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.
tlewis615 - 3/1/2007 2:19 AMNASA is considering a mission to a near earth asteroid. This could be a booster for such a mission. Single launch no lander necessary.
CuddlyRocket - 3/1/2007 6:26 AMSo, 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).
Seattle Dave - 2/1/2007 9:07 PMAs ATK and pro-Ares as is, what do you make of this Ares IV stuff?
stargazer777 - 3/1/2007 7:13 AMThat 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.
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.
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.
kkattula - 3/1/2007 3:43 PMQuoteGeneric 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 )
kkattula - 3/1/2007 9:43 AMQuoteGeneric 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 )
simonbp - 2/1/2007 7:32 PMQuoteNorm Hartnett - 2/1/2007 8:43 PMI 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
Norm Hartnett - 2/1/2007 8:43 PMI 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.
edkyle99 - 3/1/2007 11:07 AMBy 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.