Ares I ML construction images:

[trout007]

Question for Danny Dot:

Is this the MLP that you were questioning the CDR/PDR status during the Augustine meeting that Hanley stated was 51% complete, then Bo called him on it?

Another question for anybody in the know:

Thought I read somewhere that there was an issue that the MLP & Ares requirements and/or specs weren't in synch but KSC chose to continue "at risk" with procurement as is or something, knowing there were design conflicts? If so, how much of the MLP design is dependent on Ares requirements that haven't been firmed up yet and is this new MLP modifiable to comply (& at what cost)?

If there are requirements I wish you would tell us at KSC working on this ML. ;-)

In order to get a ML with all GSE ready and waiting for the Ares I when it arrives we needed to start the design two years ago and start building the ML structure now. What you see here is just the structure. There is plenty of work going on designing and building all of the Ground Support Equipment that go on the ML. We have taken are few steps to try to minimize the impact of vehicle changes.

The big one is the launch mount. Unlike Shuttle where the Hold Down Post Haunches are tied directly to the ML we have a separate structure that mounts on top of the ML Base. We can use this as a giant shim to raise and lower the mount of the rocket as the vehicle folks add things in the length. The main thing we have to keep at the same height relative to the tower is the Crew Access Arm. This arm slides in between two floors and aligns with the escape system. We want to keep this level constant with the crew module.

Most other umbilicals, access arms, stabilization, ect mount to the outside of the tower so are a bit easier to move up and down as the vehicle changes. There are many other little things each subsystem is doing to try to minimize the impact changes. Does it mean there won't be cost impacts to changes? No but if you want a launcher ready by the time the rocket shows up at the dock then this is the way you have to go.

[TheFallen]

New pictures posted up for Ares I MLP

http://mediaarchive.ksc.nasa.gov/search.cfm?cat=4

[sbt]

Thought I read somewhere that there was an issue that the MLP & Ares requirements and/or specs weren't in synch but KSC chose to continue "at risk" <snip>

If there are requirements I wish you would tell us at KSC working on this ML. ;-)

<snip>

Its clear that one of the current lead requirements for the MLP is Flexability. Just because it isn't a technical spec doesn't mean it can't be a requirement.

This requirement MAY pay dividends further down the road - especially in the very unlikely event that Ares I proceeds. Being able to accomodate design changes now means it will be easier to accomodate design changes further down the line and less likelyhood that Ground Support issues will/would constrain improvements in the light of flight experience.

If the HLV, inline or parallel, route is chosen the design work on system flexability may read across. Some hardware may also be transferable - Tower, Arms, systems internal to the tower or platform, but not the platform itself.

Personally I wouldn't be surprised, if, as expected, Ares I dies, if this MLP was morphed into a Safeing and Arming Tower style suplementary Ground Support structure for a HLV in order to keep the weight of the MLP for that launcher down. Equally I wouldn't be surprised if it were not.

Rick

[trout007]

Personally I wouldn't be surprised, if, as expected, Ares I dies, if this MLP was morphed into a Safeing and Arming Tower style suplementary Ground Support structure for a HLV in order to keep the weight of the MLP for that launcher down. Equally I wouldn't be surprised if it were not.

Rick

Rick,

We are also looking at being able to launch ARES V Lite off the ARES I ML. The following is hearsay so don't hold me to it. The main structure could acomodate the ARES V Lite. The spacing of the girders is such that three exhaust holes can be cut. The weight on the CT is an issue but ARES V Lite would save GSE weight. Specifically the Launch Mount and Stabilization and Damping Subsystem. Since the ARES V Lite would be much more stable on the pad it wouldn't require those systems. Plus since it will not bend as much as the ARES I all of the umbilicals would get more simple and that would reduce weight significantly. Plus if they use the smaller nozzle on the SRB we wouldn't need to build retractable hold down posts. Now does that get us to where the CT can carry it to the pad?  We shall see.

[renclod]

...
 Plus if they use the smaller nozzle on the SRB we wouldn't need to build retractable hold down posts.
...

This is news to me.

What you say is, the 9.3 expansion ratio nozzle, planned for lunar missions, is now baselined for Ares I IOC.

One of the points of building a launch mount was to ease a later introduction of the 9.3 nozzle, retractable hold down posts and all.

But now you say the retractable hold down posts are baselined, and you guys are building the launch mount with them ?!

Like I said, this is news to me.

Please confirm !

[JayP]

I have one thing about the new ML I have been wondering. What is the alignment of the launch mount to the flame deflector along the North South axis? Is the exhaust only going to hit the North side (like the current SRBs) or are they going to reconfigure it to be like the apollo arangement?

[Scotty]

The 9.3 nozzle was dropped for Ares I over 6 months ago.
But it could come back in the future (Lunar flights), as it does help the lift performance numbers.
The Launch Mount as it stands today design wise, has fixed haunches that the hold down posts mount to.
Yes, the 9.3 nozzle Launch Mount was to have retractable haunches/hold down posts, but that is all on hold now.
Pay attention to what Trout007 tells you, as he is directly involved with the ML design.
Besides that, he is one of the good guys!

On another subject, they have also looked at flying Ares V Classic (aka - Jupiter) off the new ML.
It would take major rework to do so, but it could be done.
It would take time and money, but what's new about that?

[robertross]

On another subject, they have also looked at flying Ares V Classic (aka - Jupiter) off the new ML.
It would take major rework to do so, but it could be done.

Oh baby!!!!!  Thanks! 

[Halidon]

We are also looking at being able to launch ARES V Lite off the ARES I ML. The following is hearsay so don't hold me to it. The main structure could accommodate the ARES V Lite.

Thanks for the great info, very interesting!

Since there's much disagreement over what "Ares V Lite" actually means here, is that a 10m core/5-seg SRB Ares V Lite you're referring to?

[sbt]

The 9.3 nozzle was dropped for Ares I over 6 months ago.

Pay attention to what Trout007 tells you, as he is directly involved with the ML design.

And, reading carefully, he was refering to 'Ares V Lite' when he refered to the possibility of not using the 9.3 nozzle. (Note for Scotty - I'm not suggesting that you had infered that he was refering to Ares I).

Since 'Ares V Lite' hasn't been designed yet we don't know if it needs the 9.3 nozzle - and GSE simplicity would be one consideration in the overall design tradeoff.

Anyhows - this is drifting off topic. Interestingly off topic, but off topic...

Rick

[Scotty]

Ares V it totally up in the air, design wise right now.
If, Ares V (version of your choice) uses the 9.3 nozzle, it will have to either:
1) have a new wider aft skirt on the boosters.
2) have a retractable hold down posts on the new ML.

Trout007 was talking about the new Ares I ML's launch mount, for the Ares I.
They were deep into trade studies as how to best do a retractable hold down post, when the idea was dropped for Ares I.
 
The current Ares V lite is being shown using the standard Shuttle nozzels at this time.
BUT, there is no Official Ares V Lite at this time, and there is no official Ares V Classic at this time.
They are both now just trade studies.

The current baseline Ares V (10 meter core, 5 & 1/2 segment boosters and 6 RS-68's) is depicted using the 9.3 nozzels.

As to Ares V "Lite" vs Ares V "Classic":
Lite = 10 meter core
Classic = 8.4 core (aka Shuttle ET core diameter)

[Zoomer30]

With them spending all this time/money on a new MLP it would seem that this program has been given the green light.  In my mind its probably the best way to go, we will need something to get up to the ISS after the STS is put out to pasture.  And they should have a lot of lead time on the Ares V MLP (just assuming they will take a current STS MLP and modify it for Ares V use)  Ares V wont fly till at least 2018.

[dvsmith]

just assuming they will take a current STS MLP and modify it for Ares V use

It's my understanding that the current, Apollo-era MLPs and Crawler-Transporters will not be able to support the projected weight of the Ares V stack and umbilical tower.

I can't recall where I heard that from, but it was probably somewhere on this site.

[TheFallen]

just assuming they will take a current STS MLP and modify it for Ares V use

It's my understanding that the current, Apollo-era MLPs and Crawler-Transporters will not be able to support the projected weight of the Ares V stack and umbilical tower.

I can't recall where I heard that from, but it was probably somewhere on this site.

That should be right.  It doesn't really make sense to build a new MLP for Ares I but not for Ares V...considering A-V would be a "bit" taller and heavier than A-I...

[Zoomer30]

I was thinking from a "form factor" point of view, assuming the Ares V is just a shuttle ET/SRB stack with an extension where the tank upper dome would be for the cargo, and engines on the bottom.  I am assuming the tank will be the same diameter and all that.  Not really considering weight.  You'd think anything other than a SatV would be light for the CTs or MLPs.

Why not just buy the Energia from the Russians?  Probably be cheaper in the long run

[dvsmith]

I was thinking from a "form factor" point of view, assuming the Ares V is just a shuttle ET/SRB stack with an extension where the tank upper dome would be for the cargo, and engines on the bottom.  I am assuming the tank will be the same diameter and all that.

The core stage of Ares V is not an ET/SRB stack:

The Ares V core is 33' (10m) in diameter; an ET is 28' (8.4m) in diameter.

The Ares V SRBs are 5- or 5.5-segments; the STS SRBs are 4-segments.

There's practically Zero commonality between the Ares V core and the STS ET/SRB stack

[TheFallen]

You'd think anything other than a SatV would be light for the CTs or MLPs.

I actually read somewhere that the Ares I-X is heavier than 3 unfueled Saturn V's combined!  Forget which article this came from

[dvsmith]

You'd think anything other than a SatV would be light for the CTs or MLPs.

The Saturn V was transported dry -- just structure, payload and umbilical tower.  The nominal dry weight of an Apollo lunar mission stack was approximately 250 tons (the vehicle, without the Apollo payload weighed 202 tons).

The shuttle stack, with a pair of 1,300,000lb SRBs, weighs ~1,400 tons during transport.

An Ares V stack adds even more weight to the SRBs, plus additional structure, payload and umbilical tower, so it's going to easily exceed 1,500 tons at rollout, assuming one ever rolls out.

[Zoomer30]

Its still gonna be cool to see a LUT going up on that MLP.  I guess it never really crossed my mind that the SRBs are "fueled" all the time, so they have all that extra weight. 

So the "Apollo on steroids" is going to need a "crawler on steroids"....seems oddly fitting.

[Zoomer30]

Really too bad they cant just use 39B the way it is now with the shuttle FSS and just add an tower element to it and add the swing arms.  I have a photo from NASA that shows the Ares 1-X and the Shuttle on the pads, looking at that it just looks like the pad was MADE for Ares. 

From my POV, it would be a lot cheaper to just do that, seems like it solves a lot of issues:

1.  Dont need a LUT on the MLP

2.  Can use the current MLP with just some minor changes (cover the un-used holes)

3.  Since there is no LUT and no ET/Shuttle/other SRB, weight would be no issue.

4.  No need for a new MLP, since they reason they need a new one is due to the weight of the new LUT and the SRB on the MLP. .  Just make the current shuttle LUT taller, add the swing arms and delete the RSS.  Done

Things sound so simple in my head.