Author Topic: Ares I 1st stage replacement  (Read 170649 times)

Offline GraphGuy

  • Full Member
  • **
  • Posts: 292
  • Liked: 1
  • Likes Given: 0
Re: Ares I 1st stage replacment.
« Reply #380 on: 11/13/2008 09:06 pm »
Hey 50+ billion for a loser like GM, why not $200 million for a rocket engine competition that might actually see a return on investment?

Developing a 500+ ton thrust engine is expensive, would you take up the risk of spending say 500 milion $ so that you *might* win 200 million $ back?

SpaceX have been musing about an engine of that class, but it's still just that - musing. If their F9 pans out and F9H doesn't find customers, I don't believe they'd be willing to spend much money on such an engine. If, however, the F9H turned out to be in demand, greatly reducing its number of engines would be a bonus.

Do you think that the 10 million dollar X Prize pot paid for all of scaled composite's development?  The idea is that you use a government prize to free up capital and to get things going.  The process has traction, perhaps not to some of the larger companies that are risk adverse.  Talk to SpaceX, Scaled and Armadillo and ask them if these pots don't get things going.

There can be more markets for rockets than launching NRO birds.
« Last Edit: 11/13/2008 09:07 pm by GraphGuy »

Online edkyle99

  • Expert
  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 15391
    • Space Launch Report
  • Liked: 8566
  • Likes Given: 1356
Re: Ares I 1st stage replacment.
« Reply #381 on: 11/13/2008 09:20 pm »

[What] requirements would you like to see?

I'd say the following, which are not as stringent as the F-1 so as to make it easier for entry level competitors:

Minimum sea level thrust of 1 million lbf.

I would start lower, at maybe 400-500 Klbs S/L thrust, which would provide an opportunity for multiple applications.  One of those could boost an interesting small/medium launcher.  Two makes an EELV Medium class booster.  Four make a Zenit/EELV Heavy class booster that could launch cargo and/or people (it could even serves as an "Ares IB" first stage)  and be used as a building block for even more powerful launch vehicles. 

 - Ed Kyle
« Last Edit: 11/13/2008 09:23 pm by edkyle99 »

Online ugordan

  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 8520
    • My mainly Cassini image gallery
  • Liked: 3543
  • Likes Given: 759
Re: Ares I 1st stage replacment.
« Reply #382 on: 11/13/2008 09:42 pm »
Do you think that the 10 million dollar X Prize pot paid for all of scaled composite's development?

No I don't, but you can't scale this logic up indefinitely. We're talking 10-20x more money involved here and the risk gets correspondingly higher.

Offline GraphGuy

  • Full Member
  • **
  • Posts: 292
  • Liked: 1
  • Likes Given: 0
Re: Ares I 1st stage replacment.
« Reply #383 on: 11/13/2008 09:45 pm »

[What] requirements would you like to see?

I'd say the following, which are not as stringent as the F-1 so as to make it easier for entry level competitors:

Minimum sea level thrust of 1 million lbf.

I would start lower, at maybe 400-500 Klbs S/L thrust, which would provide an opportunity for multiple applications.  One of those could boost an interesting small/medium launcher.  Two makes an EELV Medium class booster.  Four make a Zenit/EELV Heavy class booster that could launch cargo and/or people (it could even serves as an "Ares IB" first stage)  and be used as a building block for even more powerful launch vehicles. 

 - Ed Kyle

Sure, why not.

Of course this is all beside the point so long as NASA is devoted to reusing SRBs. (I'm in a bad mood today, it seems that the government exists to throw money at companies that should not get it- GM & ATK).

Offline guru

  • Full Member
  • ****
  • Posts: 483
  • Liked: 78
  • Likes Given: 33
Re: Ares I 1st stage replacment.
« Reply #384 on: 11/13/2008 10:10 pm »

I would start lower, at maybe 400-500 Klbs S/L thrust, which would provide an opportunity for multiple applications.  One of those could boost an interesting small/medium launcher.  Two makes an EELV Medium class booster.  Four make a Zenit/EELV Heavy class booster that could launch cargo and/or people (it could even serves as an "Ares IB" first stage)  and be used as a building block for even more powerful launch vehicles. 

 - Ed Kyle

Agreed.  That's what I meant when I said I like the idea of a multi-level competition; smaller engines net smaller cash awards.

Offline robertross

  • Canadian Member
  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 17939
  • Westphal, Nova Scotia
  • Liked: 659
  • Likes Given: 7692
Re: Ares I 1st stage replacment.
« Reply #385 on: 11/13/2008 11:01 pm »
Hey 50+ billion for a loser like GM, why not $200 million for a rocket engine competition that might actually see a return on investment?

Developing a 500+ ton thrust engine is expensive, would you take up the risk of spending say 500 milion $ so that you *might* win 200 million $ back?

SpaceX have been musing about an engine of that class, but it's still just that - musing. If their F9 pans out and F9H doesn't find customers, I don't believe they'd be willing to spend much money on such an engine. If, however, the F9H turned out to be in demand, greatly reducing its number of engines would be a bonus.

If I may add into this discussion.. :)

$500 million is peanuts compared to the cost of that engine. If they get it to work, how many other companies have an engine in this class ready to go? The contracts would pay for that no problem. And it's not like they don't want it, they just don't have the financial resources to begin a project of that magnitude. It's also one less design stumbling block for NASA or a COTS supplier to worry about. But I still think F1 development could be ressurected (from other threads).

Offline GraphGuy

  • Full Member
  • **
  • Posts: 292
  • Liked: 1
  • Likes Given: 0
Re: Ares I 1st stage replacment.
« Reply #386 on: 11/13/2008 11:40 pm »

If I may add into this discussion.. :)

$500 million is peanuts compared to the cost of that engine. If they get it to work, how many other companies have an engine in this class ready to go? The contracts would pay for that no problem. And it's not like they don't want it, they just don't have the financial resources to begin a project of that magnitude. It's also one less design stumbling block for NASA or a COTS supplier to worry about. But I still think F1 development could be ressurected (from other threads).

I agree, i'd say that this doesn't happen because the contractors know that (at the current moment) NASA isn't interested because NASA wants to reuse the SRB.  Still, it could be good to put forward some money to get people working, but of course NASA would never do that as the only reason such an engine exists (in their mind) would be to get rid of the current SRB.  It would be nice to see this prize lead to a F1 class engine from SpaceX, a regen engine from Boeing or a domestic RD-180 from lock mart.  You know, for COTS/EELV of course ;)

Offline A_M_Swallow

  • Elite Veteran
  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 8906
  • South coast of England
  • Liked: 500
  • Likes Given: 223
Re: Ares I 1st stage replacement
« Reply #387 on: 11/13/2008 11:09 pm »
A related topic.  A methane equivalent of the RL-10 that is air restartable would be useful.  This could be used by upper stages, departure stages and landers.
Current RL-10 engines have thrust in the 15,000 lbf (66.7 kN) to 24,750 lbf (110.1 kN) range.

Offline Steven Pietrobon

  • Member
  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 39215
  • Adelaide, Australia
    • Steven Pietrobon's Space Archive
  • Liked: 32735
  • Likes Given: 8178
Re: Ares I 1st stage replacement
« Reply #388 on: 11/14/2008 05:39 am »
GraphGuy wrote on 11/13/2008 07:23 PM

>Completely stupid question, but the only domestic company that
>currently makes RP engines is SpaceX.

Rocketdyne still makes the RS-27A LOX/Kero engine for the Delta II.
« Last Edit: 11/14/2008 05:40 am by Steven Pietrobon »
Akin's Laws of Spacecraft Design #1:  Engineering is done with numbers.  Analysis without numbers is only an opinion.

Offline Antares

  • ABO^2
  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 5181
  • Done arguing with amateurs
  • Liked: 371
  • Likes Given: 228
Re: Ares I 1st stage replacement
« Reply #389 on: 11/14/2008 05:47 am »
No, they don't.  The RS-27 went out of production a few years ago.  The environmental license with the State of California for test firings expired in early 2007 too.

BTW, the thread is OT.
« Last Edit: 11/14/2008 05:51 am by Antares »
If I like something on NSF, it's probably because I know it to be accurate.  Every once in a while, it's just something I agree with.  Facts generally receive the former.

Offline guru

  • Full Member
  • ****
  • Posts: 483
  • Liked: 78
  • Likes Given: 33
Re: Ares I 1st stage replacement
« Reply #390 on: 11/14/2008 01:28 pm »
No, they don't.  The RS-27 went out of production a few years ago.  The environmental license with the State of California for test firings expired in early 2007 too.

BTW, the thread is OT.

Not really.  We're talking a potential engine replacement for the Ares I first stage in a similar thrust range.

Offline Capt. Nemo

  • Member
  • Full Member
  • *
  • Posts: 143
  • USS Nautilus
  • New Jersey
  • Liked: 0
  • Likes Given: 0
Re: Ares I 1st stage replacement
« Reply #391 on: 11/26/2008 04:56 am »
If the discussion is about kerosene engines for this hypothetical 1st stage replacement, then why not throw the RS-84 into the mix for contention? I know that it's development never got beyond the paper stage but they were planning on it having 1,000,000 pds. thrust@ sea level. (according to www.astronautix.com)  Stick four of those babies on the bottom of a first stage, and there ya go.   ;D
"You can't declare yourself the boss of a chicken farm when you've only got one egg."  - Chinese saying

Online edkyle99

  • Expert
  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 15391
    • Space Launch Report
  • Liked: 8566
  • Likes Given: 1356
Re: Ares I 1st stage replacement
« Reply #392 on: 11/26/2008 05:00 pm »
If the discussion is about kerosene engines for this hypothetical 1st stage replacement, then why not throw the RS-84 into the mix for contention? I know that it's development never got beyond the paper stage but they were planning on it having 1,000,000 pds. thrust@ sea level. (according to www.astronautix.com)  Stick four of those babies on the bottom of a first stage, and there ya go.   ;D

You would only need two engines like this.  See the first three or four pages of this thread for examples.  We called it "Ares IB". ;)

 - Ed Kyle

Offline Ben the Space Brit

  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 7206
  • A spaceflight fan
  • London, UK
  • Liked: 806
  • Likes Given: 900
Re: Ares I 1st stage replacement
« Reply #393 on: 12/01/2008 03:35 pm »
Okay, I have lurked here enough.  I have greatly enjoyed reading the expert and knowledgable debates on this forum.  Now, as a complete amateur, with only the slightest knowledge of LV design, I would like to propose a couple of ideas of my own. 

I repeat that I am an amateur.  I have no clue if these options are even remotely reasonable.  Indeed, one of the reasons that I am making this posts is to get other board members' opinions on these ideas to see exactly how feasable they are.

My apologies in advance if these have already been discussed - they have not to the best of my knowledge, but my memory is not perfect.

Idea 1 - Ares-I Re-usable LFR core
This idea came to me after reading a lengthy rant by a poster over on The Write Stuff who I believe may be former NASA.

Basically, you replace the SFR Ares-I lower stage with a reusable liquid-fuelled SSME-powered lower stage.  The objective is to get the Ares Upper Stage (AUS) and Orion high enough and fast enough so that the AUS can get Orion all the way into orbit without a lengthy firing of the Orion service module engine.  My idea is that the new lower stage can be fitted with a replacable ablatative TPS on the top to protect it during re-entry from sub-orbital flight.  There would be parachutes and floatation devices around the base of the rocket around the engines - the idea is that it would bob around in the ocean, engines up, until the Liberty Star or Freedom Star could sail up to recover it and tow it back to KSC.

I know that the cost of re-starting the SSME production line would be considerable but there is the 're-usable' tag to consider.  If the stages and engines could be reconditioned and re-used, you have some alleged savings to wave under the politicians' noses.  I have no idea how many times that they could be re-used but my hope is that it would be enough times to make it cheaper than a completely-expendable first stage.

This design also lends itself to two possible heavier upgrades.  The first would be a pseudo-NLS with two 4-segment SRBs.  The second would be something like the Delta-4H with three cores mounted in parallel.

Idea 2 - Dual-SFR lower stage
This one is a lot more iffy, mostly because I have a nasty feeling that the TO would be enormous, possibly unsurvivable.

In essence, you replace the single 5.5-segment SFR with dual Ares-V-ready 5-segment SRBs.  These would be mounted, Ares-V-style, on a narrow skeleton framework. At the top of this would be a 'bucket' interstage in which would be mounted the AUS.  The central framework would also contain all the TO mitigation hardware.  The resulting LV would look like a tuning fork (and I hope that this isn't a bad omen).

The big advantage for this, politically, would be that The Powers That Be could claim (and would with a straight face) that this is an 'evolution' of Ares-I, not a replacement.  Hopefully, it would also have enough extra thrust to get the maximum payload-to-ISS weight up and maybe even allow the AUS to get Orion to orbit without that long service module engine burn.

There would be a two-stage staging sequence- firstly the SRBs would be jettisonned laterally away from the spacecraft and, only once they are clear, would the AUS detach from the interstage and fire its J-2X.  This is in order to give the design its abort option: the SRBs would be jettisonned laterally and self-destructed within a few seconds to avoid any possible collision.  The LAS would fire near-simultaneously to get the crew clear of the stack and any blast wave from the SRBs going 'boom'.

Having two rather than one engine ought to make the stack more controllable during firing as you can use differential thrust vectoring.  Additionally, as stated above, the boosters would be Ares-V-ready, meaning that NASA can claim with a straight face that the two rockets do have something in common.

As stated before, the big problem is the TO.  I don't have anywhere near the knowledge to know how bad it would be with two SRBs attached to a minimum-mass rigid metal framework.  There is also the issue of the mass of the TO mitigation hardware and the structural frame.  Would this negate the power advantage coming from twin engines?

I suggest the name 'Ares-II' for the twin-SRB design and the name 'Ares-ILR' (for Liquid Re-usable') for the SSME design.

As stated before, I have no real knowledge.  This is just 'playing with the Lego' (thanks for that phrase, Jim).  I would be interested in hearing what everyone thinks of these designs.

Oh, for the record, I am a DIRECT amazing people. ;)
"Oops! I left the silly thing in reverse!" - Duck Dodgers

~*~*~*~

The Space Shuttle Program - 1981-2011

The time for words has passed; The time has come to put up or shut up!
DON'T PROPAGANDISE, FLY!!!

Offline guru

  • Full Member
  • ****
  • Posts: 483
  • Liked: 78
  • Likes Given: 33
Re: Ares I 1st stage replacement
« Reply #394 on: 12/01/2008 04:24 pm »
Ben the Space Brit,

Welcome to the forum.  Here's my feedback.

Idea 1:  This idea is reasonable from a technological standpoint, and as a core stage, something like this has been considered in the past.  I know PWR would love to get the SSME line restarted if the money could be provided.  The stage would need to be (edit: more than half) the size of a shuttle ET, though, and recovering something that big wouldn't be easy.  Cryogenic cycling would also take its toll on a flight-weight stage.  I think a kerosene fueled first stage (something like the Kistler K-1) would be more economical, more rugged, and more reusable .

Idea 2:  I can't say I like this option.  G forces would be too high.  I also generally don't trust large truss frames in supersonic atmospheric conditions - too much vortex shedding causing drag and unwanted vibrations, on top of the already unwanted SRB thrust oscillations.  From a PR standpoint, trusses don't look safe either.
« Last Edit: 12/01/2008 04:50 pm by guru »

Offline Ben the Space Brit

  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 7206
  • A spaceflight fan
  • London, UK
  • Liked: 806
  • Likes Given: 900
Re: Ares I 1st stage replacement
« Reply #395 on: 12/01/2008 04:48 pm »
The stage would need to be (edit: more than half) the size of a shuttle ET, though, and recovering something that big wouldn't be easy. 

I was hoping that it would be possible for it to be about the same diameter as the upper stage, mostly for aesthetic reasons.  As for the recovery, I know that Space-X is planning something like that for Falcon-1's lower stage and I think that NASA would certainly be faced by at least one Congressman or Senator who would ask: "If they do it, why can't you?"

From a PR standpoint, they don't look safe either.

If you want my untrained opinion, I don't think that Ares-I looks particularly safe.  It is something to do with the lower stage being narrower than the upper stage.
"Oops! I left the silly thing in reverse!" - Duck Dodgers

~*~*~*~

The Space Shuttle Program - 1981-2011

The time for words has passed; The time has come to put up or shut up!
DON'T PROPAGANDISE, FLY!!!

Offline Jim

  • Night Gator
  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 37440
  • Cape Canaveral Spaceport
  • Liked: 21451
  • Likes Given: 428
Re: Ares I 1st stage replacement
« Reply #396 on: 12/01/2008 04:55 pm »

  As for the recovery, I know that Space-X is planning something like that for Falcon-1's lower stage and I think that NASA would certainly be faced by at least one Congressman or Senator who would ask: "If they do it, why can't you?"


not proven capability
« Last Edit: 12/01/2008 04:56 pm by Jim »

Offline Ben the Space Brit

  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 7206
  • A spaceflight fan
  • London, UK
  • Liked: 806
  • Likes Given: 900
Re: Ares I 1st stage replacement
« Reply #397 on: 12/01/2008 05:02 pm »

  As for the recovery, I know that Space-X is planning something like that for Falcon-1's lower stage and I think that NASA would certainly be faced by at least one Congressman or Senator who would ask: "If they do it, why can't you?"


not proven capability

Agreed without question.  However, politicians are rarely put off by such trivial matters as 'proven' and, occasionally 'reality'.
"Oops! I left the silly thing in reverse!" - Duck Dodgers

~*~*~*~

The Space Shuttle Program - 1981-2011

The time for words has passed; The time has come to put up or shut up!
DON'T PROPAGANDISE, FLY!!!

Offline guru

  • Full Member
  • ****
  • Posts: 483
  • Liked: 78
  • Likes Given: 33
Re: Ares I 1st stage replacement
« Reply #398 on: 12/01/2008 05:20 pm »

I was hoping that it would be possible for it to be about the same diameter as the upper stage, mostly for aesthetic reasons.  As for the recovery, I know that Space-X is planning something like that for Falcon-1's lower stage and I think that NASA would certainly be faced by at least one Congressman or Senator who would ask: "If they do it, why can't you?"

I am not saying your idea is not workable.  In fact, I implied just the opposite in the opening sentence of my reply when stating others had seriously considered similar ideas.  Instead, I stated that using kerosene for that application was a preferable alternative to hydrogen.  The Falcon I vehicle that you cited as an example uses kerosene.  You can make an LH/LOX first stage the same diameter as the upper stage, but it is a much longer stage.  Concepts such as Ares IB (described elsewhere on the forum) work well for expendable rockets, but they are harder (note, not impossible, just harder) to recover, and the reusability of LH tanking is not as good as tanking for other propellants due to the more extreme thermal cycling loads.  I would personally be very enthusiastic about NASA building a stage like you described, but if I was involved in the early decision making process, I would probably not choose to use liquid hydrogen for the fuel of a reusable booster stage -  that's all.

Quote
If you want my untrained opinion, I don't think that Ares-I looks particularly safe.  It is something to do with the lower stage being narrower than the upper stage.

Amen, brother!  Amen!  But, why leave Ares I's replacement open to the same criticism, especially when safer options (both in appearance and function) could be fielded?

Offline Ben the Space Brit

  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 7206
  • A spaceflight fan
  • London, UK
  • Liked: 806
  • Likes Given: 900
Re: Ares I 1st stage replacement
« Reply #399 on: 12/01/2008 05:37 pm »
Guru, no offence was intended in my reply.  I was simply responding to your post by trying to offer additional points in favour of the scheme.  I certainly wasn't being critical of your thoughts in any way; I was just offering some observations.
"Oops! I left the silly thing in reverse!" - Duck Dodgers

~*~*~*~

The Space Shuttle Program - 1981-2011

The time for words has passed; The time has come to put up or shut up!
DON'T PROPAGANDISE, FLY!!!

Tags:
 

Advertisement NovaTech
Advertisement Northrop Grumman
Advertisement
Advertisement Margaritaville Beach Resort South Padre Island
Advertisement Brady Kenniston
Advertisement NextSpaceflight
Advertisement Nathan Barker Photography
0