Studying the issues with LV13.1 (Ares I classic)

[Downix]

Ah well, just me getting obsessive.  Hope everyone had a good laugh.

[Downix]

Incidentally, if you noticed that thing did not have a payload bay.  It could be used for payload delivery, however, if you removed the crew module and installed a payload system instead.  Automated landing system for those operations.  Not large enough for DoD missions however.

Something else to notice, rather than having special doors for the SRB mount, I used the landing gear doors.  The actual gear is covered during launch to be protected, by the SRB mount support structure which is jettisoned with the booster.  I figured less doors to worry about in the belly that way.  I also worked hard to re-use the existing shuttle RCS and OMS systems.  The OMS and SSME are in a swappable pod, so it can be prepared away from the vehicle itself, speeding up vehicle return to flight between missions.

[RanulfC]

Looks like a scaled up X-37...

A bit older, however.  Here's Rev 3 of the Platypus IIRC

Plug-Nozzle on that thing? Where did you find the "other" versions? I've only seen the one...

Randy

[Downix]

Looks like a scaled up X-37...

A bit older, however.  Here's Rev 3 of the Platypus IIRC

Plug-Nozzle on that thing? Where did you find the "other" versions? I've only seen the one...

Randy

Up ship has them.

[Prober]

Got to pondering a bit more, the twin 2-seg with a new core stage still seems off, it means more development for the program.  Within the RAC-2 studies was one proposal which had Block I as the upper stage w/o the first stage, so, I did a bit of a switcharoo, and instead of developing an AIUS, I had the EDS developed, using the same 8.4m tooling at Michoud as the original plan, added the SRB support beam to the interstage, and viola, we have a core for our twin 2-seg SRB.  To speed up development, I did not use the EDS's new insulation, instead utilizing the existing ET orange thermal protection, so the new insulation would need to be added into development later on.  In addition, the tank is upside down, with the LOX to the front while for EDS it would be to the rear.

This would have been ready to fly in 2008, requiring minimal development.  This could loft up to 30.4 tonnes to the ISS. 

Once the J-2S+ engine was ready, the Block II program begins,  substituting the J-2S+ for the SSME.  This increases the payload to 36 tonnes to the ISS.  When Ares V is ready, swap interstage with one not sporting the SRB support to lighten the load and use the new, non-popcorning insulation, but keep the existing design for crewed launch. 

Consolidation of manufacturing, tooling, and employees makes it more efficient an operation.  This would have reduced the cost to develop the Ares V as well, with the EDS already being 80% completed, and enabled systems testing in the process.  When the 5-segment design for SRB was completed, the 2-segment now becomes the 5-segment with the 3 middle pieces eliminated. It would have fulfilled the ESAS CLV requirements, taken less time and money, and have been ready for flight by the required date.  No long poles, no costly up-front development, none of that.

Just found this post, and believe this would have worked.  I had the same basic idea, as the major problem with Ares I was the single stack.  Get rid of the single stack and all kinds of vibration etc. would have been gone.

I found the one design in the NASA files (Boeing SRB-X), with a dual set of solids and the 2nd stage in the middle, it looked workable.

Taking us back to the first designs of the Ares I.
My idea would have been 3-4 solid segments on each side using as much of the Shuttle  launch pad config as possible.   Unlike your design, my idea would have been to move the center 2nd stage up higher.   The Solids would do most of the work, drop off and 2nd stage takes over, per the Ares I design.

A derivative of this idea for a quick supply launcher for the ISS would include these changes.   Since the 2nd stage is moved away from the direct fire area, the RS-68 engine might be used.
A) As long as the fame front was away from the Solids.
B) The RS-68 nozzle didn’t need to contend with the flames and heat from the solids it would have worked.

[Jim]

I found the one design in the NASA files (Boeing SRB-X), with a dual set of solids and the 2nd stage in the middle, it looked workable.

It was the worse SDLV design ever and a bigger kludged than Ares I.  It is not viable

[Downix]

I found the one design in the NASA files (Boeing SRB-X), with a dual set of solids and the 2nd stage in the middle, it looked workable.

It was the worse SDLV design ever and a bigger kludged than Ares I.  It is not viable

When I first saw Ares I the SRB-X was the first thing to go through my mind.

I'll admit, the *idea* of Ares I is ok, but it rapidly went overboard.

[Prober]

I found the one design in the NASA files (Boeing SRB-X), with a dual set of solids and the 2nd stage in the middle, it looked workable.

It was the worse SDLV design ever and a bigger kludged than Ares I.  It is not viable

When I first saw Ares I the SRB-X was the first thing to go through my mind.

I'll admit, the *idea* of Ares I is ok, but it rapidly went overboard.

I kinda put myself into how to fix the very first design.

[Patchouli]

I found the one design in the NASA files (Boeing SRB-X), with a dual set of solids and the 2nd stage in the middle, it looked workable.

It was the worse SDLV design ever and a bigger kludged than Ares I.  It is not viable

When I first saw Ares I the SRB-X was the first thing to go through my mind.

I'll admit, the *idea* of Ares I is ok, but it rapidly went overboard.

The design may have had merit if it did not need to have a 23MT payload or carry a crew.have commonality with the EDS, and was proposed ten or fifteen years earlier.

The biggest problem with it the EELVs already did the exact same job but for lower cost.

Another problem growing payload requirements made Ares V loose commonality with Ares I which eliminated it's second purpose to help pay for the HLV.
What the whole ESAS architecture needed was to give up on the 1.5 launch architecture and go to two launches.

But a vehicle like Ares I could have been successful if it was proposed back in the 80s or 90s and the target payload set to something well within the reach of the existing 4 segment RSRM.

[Downix]

I found the one design in the NASA files (Boeing SRB-X), with a dual set of solids and the 2nd stage in the middle, it looked workable.

It was the worse SDLV design ever and a bigger kludged than Ares I.  It is not viable

When I first saw Ares I the SRB-X was the first thing to go through my mind.

I'll admit, the *idea* of Ares I is ok, but it rapidly went overboard.

The design may have had merit if it did not need to have a 23MT payload or carry a crew.have commonality with the EDS, and was proposed ten or fifteen years earlier.

The biggest problem with it the EELVs already did the exact same job but for lower cost.

Another problem growing payload requirements made Ares V loose commonality with Ares I which eliminated it's second purpose to help pay for the HLV.
What the whole ESAS architecture needed was to give up on the 1.5 launch architecture and go to two launches.

But a vehicle like Ares I could have been successful if it was proposed back in the 80s or 90s and the target payload set to something well within the reach of the existing 4 segment RSRM.

I actually like the 1.5 architecture as a concept.  The decided upon implimentation of that is where I had issue, for the very reasons you list here.

A 1.5 EELV-derived architecture would have met the requirements and been ready far sooner and with less cost than what we were given.

[Patchouli]

I still say the 1.5 architecture was fundamentally flawed.

It put too many requirements on the CaLV causing it to grow into a 188MT monster.

Even a 2.5 launch architecture would be easier though a smaller SDLV would be easier to man rate and eliminated the third launch.

In my opinion the Apollo mindset was the biggest thing wrong with project Constellation.
It was Apollo except the crew rode up on a separate smaller rocket and LOI was moved to the lander.

They pretty much threw out all the lessons learn on ISS and the Shuttle.
CxP even excluded low risk technologies that could have made it sustainable, such as SEP ferries for cargo ,fuel depots, and L1 staging.

[Downix]

I still say the 1.5 architecture was fundamentally flawed.

It put too many requirements on the CaLV causing it to grow into a 188MT monster.

Even a 2.5 launch architecture would be easier though a smaller SDLV would be easier to man rate and eliminated the third launch.

In my opinion the Apollo mindset was the biggest thing wrong with project Constellation.
It was Apollo except the crew rode up on a separate smaller rocket and LOI was moved to the lander.

They pretty much threw out all the lessons learn on ISS and the Shuttle.
CxP even excluded low risk technologies that could have made it sustainable, such as SEP ferries for cargo ,fuel depots, and L1 staging.

I will have to humbly disagree with you.  The flaws of the Ares I caused the growth of Ares V, not the 1.5 architecture itself.  Remember, Ares V needed to push 90 tonnes to TLI.  Under the original ESAS study, it would have managed that while only putting 130 tonnes into LEO.  The changes to Ares I, however, necessitated the changes to both the 5-segment and J-2X engine which harmed Ares V's TLI performance, which forced it's growth to maintain the same TLI profile.

Using the same 1.5 architecture using the EELV-derived solution within ESAS, LV2 paired with LV7.4, you found yourself with a setup which was capable of delivering the same payload as Ares V would have despite pulling a lower LEO capability. 

So please, do not blame the architecture for the shortcomings of a particular implimentation of that architecture.  AJAX is a 1.5 architecture as well don't forget.

[madscientist197]

It's been a very long time since I've read the original threads on these issues, but wasn't part of the problem that Nasa seriously underestimated the mass of the LSAM in ESAS?

[renclod]

I still say the 1.5 architecture was fundamentally flawed.

That is an opinion... a fundamentally flawed opinion, I say.

It put too many requirements on the CaLV causing it to grow into a 188MT monster.

They wanted the 180+metric tons to LEO for MARGIN.
[edit: meaning, if we start with 180+ requirements, we will end with 150+ flight]

Even a 2.5 launch architecture would be easier though a smaller SDLV would be easier to man rate and eliminated the third launch.

Which shows you are lost in the architectural maze.
2.5 is sustainable for lunar ?! maybe for Mars, buddy...

In my opinion the Apollo mindset was the biggest thing wrong with project Constellation.
It was Apollo except the crew rode up on a separate smaller rocket and LOI was moved to the lander.

CxP is Apollo for cargo.
Once you understand - fat chance of that, eh ?! -that a lunar base needs more cargo traffic than crew traffic (in the first few decades at least) then you get to see the reason behind single launch cargo to the Moon.
If you ever get to wrap your brain around that, you'll see that LOI insertion must move from crew spacecraft to cargo spacecraft. Easy.
And then comes the great revelation: crew launch must be on a separate smaller rocket, and the whole beauty of 1.5 hits you, complete with the need for commonallity between the cargo launcher and the crew launcher.

They pretty much threw out all the lessons learn on ISS and the Shuttle.

Quite the contrary, they took in those lessons.

CxP even excluded low risk technologies that could have made it sustainable, such as SEP ferries for cargo ,fuel depots, and L1 staging.

Oh yeah, SEP ferries, fuel depots and L1 staging are low risk technologies - if you can talk the Area 51 aliens into paying for it and managing it and bailing it out when in dire need.

 

[Downix]

It's been a very long time since I've read the original threads on these issues, but wasn't part of the problem that Nasa seriously underestimated the mass of the LSAM in ESAS?

No.  The ESAS specified a 45 tonnes LSAM with 2 tonnes of margin added, and the final LSAM was 45,864 kg, well within the margin.  It also specified a 23 tonnes CEV, which Orion at it's heaviest when combined with the final Altair still was within margin.

The original TLI injection was to be 68.6 tonnes, don't forget.  It could push 72 tonnes, hence the margin with both Orion and Altair, which neither one went over.

[Patchouli]

Oh yeah, SEP ferries, fuel depots and L1 staging are low risk technologies - if you can talk the Area 51 alliens into paying for it and managing it and bailing it out when in dire need.

 

The Constellation architecture was fundamentally flawed so much so it cause in insurrection among the engineers.

Team direct already showed why the 1.5 architecture was bad and why two smaller HLVs can be better then one monster LV.

It's biggest flaw it was very unimaginative and expensive and inherited all the short comings of the Apollo architecture.

I literally face palmed when I saw Constellation for the first time and knew it was going to fail.

Space exploration is supposed to develop new technologies if you are afraid to trying anything new as in CxP then you are in the wrong business.

As for SEP ferries being low risk they are relatively low risk.
DS1 and Smart 1 already proved solar electric to be viable.

Telerobotic operations were proven on on ISS resupply with the ATV and missions like Orbital Express.

Boeing had them as a key part of their architecture.

I consider cryogenic fuel deports even higher risk then SEP tugs but not so high they should be avoided.

But ULA says the near zero boil off technology needed for fuel depots is doable.
They launch rockets for a living and know more on the subject then the designers of the ESAS architecture.

[Downix]

Oh yeah, SEP ferries, fuel depots and L1 staging are low risk technologies - if you can talk the Area 51 alliens into paying for it and managing it and bailing it out when in dire need.

 

The Constellation architecture was fundamentally flawed so much so it cause in insurrection among the engineers.

Team direct already showed why the 1.5 architecture was bad and why two smaller HLVs can be better then one monster LV.

But DIRECT themselves had a 1.5 architecture, the J-130 + J-246.  The point of DIRECT was commonality to reduce cost, which is the whole point of the 1.5 architecture.  They pointed out, rightly, that Constellation had thrown out the 1.5 architecture.

It's biggest flaw it was very unimaginative and expensive and inherited all the short comings of the Apollo architecture.

I did not see it that way.  I saw it ignoring all of the benefits of the Apollo architecture.  There were benefits from Apollo, don't forget.  Constellation threw all of those out.

I literally face palmed when I saw Constellation for the first time and knew it was going to fail.

The initial Constellation proposal was not *bad*.  Wasn't good, but not bad.

Space exploration is supposed to develop new technologies if you are afraid to trying anything new as in CxP then you are in the wrong business.

Now we're speaking the same language here.

As for SEP ferries being low risk they are relatively low risk.
DS1 and Smart 1 already proved solar electric to be viable.

Telerobotic operations were proven on on ISS resupply with the ATV and missions like Orbital Express.

Boeing had them as a key part of their architecture.

I consider cryogenic fuel deports even higher risk then SEP tugs but not so high they should be avoided.

But ULA says the near zero boil off technology needed for fuel depots is doable.
They launch rockets for a living and know more on the subject then the designers of the ESAS architecture.

Depends on who you call the designer of the architecture, yes?  Don't forget, ESAS had an EELV 1.5 architecture in there as well.  Studying the EELV form of Constellation, it was incredible how obvious the finger of management was pressing on the scales.

[renclod]

Team direct already showed why the 1.5 architecture was bad and why two smaller HLVs can be better then one monster LV.

"Team Direct" showed nothing of substance against the 1.5 lunar architecture.
When confronted with the shortcomings of their dual launch EOR for lunar cargo, "Team Direct" was inclined to give up on the lunar outpost altogether.
I distinctly remember (and it is burried somewhere in the "Direct" threads, but on record !) Ross posting to the effect that a Moon base is not necessary, after all.

[renclod]

Space exploration is supposed to develop new technologies if you are afraid to trying anything new as in CxP then you are in the wrong business.

On the Moon.
Do the new technologies on the Moon's surface, there's where the action is, not at EML1, not in the Van Allen belts.

Telerobotic operations were proven on on ISS resupply
[...]
I consider cryogenic fuel deports even higher risk then SEP tugs but not so high they should be avoided.

Telerobotics and cryo storage have wide range applications for the lunar outpost. You don't need them in flight, not now, not for lunar.
You need them on the surface.

[Jim]

The 1.5  lunar architecture was poorly implemented.  That is the fact.