Author Topic: Ares IV  (Read 65267 times)

Offline josh_simonson

  • Veteran
  • Full Member
  • ****
  • Posts: 504
  • Liked: 0
  • Likes Given: 0
Re: Ares IV
« Reply #40 on: 01/03/2007 03:38 AM »
The CAIB was the problem in the first place.  It's unfortunate that NASA is designing new launchers so soon after a major accident because their thinking has been seriously compromised by it.  Yes they chose the safest possible rocket, but it's also one that will cost $20-30bln more over the long run for a 0.05% safety improvement.  Meanwhile an accident (Columbia) only cost about $10-12bln.  2-3 accidents need to be prevented in order to justify that expense, but at the 0.1% failure rate of the 'less safe' rockets there is no way that 2-3 fatal accidents will occur in the 20 year lifespan of the launch system.  STS only had two and the new system will be much safer.  Even with the shuttle, it wouldn't have been worth spending $30bln to make it 50% safer.  The numbers simply don't add up.  If they'd been doing the math with a clear concience, they may have made more rational choices.

Offline Nyarlathotep

  • Member
  • Posts: 67
  • Liked: 0
  • Likes Given: 0
Re: Ares IV
« Reply #41 on: 01/03/2007 04:31 AM »
The CAIB wasn't the problem, it was the messenger. A NASA management with clear industry connections playing appropriations politics is the problem.

Offline Avron

  • Canadian Member
  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 4914
  • Liked: 146
  • Likes Given: 150
Re: Ares IV
« Reply #42 on: 01/03/2007 04:32 AM »
CAIB, is the voice of the people via the Congress..  Its not NASA or CAIB that is the problem, if the people say spend 30Bln to get it right then do it.. but then, if right, mean safer, then the rules as per CIAB must be met 100% unless there is no practical way to make it happen, at that time its back to the congress for direction.. as the selected route with the stick is not safer, the STS is safer.. and Ares IV is an unknown.. look a the risk matrix for the stick, its unworkable at the current scope (but then the scope can be changed, only problem is that is will violate the direction of congress who signed off on the CIAB recommendations).. who knows what we will get for the AresIV..

Now the problem is the three people at the the Top of NASA who control the money all $17 billion and change a year.. Three people to me is not NASA...
The same three that are killing science missions to make sure that their buddies get some of that money.. the same people who are putting manned space flight at risk.. and who are .. bla bla bla..

Lets see what the people have to say...


Offline stargazer777

  • Extreme Veteran
  • Full Member
  • ***
  • Posts: 338
  • Liked: 0
  • Likes Given: 0
Re: Ares IV
« Reply #43 on: 01/03/2007 07:13 AM »

Meanwhile, back at the ranch...  If Ares IV is real and not someone's imagination or wishful thinking, perhaps it suggests that rather than the Ares I main booster or upper stage being deficient per se, NASA management may have concluded that they have underestimated the weight needed for a fully capable Orion capsule, service module, etc. -- particularly the versions needed for long duration Moon or deep space missions.


Offline Nyarlathotep

  • Member
  • Posts: 67
  • Liked: 0
  • Likes Given: 0
Re: Ares IV
« Reply #44 on: 01/03/2007 08:56 AM »
From my position they overestimated it. To the tune of more than 12 tonnes.

Offline stargazer777

  • Extreme Veteran
  • Full Member
  • ***
  • Posts: 338
  • Liked: 0
  • Likes Given: 0
Re: Ares IV
« Reply #45 on: 01/03/2007 09:35 AM »
Well, we just can't satisfy everybody can we?  Perhaps you should design your own. 

Offline JIS

  • Elite Veteran
  • Full Member
  • ****
  • Posts: 1088
  • Liked: 0
  • Likes Given: 0
RE: Ares IV
« Reply #46 on: 01/03/2007 09:41 AM »
Quote
tlewis615 - 3/1/2007  2:19 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.
That's good point.
However, I think Ares V (w LSAM) + Ares 1 (w Orion) would do better job. It could deliver plenty of payload to the asteroid and there is no need to change any launch vehicle.
Instead of LSAM ascend stage some kind of mission module can be send.
Orion without any usefull payload will be useless at asteroid.  
I'm quite pesimistic that asteroid mission could happen before the moon mission. It could be good transition between the Moon and Mars.
'Old age and treachery will overcome youth and skill' - Old Greek experience

Offline CuddlyRocket

Re: Ares IV
« Reply #47 on: 01/03/2007 10:43 AM »
The Ares IV, as its name suggests (Ares I(&)V), seems to be a design study based on the question: What else can you build with the components of Ares I and Ares V? Everything in Ares IV (apart from the interconnecters etc) will already have been designed and built as part of the development of those two systems. It can presumably also be launched from substantially the same infrastructure as an Ares V. Given that subseqeunt development of the Ares IV would be a relatively modest further development, are there any advantages to it vis a vis the Ares V (it's unlikely to replace the Ares I!) that will justify the cost of development? Can it perform missions Ares V cannot, or can it perform some of the Ares V missions more efficiently? (I suspect NASA is initially thinking of having the two rockets simultaneously in its inventory. And why not - there'd be little additional fixed cost. It's exactly the same principle as aircraft manufacturers developing a 'family' from a basic design.)

One possibility is the proposed NEO mission.

So, basically, this study doesn't indicate that NASA is preparing to abandon its current launcher strategy. It simply means they're looking to maximise the uility of that launcher infrastructure by targeted further development (with Ares I and Ares V being a given).

Offline Jim

  • Night Gator
  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 31142
  • Cape Canaveral Spaceport
  • Liked: 9394
  • Likes Given: 297
Re: Ares IV
« Reply #48 on: 01/03/2007 10:47 AM »
Quote
CuddlyRocket - 3/1/2007  6:26 AM

So, basically, this study doesn't indicate that NASA is preparing to abandon its current launcher strategy. It simply means they're looking to maximise the uility of that launcher infrastructure by targeted further development (with Ares I and Ares V being a given).

Yes, it does.  Ares IV takes over for Ares V.  one or the other, not both.  If there is an Ares V, there is not need for an Ares IV.  It would cost more in having another configuration vs using a larger than necessary booster a few times

Offline stargazer777

  • Extreme Veteran
  • Full Member
  • ***
  • Posts: 338
  • Liked: 0
  • Likes Given: 0
Re: Ares IV
« Reply #49 on: 01/03/2007 11:30 AM »
That may be your opinion -- but it is by no means fact.  Assuming this is all real, this could easily be a variant designed to give them an intermediate boost capacity for missions that might be better suited for that capability.  It doesn't have to be targeted at the Moon or Mars.  It could simply give them a choice for boosting large -- but not the largest -- payloads into orbit for any of a variety of purposes.  As long as it is utilizing components that already exist, cost of this version would be minimal.  There is no reason that a Ares IV would have to mean the demise of Ares V, and I think that Griffin's often stated commitment to a heavy lift booster would make it very unlikely that such a choice would be made.

Offline Generic Username

  • Elite Veteran
  • Full Member
  • ****
  • Posts: 941
  • Liked: 16
  • Likes Given: 0
Re: Ares IV
« Reply #50 on: 01/03/2007 01:27 PM »
Quote
Seattle Dave - 2/1/2007  9:07 PM

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

The first ATK heard of this design as somethign special was the "Flight" article. It appears, at this point, to be just like the "they're going to add Castors" and the "they're going to delete recovery systems" answers to problems that didn't exist: notions that recieved soem examination, as all ideas should, but that got taken out of context and blown out of proportion. I could be wrong, of course.

As a launch vehicle, I guess it has some merit. If the Ares I and V both get built, it would seem easy enough to swap the upper stages and come up with an intermediate payload vehicle like this. If the thing will orbit the CEV as a straight 2STO without the SRB's, then if it trades well against the Ares I in terms of cost and safety, then it's certainly worth looking at. Sort of a Saturn INT-20.
Spacecraft and aircraft models, blueprints, documents:
http:www.up-ship.com

Offline Jim

  • Night Gator
  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 31142
  • Cape Canaveral Spaceport
  • Liked: 9394
  • Likes Given: 297
Re: Ares IV
« Reply #51 on: 01/03/2007 02:32 PM »
Quote
stargazer777 - 3/1/2007  7:13 AM

That may be your opinion -- but it is by no means fact.  Assuming this is all real, this could easily be a variant designed to give them an intermediate boost capacity for missions that might be better suited for that capability.  It doesn't have to be targeted at the Moon or Mars.  It could simply give them a choice for boosting large -- but not the largest -- payloads into orbit for any of a variety of purposes.  As long as it is utilizing components that already exist, cost of this version would be minimal.  There is no reason that a Ares IV would have to mean the demise of Ares V, and I think that Griffin's often stated commitment to a heavy lift booster would make it very unlikely that such a choice would be made.

No, That is what the article says.  

There is no need for two similar versions and the costs for two are significant.  It is not the construction costs but the infrastructure changes (VAB and pad) and mission design that make it not cost effiective.  Fact
 


Offline kkattula

  • Member
  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 2505
  • Melbourne, Australia
  • Liked: 10
  • Likes Given: 3
Re: Ares IV
« Reply #52 on: 01/03/2007 03:00 PM »
Quote
Generic Username - 4/1/2007  12:10 AM
.. If the thing will orbit the CEV as a straight 2STO without the SRB's, then if it trades well against the Ares I in terms of cost and safety, then it's certainly worth looking at. Sort of a Saturn INT-20.

Correct me if I'm wrong, but the core stage of Ares V with Ares I US and CEV and escape tower would barely be able to lift off without SRB's, gravity losses would be huge.

Maybe just the core stage with CEV would be SSTO? ( Not counting the CEV SM as a stage )

Offline stargazer777

  • Extreme Veteran
  • Full Member
  • ***
  • Posts: 338
  • Liked: 0
  • Likes Given: 0
Re: Ares IV
« Reply #53 on: 01/03/2007 03:15 PM »

No, That is what the article says.  
 
 There is no need for two similar versions and the costs for two are significant. It is not the construction costs but the infrastructure changes (VAB and pad) and mission design that make it not cost effiective.  Fact

 

Jim:  I just love the absolute belief you have that everything you say is a fact.  But in this case -- not so.

From the article:  "'Ares IV is a study-level effort and not formally part of our baseline today. No definitive decisions have been made, and no specific requirements for such a mission defined. It will remain under study for the foreseeable future, but does represent an interesting capability,' says NASA Constellation programme manager Jeffrey Hanley."  The article goes on to speculate, "The new booster could eliminate the Ares V and its EDS."  For the benefit of our readers, let me repeat -- that is the speculation of the article's author not anyone at NASA.  Clearly, no decision has been made on this booster.

The VAB and pad changes between an Ares IV and a V would not be great.  The "mission design" all depends on what the mission actually is -- and right now that is pure speculation.  For all we know, Ares IV is ultimately intended to replace Ares I, not Ares V.  


Offline meiza

  • Expert
  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 3069
  • Where Be Dragons
  • Liked: 2
  • Likes Given: 3
Re: Ares IV
« Reply #54 on: 01/03/2007 04:38 PM »
Quote
kkattula - 3/1/2007  3:43 PM

Quote
Generic Username - 4/1/2007  12:10 AM
.. If the thing will orbit the CEV as a straight 2STO without the SRB's, then if it trades well against the Ares I in terms of cost and safety, then it's certainly worth looking at. Sort of a Saturn INT-20.

Correct me if I'm wrong, but the core stage of Ares V with Ares I US and CEV and escape tower would barely be able to lift off without SRB's, gravity losses would be huge.

Maybe just the core stage with CEV would be SSTO? ( Not counting the CEV SM as a stage )

Interesting, as the CEV SM has about 1.5 km/s of delta vee, I wonder if this is exactly how remotely possible... :)

Offline edkyle99

  • Expert
  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 12566
    • Space Launch Report
  • Liked: 3363
  • Likes Given: 559
Re: Ares IV
« Reply #55 on: 01/03/2007 04:44 PM »
Quote
kkattula - 3/1/2007  9:43 AM

Quote
Generic Username - 4/1/2007  12:10 AM
.. If the thing will orbit the CEV as a straight 2STO without the SRB's, then if it trades well against the Ares I in terms of cost and safety, then it's certainly worth looking at. Sort of a Saturn INT-20.

Correct me if I'm wrong, but the core stage of Ares V with Ares I US and CEV and escape tower would barely be able to lift off without SRB's, gravity losses would be huge.

Maybe just the core stage with CEV would be SSTO? ( Not counting the CEV SM as a stage )

My presumption would be that it would be launched with the first stage only partially loaded with propellants.  My first guess would be that nearly 600 tonnes of propellant would have to be offloaded - nearly 40% of the fully-loaded total.

 - Ed Kyle

Offline Norm Hartnett

  • Elite Veteran
  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 2304
  • Liked: 53
  • Likes Given: 2
Re: Ares IV
« Reply #56 on: 01/03/2007 04:52 PM »
Quote
simonbp - 2/1/2007  7:32 PM

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 ;)

Unflyable. ESAS recommended the 13.1 four segment SRB with SSME upper stage. It was unflyable and that is when NASA should have reconsidered what they were doing. They should have re run the trades made in the ESAS report with a whole new staff. If the VSE fails that is NASA's failure point.
“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 josh_simonson

  • Veteran
  • Full Member
  • ****
  • Posts: 504
  • Liked: 0
  • Likes Given: 0
Re: Ares IV
« Reply #57 on: 01/03/2007 05:07 PM »
I did some sims of the Aries V core+CEV and it was able to get the CEV into orbit if the core weight was the original ESAS weight except for the added bulk of 5 RS-68s over SSMEs, they would have to depend on the SM for the last kick though (not much different from stick).  The RS-68R aught to be able to SSTO the CEV/SM with no problem with it's higher thrust and ISP.  

I also scratched my head about the core lifting the US+fully loaded CEV/SM.  As it was I had to reduce the fuel load of the 10m core to that of the original 8m core to get a T/W of 1.2.  (Same as Delta IV H)

It's easy to plug the Thrust, weight, and ISP info for various configurations into generic SSTO and TSTO vehicles in orbiter to see how they'll perform (with shoddy piloting at that).


Offline edkyle99

  • Expert
  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 12566
    • Space Launch Report
  • Liked: 3363
  • Likes Given: 559
Re: Ares IV
« Reply #58 on: 01/03/2007 05:24 PM »
I looked at the numbers too, for an Ares 4 core first stage without a second stage, and found that using the CEV to provide the final delta-v would use up all of the CEV propellant!   Not good if you want the crew to return to earth!  I had to offload core stage propellant to get the core stage GLOW below 1,200 tonnes to make the thing get off the ground.

As for a two-stage Ares 4 (core stage with Ares 1 second stage), I found that machine to be excessively capable for the CEV-only mission!  In this case, I had to offload core stage propellant to get core stage GLOW down to about 1,000 tonnes.  With a fully loaded Ares 1 second stage, this machine would be able to put in excess of 50 tonnes directly into low earth orbit!  

And yes, I'm using Ares "4" and "1" instead of "IV" and "I".  I just find it clearer for communication purposes.

By the way, if that two-stage Ares 4 (sans SRB) design could be goosed up a bit to get 60 tonnes to LEO then it might be possible to do a lunar mission with three non-SRB assisted launches.

 - Ed Kyle

Offline Generic Username

  • Elite Veteran
  • Full Member
  • ****
  • Posts: 941
  • Liked: 16
  • Likes Given: 0
Re: Ares IV
« Reply #59 on: 01/03/2007 06:21 PM »
Quote
edkyle99 - 3/1/2007  11:07 AM

By the way, if that two-stage Ares 4 (sans SRB) design could be goosed up a bit to get 60 tonnes to LEO then it might be possible to do a lunar mission with three non-SRB assisted launches.


Then imagine what you could do if you used SRB assist. Especially if you used 4 or 6 SRBs.... fianlly launch a *real* lunar mission, with heavy equipment and such.
Spacecraft and aircraft models, blueprints, documents:
http:www.up-ship.com

Tags: