert
  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 10179
  • Connecticut
    • Direct Launcher
  • Liked: 1805
  • Likes Given: 563
Re: Ares I Development Thread
« Reply #57 on: 08/30/2007 07:10 PM »
Quote
edkyle99 - 30/8/2007  2:59 PM

I'm having a hard time seeing how Ares I needs "fixed".  As far as I can see, Ares I *is* "on track".  NASA has a design that gets the job done.  It has awarded all but the Instrument Unit contracts - and IU is coming at year's end.  Some testing has already begun.  Ground breaking has occurred for some of the facilities (O&C High Bay rebuild at KSC, Test Stand A3 at Stennis, etc.).  Five segment booster testing will rev up in a few months, as will precursor J-2X testing. - Ed Kyle
Ed,
Without getting into any “internal-only” discussions, lets just assume for the moment that we would like to discuss what could be done to improve the performance of this launch vehicle. Even if it is “on track”, as you contend, wouldn’t we all benefit if it’s performance could be improved? This is, after all, a thread about the development of the Ares-I. It’s not like the launch vehicle actually exists yet. Technically, it’s just as much a paper rocket at this point as the Ares-V, which will certainly have its own development difficulties as it enters the design phase. Any way we can improve the performance of the Ares-I will certainly be of benefit to the project as a whole. To that end, once again I ask “what can we do to improve the performance of the Ares-I”?
Chuck - DIRECT co-founder
I started my career on the Saturn-V F-1A engine

Offline clongton

  • Expert
  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 10179
  • Connecticut
    • Direct Launcher
  • Liked: 1805
  • Likes Given: 563
Re: Ares I Development Thread
« Reply #58 on: 08/30/2007 07:12 PM »
Quote
marsavian - 30/8/2007  3:07 PM

Quote
clongton - 30/8/2007  1:35 PM

Let's fix the Ares-I.

First stage is what it is. You just ain't gonna get no more from a solid.
So fixing the Ares-I has to center on the second stage.

We lost a LOT of performance when we lost the SSME for the U.S. engine.
So how do we fix that? The J-2X (which may or may not ever *actually* work) would be a good engine, but it definetely is not "good enough" for this job. We simply must have more performance and margin. We need something more akin to the SSME if the Ares-I is going to seriously get back on track.
Let's talk about engine options. What can we do?

How about larger fuel tanks as there's weight to spare at lift-off with the SRB's thrust. Although there would be greater gravity losses after staging, with enough extra fuel it could make a difference although they must surely have optimised this already I would have thought.
Ok, we have a wider frustrum and a switch to 2xJ-2S, and larger fuel tanks. What are the specs of the J-2S including its rate of fuel consumption? How much propellant are we talking for the 2nd stage?
Chuck - DIRECT co-founder
I started my career on the Saturn-V F-1A engine

Offline gladiator1332

  • Mike Majeski
  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 2428
  • Raleigh, NC
  • Liked: 4
  • Likes Given: 3
Re: Ares I Development Thread
« Reply #59 on: 08/30/2007 07:13 PM »
Quote
bad_astra - 30/8/2007  2:57 PM

Quote
clongton - 30/8/2007  1:35 PM

Let's talk about engine options. What can we do?

Widen the frustrum and have a twin J2s (not x) 2nd stage. It would require less development and be available sooner (and lower the height of Ares I)

Yes, it would look funny, but the upper stage would turn an Ares IV varient into a real performer.

But this would degrade the LOC / LOM numbers

Tags: