Author Topic: Ares IV  (Read 66212 times)

Offline RedSky

  • Veteran
  • Full Member
  • ****
  • Posts: 482
  • Liked: 37
  • Likes Given: 2
Re: Ares IV
« Reply #20 on: 01/02/2007 06:03 PM »
Quote
Jim - 2/1/2007  11:43 AM

Ares IV doesn't mean dropping Ares I, it means dropping Ares V.  Ares I is still needed for ISS.

But isn't that ridiculous, then, to spend so much to develop Ares I... along with the new transporters, etc, etc... just for a handful of launches to the ISS?  So that means it will go into manned operation in 2014... and obsolete in 2016!   If that's the case, strip the CEV down to a  Block 0.5 ISS version and make the  4 ISS launches on an EELV and save a bunch of Billions.  If the actual Lunar missions won't use Ares I, then it shouldn't be built with its huge budget and schedule hit for the few ISS launches planned.

Offline josh_simonson

  • Veteran
  • Full Member
  • ****
  • Posts: 504
  • Liked: 2
  • Likes Given: 0
Re: Ares IV
« Reply #21 on: 01/02/2007 06:16 PM »
"If the Ares I was unable to launch the Block 1 Orion International Space Station mission variant, an Ares IV without its SRBs could be used. But NASA has denied that Ares I is not powerful enough to launch the Block 1 and 2 variants despite Orion project manager Caris Hatfield admitting that Orion is about 1,300kg over weight."

So basically their fallback to aries 1 is an aries V core, sans SRB, topped with Aries 1 US.   This would allow more time to develop the 5 seg SRB.

If they go with a 2x Aries IV lunar program, they can always upgrade the second stage to a full EDS for Mars missions at a relatively low cost, or develop the EDS to allow a larger lunar lander.

Offline RedSky

  • Veteran
  • Full Member
  • ****
  • Posts: 482
  • Liked: 37
  • Likes Given: 2
RE: Ares IV
« Reply #22 on: 01/02/2007 06:28 PM »
Using the "proposed" Ares IV core (i.e., w/o SRBs) for just Orion ISS launches doesn't make sense, either... since it can't be ready in the timeframe needed (2014-2016) unless Ares-I is canned very soon and work on the  IV core started instead.  If, indeed, this whole Ares IV proposal is more than some figment blown out of proportion...  and there is actual consideration of it.. then that means the whole ESAS must be in complete dissarray and doubt.   Does it seem like this is a start to some trial balloon leak to eventually lead to a Direct selection soon?  Direct would keep the SRB folks occupied whereas just building the IV core  as a CLV wouldn't.

Offline zerm

  • Hypergolic cartoonist
  • Full Member
  • ****
  • Posts: 1317
    • Klyde Morris dot com
  • Liked: 32
  • Likes Given: 8
RE: Ares IV
« Reply #23 on: 01/02/2007 06:41 PM »
I'm just finishing the instructions for the flying "Stumpy" kit- so for those of you who miss it and wnat to build one to shoot from your back yard- you may have your solution in a month or so. Perhaps I should do a "Direct" next, before the Ares V kit. It would be cool to have the whole line for sale. The Ares I is in redesign to add in most of the latest changes.

Offline edkyle99

  • Expert
  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 12779
    • Space Launch Report
  • Liked: 3548
  • Likes Given: 608
Re: Ares IV
« Reply #24 on: 01/02/2007 07:19 PM »
Quote
RedSky - 2/1/2007  12:46 PM

Quote
Jim - 2/1/2007  11:43 AM

Ares IV doesn't mean dropping Ares I, it means dropping Ares V.  Ares I is still needed for ISS.

But isn't that ridiculous, then, to spend so much to develop Ares I... along with the new transporters, etc, etc... just for a handful of launches to the ISS?  So that means it will go into manned operation in 2014... and obsolete in 2016!   If that's the case, strip the CEV down to a  Block 0.5 ISS version and make the  4 ISS launches on an EELV and save a bunch of Billions.  If the actual Lunar missions won't use Ares I, then it shouldn't be built with its huge budget and schedule hit for the few ISS launches planned.

What would make sense, to me at least, would be to follow one, and only one, of the following paths.

1.  Develop one launch vehicle optimized for ISS and another optimized for a dual-launch lunar mission (i.e. Direct or Ares IV).

2.  Develop a first stage that can be flown alone for ISS missions and clustered for dual-launch lunar missions.  Kind of like Angara on steriods.

Implied that NASA would then be able to drop the SRBs altogether and use the same second stage for both missions.

 - Ed Kyle

Offline josh_simonson

  • Veteran
  • Full Member
  • ****
  • Posts: 504
  • Liked: 2
  • Likes Given: 0
RE: Ares IV
« Reply #25 on: 01/02/2007 07:25 PM »
Why can't the core stage be ready by 2014?  All the parts already exist except the 10m tank.  That should be cheaper and safer (schedule wise) than the 5 seg SRB.  It only took about 5 years for Delta IV to go from proposal to flight using the same engine.  The long pole in the tent would probably still be the J-2X.  Talk is now that J-2S turbopumps may be used on the initial CLV flights (called J-2X-D - for De-rated?) because the J-2X won't be done in time.

Offline simonbp

Re: Ares IV
« Reply #26 on: 01/02/2007 07:25 PM »
I'm not understanding this: the Ares I upper stage seems massively overkill for just doing a TEI burn, especially when combined with a Ares V core and 5-segs. Indeed, it says 41,100kg to LEO, which is about 100,000 kg lower than the Ares V alone could bring! What am I missing?

Simon ;)

Offline josh_simonson

  • Veteran
  • Full Member
  • ****
  • Posts: 504
  • Liked: 2
  • Likes Given: 0
Re: Ares IV
« Reply #27 on: 01/02/2007 07:29 PM »
That's probably TLI or LLO mass, not LEO mass.  Aries V with no upper is supposed to launch 80-100t to LEO.  43t would not be enough to do TLI and LOI burns with a 23t CEV.

Offline wannamoonbase

  • Elite Veteran
  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 2709
  • Denver, CO
    • U.S. Metric Association
  • Liked: 534
  • Likes Given: 924
Pimp my Stumpy
« Reply #28 on: 01/02/2007 07:51 PM »
Quote
Mark Max Q - 2/1/2007  11:30 AM

This is the stretched limo version of Stumpy, and it's obvious that DIRECT has gotten to the very top of NASA, as they are not taking it serious. Sure, the name has changed, but this is one in the eye of the everything is fine with Ares I people.

A pimped up Stumpy could be a good vehicle name to connect with the youngsters that NASA is having trouble appealing too, as was mentioned last week.

Seems that if all that is needed is a liquid core for ISS misisons that billions upon billions could be saved by using the STS ET diameter of 8.3 meters than going to the 10 meter Ares V diameter.  

Throw the CEV on top, the RS-68's on the bottom and away we go.  And it has to cost less than developing the Ares 1 for 4 ISS missions.  Which really makes the Ares 1 look more a 5 segment development program.

Save the schedule and budget and go this route, seems to make sense.  We are probably a few months away from a final resolution as these things seem to take on the pace of government work.  

If we don't see a change by summer than we are certainly stuck with Ares 1 for better or worse.
Excited to be finally into the first Falcon Heavy flow, we are getting so close!

Offline RedSky

  • Veteran
  • Full Member
  • ****
  • Posts: 482
  • Liked: 37
  • Likes Given: 2
RE: Ares IV
« Reply #29 on: 01/02/2007 07:57 PM »
Quote
josh_simonson - 2/1/2007  2:08 PM

Why can't the core stage be ready by 2014?  All the parts already exist except the 10m tank.  That should be cheaper and safer (schedule wise) than the 5 seg SRB.  It only took about 5 years for Delta IV to go from proposal to flight using the same engine.  The long pole in the tent would probably still be the J-2X.  Talk is now that J-2S turbopumps may be used on the initial CLV flights (called J-2X-D - for De-rated?) because the J-2X won't be done in time.

Oh, I'm sure the IV core could be ready as a CLV for the ISS by 2014... but only if Ares-I is killed.  STS still takes a lot of the budget until 2010... and ISS a chunk until 2016.  So I doubt Ares-I AND Ares-IV core could really be developed together for both to be available for ISS.  Only one would be needed, anyway.   The 5-seg booster and upper stage work could be developed slowly in the background until needed.  I don't know if the  upper stage would really be needed for ISS missions.  If the core IV and SM engine can get a CEV to ISS... then by all means... get the Core IV by 2014 (earlier if possible)... but again... you got to kill the stick to do it.

Offline Marsman

  • Full Member
  • ***
  • Posts: 310
  • U.S.
  • Liked: 18
  • Likes Given: 2
Re: Ares IV
« Reply #30 on: 01/02/2007 08:25 PM »
If NASA was halfway intelligent, they would halt work on Ares I except for the US and consider the options (Ares IV, DIRECT, Stumpy, ect.). The US can still be used for Ares IV, the Ares I people won't go up in arms, and it gives them time to consider Direct, and make an educated, non-rushed decision (unlike ESAS)...

Also, does anyone have any performance estimates? I'd guess somewhere areound 100mt to LEO?

Offline Smatcha

  • Elite Veteran
  • Full Member
  • ****
  • Posts: 645
  • Liked: 0
  • Likes Given: 0
Re: Ares IV
« Reply #31 on: 01/02/2007 08:47 PM »
Quote
Marsman - 2/1/2007  1:08 PM

If NASA was halfway intelligent, they would halt work on Ares I except for the US and consider the options (Ares IV, DIRECT, Stumpy, ect.). The US can still be used for Ares IV, the Ares I people won't go up in arms, and it gives them time to consider Direct, and make an educated, non-rushed decision (unlike ESAS)...

So you don’t think 90 days is enough time to plan out the most efficent use of $250 Billion over 25 years?
“Do we want to go to the moon or not?”
John C. Houbolt - November 15, 1961
Question posed in Letter to Dr. Robert C. Seamans Jr, NASA Associate Administrator

Ralph Ellison “I was never more hated than when I tried to be honest”




Offline Marsman

  • Full Member
  • ***
  • Posts: 310
  • U.S.
  • Liked: 18
  • Likes Given: 2
Re: Ares IV
« Reply #32 on: 01/02/2007 09:04 PM »
No, I'm saying that not all of the options were considered, or considered properly.

Offline tlewis615

  • Member
  • Posts: 21
  • Liked: 0
  • Likes Given: 0
RE: Ares IV
« Reply #33 on: 01/03/2007 01:36 AM »
NASA is considering a mission to a near earth asteroid.  This could be a booster for such a mission. Single launch no lander necessary.

Online Chris Bergin

Re: Ares IV
« Reply #34 on: 01/03/2007 01:56 AM »
Quote
Marsman - 2/1/2007  9:08 PM

If NASA was halfway intelligent, they would halt work on Ares I except for the US and consider the options (Ares IV, DIRECT, Stumpy, ect.). The US can still be used for Ares IV, the Ares I people won't go up in arms, and it gives them time to consider Direct, and make an educated, non-rushed decision (unlike ESAS)...

I'm sure we all have opinions on what direction NASA should take, but I'd appreciate it if those opinions were aired without insulting those who worked on - and continue to work on - ESAS related work.

Offline Norm Hartnett

  • Elite Veteran
  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 2304
  • Liked: 53
  • Likes Given: 2
Re: Ares IV
« Reply #35 on: 01/03/2007 02:00 AM »
I consider it a hopeful sign that NASA is spending some money in reevaluating their options. With all due respect to the folks that worked on ESAS their first recommended LV was unflyable and NASA should have stopped as soon as they realized that and re ran the ESAS again.
“You can’t take a traditional approach and expect anything but the traditional results, which has been broken budgets and not fielding any flight hardware.” Mike Gold - Apollo, STS, CxP; those that don't learn from history are condemned to repeat it: SLS.

Offline simonbp

Re: Ares IV
« Reply #36 on: 01/03/2007 02:49 AM »
Quote
Norm Hartnett - 2/1/2007  8:43 PM

I consider it a hopeful sign that NASA is spending some money in reevaluating their options. With all due respect to the folks that worked on ESAS their first recommended LV was unflyable and NASA should have stopped as soon as they realized that and re ran the ESAS again.

Unflyable? Underperforming with current mass margins is what they keep telling us, but that does not in the slightest mean that the solution is unworkable. Indeed, there are absolutely zippo zero guarantees that any other concept wouldn't have the exact same problems, but even worse, because they'd be automatically a year and a half behind schedule...

Going with a vehicle like this kinda take the lessons of safety from the CAIB, sets them on fire, and pretends that they never existed. The reason why the stick was chosen in the first place was because it promised to be 2-3 times less likely to kill astronauts than an EELV or inline SDLV. There have been many proposals for slightly cheaper and/or better performing alternatives, but I have yet to see one that can claim to be inherently safer. Only one than can will gain any traction as an alternative to the baseline...

Simon ;)

Offline Generic Username

  • Elite Veteran
  • Full Member
  • ****
  • Posts: 941
  • Liked: 16
  • Likes Given: 0
Re: Ares IV
« Reply #37 on: 01/03/2007 03:16 AM »
Quote
simonbp - 2/1/2007  8:32 PM

Unflyable? Underperforming with current mass margins is what they keep telling us...

Lofting 58,400 lbs is what I'm hearing now.
Spacecraft and aircraft models, blueprints, documents:
http:www.up-ship.com

Offline RedSky

  • Veteran
  • Full Member
  • ****
  • Posts: 482
  • Liked: 37
  • Likes Given: 2
Re: Ares IV
« Reply #38 on: 01/03/2007 03:23 AM »
Quote
simonbp - 2/1/2007  9:32 PM

Going with a vehicle like this kinda take the lessons of safety from the CAIB, sets them on fire, and pretends that they never existed. The reason why the stick was chosen in the first place was because it promised to be 2-3 times less likely to kill astronauts than an EELV or inline SDLV. There have been many proposals for slightly cheaper and/or better performing alternatives, but I have yet to see one that can claim to be inherently safer. Only one than can will gain any traction as an alternative to the baseline...

Simon ;)

This assumes the LOC probabilities for the ORIGINAL Stick: well known 4-segment SRB and well known SSME.  With all the changes... 5-seg booster and unbuilt J-2x... along with control issues, etc brought on by today's redesigned "new" stick... you know that LOC estimate now has to look much worse than was in the ESAS report.    If so, does that mean if the LOM/LOC odds for the new stick are now roughly the same as one of those cheaper/better performing alternatives... then they should switch to one of them?  Perhaps that's why we're now hearing about something like an Ares-IV as a CLV.

Offline Seattle Dave

  • Full Member
  • ****
  • Posts: 958
  • Liked: 19
  • Likes Given: 15
Re: Ares IV
« Reply #39 on: 01/03/2007 03:24 AM »
Quote
Generic Username - 2/1/2007  9:59 PM

Quote
simonbp - 2/1/2007  8:32 PM

Unflyable? Underperforming with current mass margins is what they keep telling us...

Lofting 58,400 lbs is what I'm hearing now.

As ATK and pro-Ares as is, what do you make of this Ares IV stuff?

Tags: