Ambitious Ares test flight plan proposed for HLV demonstrations

[edkyle99]

the EELV heresy is that we have two perfectly grand and very man-ratable launch vehicles sitting around right now, that we have had them for decades, and that NASA has been studious in its ignorance of them for...some reason

god

the whole thing is just like a multigazillion dollar proof that better is the enemy of good enough

Atlas V and Delta IV first flew in 2002, eight years, not "decades" ago.  Delta 4 Heavy, the only EELV remotely close to being able to launch an Orion-class spacecraft (and even then not until RS-68A is ready in 2011 or thereabouts) did not fly successfully until 2007.  NASA has not ignored EELV.  Atlas has launched NASA payloads. 

 - Ed Kyle

[93143]

flaming chunks of P-Ban

I think you mean PBAN - PolyButadiene AcryloNitrile.  Not to be confused with the more modern Hydroxyl-Terminated PolyButadiene.

Personally, I'd like to see a 5 segment Ares I-X fly and see once and for all if it exists as this "deadly" problem.

TO is unpredictable; it doesn't show up at the same level every flight.  One flight can shake like mad, a different flight can do almost nothing.  You need a substantial number of test flights to get a sense of what the booster is going to do.

[Pheogh]

flaming chunks of P-Ban

I think you mean PBAN - PolyButadiene AcryloNitrile.  Not to be confused with the more modern Hydroxyl-Terminated PolyButadiene.

Personally, I'd like to see a 5 segment Ares I-X fly and see once and for all if it exists as this "deadly" problem.

TO is unpredictable; it doesn't show up at the same level every flight.  One flight can shake like mad, a different flight can do almost nothing.  You need a substantial number of test flights to get a sense of what the booster is going to do.

thank you was typing the slang of it.

[sdsds]

From the Times article:

After the three additional fight tests, the Ares I would be used only “if needed” to take astronauts to the space station, according to a presentation last month.

What on Earth does this mean?  That we'll build it, test it, and then not use it?

Commercial entities are still supposed to do that even in this new plan, Ares I would only be a back-up.

That's just great. Spend how many billions of our tax dollars on an unused backup??? Here's a thought: design an Orion-on-Delta-IVH system as a backup! It would save money and at least you're actually using the rocket while retaining the backup capability.

But we all know this (HSF) has nothing to do with saving money, engineering, or rational thought.

Someone should ask if they are willing to fly a max-Q abort, complete with a demonstration of the first stage flight termination system.  That would be a test worth seeing!

[gladiator1332]

From the Times article:

After the three additional fight tests, the Ares I would be used only “if needed” to take astronauts to the space station, according to a presentation last month.

What on Earth does this mean?  That we'll build it, test it, and then not use it?

Commercial entities are still supposed to do that even in this new plan, Ares I would only be a back-up.

Ares would be a backup for carrying astronauts to LEO but possibly not a backup for BEO. That part of the plan is not clear and might get decided further down the road. The Augustine committee wanted crew taxis even for BEO in order to sustain the commercial crew sector past 2020.

So the big change for LEO would be Commercial becomes the prime ride, whereas Ares I becomes a back up. Of course, if Ares I does work out, I can see NASA pushing for it to be used. So in reality, commercial may become a backup again.

BEO changes to a two launch architecture. This allows for flexible path orbital missions with a single launch or two launch lunar missions with a lander.

If NASA ends up building the launch vehicles, nothing prevents a crew taxi from being launched on an Ares I as well. While Ares I would be more pricey than Falcon 9 or a manrated Atlas, nothing stops NASA from purchasing a Dragon or an Orion-Lite taxi and put it on Ares I.

What I really would like to see, if since Ares I no longer plays a role in BEO, it should be scaled down to a 4 seg. You build Ares I to be a lite LEO launcher, optimized to launch an Orion Lite or other small crew taxis. Full Orion is launched only on the eventual HLV, which would end up looking more like a Jupiter-246 using 4 seg boosters and an 8.4m core. You could call it Ares Direct, as it utilizes more Shuttle heritage and keeps some of the Ares vehicles.

[marsavian]

From the Times article:

After the three additional fight tests, the Ares I would be used only “if needed” to take astronauts to the space station, according to a presentation last month.

What on Earth does this mean?  That we'll build it, test it, and then not use it?

Commercial entities are still supposed to do that even in this new plan, Ares I would only be a back-up.

That's just great. Spend how many billions of our tax dollars on an unused backup??? Here's a thought: design an Orion-on-Delta-IVH system as a backup! It would save money and at least you're actually using the rocket while retaining the backup capability.

But we all know this (HSF) has nothing to do with saving money, engineering, or rational thought.

Ares I would fall out of the initial component design of Ares IV, it's basically free once you specify 5-seg SRB and AIUS/J2-X as part of the HLV. Other benefits are that it comes man-rated out of the box and NASA has exclusive use of it as well as having the hypothetical safest design tag. It's tight margins on Lunar performance are not important if it's never used as originally planned in a 1.5 Lunar global access mission.

[stealthyplains]

Atlas V and Delta IV first flew in 2002, eight years, not "decades" ago.  Delta 4 Heavy, the only EELV remotely close to being able to launch an Orion-class spacecraft (and even then not until RS-68A is ready in 2011 or thereabouts) did not fly successfully until 2007.  NASA has not ignored EELV.  Atlas has launched NASA payloads. 

 - Ed Kyle

i'm not sure i'm qualified to debate this with you... but you're assuming the necessity of something the size of Orion and leaving out the availability of Titan III/IV.  imagine a NASA that had decided to follow a Titan IIIC/Big Gemini path, or that had gone with Saturn INT-20.

also, Atlas II/Centaur seems to have similar performance to Soyuz-U, which certainly allowed a "real" HSF program.

[zerm]

I don't think that quote came from anyone at NASA. However, if I remember correctly, the predicted frequencies of the TO, which *did* come from them, when examined against known data of what a human body can take, left a devistating mark. No one at NASA disputed that conclusion and is the reason they invested so much time and money into addressing it because if it was not successfully mitigated it would kill anybody subjected to it, whether it was from riding the rocket or sourced from anything else. Those frequencies are not survivable.

Can you direct me to a source for those predicted freq.s that *did* come from NASA?

[yg1968]

I don't think that quote came from anyone at NASA. However, if I remember correctly, the predicted frequencies of the TO, which *did* come from them, when examined against known data of what a human body can take, left a devistating mark. No one at NASA disputed that conclusion and is the reason they invested so much time and money into addressing it because if it was not successfully mitigated it would kill anybody subjected to it, whether it was from riding the rocket or sourced from anything else. Those frequencies are not survivable.

Can you direct me to a source for those predicted freq.s that *did* come from NASA?

This came from Direct. Nobody at NASA ever said that. Some people at NASA mentionned that TO would create some discomfort to the astronauts one times out of 3. In any event, Chris has written an article stating that TO was going to be mitigated and was no longer a significant problem. I am not sure why this keeps popping up.

[Ben the Space Brit]

I don't think that quote came from anyone at NASA. However, if I remember correctly, the predicted frequencies of the TO, which *did* come from them, when examined against known data of what a human body can take, left a devistating mark. No one at NASA disputed that conclusion and is the reason they invested so much time and money into addressing it because if it was not successfully mitigated it would kill anybody subjected to it, whether it was from riding the rocket or sourced from anything else. Those frequencies are not survivable.

Can you direct me to a source for those predicted freq.s that *did* come from NASA?

This came from Direct. Nobody at NASA ever said that. Some people at NASA mentionned that TO would create some discomfort to the astronauts one times out of 3. In any event, Chris has written an article stating that TO was going to be mitigated and was no longer a significant problem. I am not sure why this keeps popping up.

FWIW, Danny Dot, a former (I presume, as I haven't seen him since posting the A-Com report) NSF member and real-life missile man was also very concerned about the vibro-accoustic profile of Ares-I.

[Pheogh]

I don't think that quote came from anyone at NASA. However, if I remember correctly, the predicted frequencies of the TO, which *did* come from them, when examined against known data of what a human body can take, left a devistating mark. No one at NASA disputed that conclusion and is the reason they invested so much time and money into addressing it because if it was not successfully mitigated it would kill anybody subjected to it, whether it was from riding the rocket or sourced from anything else. Those frequencies are not survivable.

Can you direct me to a source for those predicted freq.s that *did* come from NASA?

This came from Direct. Nobody at NASA ever said that. Some people at NASA mentionned that TO would create some discomfort to the astronauts one times out of 3. In any event, Chris has written an article stating that TO was going to be mitigated and was no longer a significant problem. I am not sure why this keeps popping up.

FWIW, Danny Dot, a former (I presume, as I haven't seen him since posting the A-Com report) NSF member and real-life missile man was also very concerned about the vibro-accoustic profile of Ares-I.

Danny also did quite a bit of work on the abort modes of the Ares-1 that would likely result in fratricide.

[MP99]

Someone should ask if they are willing to fly a max-Q abort, complete with a demonstration of the first stage flight termination system.  That would be a test worth seeing!

FT2 might include a high-altitude abort, but you're right, a max-Q abort is what really needs to be demonstrated.

cheers, Martin

[trout007]

Just curious how we would launch the HL-X1? Until now everything was going to launch off of support posts which hold the aft skirt of the SRB's. Since this has no SRB I'm curious how we would support it at the launch pad.

The past proposals (and there are some dating back to the 1980s) for core-only launches generally used temporary support structures mounted on the SRB holdowns. It'd take a bit of engineering, but it's not too hard, and almost defiantly not require a unique MLP.

The larger question is what to use for an upper stage if you were to use the SRB-less version operationally. It's not optimized for SSTO, but could easily loft ~20 tonnes with a smallish upper stage (<3 km/s delta v). That's almost to the point that you could use a Delta II upper stage...

I should rephrase the question. The current ET and from the looks of it the other HL designs show a load path where the ET like structure is hung from the SRB's. Can the aft of the tank take the whole weight of the LV?

[MP99]

I don't think that quote came from anyone at NASA. However, if I remember correctly, the predicted frequencies of the TO, which *did* come from them, when examined against known data of what a human body can take, left a devistating mark. No one at NASA disputed that conclusion and is the reason they invested so much time and money into addressing it because if it was not successfully mitigated it would kill anybody subjected to it, whether it was from riding the rocket or sourced from anything else. Those frequencies are not survivable.

Can you direct me to a source for those predicted freq.s that *did* come from NASA?

This came from Direct. Nobody at NASA ever said that. Some people at NASA mentionned that TO would create some discomfort to the astronauts one times out of 3. In any event, Chris has written an article stating that TO was going to be mitigated and was no longer a significant problem. I am not sure why this keeps popping up.

FWIW, Danny Dot, a former (I presume, as I haven't seen him since posting the A-Com report) NSF member and real-life missile man was also very concerned about the vibro-accoustic profile of Ares-I.

EG http://forum.nasaspaceflight.com/index.php?topic=15218.msg478263#msg478263. NB this appears to be Danny's data, not released directly by NASA.


(See link for larger version of image).

cheers, Martin

[zerm]

I don't think that quote came from anyone at NASA. However, if I remember correctly, the predicted frequencies of the TO, which *did* come from them, when examined against known data of what a human body can take, left a devistating mark. No one at NASA disputed that conclusion and is the reason they invested so much time and money into addressing it because if it was not successfully mitigated it would kill anybody subjected to it, whether it was from riding the rocket or sourced from anything else. Those frequencies are not survivable.

Can you direct me to a source for those predicted freq.s that *did* come from NASA?

This came from Direct. Nobody at NASA ever said that. Some people at NASA mentionned that TO would create some discomfort to the astronauts one times out of 3. In any event, Chris has written an article stating that TO was going to be mitigated and was no longer a significant problem. I am not sure why this keeps popping up.

I think some of us can take a good guess as to why the "deadly TO" quip keeps "popping up" but it's not a subject I wish to inject into this thread.

I'll simply say again that I personally expect to see this shake out (pun intended) with 1 to 3 additional Ares I-X style test flights and then have that merged into an HLV in order to politically cover the Ares I sunk costs. It should be noted that in last week's hearing Bolden exchanged with nelso as to how the cost (not sunk cost) of future Ares I launches could be reduced in budgetary appearance if the first stage were later "blended" into another vehicle and thus the cost would be spread over the two programs. He estimated that it would reduce the cost of each flight by $500M (as seen in a budgetary light). It appeared that they had discussed that exact subject outside of the hearing format. I believe that is the direction Nelson is pushing for in HLV development.

[gladiator1332]

I guess I am a little confused. When this first broke on NSF, we were unsure whether manned flights would actually occur on Ares I. At first I thought Ares I would just be used as a unmanned test vehicle. However, the NYT article makes it sound like Ares I will in fact be manrated.

[Patchouli]

the EELV heresy is that we have two perfectly grand and very man-ratable launch vehicles sitting around right now, that we have had them for decades, and that NASA has been studious in its ignorance of them for...some reason

god

the whole thing is just like a multigazillion dollar proof that better is the enemy of good enough

Atlas V and Delta IV first flew in 2002, eight years, not "decades" ago.  Delta 4 Heavy, the only EELV remotely close to being able to launch an Orion-class spacecraft (and even then not until RS-68A is ready in 2011 or thereabouts) did not fly successfully until 2007.  NASA has not ignored EELV.  Atlas has launched NASA payloads. 

 - Ed Kyle

The Atlas V 552 probably could lift an Orion if the SM had half of the propellant off loaded.

The Orion would not need as much fuel as it does on Ares I.

Remember both EELVs have their LEO payload rating for a standard reference orbit that does not have a perigee below the Earth's surface.

[Spacetime]

I guess I am a little confused. When this first broke on NSF, we were unsure whether manned flights would actually occur on Ares I. At first I thought Ares I would just be used as a unmanned test vehicle. However, the NYT article makes it sound like Ares I will in fact be manrated.

It very well might be, eventually, it just won't be done exactly the same way as before. It's more like in stages, if that makes sense.

[nooneofconsequence]

The idea is that in an "emergency" astros might dare to use it to go to the ISS - attempting to gamble that when TO cuts in on burn out they get a mild case and not a "skull shatterer".

Who knows - maybe they'll all be "smooth rides" -unlike the variance seen on Shuttle?

[Mark S]

BEO changes to a two launch architecture. This allows for flexible path orbital missions with a single launch or two launch lunar missions with a lander.

CxP has always been a two-launch architecture, but that fact was trivialized by calling it a "1.5 launch" design.  As if the launch of Ares-I was so simple that it just counts as half a launch.  Of course most people here realize that 1.5 = 2, but it was very confusing to most others.  And the "0.5" part, Ares-I, was so feeble that it couldn't carry more than the bare necessities for its crew, much less any usable amount of cargo.  So two-launch was going to be required for anything other that ferrying astronauts to ISS or LEO rendezvous for BEO missions.

In fact the 1.5 architecture, which required two different design efforts, two different development programs, two sets of infrastructure, etc etc, is much more complicated and expensive than a two-launch design using two of the same vehicle, a la DIRECT.

And while two Ares-V Lite / Ares-IV / HLX3 would be better than Ares-I+Ares-V, they are still ugly and inelegant compared to DIRECT.  Why can't NASA just admit that the CxP 1.5 architecture turned out, against best intentions, not to be viable.  After all, that's the nature of R&D.  Sometimes it pans out like you expect, sometimes it doesn't.

Just go back to the contractors, renegotiate the contracts along the lines that DIRECT has proposed, and be done with it.  Why is it taking so long for anyone to state the obvious?  NIH / ABD?

Mark S.