Author Topic: 5.5 Segment Ares I  (Read 57145 times)

Offline Jim

  • Night Gator
  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 37441
  • Cape Canaveral Spaceport
  • Liked: 21451
  • Likes Given: 428
Re: 5.5 Segment Ares I
« Reply #20 on: 06/18/2008 02:15 pm »

1.  With Ares I, the basic rocket is so cheap that if the upper stage is lost (and assuming they keep the 1st stage and the capsule re-usable) you may really only lose the consumables, abort system, and the upper stage;

 Ares I and Orion will be safer than Mercury, Gemini, and Apollo were. I do not care for Ares or Orion, but even I can see and accept that.


1.  It isn't cheap.  Most of the money is in the second stage.  What is reused on the first stage is insignifican

2.  That can't be said at the moment.

Offline Star-Drive

  • Member
  • Full Member
  • ****
  • Posts: 925
  • TX/USA
  • Liked: 1031
  • Likes Given: 31
Re: 5.5 Segment Ares I
« Reply #21 on: 06/19/2008 04:56 am »
To Mr. Tim:

Considering how many dual and even single fault tolerant primary subsystems in the Orion have been left on the parking lot due to the inadequate payload capacity of the current Ares-I rocket, inlcuding the little known fact that if Orion is in transiit to/from or orbiting the Moon and loses one of its solar power photovoltaic arrays due to just one of several credible faliure modes that the crew will die before they can get back to Earth due to a total power failure after xx-hours, tells me that the current Constellation program, along with its Ares and Orion projects are broken in a very fundamental way.  They make continuing flying the Space Shuttle look better and better every day this evollving fiasco continues...
Star-Drive

Offline MrTim

  • Full Member
  • ****
  • Posts: 731
  • Liked: 21
  • Likes Given: 0
Re: 5.5 Segment Ares I
« Reply #22 on: 06/19/2008 01:40 pm »
1.  With Ares I, the basic rocket is so cheap that if the upper stage is lost (and assuming they keep the 1st stage and the capsule re-usable) you may really only lose the consumables, abort system, and the upper stage;

 Ares I and Orion will be safer than Mercury, Gemini, and Apollo were. I do not care for Ares or Orion, but even I can see and accept that.

1.  It isn't cheap.  Most of the money is in the second stage.  What is reused on the first stage is insignifican

What's cheaper, Jim, tossing an Ares I upper stage (which we plan to do on every mission anyway) or tossing a Delta IV Heavy? I was making the point that an Ares I abort (assuming everything is nominal on the abort and the abort is due to 2nd stage engine not firing after staging (which was the issue raised)) only tosses the second stage... and that's cheap (not to a typical home owner or small business person, but within the field of rockets)


2.  That can't be said at the moment.
OK, Jim, I'll give you this one, sort of... we have not flown them yet, so we do not yet know with certainty how safe they will turn-out to be ( I should have stayed with my usual cautions ). The design, however, is in may ways superior and will be built and filled with superior tech and benefit from lessons learned (as long as they don't really screw-up) so Orion should be safer.

Offline Jim

  • Night Gator
  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 37441
  • Cape Canaveral Spaceport
  • Liked: 21451
  • Likes Given: 428
Re: 5.5 Segment Ares I
« Reply #23 on: 06/19/2008 01:54 pm »
1.  D-IV Heavy would be cheaper.

2.  Since the Ares I doesn't not use the legacy SRM, it won't be as safe as a liquid stage.

Offline MrTim

  • Full Member
  • ****
  • Posts: 731
  • Liked: 21
  • Likes Given: 0
Re: 5.5 Segment Ares I
« Reply #24 on: 06/19/2008 01:57 pm »
To Mr. Tim:

Considering how many dual and even single fault tolerant primary subsystems in the Orion have been left on the parking lot due to the inadequate payload capacity of the current Ares-I rocket,
You miss my earlier point. No Orion capsule has yet been built (the mock-up recently flown to Dryden does not count...it's not a real flight article which will carry men into space). As such, NOTHING HAS BEEN LEFT IN THE PARKING LOT. Not a single redundant system has yet been left out of a manned, flying Orion. All the design trade-offs being considered are still not implemented in a single capsule. It is WAY too early for anybody to be screeching that the sky is falling, the crews are all doomed, etc. Things like power systems and Avionics are getting lighter, smaller, and more efficient with every passing month, so it is quite possible that systems currently slated to be left out will be added back-in two years from now as other systems end-up being lighter. Indeed, it is likely that over the years of operation succeeding Orions will take advantage of shifting technology and the vehicle will become safer and more capable.

inlcuding the little known fact that if Orion is in transiit to/from or orbiting the Moon and loses one of its solar power photovoltaic arrays due to just one of several credible faliure modes that the crew will die before they can get back to Earth due to a total power failure after xx-hours, tells me that the current Constellation program, along with its Ares and Orion projects are broken in a very fundamental way.  They make continuing flying the Space Shuttle look better and better every day this evollving fiasco continues...
There are a number of scenarios where a crew could die in transit to/from the moon. The question is: HOW CREDIBLE are the modes you are worried about and will systems added to deal with them add more failure modes and thereby not end-up adding more safety? Where are the details that accompany this FACT you are so concerned about? Is there a manned Orion currently on the way to the moon and currently in danger of this failure, or are you just concerned that a possible failure mode is not addressed by a current concept? Is this failure mode you are worried about more likely than a massive solar flare that fries the crew? If not, are you upset that the vehicle lacks tons of lead shielding to deal with this failure mode?

Offline MrTim

  • Full Member
  • ****
  • Posts: 731
  • Liked: 21
  • Likes Given: 0
Re: 5.5 Segment Ares I
« Reply #25 on: 06/19/2008 02:11 pm »
1.  D-IV Heavy would be cheaper.
An entire 3-core Delta 4 Heavy will be cheaper (unit cost, not all the R&D) than a single Ares I upper-stage? I'd love to see the accounting on that.
2.  Since the Ares I doesn't not use the legacy SRM, it won't be as safe as a liquid stage.
Look, Jim, I have always hated the idea of people riding solid rockets and was disgusted with the way NASA went from "no men on solids" to "solids are great for manned flight" during the development of STS (letting budgets drive a change in safety positions). But the entire safety rationale for the first stage of Ares I being a solid rocket is based upon the number of safe shuttle flights. THEREFORE, with each safe Orion flight, its 5 (or 5.5 or 6...) segment SRB will gain flight experience that will count toward the same rationale being used to declare it "safe" (shazam! Insert magic here!)  As I said, I don't like that, but what's good for the pot is good for the kettle. Ares I #1 will be safer than STS-1 (half as many completely untried 1st stage SRB's) and Ares I #2 will be safer than STS-2 was, etc. NASA set a precedent here that cannot be unwritten.

edit: Sorry meant to also say: Jim, I agree with your sentiments in that I would have preferred an all-liquid "stick" if we were going with this capsule on small rocket and optional mission package on big rocket model for manned spaceflight.
« Last Edit: 06/19/2008 02:16 pm by MrTim »

Offline gladiator1332

  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 2431
  • Fort Myers, FL
  • Liked: 7
  • Likes Given: 6
Re: 5.5 Segment Ares I
« Reply #26 on: 06/20/2008 03:45 am »
1.  D-IV Heavy would be cheaper.
An entire 3-core Delta 4 Heavy will be cheaper (unit cost, not all the R&D) than a single Ares I upper-stage? I'd love to see the accounting on that.


I would like to see some numbers on the D4 claim. However, you do have to remember, while the first stage of Ares I is recovered, it isn't free. There is refurbishment costs to take into account.

Offline wannamoonbase

  • Elite Veteran
  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 5413
  • Denver, CO
    • U.S. Metric Association
  • Liked: 3112
  • Likes Given: 3862
Re: 5.5 Segment Ares I
« Reply #27 on: 06/20/2008 12:19 pm »
You can bet that with NASA and ATK involved that the cost of an Ares 1 launch will be hundreds of millions of dollars and involve 1000's of people for months between launches. 

One of the factors that will drive up costs will be 2 launches per year.  As those 1000's of people will still need to come to work 5 days a week.
Wildly optimistic prediction, Superheavy recovery on IFT-4 or IFT-5

Offline khallow

  • Extreme Veteran
  • Full Member
  • ****
  • Posts: 1954
  • Liked: 8
  • Likes Given: 4
Re: 5.5 Segment Ares I
« Reply #28 on: 06/20/2008 03:08 pm »
1.  D-IV Heavy would be cheaper.
An entire 3-core Delta 4 Heavy will be cheaper (unit cost, not all the R&D) than a single Ares I upper-stage? I'd love to see the accounting on that.


I would like to see some numbers on the D4 claim. However, you do have to remember, while the first stage of Ares I is recovered, it isn't free. There is refurbishment costs to take into account.

Another thing to consider here is whether either vehicle can accomplish the desired missions.  Delta IV has the edge since it can be expanded beyond the capabilities of the Ares 1, which is limited by the SRM first stage.

Personally, I'm in favor of developing the EELVs further because those rockets can be used for other things than NASA missions. So a modestly more expensive Delta IV Heavy and more expensive Atlas V Heavy would in my humble opinion be justified on those grounds alone. It'd also be an opportunity to unmake the ULA and introduce some competition into the 20-25 ton range again.

Having said that, I don't see what's going to make the Ares 1 cheaper than the Delta IV Heavy. Recycling SRMs at a rate of under six launches a year isn't economic. It could very well end up that Delta IV Heavy is cheaper than recycling SRMs. A lot depends on whether the heavy versions of EELVs will ever service markets other than NASA and DOD.
Karl Hallowell

Offline gospacex

  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 3024
  • Liked: 543
  • Likes Given: 604
Re: 5.5 Segment Ares I
« Reply #29 on: 06/21/2008 05:21 am »
Another thing to consider here is whether either vehicle can accomplish the desired missions.  Delta IV has the edge since it can be expanded beyond the capabilities of the Ares 1, which is limited by the SRM first stage.

Personally, I'm in favor of developing the EELVs further because those rockets can be used for other things than NASA missions. So a modestly more expensive Delta IV Heavy and more expensive Atlas V Heavy would in my humble opinion be justified on those grounds alone. It'd also be an opportunity to unmake the ULA and introduce some competition into the 20-25 ton range again.

Not to mention that aesthetically Delta IV Heavy is a beauty while Ares I is an ugly duckling. Flying (and shaking) hammer.

Any chance they can upgrade avionics on Delta IV?

Offline BogoMIPS

  • Veteran
  • Full Member
  • **
  • Posts: 275
  • Liked: 10
  • Likes Given: 0
Re: 5.5 Segment Ares I
« Reply #30 on: 06/22/2008 10:31 pm »
OK... completely showing my armchair rocket-builder ineptitude here, but I'll pose my question regardless.

The SSME was the original engine for Ares-1, but it was dropped due to the difficulty discovered in modifying it for air-start.

STS never needed it for air-start, since it lights them on the ground.

Could an Ares-I "stick" do the same thing?   i.e. mount the SSME, or some other engine(s), on the upperstage in such a way that you could start it on the ground?

I'm not suggesting putting the crew back alongside the SRB, which I know would never happen again... I'm thinking of the upperstage still being atop the SRB, but the SSME nozzle "sticking out the side" of the stage, or having two such engines on either side of the top of th eSRB.

I can imagine a various-and-sundry grab-bag of problems with this arrangement... even bigger sail-problems, increased drag, asymmetrical thrust, less performance, looks insane, etc.

An inline SSME with some sort of an ablative thrust deflector atop the SRB with an "open interstage" might be an interesting thought experiment too, but I suspect that's even goofier.

I'm suppose I'm way outside the box, but if we're married to a single-SRB crew launch solution for Orion, information seems to suggest the outside-of-the-box is in play.

Offline kraisee

  • Expert
  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 10560
  • Liked: 807
  • Likes Given: 40
Re: 5.5 Segment Ares I
« Reply #31 on: 06/23/2008 01:56 am »
An engine that far up the structure will 'burn' anything lower down on the vehicle.   As the vehicle lifts the atmospheric pressure decreases and the plume widens a lot compared to around Sea Level.

It wouldn't be good to expose the sides of the SRB casings and joints to the heat and forces produced by any engines for any length of time.

A ground-lit main engine will have to be down somewhere near the bottom of the rocket.

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

Offline libs0n

  • Member
  • Full Member
  • ****
  • Posts: 476
  • Ottawa
  • Liked: 5
  • Likes Given: 2
Re: 5.5 Segment Ares I
« Reply #32 on: 06/23/2008 02:10 am »
In the related thread, there's talk of an Ares V with three, four segment solid rocket boosters.  With that in mind, I wonder if there are ways to get back to an Ares 1 that utilized the current SRB without the extra segments thus proposed. 

One idea I have is a three stage vehicle; an SRB first stage, and two liquid stages atop it, with whatever engines that may be applicable in that situation.  My thinking is that since the SRB doesn't bring much impulse and the second stage does most of the work necessary to achieve orbit, a staging sequence there would be beneficial in terms of performance.  It does bring the added staging event as a risk, but it would presumably bring back the safety of the standard SRB, and I consider the escape tower of such benefit that any vehicle with it included to be "safe enough", most of the time.  As an added idea, perhaps the third stage of this proposal could be refuelable, in an "orbital fuel depot" type architecture, and function as the EDS for the CEV itself, for an L2 or other location type rendezvous.

Another option might be accepting the reduced payload of a 4 segment, j-2x second stage, and radically altering the structure of the CEV, perhaps with the TEI functions offloaded to a component launched with the other cargo components on the Ares V.  That is assuming that such a vehicle layout offers any useful payload at all.
« Last Edit: 06/23/2008 02:16 am by libs0n »

Offline edkyle99

  • Expert
  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 15391
    • Space Launch Report
  • Liked: 8566
  • Likes Given: 1356
Re: 5.5 Segment Ares I
« Reply #33 on: 06/23/2008 03:07 am »
I'm suppose I'm way outside the box, but if we're married to a single-SRB crew launch solution for Orion, information seems to suggest the outside-of-the-box is in play.

What information?  NASA's says Ares I is meeting its design goals.  Why would the Agency need to consider an alternative to a design that is meeting its goals?

 - Ed Kyle

Offline renclod

  • Extreme Veteran
  • Full Member
  • ****
  • Posts: 1671
  • EU.Ro
  • Liked: 17
  • Likes Given: 2
Re: 5.5 Segment Ares I
« Reply #34 on: 06/23/2008 08:36 am »
OK... completely showing my armchair rocket-builder ineptitude here, but I'll pose my question regardless.

The SSME was the original engine for Ares-1, but it was dropped due to the difficulty discovered in modifying it for air-start.

STS never needed it for air-start, since it lights them on the ground.

Could an Ares-I "stick" do the same thing?   i.e. mount the SSME, or some other engine(s), on the upperstage in such a way that you could start it on the ground?


My own armchair rocket-builder ineptitude produced this :

http://forum.nasaspaceflight.com/index.php?topic=7011.0

the one-and-a-half-shuttle-derived-crew-launch-vehicle !

It was fun and I learned a lot while pushing it on this forum. Was shut down by the large majority of responders. But the basic ideea keeps surfacing now and then. What attracted me to this asymmetrical concept was how easy it was to play with SRB and H2 tank lenghts.

« Last Edit: 06/24/2008 08:48 am by renclod »

Offline BogoMIPS

  • Veteran
  • Full Member
  • **
  • Posts: 275
  • Liked: 10
  • Likes Given: 0
Re: 5.5 Segment Ares I
« Reply #35 on: 06/23/2008 03:21 pm »
I'm suppose I'm way outside the box, but if we're married to a single-SRB crew launch solution for Orion, information seems to suggest the outside-of-the-box is in play.

What information?  NASA's says Ares I is meeting its design goals.  Why would the Agency need to consider an alternative to a design that is meeting its goals?

 - Ed Kyle

Ares-I performance was #4 on the project top risks matrix in May.  The data is on L2.  4x4 risk.

There is obviously still significant concern about Ares-I performance.  I'm not saying that aren't solvable.  Of the two current Ares rockets, Ares-1 seems like it will probably fly operationally at some point, as long as the political situation doesn't change.

The political situation changing, however, seems like a 5x5 risk to me for the system right now.


Offline edkyle99

  • Expert
  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 15391
    • Space Launch Report
  • Liked: 8566
  • Likes Given: 1356
Re: 5.5 Segment Ares I
« Reply #36 on: 06/23/2008 04:11 pm »
I'm suppose I'm way outside the box, but if we're married to a single-SRB crew launch solution for Orion, information seems to suggest the outside-of-the-box is in play.

What information?  NASA's says Ares I is meeting its design goals.  Why would the Agency need to consider an alternative to a design that is meeting its goals?

 - Ed Kyle

Ares-I performance was #4 on the project top risks matrix in May.  The data is on L2.  4x4 risk.

This matrix business!  The matrix allows managers to rank areas that need their attention in the program.  There is always risk in development.  It does not mean that Ares I won't meet its targets.  Indeed, Ares I *has* to meet its targets!  NASA is not going to develop a launch vehicle that doesn't do what the program needs it to do.

 - Ed Kyle

Offline Norm Hartnett

  • Elite Veteran
  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 2310
  • Liked: 74
  • Likes Given: 5
Re: 5.5 Segment Ares I
« Reply #37 on: 06/23/2008 07:51 pm »
Ed,

I'm curious, at what point does NASA reach a decision that the Constellation Program is not going to work, if in fact it will not?

Is there some guideline that says if there are x number of problems crop up or x amount of development dollars is spent or x number of delays occur this program must be canceled?

Can NASA cancel a program like this? Have they ever canceled a program like this or have they always been forced to cancel by exterior forces?

At what point do they say "this plow don’t scourer" and move on?
« Last Edit: 06/23/2008 08:08 pm by Norm Hartnett »
“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 kraisee

  • Expert
  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 10560
  • Liked: 807
  • Likes Given: 40
Re: 5.5 Segment Ares I
« Reply #38 on: 06/23/2008 07:55 pm »
NASA won't cancel the program.   NASA almost never cancels programs.

It is usually Congress who would pull the plug when they reach a point where they believe NASA is just wasting money chasing a pipedream.

Ross.
« Last Edit: 06/23/2008 07:57 pm by kraisee »
"The meek shall inherit the Earth -- the rest of us will go to the stars"
-Robert A. Heinlein

Offline guru

  • Full Member
  • ****
  • Posts: 483
  • Liked: 78
  • Likes Given: 33
Re: 5.5 Segment Ares I
« Reply #39 on: 06/23/2008 09:19 pm »
NASA won't cancel the program.   NASA almost never cancels programs.


Sure they do.  X-33, X-34, and X-38 all come to mind.  Two of those were almost ready to fly modified, and the third had flown a full scale glider version.  Half a billion dollars more for an ACRV and we wouldn't need to build an all new Orion capsule now.

A lot of programs do morph, though -  like the space shuttle.  It started out being fully reusable with all liquid propulsion.  Now it's neither.  Or Ares I/V.  It started out being almost entirely shuttle derived, now it's entirely not shuttle derived.  Of course, just one more morph and you could have the Ares-II/III, and so save the program from cancellation. 


Tags:
 

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