Right. I worked at Michoud 1966 - 1969 and the place is enormous. They were building two (three?) S1Cs side-by-side plus, for a while, a couple of S1Bs, and there was plenty of extra room in there. Plenty of head room, too.
Likewise riding the barge to MTF with a booster on board, it cleared the I-10 drawbridge with ample room to spare.
No problem!
Ron
JIS - 18/7/2007 10:27 AMWhat is the best approach? “To maintain and rebuild” or “to scrape and build new”?
kraisee - 19/7/2007 10:27 PMFrom a manufacturing perspective, there is a production line up and running right now, staffed and managed for an operational manned program. Ares-I requires a second line, the Ares-V core a third with no tooling borrowed from the ET, and the EDS will require a fourth. The Shuttle ET production line is to be discontinued and mothballed around the 2009/2010 timeframe.Ross.
kraisee - 7/8/2007 3:57 PMIIRC they're primarily using two different alloys of Al-Li for SLWT tanks. 2195 IIRC, and I forget the other. They have significant quantities of both in stock currently (or already paid for anyhow), and they intend to reuse it all in Ares somehow.
JIS - 14/11/2007 1:08 PM1. I suppose that EDS design is significantly different from all ET, Ares V core and Ares 1 US. 2. With rumour floating around of 10m fairing wouldn't be possible to build also 10m EDS?3. Even better solution could be to encapsulate EDS and LSAM in one fairing. Something like Atlas V is doing with centaur. 4. Encapsulated 10m EDS would be lighter and could carry more propellants or payload.Still, I suppose that the 10m EDS and 10m core will be of significantly different design.On the other side it is clear that lot of infrastructure and resources will be shared.
kraisee - 14/11/2007 11:33 PMThat concurs with what I'm hearing at the moment from inside CxP. And a second J-2X seems almost certain for the 10m dia EDS too.Ross.
TrueBlueWitt - 14/11/2007 12:12 AMNot that I'm against building a brand new MONSTER rocket if it's designed correctly and doesn't bankrupt NASA exploration goals in the process..
clongton - 15/11/2007 6:49 AMQuoteTrueBlueWitt - 14/11/2007 12:12 AMNot that I'm against building a brand new MONSTER rocket if it's designed correctly and doesn't bankrupt NASA exploration goals in the process..The difficulty with building monster rockets is that they are not very cost conscious. They don't fly often enough to make it economically viable to keep them on-line for very long. They do "a" job, like Apollo/Saturn, and then they get decommissioned. That ends up cost us huge amounts of money. Kinda like spending large sums on a huge project and not being allowed to depreciate it over the years to recover the value of the project. We know how to build very good monster rockets, but we have not yet figured out how to afford them in an economically constrained climate.
William Barton - 15/11/2007 7:28 AMQuoteclongton - 15/11/2007 6:49 AMQuoteTrueBlueWitt - 14/11/2007 12:12 AMNot that I'm against building a brand new MONSTER rocket if it's designed correctly and doesn't bankrupt NASA exploration goals in the process..The difficulty with building monster rockets is that they are not very cost conscious. They don't fly often enough to make it economically viable to keep them on-line for very long. They do "a" job, like Apollo/Saturn, and then they get decommissioned. That ends up cost us huge amounts of money. Kinda like spending large sums on a huge project and not being allowed to depreciate it over the years to recover the value of the project. We know how to build very good monster rockets, but we have not yet figured out how to afford them in an economically constrained climate.It seems as if the viewpoint shoud not be "do a job" or short-term cost benefit for monster rockets, but to make a long term assumption that you will build programs around the availability of the monster rocket. A production line keeping Saturn 1B/5/Apollo/LM in production at the rate of 2 5's and 4 1B's a year would eventually have resulted in some long-range cost saving due to amortization of development costs. It would've supported manned Lunar, asteroidal, and Martian missions, various Skylab-type space stations, and various outer-planets unmanned probes more like the original TOPS plan, all through the 1970-2000 timeframe. And I seriously doubt it would have exceeded the money spent on STS/ISS that really happened.To me, the whole point of Jupiter, in place of Ares, is, it can be put in production and kept in production, and be the source point around which other plans are made. No "do a job," but, "We have a rocket available for payloads. What paylods should we have?" Maybe that involves a little too much "sci-fi fantasy" for real world administrators, or too much of "the vision thing " for real world politicans.
clongton - 15/11/2007 5:59 AMIt all ultimately comes down to what the Congress wants, and how much it will cost. Congress supports the VSE and is willing to fund it, but if NASA stays with the Ares as its launch vehicle, we will fly, but we won’t be flying very much. It will simply be too expensive. It will eventually follow the same path as Saturn, and that would be a shame because it is a completely avoidable condition.
simonbp - 15/11/2007 10:13 AMQuoteclongton - 15/11/2007 5:59 AMIt all ultimately comes down to what the Congress wants, and how much it will cost. Congress supports the VSE and is willing to fund it, but if NASA stays with the Ares as its launch vehicle, we will fly, but we won’t be flying very much. It will simply be too expensive. It will eventually follow the same path as Saturn, and that would be a shame because it is a completely avoidable condition.Saturn V wasn't canceled because it was too expensive. Saturn V was canceled because the Apollo program itself was seen by Johnson as too expensive, and should be replaced be a cheaper shuttle, which ended up costing just as much. The lesson there is not to harp on the technical details, but make sure that overall cost stays in budget. Launch vehicles are typically 1/3 the cost of a mission; keeping that other 2/3s down is going to be the trick.Also, Ross, I don't know what you mean be Ares is dead. People have been saying that for years (literally), and it keeps on going because they keep on fixing problems as they arise. That's engineering, and Direct or any other program would go through the same problems. But so far, there have been no program-level threats, just innumerable rumors that turn out to be nothing...Simon
Jim - 14/11/2007 9:26 PMQuoteJIS - 14/11/2007 1:08 PM3. Even better solution could be to encapsulate EDS and LSAM in one fairing. Something like Atlas V is doing with centaur. 4. Encapsulated 10m EDS would be lighter and could carry more propellants or payload.3. Very bad idea and inefficient. There is no difference in the interior of an Atlas 400 or 500 series Centaur. The additional fairing length is a waste and only dead weight4. No. the EDS would carry the same amount of fuel whether incapsulated or not. It would be less payload just like the 501 vs 401
JIS - 14/11/2007 1:08 PM3. Even better solution could be to encapsulate EDS and LSAM in one fairing. Something like Atlas V is doing with centaur. 4. Encapsulated 10m EDS would be lighter and could carry more propellants or payload.
JIS - 15/11/2007 12:03 PMI wanted to say something different. I suppose that there are the highest loads during max Q and at core burnout. Uncovered EDS is taking a lot of vibrations and dynamic pressure. The idea was to encapsulate EDS/payload and transfer those loads through the fairing attached to the core. The fairing and core would be 10m. EDS and LSAM would be slightly less than 10m.The fairing can be jettisoned a long time before the core burnout not decreasing overall performance too much (similar to cover panels on Orion service module)There could be some sort of support structure helping to take loads during max acceleration just before the core burnout. This structure can be jettisoned during core/EDS separation. EDS would be designed for more benign conditions. It will be lighter and as it goes through TLI there will be a lot of benefit.
simonbp - 15/11/2007 10:13 AMAlso, Ross, I don't know what you mean be Ares is dead. People have been saying that for years (literally), and it keeps on going because they keep on fixing problems as they arise. That's engineering, and Direct or any other program would go through the same problems. But so far, there have been no program-level threats, just innumerable rumors that turn out to be nothing...
mike robel - 16/11/2007 12:18 AMI fail to see the problem with 2 J-2s in a 33 foot core. Or even say 5 J-2s in such a stage.
kraisee - 16/11/2007 5:43 AMAlso there are recurring cost implications too. Every extra J-2X adds about $25m to the cost of each mission. Add 4 and your per-mission costs would increase by $100m, which given the current LV variable cost will be in the ballpark of $400-450m, is quite an impact.
While lots of trade studies are going on, the only sure thing is that *something* has to change with Ares-I/V if NASA wants to achieve its currently planned missions. Currently they are well below the line (~20%) performance-wise from closing the performance box using the current configuration of the launchers. I'm on record for how I'd like to see them change, but I don't know which way they will jump.
Only time will tell that, but I am convinced that time is a commodity which we are seriously running out of.Ross.
Jim - 15/11/2007 8:20 PMQuoteJIS - 15/11/2007 12:03 PMI wanted to say something different. I suppose that there are the highest loads during max Q and at core burnout. Uncovered EDS is taking a lot of vibrations and dynamic pressure. The idea was to encapsulate EDS/payload and transfer those loads through the fairing attached to the core. The fairing and core would be 10m. EDS and LSAM would be slightly less than 10m.The fairing can be jettisoned a long time before the core burnout not decreasing overall performance too much (similar to cover panels on Orion service module)There could be some sort of support structure helping to take loads during max acceleration just before the core burnout. This structure can be jettisoned during core/EDS separation. EDS would be designed for more benign conditions. It will be lighter and as it goes through TLI there will be a lot of benefit.It makes ground ops more expensive and more complicated since it doesn't allow for complete incapsulation. It increases the size, weight and complexity of the PLF.
There has to be a structure between the EDS and PLF to keep the EDS/payload centered in the fairing (see T-IV and Atlas 5XX)
Why do think Atlas would go to a 5.4m Centaur and not a 5.0 or so in its advance studies
TrueGrit - 16/11/2007 3:26 PMEDS insultation concepts are the best available based on the need to be on-orbit for multiple weeks waiting for Orion. Both Delta and Atlas organizations downselected to the same solution when for their long duration upperstage studies.
William Barton - 15/11/2007 6:28 AMA production line keeping Saturn 1B/5/Apollo/LM in production at the rate of 2 5's and 4 1B's a year would eventually have resulted in some long-range cost saving due to amortization of development costs. It would've supported manned Lunar, asteroidal, and Martian missions, various Skylab-type space stations, and various outer-planets unmanned probes more like the original TOPS plan, all through the 1970-2000 timeframe. And I seriously doubt it would have exceeded the money spent on STS/ISS that really happened.
publiusr - 16/11/2007 12:20 PMQuoteWilliam Barton - 15/11/2007 6:28 AMA production line keeping Saturn 1B/5/Apollo/LM in production at the rate of 2 5's and 4 1B's a year would eventually have resulted in some long-range cost saving due to amortization of development costs. It would've supported manned Lunar, asteroidal, and Martian missions, various Skylab-type space stations, and various outer-planets unmanned probes more like the original TOPS plan, all through the 1970-2000 timeframe. And I seriously doubt it would have exceeded the money spent on STS/ISS that really happened.At last somebody understands...
kraisee - 16/11/2007 12:42 PMOh, the joys of government appropriations and procurement...Ross.
William Barton - 15/11/2007 6:28 AMA production line keeping Saturn 1B/5/Apollo/LM in production at the rate of 2 5's and 4 1B's a year would eventually have resulted in some long-range cost saving due to amortization of development costs.
JIS - 16/11/2007 3:39 AMQuotekraisee - 16/11/2007 5:43 AMAlso there are recurring cost implications too. Every extra J-2X adds about $25m to the cost of each mission. Add 4 and your per-mission costs would increase by $100m, which given the current LV variable cost will be in the ballpark of $400-450m, is quite an impact.I agree at this point that 2 J-2X engines on EDS is not a good idea. It would be far better and cheaper to increase J-2X thrust and ISP.QuoteWhile lots of trade studies are going on, the only sure thing is that *something* has to change with Ares-I/V if NASA wants to achieve its currently planned missions. Currently they are well below the line (~20%) performance-wise from closing the performance box using the current configuration of the launchers. I'm on record for how I'd like to see them change, but I don't know which way they will jump. I agree that more payload delivered to the moon the better. I think that for Lunar base construction and supply the key is a payload delivered in one launch. Therefore, I'm glad to see Ares V growing bigger. Hopefully the payload capability will increase as well.10 m fairing is a very good news for base line LSAM (minimum ascend stage) and LSAM cargo derived from descend stage. QuoteOnly time will tell that, but I am convinced that time is a commodity which we are seriously running out of.Ross.The time is tight for J-2X development to get Orion/Ares 1 up and running to support ISS. There is no doubt that Orion/Ares 1 is more than enough for that. There is plenty of time for LSAM and Ares V development.
luke strawwalker - 27/11/2007 4:49 AMupscaling the J-2 to higher thrust/ISP would be a LOT better than slapping a second one on. Increasing the size of the J-2 to something closer to the SSME's performance (dunno, maybe halfway between the old/currently envisioned J-2 and SSME) would not only help Ares I by giving it more thrust but would save money down the road, because one souped up engine will undoubtedly be cheaper than two dinkyer ones. I'm sure it would increase the cost of the J-2 in the short term but it would be more than worth it in the long term. Besides the J-2 is mostly on paper at this point, and it'd be FAR easier and cheaper to choose the right size to build it NOW than later on after it's built, or having to use a second one on every EDS. JMHO! OL JR
meiza - 16/11/2007 2:35 PMIt's like saying NASA should have gone to NOVA with eight F-1 engines, and launched one every month, that would have costed so little but the stupid politicians didn't think far enough. Urgh.
CFE - 24/11/2007 3:51 PMAgreed, Jorge. It does beg the question of whether a Saturn V-only production line could have made the cut, replacing the Saturn IB with an S-IC + S-IVB vehicle. It's doubtful, though.As fas as Jeff Bell goes, I must say that I will agree with at least the first half of a Jeff Bell editorial/screed. Then he takes a logical turn that's unexpected and extreme, with flimsy evidence to support. That's the point where he loses me. But he was totally correct to suggest that "shuttle derived" would evolve into something that has little or no shuttle heritage at all. We still haven't gotten to his predicted "EELV derived" solution, though.
kraisee - 16/11/2007 2:05 PMI think Ares-I is a long way below the sweet spot, and Ares-V is a long way beyond it. Which leads me to a conclusion that its somewhere in between. And we all know where that line of thought leads...Ross.
Sid454 - 11/2/2008 10:33 PMI don't think the change from 27 to 33feet will be an issue for infrastructure but the larger faring could be great for the LSAM and allow it to be a shorter wider design which is better for both stability and safety of the astronauts.
spacenut - 29/11/2007 6:37 AMThere were plans to recover, with parachutes, the Saturn V first stage. There was also plans to increase the F-1 engine to 2.2 million lbs. of thrust (11 million total), which is the limit of the launch pads today. The J-2 was to be upgraded from 200,000 lbs of thrust to 275,000 lbs of thrust. This would have made the Saturn V capable of between 150-175 tons to LEO. This would have reduced costs/lb to orbit, and with a reusable first stage, costs could have probably been further reduced. The J-2 hardware was to make a plug nozzle engine for the 3rd stage, so it could have been made reusable, by using it as a heat shield. The second stage could probably have been made the same and recovered. The upgrades may have made the Saturn V sustainable. Also, from what I have read, the cost to launch a Saturn I was about the same as the Saturn V.
kraisee - 11/2/2008 11:45 PMAll of this adds up to a seriously extensive amount of change which will be required to support the new 33ft diameter stage configuration on Ares-V.Ross.
Sid454 - 11/2/2008 9:33 PM...maybe trying to make the biggest rocket possible but instead the biggest one that can find a good flight rate and escape the Saturn V's fate ...
mikeh - 12/2/2008 8:50 AMThe flight rate didn't kill the Saturn V, Nixon and Congress with their lack of funding and canceled programs did the job.
Sid454 - 11/2/2008 7:33 PMthe larger faring could be great for the LSAM and allow it to be a shorter wider design which is better for both stability and safety of the astronauts.
But on cost I have to agree with clongton here flight rate is everything in costs so maybe we shouldn't be trying to make the biggest rocket possible but instead the biggest one that can find a good flight rate and escape the Saturn V's fate if that means two big launches vs one big one and one small one so be it.
My biggest fear with Ares is the program could be canceled before Ares V flies and then we would be stuck in LEO in a situation a lot worse then the one we are in now.
Also JPL will get screwed out of an opportunity to have an HLLV to play with and I'd like to see things like an 8M optical space telescope and a Jupiter icy moon orbiter.Also being able to perform missions with out those time wasting gravity assist flybys would be great.