Author Topic: Three stage SSME Ares V  (Read 13682 times)

Offline marsavian

  • Elite Veteran
  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 3216
  • Liked: 2
  • Likes Given: 3
Three stage SSME Ares V
« on: 11/01/2009 04:33 pm »
So, let's say politicians keep Ares I and the 1.5 architecture going but the RS-68 Ares V proves too expensive and late because of needing regen engines. Why not take Ares V classic and add a 5 * J2-X middle stage so it really is more like Saturn V. The LEO payload would say be 140-150mT LEO and perhaps 1.5 couldn't do everything they thought originally but still do most of it and they could do a two launch Ares V mission profile for those it couldn't. That would work for Cx's goals wouldn't it while still remaining true to ESAS's conclusions ? Discuss ;).

Online robertross

  • Canadian Member
  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 17939
  • Westphal, Nova Scotia
  • Liked: 659
  • Likes Given: 7692
Re: Three stage SSME Ares V
« Reply #1 on: 11/01/2009 04:37 pm »
So, how much engine out capability do you want?  j/k
 
If anything, politicians need to learn the value of a 2.0 architecture, with a common rocket. There are so many cost savings.

In this case, the cost of 5x disposable J-2X gets VERY costly...

Offline marsavian

  • Elite Veteran
  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 3216
  • Liked: 2
  • Likes Given: 3
Re: Three stage SSME Ares V
« Reply #2 on: 11/01/2009 04:45 pm »
So, how much engine out capability do you want?  j/k
 
If anything, politicians need to learn the value of a 2.0 architecture, with a common rocket. There are so many cost savings.

In this case, the cost of 5x disposable J-2X gets VERY costly...

Single engine out capability on both first and second stage like Saturn V, it's already proven ;). The cost of the middle stage is not that expensive if it saves you launching another Ares V to complete your mission. You could also try and get away with keeping the 8.4m core width to keep costs and weight down and just make it as long as can fit in the VAB. Using the J2-X (and 5-seg SRB) extensively in this way also justifies Ares I a little more. You could do a one launch human Saturn V mission too if that was all that was needed. NASA also continues to do its own thing with its own rockets and engines leaving the EELVs and their pads and engines purely for the DoD.
« Last Edit: 11/01/2009 05:36 pm by marsavian »

Offline jml

  • Full Member
  • **
  • Posts: 280
  • Liked: 0
  • Likes Given: 0
Re: Three stage SSME Ares V
« Reply #3 on: 11/02/2009 05:09 am »
Oh, that's obviously a horrible idea on an Ares V or anything else in the PoR, but a great idea if we're talking about a J-3551 SH.

Just kidding ;)

More seriously, this is a good future growth idea for a classic Ares V or, ahem, other inline SDLV if there's some sort of need to lift 150t to LEO at once instead of 100t. It might not be human rateable to modern NASA standards with that many engines and staging events. But still a great solution if the largest single piece for a Mars mission in the 2030's ends up being 145t in size. And if the PoR somehow continues and gets Ares I operational, yes maybe this is more realistic than Ares V ginormous for a CaLV in a 1.5 mission architecture with a planned two mission per year flight rate.

For cost reasons, I'd guess the 2nd and 3rd stage would need to be a common design with slightly different thrust structures, and possibly different tank lengths. I seem to recall past discussion on the thread about the vehicle that shall not be named indicating that the middle stage would need 3 to 4 J-2X, not 5.

There's a real interesting question here about what would make the most cost and mass effective lunar cargo mission in this scenario - 2 launch Ares V Classic, 1.5 launch SDLV (like J-241 + J-130), 1 launch Ares V Classic, or 1 launch Ares V Classic with a third stage.

There's also another interesting question about which would be the most cost effective growth option if 100-120t ended up not being enough - adding the third stage, stretching the core tank for more fuel with dummy forward 6th segments on the SRBs and running the SSMEs at +109%, or increasing tank diameter to 10m and switching to RS-68 regen.

Offline marsavian

  • Elite Veteran
  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 3216
  • Liked: 2
  • Likes Given: 3
Re: Three stage SSME Ares V
« Reply #4 on: 11/03/2009 12:34 am »
It might not be human rateable to modern NASA standards with that many engines and staging events.

Manrating Standards can change, ask Ares I ;). This concept is already proven with Saturn V, it would need to fly a few times to get confidence with it.

or increasing tank diameter to 10m and switching to RS-68 regen.

The whole point about this option is that it is a super-heavy alternative to current Ares V in case RS-68 is ruled out for any reason. If you also chose to go 10-11m at the same time it opens up the possibility of doing a two-stage Ares IX with 9 SSME/RS-25Es in the first stage and a single J2-X upper stage instead of this three stage.

Offline kyle_baron

  • Full Member
  • **
  • Posts: 209
  • Wisconsin, USA
  • Liked: 0
  • Likes Given: 0
Re: Three stage SSME Ares V
« Reply #5 on: 11/03/2009 07:40 pm »
So, let's say politicians keep Ares I and the 1.5 architecture going but the RS-68 Ares V proves too expensive and late because of needing regen engines. Why not take Ares V classic and add a 5 * J2-X middle stage so it really is more like Saturn V. The LEO payload would say be 140-150mT LEO and perhaps 1.5 couldn't do everything they thought originally but still do most of it and they could do a two launch Ares V mission profile for those it couldn't. That would work for Cx's goals wouldn't it while still remaining true to ESAS's conclusions ? Discuss ;).

Are you talking about an Ares V "Lite".  I keep hearing about this, but haven't seen a specification from Nasa.  I'm assuming the core will be a smaller 8.4m.  By the way, I like the idea.
What we do in life, echos in eternity. (Gladiator)

Offline Downix

  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 7082
  • Liked: 22
  • Likes Given: 1
Re: Three stage SSME Ares V
« Reply #6 on: 11/03/2009 07:51 pm »
So, let's say politicians keep Ares I and the 1.5 architecture going but the RS-68 Ares V proves too expensive and late because of needing regen engines. Why not take Ares V classic and add a 5 * J2-X middle stage so it really is more like Saturn V. The LEO payload would say be 140-150mT LEO and perhaps 1.5 couldn't do everything they thought originally but still do most of it and they could do a two launch Ares V mission profile for those it couldn't. That would work for Cx's goals wouldn't it while still remaining true to ESAS's conclusions ? Discuss ;).

Are you talking about an Ares V "Lite".  I keep hearing about this, but haven't seen a specification from Nasa.  I'm assuming the core will be a smaller 8.4m.  By the way, I like the idea.
There have been several bantered about, but the one I hear the most is the 5 RS-68 on 10m tank w/ 5-seg SRB.
chuck - Toilet paper has no real value? Try living with 5 other adults for 6 months in a can with no toilet paper. Man oh man. Toilet paper would be worth it's weight in gold!

Offline jml

  • Full Member
  • **
  • Posts: 280
  • Liked: 0
  • Likes Given: 0
Re: Three stage SSME Ares V
« Reply #7 on: 11/03/2009 09:07 pm »
While NASA has recently been suggesting an Ares V Lite with 5 RS-68, a 10m tank, and 5 seg SRBs, we're really talking about the slightly smaller original ESAS-era Ares V "Classic" in this thread: 5 SSME, 5 seg SRB, 8.4m shuttle-derived tank stretched to match the SRBs. Ares V classic would be a 120t launcher, Ares V Lite a 140t launcher, and the current full Nasa Ares V would be a 160t launcher. (And for completeness sake, the next step down would be a 100t J-241).

Of course, another more recent name for Ares V Classic might be J-252 SH. But regardless of whether the idea is supported by NASA management or a rag-tag band of rocket-engineer rebels, a vehicle like this would be just about the largest core SDLV that can be supported by the current manufacturing, processing, and launch infrastructure. There's a sweet spot available that keeps costs down if we don't scale things up too much larger than the current shuttle stack. And, as suggested in this thread, the smaller vehicle still has growth options, if needed.

So, let's say politicians keep Ares I and the 1.5 architecture going but the RS-68 Ares V proves too expensive and late because of needing regen engines. Why not take Ares V classic and add a 5 * J2-X middle stage so it really is more like Saturn V. The LEO payload would say be 140-150mT LEO and perhaps 1.5 couldn't do everything they thought originally but still do most of it and they could do a two launch Ares V mission profile for those it couldn't. That would work for Cx's goals wouldn't it while still remaining true to ESAS's conclusions ? Discuss ;).

Are you talking about an Ares V "Lite".  I keep hearing about this, but haven't seen a specification from Nasa.  I'm assuming the core will be a smaller 8.4m.  By the way, I like the idea.
There have been several bantered about, but the one I hear the most is the 5 RS-68 on 10m tank w/ 5-seg SRB.

Offline jml

  • Full Member
  • **
  • Posts: 280
  • Liked: 0
  • Likes Given: 0
Re: Three stage SSME Ares V
« Reply #8 on: 11/03/2009 09:16 pm »
It might not be human rateable to modern NASA standards with that many engines and staging events.

Manrating Standards can change, ask Ares I ;). This concept is already proven with Saturn V, it would need to fly a few times to get confidence with it.
Yep. Of course in a 1.5 launch architecture with the three-stage version only used as the CaLV, this might not even be an issue.

If you also chose to go 10-11m at the same time it opens up the possibility of doing a two-stage Ares IX with 9 SSME/RS-25Es in the first stage and a single J2-X upper stage instead of this three stage.
Now that'd be very cool. Costly, but still cool.  I guess if 9 engines with a very thin flight record per stage is good enough for Elon Musk, I can't see why 9 of the most advanced engines ever built (with a 30 year flight record) per stage wouldn't be good enough for NASA.  :)

I'm still thinking that the switch to the 10m core is one of the major costs that NASA should be avoiding for now.
« Last Edit: 11/03/2009 09:17 pm by jml »

Offline marsavian

  • Elite Veteran
  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 3216
  • Liked: 2
  • Likes Given: 3
Re: Three stage SSME Ares V
« Reply #9 on: 11/03/2009 09:35 pm »
So, let's say politicians keep Ares I and the 1.5 architecture going but the RS-68 Ares V proves too expensive and late because of needing regen engines. Why not take Ares V classic and add a 5 * J2-X middle stage so it really is more like Saturn V. The LEO payload would say be 140-150mT LEO and perhaps 1.5 couldn't do everything they thought originally but still do most of it and they could do a two launch Ares V mission profile for those it couldn't. That would work for Cx's goals wouldn't it while still remaining true to ESAS's conclusions ? Discuss ;).

Are you talking about an Ares V "Lite".  I keep hearing about this, but haven't seen a specification from Nasa.  I'm assuming the core will be a smaller 8.4m.  By the way, I like the idea.

More like Ares V "Heavy" ;). They have looked at RS-68 three stage Ares V but not SSME ones as they said goodbye to them with Ares V Classic.

Offline kyle_baron

  • Full Member
  • **
  • Posts: 209
  • Wisconsin, USA
  • Liked: 0
  • Likes Given: 0
Re: Three stage SSME Ares V
« Reply #10 on: 11/07/2009 08:18 pm »
With the addition of a 3rd stage, I'm wondering, is there enough fuel left over to use the EDS for LOI, and as a brake, to slow the Altair-CLV stack into a lunar orbit?  This is with Ares 1, and a 1.5 launch architecture.
« Last Edit: 11/08/2009 05:16 pm by kyle_baron »
What we do in life, echos in eternity. (Gladiator)

Online MP99

Re: Three stage SSME Ares V
« Reply #11 on: 11/15/2009 01:34 pm »
Oh, that's obviously a horrible idea on an Ares V or anything else in the PoR, but a great idea if we're talking about a J-3551 SH.

For a three-stage, would a non-stretched core be better, ie just J-3551H?


While NASA has recently been suggesting an Ares V Lite with 5 RS-68, a 10m tank, and 5 seg SRBs, we're really talking about the slightly smaller original ESAS-era Ares V "Classic" in this thread: 5 SSME, 5 seg SRB, 8.4m shuttle-derived tank stretched to match the SRBs. Ares V classic would be a 120t launcher, Ares V Lite a 140t launcher, and the current full Nasa Ares V would be a 160t launcher. (And for completeness sake, the next step down would be a 100t J-241).

Ares V Lite is ~140mT gross, or ~140mT net including EDS burnout.

Ares V Classic is 125mT net excluding EDS. Ross reports the performance as nearly identical to AVL, and http://www.paul.enutrofal.com/sheet1.html estimates 147mT gross to LEO (according to CEPE).

Both vehicles have a 55mT through-TLI performance (as reported by Augustine & ESAS, respectively).

cheers, Martin

Online MP99

Re: Three stage SSME Ares V
« Reply #12 on: 11/15/2009 01:41 pm »
With the addition of a 3rd stage, I'm wondering, is there enough fuel left over to use the EDS for LOI, and as a brake, to slow the Altair-CLV stack into a lunar orbit?  This is with Ares 1, and a 1.5 launch architecture.

Presuming that you end up with a lighter EDS / third stage, then you reduce the penalty for retaining the EDS through LOI.

If your lander is sized for a 2-stage launcher, then it can't perform LOI & descent with a larger payload. You'd either need to re-scale the lander, or have the EDS perform LOI.



However, payload requirements are likely to go down once we have a depot, so growing the vehicle later doesn't seem like it would happen.

cheers, Martin

Offline kyle_baron

  • Full Member
  • **
  • Posts: 209
  • Wisconsin, USA
  • Liked: 0
  • Likes Given: 0
Re: Three stage SSME Ares V
« Reply #13 on: 11/16/2009 03:21 pm »
With the addition of a 3rd stage, I'm wondering, is there enough fuel left over to use the EDS for LOI, and as a brake, to slow the Altair-CLV stack into a lunar orbit?  This is with Ares 1, and a 1.5 launch architecture.

Presuming that you end up with a lighter EDS / third stage, then you reduce the penalty for retaining the EDS through LOI.

cheers, Martin

Since you didn't answer yes or no, I assume you mean maybe? 
What we do in life, echos in eternity. (Gladiator)

Offline jml

  • Full Member
  • **
  • Posts: 280
  • Liked: 0
  • Likes Given: 0
Re: Three stage SSME Ares V
« Reply #14 on: 11/16/2009 04:48 pm »
Wow! If this identical TLI performance measure is true, that sure makes it very tough to justify the extra billions and years required to develop the 10m core RS-68 version of Ares V Lite over the 8.4m core SSME version of Ares V Classic.

About the only key metric left where the RS-68 version might have some advantage is on recurring core engine costs. But those costs would be dwarfed by the extra development and infrastructure costs to the point that the few tens of millions extra for SSME or RS-25e per launch will never add up over the life of the program to the few billion extra for the development of the larger launch vehicle.

And, to tie this back to the thread title, Ares V Classic still has growth options like a third stage if ever needed. 

Ares V Lite is ~140mT gross, or ~140mT net including EDS burnout.

Ares V Classic is 125mT net excluding EDS. Ross reports the performance as nearly identical to AVL, and http://www.paul.enutrofal.com/sheet1.html estimates 147mT gross to LEO (according to CEPE).

Both vehicles have a 55mT through-TLI performance (as reported by Augustine & ESAS, respectively).

cheers, Martin

Offline marsavian

  • Elite Veteran
  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 3216
  • Liked: 2
  • Likes Given: 3
Re: Three stage SSME Ares V
« Reply #15 on: 11/16/2009 04:57 pm »
I don't think it is, ESAS Ares V Classic used HTPB SRBs ...
« Last Edit: 11/16/2009 04:59 pm by marsavian »

Offline Downix

  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 7082
  • Liked: 22
  • Likes Given: 1
Re: Three stage SSME Ares V
« Reply #16 on: 11/16/2009 05:09 pm »
I don't think it is, ESAS Ares V Classic used HTPB SRBs ...
I just noticed that in this diagram it is listing the J-2S as having higher performance than the J-2X.  I've not compared the two, but I'd always figured that the J-2X was better than the J-2S.
chuck - Toilet paper has no real value? Try living with 5 other adults for 6 months in a can with no toilet paper. Man oh man. Toilet paper would be worth it's weight in gold!

Offline marsavian

  • Elite Veteran
  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 3216
  • Liked: 2
  • Likes Given: 3
Re: Three stage SSME Ares V
« Reply #17 on: 11/16/2009 05:56 pm »
I don't think it is, ESAS Ares V Classic used HTPB SRBs ...
I just noticed that in this diagram it is listing the J-2S as having higher performance than the J-2X.  I've not compared the two, but I'd always figured that the J-2X was better than the J-2S.

Define 'listing'.

Offline Downix

  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 7082
  • Liked: 22
  • Likes Given: 1
Re: Three stage SSME Ares V
« Reply #18 on: 11/16/2009 06:34 pm »
I don't think it is, ESAS Ares V Classic used HTPB SRBs ...
I just noticed that in this diagram it is listing the J-2S as having higher performance than the J-2X.  I've not compared the two, but I'd always figured that the J-2X was better than the J-2S.

Define 'listing'.
The second one in from the left has a single J-2S listed as the second stage engine.  To the immediate right of it is the same configuration, but with a single J-2X, with a noticeable performance loss.
chuck - Toilet paper has no real value? Try living with 5 other adults for 6 months in a can with no toilet paper. Man oh man. Toilet paper would be worth it's weight in gold!

Online MP99

Re: Three stage SSME Ares V
« Reply #19 on: 11/16/2009 07:11 pm »
With the addition of a 3rd stage, I'm wondering, is there enough fuel left over to use the EDS for LOI, and as a brake, to slow the Altair-CLV stack into a lunar orbit?  This is with Ares 1, and a 1.5 launch architecture.

Presuming that you end up with a lighter EDS / third stage, then you reduce the penalty for retaining the EDS through LOI.

cheers, Martin

Since you didn't answer yes or no, I assume you mean maybe? 

The second paragraph describes the conditions under which the answer is "yes", ie bigger launcher but same-sized lander.

Quote
Presuming that you end up with a lighter EDS / third stage, then you reduce the penalty for retaining the EDS through LOI.

If your lander is sized for a 2-stage launcher, then it can't perform LOI & descent with a larger payload. You'd either need to re-scale the lander, or have the EDS perform LOI.

The size of the lander is carefully chosen to go with the capabilities of the launcher. If you later build a bigger launcher but:-
1) keep the same lander
    &
2) have it still perform both LOI & descent
...then you can't land any more payload, so you waste the additional performance.

Adding bigger tanks to the lander would make use of the extra performance, but would also cost big bucks. Maybe 12-15% of the additional launcher payload becomes landed cargo?

For a 20mT EDS-performs-LOI, about 12mT more fuel is consumed. Maybe 20% of any further launcher performance above this point becomes landed cargo? Obviously, if the 3-stage EDS mass is much lower than AVUS, then it helps a lot with this config.

Whichever LOI method you use with the new launcher, you need to achieve a big performance hike to make it worthwhile - possibly more than is practical.



A couple of notes about the above:-

1) Note the "maybes" attached to those percentages - very much BOTE.

2) these numbers don't apply if you're designing a new architecture, only if you try to slot the lander from a working launcher into the architecture for a different launcher.

3) they're also specific to single-launch cargo & 1.5 launch crew - ie not applicable to a DIRECT-style dual-launch.

cheers, Martin

Offline marsavian

  • Elite Veteran
  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 3216
  • Liked: 2
  • Likes Given: 3
Re: Three stage SSME Ares V
« Reply #20 on: 11/16/2009 07:21 pm »
I don't think it is, ESAS Ares V Classic used HTPB SRBs ...
I just noticed that in this diagram it is listing the J-2S as having higher performance than the J-2X.  I've not compared the two, but I'd always figured that the J-2X was better than the J-2S.

Define 'listing'.
The second one in from the left has a single J-2S listed as the second stage engine.  To the immediate right of it is the same configuration, but with a single J-2X, with a noticeable performance loss.

It's not the same configuration, the SSMEs have 0.6s lower Isp and more importantly the ESAS Ares V (with J2-S) uses HTPB RSRM propellant as opposed to PBAN which was my original point. This is why the PBAN Ares V Classic was dropped for the original RS-68 Ares V which is very similar to Ares V lite.
« Last Edit: 11/16/2009 07:26 pm by marsavian »

Online MP99

Re: Three stage SSME Ares V
« Reply #21 on: 11/17/2009 12:52 pm »
I don't think it is, ESAS Ares V Classic used HTPB SRBs ...
I just noticed that in this diagram it is listing the J-2S as having higher performance than the J-2X.  I've not compared the two, but I'd always figured that the J-2X was better than the J-2S.

Define 'listing'.
The second one in from the left has a single J-2S listed as the second stage engine.  To the immediate right of it is the same configuration, but with a single J-2X, with a noticeable performance loss.

It's not the same configuration, the SSMEs have 0.6s lower Isp and more importantly the ESAS Ares V (with J2-S) uses HTPB RSRM propellant as opposed to PBAN which was my original point. This is why the PBAN Ares V Classic was dropped for the original RS-68 Ares V which is very similar to Ares V lite.


1) I'm surprised at the size of the payload drop. Any thoughts how much of that is from dropping HTPB, and how much from the RS-25 Isp drop?

2) NASA seem to be using well over 452s Isp for NSC's engines - interesting how those engines would perform in this config. See http://www.nasa.gov/pdf/361842main_15%20-%20Augustine%20Sidemount%20Final.pdf.

3) Would a 2x J-2X config out-perform 1x J-2X? (Compensate for the lower core performance).

cheers, Martin

Offline jml

  • Full Member
  • **
  • Posts: 280
  • Liked: 0
  • Likes Given: 0
Re: Three stage SSME Ares V
« Reply #22 on: 11/17/2009 02:09 pm »
Considering the almost equivalent ISP and thrust of HTPB and PBAN, I'd guess that most of the HTPB payload advantage is really from the much lighter weight of the filament-wound composite SRB casings that can be used with HTPB. (I understand that PBAN burns too hot for composite cases, and there doesn't seem to be any other good reason to switch to HTPB).

I'm not sure if the ESAS Ares V was assuming disposable SRBs too, eliminating the weight of the recovery system.

1) I'm surprised at the size of the payload drop. Any thoughts how much of that is from dropping HTPB, and how much from the RS-25 Isp drop?

Offline madscientist197

  • Regular
  • Full Member
  • ****
  • Posts: 1014
  • Liked: 6
  • Likes Given: 0
Re: Three stage SSME Ares V
« Reply #23 on: 11/19/2009 07:45 am »
I just noticed that in this diagram it is listing the J-2S as having higher performance than the J-2X.  I've not compared the two, but I'd always figured that the J-2X was better than the J-2S.

'J-2S+' not the original 'J-2S'. Hence the assumption of a much better ISP. Although some of the ESAS configurations were assigned the original 'J-2S' instead of the 'J-2S+' (e.g. vehicles 6, 7 and 7.1), most used the higher performance engine.
John

Offline marsavian

  • Elite Veteran
  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 3216
  • Liked: 2
  • Likes Given: 3
Re: Three stage SSME Ares V
« Reply #24 on: 11/27/2009 07:53 pm »

Would a 2x J-2X config out-perform 1x J-2X? (Compensate for the lower core performance).

cheers, Martin

Only in performance to LEO but not in TLI performance due to the greater importance of lower mass and higher Isp rather than pure thrust in that mode.

Tags:
 

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