Author Topic: Ares I/EELV VSE Architecture  (Read 33005 times)

Online edkyle99

  • Expert
  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 15392
    • Space Launch Report
  • Liked: 8566
  • Likes Given: 1356
Ares I/EELV VSE Architecture
« on: 11/17/2008 05:18 pm »
Please forgive if this has already been discussed (it surely has somewhere), but I couldn't find a dedicated thread.

Assuming Ares I/Orion flies but Ares V development cannot be funded, could Ares I and existing or nearly-existing EELVs be used to perform a lunar landing mission?  I notice that an Ares I upper stage would be large enough to serve as a formidable Earth Departure Stage if it could be orbited and refueled in orbit over time (with a still-to-be-developed restartable J-2X). 

An Ares I could orbit its own upper stage, retaining roughly 20 tonnes of propellant, presumably topped by a refueling module with some type of power supply, etc.  Multiple refueling missions (perhaps as many as four or five) could be conducted by EELVs, or other types of launch vehicles.  These would dock or berth somehow to the refueling module atop the upper stage.  Some development (an add-on module?) would be necessary to handle the autodocking.  Ares I or an EELV could be used to orbit a partially fueled Altair, which would be fully refueled by another launch.  Finally, an Ares I would boost an Orion with crew to dock to the upper stage/Altair stack, which would then be boosted toward the Moon by the upper stage.

An interesting feature of this design is that an Ares I upper stage can carry more propellant than the Ares V EDS is planned to hold in orbit.  This means that TLI payload masses can be tailored to the mission and can, if needed, exceed the planned 1.5 architecture numbers.

A lot of launches though.  Eight perhaps, or fewer if more powerful EELV variants can fly.  I would expect such an architecture to be able to support only one lunar landing per year.

 - Ed Kyle

Offline beb

  • Full Member
  • **
  • Posts: 271
  • Liked: 12
  • Likes Given: 8
Re: Ares I/EELV VSE Architecture
« Reply #1 on: 11/17/2008 05:34 pm »
Again with the Ares I.

If Ares V is cancelled there is even less reason to maintain Ares I.
Atlas or Delta can launch as much weight into orbit using a small ground force. An EELV moon program would be a challenge to run but doable. By I don't see any advantage to using Ares I in any of this.

Offline A_M_Swallow

  • Elite Veteran
  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 8906
  • South coast of England
  • Liked: 500
  • Likes Given: 223
Re: Ares I/EELV VSE Architecture
« Reply #2 on: 11/17/2008 05:35 pm »
There was a thread on using Ares-I (and Delta IV) as cargo launches for space missions.

Things are easier if there is a fuel depot.

Using Solar Electric Propulsion tugs to transport cargo to Low Lunar Orbit is probably worth while, just plan a year ahead.  Cargo includes lunar base buildings, landers and fuel for the ascent stages.
« Last Edit: 11/17/2008 05:36 pm by A_M_Swallow »

Offline Will

  • Member
  • Full Member
  • ****
  • Posts: 902
  • Liked: 18
  • Likes Given: 1
Re: Ares I/EELV VSE Architecture
« Reply #3 on: 11/17/2008 05:54 pm »
Please forgive if this has already been discussed (it surely has somewhere), but I couldn't find a dedicated thread.

Assuming Ares I/Orion flies but Ares V development cannot be funded, could Ares I and existing or nearly-existing EELVs be used to perform a lunar landing mission?  I notice that an Ares I upper stage would be large enough to serve as a formidable Earth Departure Stage if it could be orbited and refueled in orbit over time (with a still-to-be-developed restartable J-2X). 

An Ares I could orbit its own upper stage, retaining roughly 20 tonnes of propellant, presumably topped by a refueling module with some type of power supply, etc.  Multiple refueling missions (perhaps as many as four or five) could be conducted by EELVs, or other types of launch vehicles.  These would dock or berth somehow to the refueling module atop the upper stage.  Some development (an add-on module?) would be necessary to handle the autodocking.  Ares I or an EELV could be used to orbit a partially fueled Altair, which would be fully refueled by another launch.  Finally, an Ares I would boost an Orion with crew to dock to the upper stage/Altair stack, which would then be boosted toward the Moon by the upper stage.

An interesting feature of this design is that an Ares I upper stage can carry more propellant than the Ares V EDS is planned to hold in orbit.  This means that TLI payload masses can be tailored to the mission and can, if needed, exceed the planned 1.5 architecture numbers.

A lot of launches though.  Eight perhaps, or fewer if more powerful EELV variants can fly.  I would expect such an architecture to be able to support only one lunar landing per year.

 - Ed Kyle


One challenge in this architecture would be fitting a lander into an EELV fairing, even if you used a hammerhead on a Delta IV

Offline GraphGuy

  • Full Member
  • **
  • Posts: 292
  • Liked: 1
  • Likes Given: 0
Re: Ares I/EELV VSE Architecture
« Reply #4 on: 11/17/2008 06:59 pm »
If there is no Ares V then there is no need for an Ares I.  If anything, Ares I exists to subsidize Ares V.

I suppose an EELV architecture could have a current Delta IV heavy launch Orion to the ISS, upgrade the RS68 to regen, make a SRB strap on replacement using RD-180s for an Ares V class booster to be deployed in a decade.  Once Orion transitions to the moon, upgrade the Delta IV heavy to use the regen RS 68.  Of course there is no SRB in this so we know who is going to complain.

Online edkyle99

  • Expert
  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 15392
    • Space Launch Report
  • Liked: 8566
  • Likes Given: 1356
Re: Ares I/EELV VSE Architecture
« Reply #5 on: 11/17/2008 07:08 pm »
If Ares V is cancelled there is even less reason to maintain Ares I.
Atlas or Delta can launch as much weight into orbit using a small ground force. An EELV moon program would be a challenge to run but doable. By I don't see any advantage to using Ares I in any of this.

Ares I development is already under way, with funding already being applied.  Ares V is down the road, and funding is uncertain.  My assumption in posting this "what if" is that Ares I and Orion development continues and is completed, but that money can't be allotted to develop Ares V. 

I suspect this result is highly probable.  It would leave NASA with an operating human launch vehicle and spacecraft.  Could an EELV based human launch system be developed?  Sure, but it is not funded, is not currently underway, and is not the intended topic of this thread.

One of the things that Ares I provides that EELV does not is a J-2X engine attached to an upper stage that is capable of holding sufficient propellant for a landing mission TLI burn.

Another thing that Ares I/Orion development provides is a salvo launch capability when combined with existing EELV assets.  Two LC 39 pads and two EELV pads could serve up a slew of launches in a short amount of time.

A third thing that this Ares I/EELV architecture would provide is stimulus to improve EELV payload capability without the need to specialize that capability for human launch conditions, something that the Pentagon might, or might not, support.
 
 - Ed Kyle
« Last Edit: 11/17/2008 07:26 pm by edkyle99 »

Online edkyle99

  • Expert
  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 15392
    • Space Launch Report
  • Liked: 8566
  • Likes Given: 1356
Re: Ares I/EELV VSE Architecture
« Reply #6 on: 11/17/2008 07:22 pm »

One challenge in this architecture would be fitting a lander into an EELV fairing, even if you used a hammerhead on a Delta IV

The 5.5 meter diameter Ares I upper stage is wider than the 5 meter Delta IV, but an Altair would still require a 2 meter diameter increase over Ares I.  Perhaps, since a fully fueled Ares I upper stage on orbit would be able to boost as much as 100 tonnes toward the moon, NASA would be able to rethink the Altair descent stage propellant.  A denser, heavier propellant would result in a smaller Altair.

 - Ed Kyle
« Last Edit: 11/17/2008 07:27 pm by edkyle99 »

Online ugordan

  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 8520
    • My mainly Cassini image gallery
  • Liked: 3543
  • Likes Given: 759
Re: Ares I/EELV VSE Architecture
« Reply #7 on: 11/17/2008 07:33 pm »
A denser, heavier propellant would result in a smaller Altair.

And a heavier or less capable Altair.

Offline libs0n

  • Member
  • Full Member
  • ****
  • Posts: 476
  • Ottawa
  • Liked: 5
  • Likes Given: 2
Re: Ares I/EELV VSE Architecture
« Reply #8 on: 11/17/2008 08:06 pm »
The Altair could be redesigned around a different axis, to tailor itself to the fairing layout.  There was a lunar proposal during the early nineties that had its lunar lander brought up in the Shuttle bay; it was configured in such a fashion.  A concept for the LSAM in an article here also had an atypical configuration that would be more in line with an EELV deployment.

If the dense propellant is non-cryogenic, there may be logistical advantages due to the longer service lifetime that could be exploited.
« Last Edit: 11/17/2008 08:08 pm by libs0n »

Offline kraisee

  • Expert
  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 10560
  • Liked: 807
  • Likes Given: 40
Re: Ares I/EELV VSE Architecture
« Reply #9 on: 11/17/2008 08:16 pm »
The physical dimensions of the lander are an issue for such an architecture.   They're having difficulties getting a stable lander even with a 10m diameter payload fairing - and no EELV is going to be able to fly one of those.

You could go for a completely different design of lander, something completely unlike the Apollo LM, but then you venture into unproven technology -- and breaking new technological ground on a human-rated vehicle is never cheap -- note the cost of Ares-I as a good example, even though it is supposed to benefit from 'Shuttle heritage'.

You must also develop Propellant Depot capabilities before you will ever be able to go to the moon.   Both low-boiloff orbital storage and Propellant Transfer technology are low-TRL problems -- and low-TRL problems typically result in costly and time-consuming development work -- so this approach isn't going to be a cheap one.

Ross.
« Last Edit: 11/17/2008 08:18 pm by kraisee »
"The meek shall inherit the Earth -- the rest of us will go to the stars"
-Robert A. Heinlein

Offline Patchouli

  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 4490
  • Liked: 253
  • Likes Given: 457
Re: Ares I/EELV VSE Architecture
« Reply #10 on: 11/17/2008 08:18 pm »
     If they don't build Ares V they might as well ax Ares I as well and make a new architecture based off the EELVs,F9 and an upgraded shuttle.

Ares I and V are a pair no use keeping Ares I if you are not also going to build Ares V.
It would be better to direct the funds elsewhere vs replicating existing launch capabilities.
The Delta IV-H can perform all missions Ares I can do for much lower cost.
As for an LSAM use what libs0n suggested the horizontal LEM from the 90s lunox study that can fit inside a shuttle cargo bay.
I think the horizontal lander is a better configuration then the vertical lander on the grounds of stability and being able to off load heavy equipment more easily.

It also might be possible to use use an EELV to lift it if the fairing size is upgraded slightly.
Heavy lift still can be made using Atlas V Heavy and F9-H with a cryo upper stage I believe both would have a 45T payload.
This might be enough for a smaller EDS that can send the lander to the moon using a Hohmann transfer vs the typical transfer.
It also might be able to send Dragon plus a propulsion module or Orion by it'sself on a direct transfer to the moon.
« Last Edit: 11/17/2008 08:29 pm by Patchouli »

Offline Jim

  • Night Gator
  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 37442
  • Cape Canaveral Spaceport
  • Liked: 21452
  • Likes Given: 428
Re: Ares I/EELV VSE Architecture
« Reply #11 on: 11/17/2008 08:26 pm »
Ares I upperstage is an ascent stage and not an onorbit stage.  It would need many mods to change it.  Power supply increased for longer mission duration, RCS for 3 axis control and axial thrusting, Propellant management requires different relief valves and vents, restart capability requires engine chilldown ducting and other things, thermal mods would include thicker foam

Offline mike robel

  • Extreme Veteran
  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 2304
  • Merritt Island, FL
  • Liked: 369
  • Likes Given: 260
Re: Ares I/EELV VSE Architecture
« Reply #12 on: 11/17/2008 08:32 pm »
Jim,

Experience would suggest that we once had the ability to modify an ascent stage (SIV-B used by the Saturn IB) to an onorbit stage, (SIVB used by the Saturn V).  However, I recognize that the stage was probably designed for this dual use, where as the Ares I upper stage is not.

I suspect that it is more logical and cost effective to build a new stage rather than try to adapt the Ares I upper stage.

Mike

Offline libs0n

  • Member
  • Full Member
  • ****
  • Posts: 476
  • Ottawa
  • Liked: 5
  • Likes Given: 2
Re: Ares I/EELV VSE Architecture
« Reply #13 on: 11/17/2008 08:38 pm »
How bout this, typical lunar module type lander with dense propellants, but with a fluffy LOX/Hydrogen crasher stage taking care of most of the deltaV.  A two stage descent.  Smaller lander sits atop longer cylindrical crasher stage in the payload fairing.

edit: Or have the ascent module separate and do the proximity landing after the descent module behaves in the manner above.
« Last Edit: 11/17/2008 08:43 pm by libs0n »

Online edkyle99

  • Expert
  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 15392
    • Space Launch Report
  • Liked: 8566
  • Likes Given: 1356
Re: Ares I/EELV VSE Architecture
« Reply #14 on: 11/17/2008 08:44 pm »
You must also develop Propellant Depot capabilities before you will ever be able to go to the moon.   Both low-boiloff orbital storage and Propellant Transfer technology are low-TRL problems -- and low-TRL problems typically result in costly and time-consuming development work -- so this approach isn't going to be a cheap one.

Ross.

One of the "benefits" of an EOR approach like this is that the development effort (and cost) could be spread out over a longer period of time compared to Ares V, keeping to an annual budget cap.  Altair itself is going to cost a lot of money to develop.  On-orbit cryo propellant transfer and storage is another big effort, no doubt.  Some type of common "space tug" or upper stage flight control module will be needed.  These efforts might be funded sequentially, if needed, with demo flights used to help certify their readiness.  It might take longer to get to the Moon, but it might be easier to budget on an annual basis. 

 - Ed Kyle 

Offline Patchouli

  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 4490
  • Liked: 253
  • Likes Given: 457
Re: Ares I/EELV VSE Architecture
« Reply #15 on: 11/17/2008 08:45 pm »
It might be easier to convert a Falcon 9 upper stage into an EDS vs trying to refuel an Ares I US and just live with the lower performance since it's not cryogenic and already has three axis RCS with basic translational control.
LOX and kerosene are easier to store on orbit.
Or even go as far making something based off a Centaur and launching the Lox tanks first and then sending up the hydrogen tanks and engines on a second flight to get as big a departure stage as possible using a LV of a given payload class.
« Last Edit: 11/17/2008 08:46 pm by Patchouli »

Online edkyle99

  • Expert
  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 15392
    • Space Launch Report
  • Liked: 8566
  • Likes Given: 1356
Re: Ares I/EELV VSE Architecture
« Reply #16 on: 11/17/2008 08:48 pm »
How bout this, typical lunar module type lander with dense propellants, but with a fluffy LOX/Hydrogen crasher stage taking care of most of the deltaV.  A two stage descent.  Smaller lander sits atop longer cylindrical crasher stage in the payload fairing.

edit: Or have the ascent module separate and do the proximity landing after the descent module behaves in the manner above.

Another alternative might be to separate the lunar orbit insertion function from the descent stage.  All of these ideas require more engines, except for ascent module landing idea.

Using hypergolics for the LOI and descent rather than hydrogen/LOX would require the addition of perhaps 25 tonnes to the TLI mass.  That's not possible with Ares V, but it is possible with an EOR mission using a TLI stage based on the Ares I upper stage.  It would mean adding one or two extra propellant transfer flights, however.  A hypergolic Altair would be smaller than the current design, but it would still be pretty big.

 - Ed Kyle
« Last Edit: 11/17/2008 08:51 pm by edkyle99 »

Offline Will

  • Member
  • Full Member
  • ****
  • Posts: 902
  • Liked: 18
  • Likes Given: 1
Re: Ares I/EELV VSE Architecture
« Reply #17 on: 11/17/2008 08:48 pm »

One challenge in this architecture would be fitting a lander into an EELV fairing, even if you used a hammerhead on a Delta IV

The 5.5 meter diameter Ares I upper stage is wider than the 5 meter Delta IV, but an Altair would still require a 2 meter diameter increase over Ares I.  Perhaps, since a fully fueled Ares I upper stage on orbit would be able to boost as much as 100 tonnes toward the moon, NASA would be able to rethink the Altair descent stage propellant.  A denser, heavier propellant would result in a smaller Altair.

 - Ed Kyle

An Altair fairing atop an Ares I upper stage atop a 5 segment SRB? The mind reels.

Offline libs0n

  • Member
  • Full Member
  • ****
  • Posts: 476
  • Ottawa
  • Liked: 5
  • Likes Given: 2
Re: Ares I/EELV VSE Architecture
« Reply #18 on: 11/17/2008 08:50 pm »
This might be enough for a smaller EDS that can send the lander to the moon using a Hohmann transfer vs the typical transfer.

Hohmann is the name for the typical transfer.  I believe the fellow who came up with what you're thinking of, Edward Belbruno, calls it weak stability boundary theory transfers.

Offline William Barton

  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 3487
  • Liked: 8
  • Likes Given: 0
Re: Ares I/EELV VSE Architecture
« Reply #19 on: 11/17/2008 08:59 pm »

One challenge in this architecture would be fitting a lander into an EELV fairing, even if you used a hammerhead on a Delta IV

The 5.5 meter diameter Ares I upper stage is wider than the 5 meter Delta IV, but an Altair would still require a 2 meter diameter increase over Ares I.  Perhaps, since a fully fueled Ares I upper stage on orbit would be able to boost as much as 100 tonnes toward the moon, NASA would be able to rethink the Altair descent stage propellant.  A denser, heavier propellant would result in a smaller Altair.

 - Ed Kyle

An Altair fairing atop an Ares I upper stage atop a 5 segment SRB? The mind reels.

The could name it the Good Ship Lollipop...

Offline William Barton

  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 3487
  • Liked: 8
  • Likes Given: 0
Re: Ares I/EELV VSE Architecture
« Reply #20 on: 11/17/2008 09:05 pm »
How bout this, typical lunar module type lander with dense propellants, but with a fluffy LOX/Hydrogen crasher stage taking care of most of the deltaV.  A two stage descent.  Smaller lander sits atop longer cylindrical crasher stage in the payload fairing.

edit: Or have the ascent module separate and do the proximity landing after the descent module behaves in the manner above.

Another alternative might be to separate the lunar orbit insertion function from the descent stage.  All of these ideas require more engines, except for ascent module landing idea.

Using hypergolics for the LOI and descent rather than hydrogen/LOX would require the addition of perhaps 25 tonnes to the TLI mass.  That's not possible with Ares V, but it is possible with an EOR mission using a TLI stage based on the Ares I upper stage.  It would mean adding one or two extra propellant transfer flights, however.  A hypergolic Altair would be smaller than the current design, but it would still be pretty big.

 - Ed Kyle

In a way, this kind of boils down to a version of the t\Space paradigm, which was depenent on multiple refueling events for its CEV. The tankers were supposed to go to LLO on weak stability boundary trajectories, I think. I think the plan was to send up the CEV empty, fuel it in LEO, send up the crew in a CXV. Fly to LLO. Refuel the CEV, descend to the Moon, lift off to LLO. refuel again, and head for Earth, which would include aerobraking and a powered circularization maneuver to get back to LEO, where you'd be met by a CXV for return to Earth.  Seems like there'd be many opportunities to become toast (or worse), but you wouldn't need a HLLV.

Online edkyle99

  • Expert
  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 15392
    • Space Launch Report
  • Liked: 8566
  • Likes Given: 1356
Re: Ares I/EELV VSE Architecture
« Reply #21 on: 11/17/2008 09:26 pm »

An Altair fairing atop an Ares I upper stage atop a 5 segment SRB? The mind reels.

The could name it the Good Ship Lollipop...

A fairing large enough to house an Altair (which is 7.5 meters in diameter) would be "skinnier", relative to the launch vehicle diameter, than the Titan IV fairing was relative to its core vehicle diameter.  It would be a little bit "fatter" than the Ariane 4 and Atlas III fairings relative to their vehicle diameters. 

 - Ed Kyle

Offline gospacex

  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 3024
  • Liked: 543
  • Likes Given: 604
Re: Ares I/EELV VSE Architecture
« Reply #22 on: 11/17/2008 09:44 pm »
An Altair fairing atop an Ares I upper stage atop a 5 segment SRB? The mind reels.
The could name it the Good Ship Lollipop...
A fairing large enough to house an Altair (which is 7.5 meters in diameter) would be "skinnier", relative to the launch vehicle diameter, than the Titan IV fairing was relative to its core vehicle diameter.  It would be a little bit "fatter" than the Ariane 4 and Atlas III fairings relative to their vehicle diameters. 

 - Ed Kyle

What's the point of this excercise? Delta IV first stage is already wider than Ares I first stage, why torture yourself? Scrap Ares I, use these money to make something actually useful for a change (like domestic RD-170 class engine).

Offline Jim

  • Night Gator
  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 37442
  • Cape Canaveral Spaceport
  • Liked: 21452
  • Likes Given: 428
Re: Ares I/EELV VSE Architecture
« Reply #23 on: 11/17/2008 10:09 pm »

1.  It might be easier to convert a Falcon 9 upper stage into an EDS vs trying to refuel an Ares I US and just live with the lower performance

2. since it's not cryogenic and already has three axis RCS with basic translational control.


1.  No it wouldn't.  Also Falcon 9 not the end all LV, it is a paper rocket from these discussions point of view.  It has lesser performance and it is not proven.  No matter how bad Ares I is, it is more real than Falcon 9 from NASA's point of view.

2.  No, it uses LOX, therefore it is cryogenic
« Last Edit: 11/17/2008 10:14 pm by Jim »

Offline DfwRevolution

  • Member
  • Posts: 70
  • Liked: 0
  • Likes Given: 0
Re: Ares I/EELV VSE Architecture
« Reply #24 on: 11/17/2008 10:54 pm »
My assumption in posting this "what if" is that Ares I and Orion development continues and is completed, but that money can't be allotted to develop Ares V.

In that scenario, we just don't go back to the Moon. There's not going to be any stomach for an Ares I/EELV lunar architecture. I think you would struggle to find a worse architecture.

It's technically plausable, sure. But it's also technically plausible to keep flying the Shuttle and assemble a lunar expedition in LEO that way. I would place about the same odds of success.

Could an EELV based human launch system be developed?  Sure, but it is not funded, is not currently underway, and is not the intended topic of this thread.

However, once you answer the hypothetical "can you reach the Moon using Ares I and EELV?" the next obvious question is "but why would you?" I don't know if you can avoid that topic.

Offline libs0n

  • Member
  • Full Member
  • ****
  • Posts: 476
  • Ottawa
  • Liked: 5
  • Likes Given: 2
Re: Ares I/EELV VSE Architecture
« Reply #25 on: 11/18/2008 12:09 am »
There's really no need to bring up whether the Ares 1 is the best choice; avoid the thread if you don't like the topic.  Think of an Ares 1 first stage replacement if you need to.  Either way, the point is made, and if it's mentioned again you will be laughed at for repeating the subject.

I wonder if there aren't other propellants we could consider for the Altair(or any other aspect like an Orion tank redesign).  One that I have in mind due to its occasional mention as a possible LV propellant is the hydrogen peroxide/kerosene combination. It seems to me to strike a good balance: it's dense, it's non-cryogenic, and I'm under the impression it has better specific impulse than hypergols, nearly LOX/kerosene levels. Of course, I've never seen it suggested as an in space fuel, so it may have problems I'm not aware of.  Plus it would be new ground.

Now that I think about it, a LOX depot for fueling the A1US seems to be a good option.  There could be a staging area for the components there, and adjacent facilities for Altair propellant loading.  Maybe even small habitation space for the crew to camp out in if they are launched before another component/oversee staging or tank deliveries.  I'm thinking that the A1US is launched only when the depot is topped up, so as to avoid LOM if a component flight has a delay/problem.  The extra propellant the A1US carries can be hydrogen, but I would not know if that would be enough to get the job done.
« Last Edit: 11/18/2008 12:11 am by libs0n »

Offline imcub

  • Member
  • Full Member
  • **
  • Posts: 259
  • Liked: 0
  • Likes Given: 7
Re: Ares I/EELV VSE Architecture
« Reply #26 on: 11/18/2008 12:56 am »
However, once you answer the hypothetical "can you reach the Moon using Ares I and EELV?" the next obvious question is "but why would you?" I don't know if you can avoid that topic.

Which brings up an interesting point for space skeptics ... if we aren't willing to go to the moon using the Ares I and EELV route ... then it must not really be worth going to ... so why should US taxpayers foot the bill for any moon program? 

Personally, if Ares I and EELV was the only option, I would want take it ... and then hope the bigger Mars launcher would be funded when it was time to go to Mars. 

[Sidebar:  I can see parallels that could be applied to the Direct argument.  Build Direct, use it for the ISS and Lunar missions ... then build the Mars Rocket when you need it for Mars missions, not Lunar ones.  /Sidebar]


Offline robertross

  • Canadian Member
  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 17939
  • Westphal, Nova Scotia
  • Liked: 659
  • Likes Given: 7692
Re: Ares I/EELV VSE Architecture
« Reply #27 on: 11/18/2008 01:05 am »

{snip}
I wonder if there aren't other propellants we could consider for the Altair(or any other aspect like an Orion tank redesign).  One that I have in mind due to its occasional mention as a possible LV propellant is the hydrogen peroxide/kerosene combination. It seems to me to strike a good balance: it's dense, it's non-cryogenic, and I'm under the impression it has better specific impulse than hypergols, nearly LOX/kerosene levels. Of course, I've never seen it suggested as an in space fuel, so it may have problems I'm not aware of.  Plus it would be new ground.


The problem with H2O2 is the freezing temperature. You would need a ton of heaters to keep it storable. So that would be a NO, not possible, even with 'possible' additives. Same goes for Kerosene: great fuel, but it would freeze in space, or at the very least gel. That's why MMH & hydrogen are preferable fuels in space. Methane is an option, but of the top of my head (since dial-up can't help me in searches right now) I think it is desireable as an ascent fuel rather than descent. Don't hold me to that, it might be possible.

Offline libs0n

  • Member
  • Full Member
  • ****
  • Posts: 476
  • Ottawa
  • Liked: 5
  • Likes Given: 2
Re: Ares I/EELV VSE Architecture
« Reply #28 on: 11/18/2008 01:31 am »
Ahhh, scratch that then, thanks.
« Last Edit: 11/18/2008 01:32 am by libs0n »

Offline imcub

  • Member
  • Full Member
  • **
  • Posts: 259
  • Liked: 0
  • Likes Given: 7
Re: Ares I/EELV VSE Architecture
« Reply #29 on: 11/18/2008 01:36 am »

{snip}
I wonder if there aren't other propellants we could consider for the Altair(or any other aspect like an Orion tank redesign).  One that I have in mind due to its occasional mention as a possible LV propellant is the hydrogen peroxide/kerosene combination. It seems to me to strike a good balance: it's dense, it's non-cryogenic, and I'm under the impression it has better specific impulse than hypergols, nearly LOX/kerosene levels. Of course, I've never seen it suggested as an in space fuel, so it may have problems I'm not aware of.  Plus it would be new ground.


The problem with H2O2 is the freezing temperature. You would need a ton of heaters to keep it storable. So that would be a NO, not possible, even with 'possible' additives. Same goes for Kerosene: great fuel, but it would freeze in space, or at the very least gel. That's why MMH & hydrogen are preferable fuels in space. Methane is an option, but of the top of my head (since dial-up can't help me in searches right now) I think it is desireable as an ascent fuel rather than descent. Don't hold me to that, it might be possible.

The problem with people in space is their freezing temperature.  You would need a ton of heaters to keep them alive ... so no, people is space is not possible ...  ;D  (Hope you don't mind ... I couldn't resist.) 

In case there is any doubt ... I disagree.  The problem we have with cryogenic loitering is heat and boil off issues ... not cold.  Skylab lost some shielding / insulation and the internal temperatures skyrocketed. 

Just my three cent guesstimate  ... its been 25 years since I had heat transfer ... I haven't even tried to do the math.

« Last Edit: 11/18/2008 01:37 am by imcub »

Offline robertross

  • Canadian Member
  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 17939
  • Westphal, Nova Scotia
  • Liked: 659
  • Likes Given: 7692
Re: Ares I/EELV VSE Architecture
« Reply #30 on: 11/18/2008 01:52 am »

{snip}
The problem with people in space is their freezing temperature.  You would need a ton of heaters to keep them alive ... so no, people is space is not possible ...  ;D  (Hope you don't mind ... I couldn't resist.) 

In case there is any doubt ... I disagree.  The problem we have with cryogenic loitering is heat and boil off issues ... not cold.  Skylab lost some shielding / insulation and the internal temperatures skyrocketed. 

Just my three cent guesstimate  ... its been 25 years since I had heat transfer ... I haven't even tried to do the math.



Heck I don't mind, but heat is still an issue. From a Canadian's perspective: you can always add, layers, but there comes a point when you can't take any more off ;)

Boil-off if an issue from a cryo fluids stand-point, but if a fluid freezes in the lines (or worse the tanks), nothing is going to work. Tanks rupture if the fluid expands during freezing (I had to explain it that way since some fluids contract).

There are some hypergols which would work nicely, but they are not that pleasant, have a habit of eating away stainless & CRES, and fairly toxic. We tend to avoid those for simplicity. MMH is by far one of the better ones for long term storage, though we accept the hazard.

Offline imcub

  • Member
  • Full Member
  • **
  • Posts: 259
  • Liked: 0
  • Likes Given: 7
Re: Ares I/EELV VSE Architecture
« Reply #31 on: 11/18/2008 02:24 am »

{snip}
The problem with people in space is their freezing temperature.  You would need a ton of heaters to keep them alive ... so no, people is space is not possible ...  ;D  (Hope you don't mind ... I couldn't resist.) 

In case there is any doubt ... I disagree.  The problem we have with cryogenic loitering is heat and boil off issues ... not cold.  Skylab lost some shielding / insulation and the internal temperatures skyrocketed. 

Just my three cent guesstimate  ... its been 25 years since I had heat transfer ... I haven't even tried to do the math.



Heck I don't mind, but heat is still an issue. From a Canadian's perspective: you can always add, layers, but there comes a point when you can't take any more off ;)

Boil-off if an issue from a cryo fluids stand-point, but if a fluid freezes in the lines (or worse the tanks), nothing is going to work. Tanks rupture if the fluid expands during freezing (I had to explain it that way since some fluids contract).

There are some hypergols which would work nicely, but they are not that pleasant, have a habit of eating away stainless & CRES, and fairly toxic. We tend to avoid those for simplicity. MMH is by far one of the better ones for long term storage, though we accept the hazard.

I guess if anyone is going to know about cold, it would be our neighbors to the north ... so you may well be correct ... I was thinking bulk energy density was the main reason for not using some common liquids fuels ... but trying to keep them liquid in the finely tuned engine piping would be extremely challenging. 

Offline Patchouli

  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 4490
  • Liked: 253
  • Likes Given: 457
Re: Ares I/EELV VSE Architecture
« Reply #32 on: 11/18/2008 03:30 am »

1.  It might be easier to convert a Falcon 9 upper stage into an EDS vs trying to refuel an Ares I US and just live with the lower performance

2. since it's not cryogenic and already has three axis RCS with basic translational control.


1.  No it wouldn't.  Also Falcon 9 not the end all LV, it is a paper rocket from these discussions point of view.  It has lesser performance and it is not proven.  No matter how bad Ares I is, it is more real than Falcon 9 from NASA's point of view.

2.  No, it uses LOX, therefore it is cryogenic


Storing LOX is going to be a lot easier then hydrogen.

Liquid O2 -182.96 °C liquid H2 -252.87 C
All LOX is going to need to stay cool enough is a sun shade and maybe a radiator while lH2 is either going to boil off or will require active refrigeration for storage in LEO.

BTW F9 is no paper rocket they are building and testing real hardware right now which is a lot more then I can say about Ares I so stop trolling.
Running examples of the the Merlin 1C and a test first stage exist I have yet to even see a running J2X.
Ares 1-X contains no flight hardware if it had a live upper stage even one with a bunch of RL10s in place of the J2X you'd have an argument.
Until the TO is fixed and I see a running J2X Ares I is vaporware just like any other product would be in it's situation.

BTW I never said it was an end all .
I just suggested if you are going to refuel an upper stage a LOX kero US that just happens to have restart and a full RCS is going to be a lot easier to modify for the job.

A wide body centaur would be a lot more desirable then the F9 upper stage but LEO transfer of lH2 is completely unproven and no one has ever stored large quantities cryogenic hydrogen on orbit for long periods.

The closest example I know of are the cryo tanks inside the shuttle for the fuel cells.

Offline libs0n

  • Member
  • Full Member
  • ****
  • Posts: 476
  • Ottawa
  • Liked: 5
  • Likes Given: 2
Re: Ares I/EELV VSE Architecture
« Reply #33 on: 11/18/2008 04:23 am »
How bout this, typical lunar module type lander with dense propellants, but with a fluffy LOX/Hydrogen crasher stage taking care of most of the deltaV.  A two stage descent.  Smaller lander sits atop longer cylindrical crasher stage in the payload fairing.

edit: Or have the ascent module separate and do the proximity landing after the descent module behaves in the manner above.

Another alternative might be to separate the lunar orbit insertion function from the descent stage.  All of these ideas require more engines, except for ascent module landing idea.

For the crasher stage, perhaps it could be the upper stage of the launch vehicle that brought it up.  Make common use of this architecture's refueling infrastructure.

edit: a separately launched upper stage is another option.
« Last Edit: 11/18/2008 04:40 am by libs0n »

Offline Antares

  • ABO^2
  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 5181
  • Done arguing with amateurs
  • Liked: 371
  • Likes Given: 228
Re: Ares I/EELV VSE Architecture
« Reply #34 on: 11/18/2008 04:58 am »
Dude, what's the point of this?  Why develop something with 0-25% more performance when the existing item is 14% to 40% the cost per mass?  A better solution would be EELV/EELV architecture.  Better for the taxpayers and future space travelers, worse for Alabama (north of the river) and Utah.
« Last Edit: 11/18/2008 05:08 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 Lab Lemming

  • Full Member
  • ****
  • Posts: 448
  • Liked: 0
  • Likes Given: 0
Re: Ares I/EELV VSE Architecture
« Reply #35 on: 11/18/2008 05:05 am »

Storing LOX is going to be a lot easier then hydrogen.

Liquid O2 -182.96 °C liquid H2 -252.87 C
All LOX is going to need to stay cool enough is a sun shade and maybe a radiator while lH2 is either going to boil off or will require active refrigeration for storage in LEO.


Dude, use K for cryogenic stuff- it's easier to deal with.

As for cryogenic fuels, is it possible to mix methane and hydrogen to get a stable liquid phase that boils in the ~80K range?  It might be one way to ease handling without adding too much fuel mass.  Of course, you'd need a new engine...

Offline Jim

  • Night Gator
  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 37442
  • Cape Canaveral Spaceport
  • Liked: 21452
  • Likes Given: 428
Re: Ares I/EELV VSE Architecture
« Reply #36 on: 11/18/2008 11:35 am »

BTW F9 is no paper rocket they are building and testing real hardware right now which is a lot more then I can say about Ares I so stop trolling.

You are the one trolling by continuously bringing up the falcon 9 and 9H.  It is not on the table.  It has nothing to do with hardware.  Ares I is in the trade space because it is NASA's, like it or not.  EELV's are in the trade space because they are basically gov't vehicles.   Falcon 9 is not in the trade space, it is Musk's vehicle, he doesn't sell parts, therefore it is a paper rocket as far as topics like this.  Falcon 9 is not part of the US gov't "fleet"

Offline tankmodeler

  • Regular
  • Full Member
  • ****
  • Posts: 643
  • Brampton, ON, Canada
  • Liked: 8
  • Likes Given: 0
Re: Ares I/EELV VSE Architecture
« Reply #37 on: 11/18/2008 01:39 pm »
Which brings up an interesting point for space skeptics ... if we aren't willing to go to the moon using the Ares I and EELV route ... then it must not really be worth going to ... so why should US taxpayers foot the bill for any moon program? 

Well, it appears (if we use Ross' numbers) that an all EELV moon program will cost more, in total, than an alternative 2-launch achitecture based on similar vehicles. Also, the additional number of launches per lunar flight greatly increases the risks of LOM, possibly to the point of making it financially untenable and probably to the point of outweighing any EELV advantages even if Ross' numbers are wrong.

So the question becomes can you show that an all EELV program is actually less expensive than a 2-launch architecture. This includes both development & operations. In either case, the cost will be very high.

The real question is does the American public want to support any lunar program at all because no matter what booster is used, the program costs will be quite high.

Quote
Personally, if Ares I and EELV was the only option, I would want take it ... and then hope the bigger Mars launcher would be funded when it was time to go to Mars. 
Sure, if EELV was the only game in town, I'd use it, but you'd have to be prepared to take flak for using an expensive architecture if it could be proved that the 2-launch architecture was cheaper.
Quote
[Sidebar:  I can see parallels that could be applied to the Direct argument.  Build Direct, use it for the ISS and Lunar missions ... then build the Mars Rocket when you need it for Mars missions, not Lunar ones.  /Sidebar]

Well, you're always going to have to build the actual interplanetary vehicle in orbit. The question is do you bring up the pieces on J-232s or on Ares Vs. It appears that using Ares Vs saves you one launch per Mars mission, but the costs of flying five J-232s is significantly cheaper than flying four Ares Vs, just on an operational basis alone. Again, this supposes Ross's numbers are good.

Disclaimer: I happen to believe Ross' numbers, but have no independent way to verify either side's arguements on this subject and I'm not willing to argue either side of the numbers question in this topic.

Paul
Sr. Mech. Engineer
MDA

Online edkyle99

  • Expert
  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 15392
    • Space Launch Report
  • Liked: 8566
  • Likes Given: 1356
Re: Ares I/EELV VSE Architecture
« Reply #38 on: 11/18/2008 02:20 pm »
Well, it appears (if we use Ross' numbers) that an all EELV moon program will cost more, in total, than an alternative 2-launch achitecture based on similar vehicles. Also, the additional number of launches per lunar flight greatly increases the risks of LOM, possibly to the point of making it financially untenable and probably to the point of outweighing any EELV advantages even if Ross' numbers are wrong.

So the question becomes can you show that an all EELV program is actually less expensive than a 2-launch architecture. This includes both development & operations. In either case, the cost will be very high.

This could be a strength of the EOR mission architecture.  It could fly fewer missions to the Moon, allowing the program to fit within whatever budget is available.  NASA could conduct only one landing  per year, or one every 18 months, or one every two years.  The launch numbers needed for such mission rates would be in the ballpark of existing launch support required for ISS (there have been 10 launches in support of ISS so far this year).

 - Ed Kyle

Online edkyle99

  • Expert
  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 15392
    • Space Launch Report
  • Liked: 8566
  • Likes Given: 1356
Re: Ares I/EELV VSE Architecture
« Reply #39 on: 11/18/2008 02:25 pm »
Dude, what's the point of this?  Why develop something with 0-25% more performance when the existing item is 14% to 40% the cost per mass?  A better solution would be EELV/EELV architecture.  Better for the taxpayers and future space travelers, worse for Alabama (north of the river) and Utah.

Ares I will probably cost more than EELV, but EELVs aren't as cheap as everyone seems to believe.  The benefit of using an Ares I is that it provides an already-developed upper stage that could be modified to perform the TLI role.  EELV doesn't provide such a stage, so it would have to be developed for an EELV/EELV approach.

 - Ed Kyle
« Last Edit: 11/18/2008 02:33 pm by edkyle99 »

Online ugordan

  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 8520
    • My mainly Cassini image gallery
  • Liked: 3543
  • Likes Given: 759
Re: Ares I/EELV VSE Architecture
« Reply #40 on: 11/18/2008 02:30 pm »
The benefit of using an Ares I is that it provides an already-developed upper stage that could be modified to perform the TLI role.  EELV doesn't provide such a stage <snip>

.. neither does Ares I at this point. Ares I upper stage is far from "already-developed". You're comparing EELVs of today with a would-be, future Ares I. Rather unfair, don't you think?

Online edkyle99

  • Expert
  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 15392
    • Space Launch Report
  • Liked: 8566
  • Likes Given: 1356
Re: Ares I/EELV VSE Architecture
« Reply #41 on: 11/18/2008 02:36 pm »
The benefit of using an Ares I is that it provides an already-developed upper stage that could be modified to perform the TLI role.  EELV doesn't provide such a stage <snip>

.. neither does Ares I at this point. Ares I upper stage is far from "already-developed". You're comparing EELVs of today with a would-be, future Ares I. Rather unfair, don't you think?

The basis of this discussion is the assumption that Ares I development continues to completion. 

The Ares I upper stage is being developed now.  No development effort is underway on an equivalent stage that could be used for an all-EELV approach.  We're talking about a stage that can carry 80-100 tonnes of propellant.  There's nothing like that in the ULA catalog.

You shouldn't assume this approach is somehow "anti-EELV".  EELVs would perform the majority of the launches for each mission.

 - Ed Kyle
« Last Edit: 11/18/2008 02:44 pm by edkyle99 »

Online ugordan

  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 8520
    • My mainly Cassini image gallery
  • Liked: 3543
  • Likes Given: 759
Re: Ares I/EELV VSE Architecture
« Reply #42 on: 11/18/2008 02:58 pm »
The basis of this discussion is the assumption that Ares I development continues to completion. 

Point taken. That assumption slipped my mind there.

Offline libs0n

  • Member
  • Full Member
  • ****
  • Posts: 476
  • Ottawa
  • Liked: 5
  • Likes Given: 2
Re: Ares I/EELV VSE Architecture
« Reply #43 on: 11/18/2008 06:09 pm »
It would be good if the Ares flight that brings up Orion can use its upper stage as the TLI stage.  I'll assume that using the L2 as a staging point would allow for reduction in Orion mass to the point that this is possible.  Then, once the depot is topped up, you're down to a 2 flight architecture for bringing up the essentials:

Flight One - EELV: Lunar Landing and Ascent Module + Crasher stage(reused upper stage)

Flight Two - Ares 1: L2Orion + TLI stage(reused upper stage)

The depot should have a space tug for simplification of tanker flights, as well as perhaps assistance during refueling. So, all the infrastructure that's needed is the following:

LOX/LH2 depot
Space tug.
Tanker vehicles.
« Last Edit: 11/18/2008 06:33 pm by libs0n »

Online edkyle99

  • Expert
  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 15392
    • Space Launch Report
  • Liked: 8566
  • Likes Given: 1356
Re: Ares I/EELV VSE Architecture
« Reply #44 on: 11/18/2008 07:05 pm »
Another benefit of using both Ares I and EELVs is that no modification of existing EELV designs, and no U.S. production of RD-180, would be required.  (Griffin has said that Atlas V was the preferred EELV for Orion if EELV would have been the choice.)   Since EELV would not fly Orion in this architecture, any model of either EELV (or any other available launch vehicle for that matter) could be used to fly up the propellant, etc.. 

 - Ed Kyle

Offline savuporo

  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 5152
  • Liked: 1002
  • Likes Given: 342
Re: Ares I/EELV VSE Architecture
« Reply #45 on: 11/18/2008 07:48 pm »
Couple of things. To alleviate H2 boiloff somewhat you could launch LOX first and LH2 on the last "tanker" flights.

Second, when you do complete EOR for a manned flight ( i mean, ignoring any previous lunar surface staging of habitats, rovers, equiment and whatnot ) i dont understand why LOM numbers would be any higher for 8-launch system than 2-launch system ? You lose one tanker, just fly another one, potentially using Arianes or Protons as an emergency measure if the EELV pads cant meet the schedules.
Orion - the first and only manned not-too-deep-space craft

Offline libs0n

  • Member
  • Full Member
  • ****
  • Posts: 476
  • Ottawa
  • Liked: 5
  • Likes Given: 2
Re: Ares I/EELV VSE Architecture
« Reply #46 on: 11/18/2008 10:11 pm »
Space tug.
Tanker vehicles.

After reading up a bit, it appears these may not necessary, but rather EELV upper stages could perform both roles.  They would be upgraded with the ability to maneuver and dock with the depot, and be oversized to carry the propellant they deliver.  However, preferred implementation is still up in the air at this stage; maybe tugs still might be useful.   Non-EELV propellant flights may need their own tankcraft.

The fuel depot concept seems based around upper stage work and designs, so funding upgraded capabilities in that area would be reasonable.

Offline GraphGuy

  • Full Member
  • **
  • Posts: 292
  • Liked: 1
  • Likes Given: 0
Re: Ares I/EELV VSE Architecture
« Reply #47 on: 11/20/2008 05:06 pm »
Another benefit of using both Ares I and EELVs is that no modification of existing EELV designs, and no U.S. production of RD-180, would be required.  (Griffin has said that Atlas V was the preferred EELV for Orion if EELV would have been the choice.)   Since EELV would not fly Orion in this architecture, any model of either EELV (or any other available launch vehicle for that matter) could be used to fly up the propellant, etc.. 

 - Ed Kyle

I'd prefer to launch the CEV on a Delta IV heavy and invest the money in U.S. production of the RD-180 (lets face it, it is an amazing engine in terms of T/W, ISP, thrust).

Replace the stick with the Delta IV heavy and replace the SRBs on an Ares V with RD-180 derived strap on boosters (you have what, 8-10 years to create such strap ons).

In the end, Boeing and LockMart are happy, CEV flies to ISS, Boeing gets a RS-68 regen out of Ares V and LockMart gets a U.S. RD-180 out of Ares V.

None of this will happen of course  :-\

Offline imcub

  • Member
  • Full Member
  • **
  • Posts: 259
  • Liked: 0
  • Likes Given: 7
Re: Ares I/EELV VSE Architecture
« Reply #48 on: 11/20/2008 07:27 pm »

I'd prefer to launch the CEV on a Delta IV heavy and invest the money in U.S. production of the RD-180 (lets face it, it is an amazing engine in terms of T/W, ISP, thrust).

Replace the stick with the Delta IV heavy and replace the SRBs on an Ares V with RD-180 derived strap on boosters (you have what, 8-10 years to create such strap ons).

In the end, Boeing and LockMart are happy, CEV flies to ISS, Boeing gets a RS-68 regen out of Ares V and LockMart gets a U.S. RD-180 out of Ares V.

None of this will happen of course  :-\

Reminds me of the movie Patton ... Don't for get the Russians ... er ... Don't forget ATK ...

Offline GraphGuy

  • Full Member
  • **
  • Posts: 292
  • Liked: 1
  • Likes Given: 0
Re: Ares I/EELV VSE Architecture
« Reply #49 on: 11/20/2008 07:50 pm »

Reminds me of the movie Patton ... Don't for get the Russians ... er ... Don't forget ATK ...

I'd like to forget ATK.  Who knows, new administration, maybe ATK won't have as much of a voice.  The RD-180 is basically one half of the RD-170 which was used as a strap on for energia.  I'd like to see it be a strap on again.

Are there good technical reasons why Delta IV heavy can't launch the CEV to ISS, why we can't make the RD-180 as a strap on for an Ares V class booster (with a 8-10m RS-68 regen based core)?  If there are good technical reasons why this is a bad idea, let me know and i'll shut up :)   (the shuttle workforce being unemployed and ATK being angry aren't technical reasons).

Offline libs0n

  • Member
  • Full Member
  • ****
  • Posts: 476
  • Ottawa
  • Liked: 5
  • Likes Given: 2
Re: Ares I/EELV VSE Architecture
« Reply #50 on: 11/20/2008 08:59 pm »
I was thinking of another way to reduce the mass of Orion so that the Ares 1 could place both it and its own second stage into orbit.  One way, if I'm not mistaken, is the use of the L2 point rather than orbiting the moon and doing rendezvous there.  Another would be to fuel the Orion's tanks in orbit, the Orion being sent up defueled. 

A third may be to eliminate the TEI functions from the Orion completely.  There seems to be a lot of second stages in this Ares1/EELV architecture that one could make use of.  Perhaps we can use a surplus one to fuel and send itself and some propellant to meet the Orion, where it will dock with it and perform the TEI burn.

I was going to go one step further, and try to eliminate the Orion itself, but I've spun that off into another thread.

Offline Antares

  • ABO^2
  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 5181
  • Done arguing with amateurs
  • Liked: 371
  • Likes Given: 228
Re: Ares I/EELV VSE Architecture
« Reply #51 on: 11/21/2008 04:12 pm »
Ares I will probably cost more than EELV, but EELVs aren't as cheap as everyone seems to believe.  The benefit of using an Ares I is that it provides an already-developed upper stage that could be modified to perform the TLI role.  EELV doesn't provide such a stage, so it would have to be developed for an EELV/EELV approach.

Some of us know how much EELVs cost, though the exact numbers are proprietary.

"Already-Developed Upper Stage"  Sir, you are seriously misinformed.  EDS will be a whole new stage.

I've never advocated crewed EELV to anywhere past LEO.  But Ares I should NEVER fly because EELV is in the same class and is FAR cheaper.  I'd rather have the Atlas and Delta guys designing an Ares V class rocket, but I realize that may be politically untenable.
« Last Edit: 11/21/2008 04:12 pm 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.

Online edkyle99

  • Expert
  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 15392
    • Space Launch Report
  • Liked: 8566
  • Likes Given: 1356
Re: Ares I/EELV VSE Architecture
« Reply #52 on: 11/21/2008 09:55 pm »
Ares I will probably cost more than EELV, but EELVs aren't as cheap as everyone seems to believe.  The benefit of using an Ares I is that it provides an already-developed upper stage that could be modified to perform the TLI role.  EELV doesn't provide such a stage, so it would have to be developed for an EELV/EELV approach.

Some of us know how much EELVs cost, though the exact numbers are proprietary.

"Already-Developed Upper Stage"  Sir, you are seriously misinformed.  EDS will be a whole new stage.

I've never advocated crewed EELV to anywhere past LEO.  But Ares I should NEVER fly because EELV is in the same class and is FAR cheaper.  I'd rather have the Atlas and Delta guys designing an Ares V class rocket, but I realize that may be politically untenable.

I am *not* talking about EDS.  I am talking about an architecture that lets NASA *skip* development of EDS.  I'm taking about an architecture that allows the first launch to place an Ares I upper stage - a *modified* upper stage that could be developed much more rapidly than EDS and Ares V - into low earth orbit.  This stage would serve first as a propellant depot and second as a lunar transfer injection stage.

As for EELV cost, all one has to do is look up how much the government spent on the EELV program this year (at least $1.2 billion and probably hundreds of millions more) and divide by the number of launches (two so far). 

 - Ed Kyle

Offline Kaputnik

  • Extreme Veteran
  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 3079
  • Liked: 722
  • Likes Given: 821
Re: Ares I/EELV VSE Architecture
« Reply #53 on: 11/21/2008 10:01 pm »
Perhaps Antares was referring to the extensive mods required to turn an Ares-I US into an EDS? (RCS, restart, more power to keep it 'alive', etc).
"I don't care what anything was DESIGNED to do, I care about what it CAN do"- Gene Kranz

Offline Jim

  • Night Gator
  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 37442
  • Cape Canaveral Spaceport
  • Liked: 21452
  • Likes Given: 428
Re: Ares I/EELV VSE Architecture
« Reply #54 on: 11/21/2008 10:04 pm »

As for EELV cost, all one has to do is look up how much the government spent on the EELV program this year (at least $1.2 billion and probably hundreds of millions more) and divide by the number of launches (two so far). 


Payloads caused most of the EELV delays

Offline EE Scott

  • Full Member
  • ****
  • Posts: 1177
  • Liked: 74
  • Likes Given: 356
Re: Ares I/EELV VSE Architecture
« Reply #55 on: 11/21/2008 10:26 pm »

As for EELV cost, all one has to do is look up how much the government spent on the EELV program this year (at least $1.2 billion and probably hundreds of millions more) and divide by the number of launches (two so far). 


So wouldn't it make sense to increase the number of launches (via NASA LEO ops) to decrease the cost to all while investing in the improvement of an operating fleet of LVs?  Win-win?
Scott

Offline Antares

  • ABO^2
  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 5181
  • Done arguing with amateurs
  • Liked: 371
  • Likes Given: 228
Re: Ares I/EELV VSE Architecture
« Reply #56 on: 11/22/2008 05:01 am »
Bingo.

And so far DoD hasn't asked NASA or commercial customers to help foot a full proportion of the ELC bill.  I can't even wrap my brain around what could have been done to grow and upgrade EELV with the money wasted on Ares.
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 RedSky

  • Veteran
  • Full Member
  • ****
  • Posts: 511
  • Liked: 109
  • Likes Given: 2
Re: Ares I/EELV VSE Architecture
« Reply #57 on: 11/22/2008 01:32 pm »
Since we're comparing architecture here... there's a scenario I've been wondering about: 

Say the currently planned "1.5 launch" scheme actually comes to fruition (which I doubt, but play along)...

There is a lunar outpost with an "expedition" crew two months into their 6 month stay.   There is a problem with the Orion in Lunar orbit (ala Apollo 13, Skylab 3, whatever) and it becomes unusable.  Of course, the crew at the base are in no immediate danger.  So the question becomes:

How to launch just a rescue Orion to lunar orbit to replace the dead one?

1). Can Ares 1 launch Orion to the moon?  Since it would be unmanned, could it use a direct ascent without LEO? Yes, such a path might be one big black zone, but, again, it would be unmanned, and would not even need the LAS (saving weight).  Is this do-able?

If Not...

2) Would NASA dummy up some adapter on Ares V to lift an Orion / EDS to LEO to perform a TLI. 

Then...

3) Once headed to the moon, can Orion by itself (with NO Altair) have the propellant to do both a LOI and then the TEI? (since right now, Altair does the LOI).  If not, then what?

4) OR... Would they launch the normally scheduled next mission hardware, (1.5 launch Orion + Altair), say, with one astronaut (remember, Orion would have to dock with EDS/Altair). When that arrives in LLO as normal, Altair is jettisoned (sacrificed), and the outpost crew launches to meet the lone member on the new Orion for return.  Seems a real waste of an Altair.

5) Is there some other alternative? With EELV's?  Seems like it would be a big public relations fiasco if NASA had to say it couldn't get a rescue Orion to Lunar orbit given a period of months to save the lunar base crew.


Offline Kaputnik

  • Extreme Veteran
  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 3079
  • Liked: 722
  • Likes Given: 821
Re: Ares I/EELV VSE Architecture
« Reply #58 on: 11/22/2008 05:12 pm »
Probably option 4. It is likely the quickest and most assured means of accomplishing the task. If there was a rule that the next missino's hardware had to be ready to go before launching each mission, then you'd have this sort of LON capacity.
However, as with LON, you're going to be faced with a dillema: you're performing a rescue mission using exactly the same design of spacecraft which has just failed.
"I don't care what anything was DESIGNED to do, I care about what it CAN do"- Gene Kranz

Offline Jorge

  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 6404
  • Liked: 529
  • Likes Given: 67
Re: Ares I/EELV VSE Architecture
« Reply #59 on: 11/22/2008 05:40 pm »
Since we're comparing architecture here... there's a scenario I've been wondering about: 

Say the currently planned "1.5 launch" scheme actually comes to fruition (which I doubt, but play along)...

There is a lunar outpost with an "expedition" crew two months into their 6 month stay.   There is a problem with the Orion in Lunar orbit (ala Apollo 13, Skylab 3, whatever) and it becomes unusable.  Of course, the crew at the base are in no immediate danger.  So the question becomes:

How to launch just a rescue Orion to lunar orbit to replace the dead one?

1). Can Ares 1 launch Orion to the moon?  Since it would be unmanned, could it use a direct ascent without LEO? Yes, such a path might be one big black zone, but, again, it would be unmanned, and would not even need the LAS (saving weight).  Is this do-able?

No, not even close.

Quote

If Not...

2) Would NASA dummy up some adapter on Ares V to lift an Orion / EDS to LEO to perform a TLI. 

Not on short notice. It would have to have been already designed and fabricated. In other words, not likely.

Quote
Then...

3) Once headed to the moon, can Orion by itself (with NO Altair) have the propellant to do both a LOI and then the TEI? (since right now, Altair does the LOI).

No, not even close.

Quote
4) OR... Would they launch the normally scheduled next mission hardware, (1.5 launch Orion + Altair), say, with one astronaut (remember, Orion would have to dock with EDS/Altair). When that arrives in LLO as normal, Altair is jettisoned (sacrificed), and the outpost crew launches to meet the lone member on the new Orion for return.  Seems a real waste of an Altair.

Nevertheless, it is the most likely case, assuming that the flight rate is such that the next mission could be readied in time.

Quote
5) Is there some other alternative? With EELV's?

Not with existing EELVs.

Quote
  Seems like it would be a big public relations fiasco if NASA had to say it couldn't get a rescue Orion to Lunar orbit given a period of months to save the lunar base crew.

Which is why NASA needs to start banging the drum now that exploration is risky and that casualties, though to be avoided if possible, are inevitable. If casualties cannot be tolerated, then we have no business even attempting this at all.
JRF

Offline RedSky

  • Veteran
  • Full Member
  • ****
  • Posts: 511
  • Liked: 109
  • Likes Given: 2
Re: Ares I/EELV VSE Architecture
« Reply #60 on: 11/22/2008 07:06 pm »
Which is why NASA needs to start banging the drum now that exploration is risky and that casualties, though to be avoided if possible, are inevitable. If casualties cannot be tolerated, then we have no business even attempting this at all.

The public will tolerate casualties in manned spaceflight; if anything, Challenger & Columbia have shown that to be the case, even though they shouldn't have been tolerated, since there were ample warning signs that both could have been prevented if it were not for arrogance and overconfidence.

However, if a 1.5 launch architecture can't send a LON rescue Orion to LLO given a time frame of months, it will be viewed by the public as flawed and not thought out.  Some unforseen mechanical failure or MMOD causing LOC will be tolerated.  But lack of reasonable contingency planning will not be.  This also holds for any LOC caused by some backup system  removed when downsizing Orion for Ares I.
Also such bizarre LOC cases such as not recovering them after soon enough after splashdown within x hours or else they can't survive.  Totally unforgivable.  If you can't do it right (i.e., with reasonable contingency as viewed by the public)... then don't do it.

Online edkyle99

  • Expert
  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 15392
    • Space Launch Report
  • Liked: 8566
  • Likes Given: 1356
Re: Ares I/EELV VSE Architecture
« Reply #61 on: 11/22/2008 07:43 pm »

As for EELV cost, all one has to do is look up how much the government spent on the EELV program this year (at least $1.2 billion and probably hundreds of millions more) and divide by the number of launches (two so far). 


So wouldn't it make sense to increase the number of launches (via NASA LEO ops) to decrease the cost to all while investing in the improvement of an operating fleet of LVs?  Win-win?

An Ares I/EELV architecture would do just that, requiring perhaps four or more  EELV launches for each lunar mission.  NASA would get an Ares infrastructure.  The Air Force would get more flights out of EELV.  The U.S. would get maximum use out of all of these vehicles, with salvo launches from all of the Florida pads.  Win. Win.  Win?

 - Ed Kyle

Offline William Barton

  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 3487
  • Liked: 8
  • Likes Given: 0
Re: Ares I/EELV VSE Architecture
« Reply #62 on: 11/22/2008 07:59 pm »
Another benefit of using both Ares I and EELVs is that no modification of existing EELV designs, and no U.S. production of RD-180, would be required.  (Griffin has said that Atlas V was the preferred EELV for Orion if EELV would have been the choice.)   Since EELV would not fly Orion in this architecture, any model of either EELV (or any other available launch vehicle for that matter) could be used to fly up the propellant, etc.. 

 - Ed Kyle

I'd prefer to launch the CEV on a Delta IV heavy and invest the money in U.S. production of the RD-180 (lets face it, it is an amazing engine in terms of T/W, ISP, thrust).

Replace the stick with the Delta IV heavy and replace the SRBs on an Ares V with RD-180 derived strap on boosters (you have what, 8-10 years to create such strap ons).

In the end, Boeing and LockMart are happy, CEV flies to ISS, Boeing gets a RS-68 regen out of Ares V and LockMart gets a U.S. RD-180 out of Ares V.

None of this will happen of course  :-\

Just out of curiosity, is there anything more to be learned from developing and Americanized RD-180 than from doing a home-grown big kerolox engine, say finishing the RS-84? I think the US has missed a bet by not having new engine designs brought to fruition. It seems like the only way new propulsion engineers can be continuously minted is to give the something to do, and it seems best if the somethings they do eventually get to fly.

Offline EE Scott

  • Full Member
  • ****
  • Posts: 1177
  • Liked: 74
  • Likes Given: 356
Re: Ares I/EELV VSE Architecture
« Reply #63 on: 11/22/2008 08:10 pm »

As for EELV cost, all one has to do is look up how much the government spent on the EELV program this year (at least $1.2 billion and probably hundreds of millions more) and divide by the number of launches (two so far). 


So wouldn't it make sense to increase the number of launches (via NASA LEO ops) to decrease the cost to all while investing in the improvement of an operating fleet of LVs?  Win-win?

An Ares I/EELV architecture would do just that, requiring perhaps four or more  EELV launches for each lunar mission.  NASA would get an Ares infrastructure.  The Air Force would get more flights out of EELV.  The U.S. would get maximum use out of all of these vehicles, with salvo launches from all of the Florida pads.  Win. Win.  Win?

 - Ed Kyle

Well, I would prefer NASA not spend the money to develop the redundant Ares I.  Even if no Ares I means no Ares V.  Let's take $$ saved and re-fund and re-emphasize the exciting unmanned exploration possibilities of Europa, Triton, etc....

But at least the EELVs would benefit from the scenario proposed above.  Gotta look on the bright side.   :)
Scott

Offline Antares

  • ABO^2
  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 5181
  • Done arguing with amateurs
  • Liked: 371
  • Likes Given: 228
Re: Ares I/EELV VSE Architecture
« Reply #64 on: 11/22/2008 08:27 pm »
Minting new propulsion engineers: interesting thought, though Rocketdyne Canoga was pretty good at cranking up and out a new LH2 engine and now the RP guys are collecting at SpaceX (who probably has ideas for something much larger than the Merlin 1).  The pace is slow, but we seem to be meeting the needs.

There was actually a directive from Congress on this very issue in the NASA authorization bill that was just passed and signed.  A white paper is due to Congress in January, IIRC.
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 Jorge

  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 6404
  • Liked: 529
  • Likes Given: 67
Re: Ares I/EELV VSE Architecture
« Reply #65 on: 11/22/2008 09:09 pm »
Which is why NASA needs to start banging the drum now that exploration is risky and that casualties, though to be avoided if possible, are inevitable. If casualties cannot be tolerated, then we have no business even attempting this at all.

The public will tolerate casualties in manned spaceflight; if anything, Challenger & Columbia have shown that to be the case, even though they shouldn't have been tolerated, since there were ample warning signs that both could have been prevented if it were not for arrogance and overconfidence.

However, if a 1.5 launch architecture can't send a LON rescue Orion to LLO given a time frame of months, it will be viewed by the public as flawed and not thought out.

If so, it means the public's expectations are unreasonably high.

LON rescue wasn't possible for Apollo and it won't be economically feasible for CxP, regardless of architecture.

Quote
  Some unforseen mechanical failure or MMOD causing LOC will be tolerated.  But lack of reasonable contingency planning will not be.

I agree, though I suspect we define "reasonable" differently.

Quote
If you can't do it right (i.e., with reasonable contingency as viewed by the public)... then don't do it.

With that, I completely agree... if your reading of public sentiment is correct, don't do it. America is too risk-averse to deserve a space program.
JRF

Offline Antares

  • ABO^2
  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 5181
  • Done arguing with amateurs
  • Liked: 371
  • Likes Given: 228
Re: Ares I/EELV VSE Architecture
« Reply #66 on: 11/22/2008 09:15 pm »
"Too risk averse to deserve a space program."

That's where my brain is heading.  Congressmen and the media who dictate national sentiment get their guts in a knot that we are all partially responsible when astronauts die.  My answer: fund development of capabilities in the private sector.  Then it's the companies putting their test pilots or customers on the line.  It's (slightly) easier to stave off regulation than to perpetuate funding.
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 robertross

  • Canadian Member
  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 17939
  • Westphal, Nova Scotia
  • Liked: 659
  • Likes Given: 7692
Re: Ares I/EELV VSE Architecture
« Reply #67 on: 11/22/2008 09:36 pm »
"Too risk averse to deserve a space program."

That's where my brain is heading.  Congressmen and the media who dictate national sentiment get their guts in a knot that we are all partially responsible when astronauts die.  My answer: fund development of capabilities in the private sector.  Then it's the companies putting their test pilots or customers on the line.  It's (slightly) easier to stave off regulation than to perpetuate funding.

Hope you don't mind if I chime in on this one...

If you leave this to the private sector, and the same 'disaster' happens, then they are either going to close up shop or stop this type of business because:

A) They can't afford the bad image
B) They can't afford launch vehicles failing without compensation
c) They can't get repeat customers

Now where is manned space flight if it is left to them?

You are no better off for cancellation, either way, imo.
« Last Edit: 11/24/2008 02:02 am by robertross »

Offline RedSky

  • Veteran
  • Full Member
  • ****
  • Posts: 511
  • Liked: 109
  • Likes Given: 2
Re: Ares I/EELV VSE Architecture
« Reply #68 on: 11/23/2008 01:08 am »
LON rescue wasn't possible for Apollo and it won't be economically feasible for CxP, regardless of architecture.

It was available with Skylab (sort of), and for shuttle (after Columbia).  There's no reason that with proper planning it shouldn't be expected with CxP.  Anything less is negligence.

Offline jongoff

  • Recovering Rocket Plumber/Space Entrepreneur
  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 6807
  • Lafayette/Broomfield, CO
  • Liked: 3987
  • Likes Given: 1684
Re: Ares I/EELV VSE Architecture
« Reply #69 on: 11/23/2008 05:47 am »
I am *not* talking about EDS.  I am talking about an architecture that lets NASA *skip* development of EDS.  I'm taking about an architecture that allows the first launch to place an Ares I upper stage - a *modified* upper stage that could be developed much more rapidly than EDS and Ares V - into low earth orbit.  This stage would serve first as a propellant depot and second as a lunar transfer injection stage.

Ed,
The problem is that the Ares I US would absolutely suck as the starting point for an EDS or for a propellant depot.  It's not even restartable!   The only thing the Ares-I upper stage has going for it is it's propellant volume. 

AIUI, here are a few specific issues:
1. The isogrid structure sucks for long-duration cryo storage.  Think lots of tiny heat exchangers.
2. The structure is designed to take crazy amounts of accelerations and max dynamic pressures, meaning it has to take much heavier loading than an in space stage, and is thus not as structurally efficient.
3. Not designed for restartability.
4. External foam insulation (which is pretty much needed to make Ares-I US work) is just about useless in vacuum compared to better forms of insulation.
5. The stage T/W ratio is higher than it needs to be, which means that you've got a heavier engine than you really want for in-space use.

I think the ACES stage ULA has been working on is a much better starting point for a refuelable EDS or depot.  It's extendable up to sizes similar to the Ares-I US, but is designed from the start in a way that makes it a lot more friendly to long-term cryo storage.  Adding refueling hookups to an ACES stage would be possible, and they've already looked into the concept of "mission specific kits" for different applications (long duration storability, lunar ops, etc).

~Jon

Offline Jim

  • Night Gator
  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 37442
  • Cape Canaveral Spaceport
  • Liked: 21452
  • Likes Given: 428
Re: Ares I/EELV VSE Architecture
« Reply #70 on: 11/23/2008 05:21 pm »

It was available with Skylab (sort of), and for shuttle (after Columbia).  There's no reason that with proper planning it shouldn't be expected with CxP.  Anything less is negligence.

Incorrect.  Those are LEO missions.  There is always risk and it has to be excepted.  There isn't always a way to provide a way of a problem.  The shuttle LON is a crutch for a bad TPS.
« Last Edit: 11/23/2008 05:22 pm by Jim »

Offline Robotbeat

  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 39271
  • Minnesota
  • Liked: 25241
  • Likes Given: 12115
Re: Ares I/EELV VSE Architecture
« Reply #71 on: 11/23/2008 10:24 pm »
Isn't part of the reason that a rescue launch isn't feasible because there aren't enough launches period?

If spaceflight was made routine, then not only could you gain a safety factor from reusing the same hardware (and therefore revealing all the major flaws), but you also have the ability to divert an already-scheduled launch to rescue a botched mission in the window of time allotted by the life support system.

...

Then again, it always seems that "making spaceflight routine" is the oft-quoted way to overcome just about every obstacle facing spaceflight (cost, results, sustainability, etc.). Too bad wishing hard enough for spaceflight to be routine can't actually make it so :-\.
« Last Edit: 11/24/2008 01:51 am by Robotbeat »
Chris  Whoever loves correction loves knowledge, but he who hates reproof is stupid.

To the maximum extent practicable, the Federal Government shall plan missions to accommodate the space transportation services capabilities of United States commercial providers. US law http://goo.gl/YZYNt0

Offline kraisee

  • Expert
  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 10560
  • Liked: 807
  • Likes Given: 40
Re: Ares I/EELV VSE Architecture
« Reply #72 on: 11/23/2008 10:55 pm »
Its an aside for this discussion, but I feel I ought to inject that a limited Lunar LON capability is possible with DIRECT.

A Lunar surface rescue is far more difficult (you'd really need a spare lander on the moon already), but an in-space rescue in Lunar orbit is quite possible with the reasonably high Jupiter-232 flight rate we're planning.

It would require a fully-checked-out Payload Fairing & Orion to be permanently on standby, also a standby EDS, Interstage and an extra central RS-68 for converting a Jupiter-120 Core into a Jupiter-232 if that's needed.   The best possible options will also need a third VAB High Bay to be commissioned for Jupiter processing, but that isn't required until ~2017.

With our current plan to launch at least a dozen Jupiter vehicles every year, we have a number of options to expedite launches.   If we plan to always have at least one full set of SRB's and Core Stage assembled on the MLP at the time of each Lunar mission launch, we open a number of options.

Ross.
« Last Edit: 11/23/2008 11:10 pm by kraisee »
"The meek shall inherit the Earth -- the rest of us will go to the stars"
-Robert A. Heinlein

Offline robertross

  • Canadian Member
  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 17939
  • Westphal, Nova Scotia
  • Liked: 659
  • Likes Given: 7692
Re: Ares I/EELV VSE Architecture
« Reply #73 on: 11/24/2008 02:01 am »
I wonder how feasible it is to have a lunar escape module, fully fueled, ready to go as a LON from the lunar surface? I mean, considering all the technical & logistical issues, wouldn't it make sense to develop a LAS specifically for RTE capability? Of course I don't mean a vehicle loitering in lunar orbit either. One shot, spacesuits only, emergency vehicle.

It's one thing to have an EELV or other vehicle available to launch such a mission (since there is the chance it would launch un-manned). But for medical or other needs (solar issue), having that capability at hand, rather than waiting for it, seems more logical?

Please, spare me the cost figures. We've been up and down that so many times. What really counts is the public's perception here. It's much cheaper to have a 'well done, good thinking' applause with "how much did that cost anyway?" later, than to lose a crew.

Offline Patchouli

  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 4490
  • Liked: 253
  • Likes Given: 457
Re: Ares I/EELV VSE Architecture
« Reply #74 on: 11/24/2008 04:22 am »
I wonder how feasible it is to have a lunar escape module, fully fueled, ready to go as a LON from the lunar surface? I mean, considering all the technical & logistical issues, wouldn't it make sense to develop a LAS specifically for RTE capability? Of course I don't mean a vehicle loitering in lunar orbit either. One shot, spacesuits only, emergency vehicle.

It's one thing to have an EELV or other vehicle available to launch such a mission (since there is the chance it would launch un-manned). But for medical or other needs (solar issue), having that capability at hand, rather than waiting for it, seems more logical?

Please, spare me the cost figures. We've been up and down that so many times. What really counts is the public's perception here. It's much cheaper to have a 'well done, good thinking' applause with "how much did that cost anyway?" later, than to lose a crew.

Though an open vehicle can be used for surface rescue if there is a good return vehicle in LLO.
Plus with all open vehicles you must keep in mind a space suit has a max duration of 9 hours.
It's not just O2 but also the CO2 scrubbing,ice sublimation cooler,and battery life.
A better solution might be to implement the old Gemini surface rescue concept where a Gemini was landed on the Moon complete with an ascent stage.

http://www.astronautix.com/craft/gemcraft.htm

Now we're in luck here as there is a vehicle under development right now that could be used in the same manner as Gemini.
Dragon could be modified as a lunar surface rescue and return craft using the descent stage from Altair and some sorta of ascent stage.
This would handle most rescue scenarios both surface and LLO.

If Dragon lab really can handle a 2 year free flight then it might even be possible to keep a rescue Dragon on stand by on the lunar surface.
Some RTGs can be used for keep alive power and heat so the vehicle doesn't freeze during the lunar night.
Or just tap the base's reactor for power.
An ascent stage based off the hybrid motors in SS2 or the OMS engine on the Shuttle might be able to handle long term storage on the moon.


Offline Jim

  • Night Gator
  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 37442
  • Cape Canaveral Spaceport
  • Liked: 21452
  • Likes Given: 428
Re: Ares I/EELV VSE Architecture
« Reply #75 on: 11/24/2008 11:32 am »

Now we're in luck here as there is a vehicle under development right now that could be used in the same manner as Gemini.

Wrong and way off base.  You have nothing to base that assumption on.  Dragon is a LEO spacecraft.  Spacecraft are not Legos.  The Gemini concept required major mods to spacecraft.  It only looked like Gemini

Offline William Barton

  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 3487
  • Liked: 8
  • Likes Given: 0
Re: Ares I/EELV VSE Architecture
« Reply #76 on: 11/24/2008 11:58 am »
Isn't that part of the reason they want to build a moonbase asap, so it can be a safe haven for a stranded crew, similar to ISS for Shuttle now? With a moonbase and unmanned resupply, a stranded crew could wait as long a necessary for a rescue ship to come get them. (I published a story in Asimov's in 2005 called "Harvest Moon" in which the inhabitants of a 1965 moonbase had to wait 9 years for rescue capability to be developed from scratch after their original earth-return capability turned out not to work at all. It was partly about dealing with keeping equipment working while they waited.)

Offline nacnud

  • Extreme Veteran
  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 2691
  • Liked: 981
  • Likes Given: 347
Re: Ares I/EELV VSE Architecture
« Reply #77 on: 11/24/2008 12:07 pm »
One thing that might work would be just to land a return vehicle on the moon before the first crew arrives, they would then take this home and leave the vehicle they arrived in for the next crew.

This assumes that the next crew wants to go to the same place as the first crew and that the lander can have an exceptionally long on moon storage time.

Offline libs0n

  • Member
  • Full Member
  • ****
  • Posts: 476
  • Ottawa
  • Liked: 5
  • Likes Given: 2
Re: Ares I/EELV VSE Architecture
« Reply #78 on: 11/24/2008 07:27 pm »
I'm going to suggest pre-placing the Altair "dry" at the L2 point.  Then, when your lunar campaign is underway, you send an Altair fuel load in a surplus upperstage.  That deals with a problem I didn't care for in the original architecture, that the Altair mass is disproportionate to the Orion mass; this way its all roughly split into the same amounts.  The dry Altair uses hypergols for its ascent stage, therefore it has a longer in space lifetime.  So, to achieve the direction this thread is taking, before the crew goes down to the lunar surface, make sure you've pre-placed the next dry-Altair at L2.  Then, if you quickly need that future Altair for a rescue, either you've preloaded 50mt of propellant in a LEO fuel depot, or you rush the next two EELV flights, or you've incorporated an L2 Fuel Depot into your architecture already holding 25mt of propellant.

Flight 1: Dry Altair 25mt
Flight 2: Fueled "Dry Altair" TLI stage 25mt

Goes to L2 point. x2 for the first mission, then overlap.

Flight 3: Altair fuel load in an upperstage. 25mt
Flight 4: Altair fuel load TLI stage 25mt

Goes to L2, to transfer fuel load to dry Altair

Flight 5: L2Orion, >20mt?
Flight 6: L2Orion TLI stage, >20mt?

Goes to L2, to dock with L2 and perform lunar mission.

Hmm, I was a tad mistaken, the L2Orion will mass less than what it will now, and the Altair maybe a bit more that I've estimated here, but it's not the Altair being twice the size of the Orion.  Also, maybe you don't need a LEO fuel depot, just the launchers I've mentioned here.  The only transferring being between the Altair and its fuel load tanker.  Although it can certainly be done in the manner of storing the propellant at the depot for when you need it, and then reusing the upperstages.  Probably you can also pre-place a dry Altair at LEO, and send it on its way if needed, by fueling it and its TLI stage at the depot.  I don't see all this benign failure leading to a crew stranded on the lunar surface alive with a non-functioning Altair, but with this layout that near-rescue capability is a by product of the way you're doing things anyway.

edit:  Given it a bit more thought, and L2 staging would probably be too time intensive, at least until you had a depot there topped up.  Best to go with staged Altair at the LEO depot, which, in the best case scenario, is itself topped up with the prop Altair needs to get to the lunar surface.
« Last Edit: 11/24/2008 10:15 pm by libs0n »

Offline kraisee

  • Expert
  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 10560
  • Liked: 807
  • Likes Given: 40
Re: Ares I/EELV VSE Architecture
« Reply #79 on: 11/24/2008 08:49 pm »
For the outpost, the solution is fairly straight-forward.   You add one extra LSAM into the cycle, so there are always two available.   If one fails to lift, the crew switches over.

For sortie missions its far more complicated.

I wonder what would be required to deliver 2-months of oxygen, food and water in a usable package which could be launched on almost any rocket?   If we had a dozen "emergency survival packs" sitting in a warehouse at KSC and had all the procedures drawn-up and ready to go at a moment's notice for Atlas, Delta-II and Delta-IV (and Jupiter), ready to fly on an extremely expedited consciously high-risk launch attempt, we could potentially deliver minimal survival equipment to a stranded crew to help them survive until we can get a proper rescue mounted.   The stranded crew would need at least a week's worth of resources on the surface at the time of 'the call', but that ought not to be too much mass penalty for Sortie missions to include.

I think a study into such a capability would be a really good idea.

Ross.
« Last Edit: 11/24/2008 08:59 pm by kraisee »
"The meek shall inherit the Earth -- the rest of us will go to the stars"
-Robert A. Heinlein

Offline William Barton

  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 3487
  • Liked: 8
  • Likes Given: 0
Re: Ares I/EELV VSE Architecture
« Reply #80 on: 11/24/2008 09:05 pm »
For the outpost, the solution is fairly straight-forward.   You add one extra LSAM into the cycle, so there are always two available.   If one fails to lift, the crew switches over.

For sortie missions its far more complicated.

I wonder what would be required to deliver 2-months of oxygen, food and water in a usable package which could be launched on almost any rocket?   If we had a dozen "emergency survival packs" sitting in a warehouse at KSC and had all the procedures drawn-up and ready to go at a moment's notice for Atlas, Delta-II and Delta-IV (and Jupiter), ready to fly on an extremely expedited consciously high-risk launch attempt, we could potentially deliver minimal survival equipment to a stranded crew to help them survive until we can get a proper rescue mounted.   The stranded crew would need at least a week's worth of resources on the surface at the time of 'the call', but that ought not to be too much mass penalty for Sortie missions to include.

I think a study into such a capability would be a really good idea.

Ross.

LON life support as part of a lunar cargo delivery system would be worthwhile (as would simply having the ability to land smallish unmanned payloads near a moonbase). Maybe develop the small cargo lander with moonbase resupply in mind (sort of a lunar Progress) and just be sure it's ready when the sortie missions start flying.

Offline robertross

  • Canadian Member
  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 17939
  • Westphal, Nova Scotia
  • Liked: 659
  • Likes Given: 7692
Re: Ares I/EELV VSE Architecture
« Reply #81 on: 11/24/2008 10:00 pm »
For the outpost, the solution is fairly straight-forward.   You add one extra LSAM into the cycle, so there are always two available.   If one fails to lift, the crew switches over.

For sortie missions its far more complicated.

Ross.

That was one of my original thoughts, however I don't know how well it would fair as a long-duration vehicle, and what I was thinking as a whole. Maybe a modified one specifically to allow user-replaceable/removeable seats for crew member in stretcher.

My initial idea for spacesuits was to limit the dependance on a pressurized cabin should the need arise (failed seals, mmod damage, ECT). I wasn't thinking about the self-contained units with batteries and such, but ones like on shuttle where you 'plug-in' for consumables & life support. Again, this is a concept of 'last resort.

But I see the benefit of a common LSAM that gets rotated out so it's life expectancy isn't exceeded & it's not a '1-shot ever' use.
« Last Edit: 11/24/2008 10:01 pm by robertross »

Offline robertross

  • Canadian Member
  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 17939
  • Westphal, Nova Scotia
  • Liked: 659
  • Likes Given: 7692
Re: Ares I/EELV VSE Architecture
« Reply #82 on: 11/24/2008 10:08 pm »
For the outpost, the solution is fairly straight-forward.   You add one extra LSAM into the cycle, so there are always two available.   If one fails to lift, the crew switches over.

For sortie missions its far more complicated.

I wonder what would be required to deliver 2-months of oxygen, food and water in a usable package which could be launched on almost any rocket?   If we had a dozen "emergency survival packs" sitting in a warehouse at KSC and had all the procedures drawn-up and ready to go at a moment's notice for Atlas, Delta-II and Delta-IV (and Jupiter), ready to fly on an extremely expedited consciously high-risk launch attempt, we could potentially deliver minimal survival equipment to a stranded crew to help them survive until we can get a proper rescue mounted.   The stranded crew would need at least a week's worth of resources on the surface at the time of 'the call', but that ought not to be too much mass penalty for Sortie missions to include.

I think a study into such a capability would be a really good idea.

Ross.

To me, that should be part of the ISRU plan for a ferry service for critical spares (that cannot be fabricated on-site). Again, we need to look at history, and the aerial re-supply drops for military missions during the wars were vital for those on the ground. Of course the easiest was a parachute drop, but we have no way to make that happen on the moon of course. The airbag design of the Mars rovers has potential, but for emergency purposes it needs to work perfectly, so whatever that method is should be the way forward. :)

I'm sure the EELV is the best approach in this case. I doubt the parts/supplies would have all that much mass, except perhaps LOX.

Offline Will

  • Member
  • Full Member
  • ****
  • Posts: 902
  • Liked: 18
  • Likes Given: 1
Re: Ares I/EELV VSE Architecture
« Reply #83 on: 11/25/2008 12:08 am »
For the outpost, the solution is fairly straight-forward.   You add one extra LSAM into the cycle, so there are always two available.   If one fails to lift, the crew switches over.

For sortie missions its far more complicated.

I wonder what would be required to deliver 2-months of oxygen, food and water in a usable package which could be launched on almost any rocket? 

The interesting challenge would be to provide a stranded sortie crew with 1-2 lunar nights worth of power.

Delivery from Earth should be traded against having the emergency payload waiting at L1 or L2, LLO, or on a suborbital stage at a lunar outpost.

Will

Offline luke strawwalker

  • Regular
  • Full Member
  • ****
  • Posts: 1032
  • Liked: 9
  • Likes Given: 0
Re: Ares I/EELV VSE Architecture
« Reply #84 on: 11/25/2008 03:55 am »

Storing LOX is going to be a lot easier then hydrogen.

Liquid O2 -182.96 °C liquid H2 -252.87 C
All LOX is going to need to stay cool enough is a sun shade and maybe a radiator while lH2 is either going to boil off or will require active refrigeration for storage in LEO.


And how exactly would you keep such a mixture homogenous??  Let alone the different properties of the two... Sounds like it would create more problems that it would solve... JMHO! OL JR :)

Dude, use K for cryogenic stuff- it's easier to deal with.

As for cryogenic fuels, is it possible to mix methane and hydrogen to get a stable liquid phase that boils in the ~80K range?  It might be one way to ease handling without adding too much fuel mass.  Of course, you'd need a new engine...
NO plan IS the plan...

"His plan had no goals, no timeline, and no budgetary guidelines. Just maybe's, pretty speeches, and smokescreens."

Offline luke strawwalker

  • Regular
  • Full Member
  • ****
  • Posts: 1032
  • Liked: 9
  • Likes Given: 0
Re: Ares I/EELV VSE Architecture
« Reply #85 on: 11/25/2008 04:05 am »
Using the original starting point of the original post... Ares I/Orion up and running and Ares V goes out the window... 

I'd tend to think, politically speaking, since everything we've seen up to this point has been politically motivated, and very little reason to see that changing exists, I'd tend to think a replacement for Ares V would end up being "Ares I derived". 

ATK would make the point that using two of their Ares I first stages as SRB's would make a great HLV first stage, coupled with a new RS-68 powered core vehicle (of whatever size-- 5.5 meter, 8.4 meter, or 10 meter) and then utilizing the Ares I upper stage as the second stage/adapted into an EDS would get you an "Ares V lite" and probably a 2.5 launch solution, for not as much development $$$ as Super-Duper Uber Ares V. 

At that point, somebody'd probably make the case to simply go with the bigger booster for BOTH CEV and Altair/EDS launches and turn it into a 2 launch solution. 

ATK would be thrilled, having got it's huge development contracts and getting to sell tons of SRB's/Ares I FS's, and it'd look like the politicians were 'saving money' building a new core HLV first stage to mate with the existing Ares I US/EDS instead of developing a whole new rocket, while keeping all the contractors happy and folks employed.  Win-win. 
JMHO!  OL JR :)
NO plan IS the plan...

"His plan had no goals, no timeline, and no budgetary guidelines. Just maybe's, pretty speeches, and smokescreens."

Online edkyle99

  • Expert
  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 15392
    • Space Launch Report
  • Liked: 8566
  • Likes Given: 1356
Re: Ares I/EELV VSE Architecture
« Reply #86 on: 11/26/2008 06:42 pm »

The problem is that the Ares I US would absolutely suck as the starting point for an EDS or for a propellant depot.  It's not even restartable!   The only thing the Ares-I upper stage has going for it is it's propellant volume. 

AIUI, here are a few specific issues:
1. The isogrid structure sucks for long-duration cryo storage.  Think lots of tiny heat exchangers.
2. The structure is designed to take crazy amounts of accelerations and max dynamic pressures, meaning it has to take much heavier loading than an in space stage, and is thus not as structurally efficient.
3. Not designed for restartability.
4. External foam insulation (which is pretty much needed to make Ares-I US work) is just about useless in vacuum compared to better forms of insulation.
5. The stage T/W ratio is higher than it needs to be, which means that you've got a heavier engine than you really want for in-space use.

I think the ACES stage ULA has been working on is a much better starting point for a refuelable EDS or depot.  It's extendable up to sizes similar to the Ares-I US, but is designed from the start in a way that makes it a lot more friendly to long-term cryo storage.  Adding refueling hookups to an ACES stage would be possible, and they've already looked into the concept of "mission specific kits" for different applications (long duration storability, lunar ops, etc).

~Jon

Ares I upper stage has some things going for it.  It uses a common bulkhead, for example, which would allow the hydrogen to take the venting load off the LOX.  J-2X is being designed with restart capability in mind, so it should be more than possible to press that development forward and add it to the Ares I upper stage. 

Regarding isogrids, the Douglas S-IV and S-IVB stages were originally designed with chemically milled tank walls, to which internal insulation panels were mounted.  This design was selected early, when EOR, which would have required long parking orbit propellant storage, was still under consideration.

As for thrust to weight ratio, a reloaded Ares I upper stage would weigh about the same as an Ares V EDS at TLI ignition, and of course it would be powered by the same engine and therefore have the same T/W ratio.

 - Ed Kyle
« Last Edit: 11/26/2008 06:43 pm by edkyle99 »

Offline kraisee

  • Expert
  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 10560
  • Liked: 807
  • Likes Given: 40
Re: Ares I/EELV VSE Architecture
« Reply #87 on: 11/27/2008 02:24 am »
The problem with trying to reuse the Ares-I stage as an EDS is that it just isn't being designed to evolve in that direction.

Re-working the design to incorporate things like CFM and the extra loads of pushing an LSAM as well are going to require a lot of work.

It would be better if the stage were being designed with those things in mind from the start, even if only as part of a phased evolutionary plan.

But Ares-I's naff (a British colloquial term essentially meaning "not very good") performance won't allow for any weight growth to incorporate such plans in the design as well, because it will only hurt the payload performance even further.

Ross.
« Last Edit: 11/27/2008 02:25 am by kraisee »
"The meek shall inherit the Earth -- the rest of us will go to the stars"
-Robert A. Heinlein

Offline Will

  • Member
  • Full Member
  • ****
  • Posts: 902
  • Liked: 18
  • Likes Given: 1
Re: Ares I/EELV VSE Architecture
« Reply #88 on: 12/22/2008 05:46 pm »
Suppose cryogenic orbital propellant depots and transfer are shown to be practical, but neither Ares V nor Jupiter have been built yet.

Assume that your goal is to get an Altair lander with its payload but empty propellant tanks to orbit, atop a J2 powered EDS holding at least 100 tonnes propellant , but able to arrive in LEO empty and refill there. Assume a shroud big enough to hold the lander.

Start with a Delta IV-h, with the EDS in place of the current upper stage and propellant offloaded from the outer CBCs to keep the t/w reasonable. How much payload could you orbit, not counting the empty EDS?

Now assume you add some GEM-60 strap-ons so you don't have to offload as much, or perhaps at all. Now how much could you orbit?

Also, how much would it cost to modify the pad and how long would it take?




Offline sandrot

  • Extreme Veteran
  • Full Member
  • ****
  • Posts: 751
  • Motown
  • Liked: 9
  • Likes Given: 5
Re: Ares I/EELV VSE Architecture
« Reply #89 on: 12/22/2008 06:27 pm »
[...]

As for thrust to weight ratio, a reloaded Ares I upper stage would weigh about the same as an Ares V EDS at TLI ignition, and of course it would be powered by the same engine and therefore have the same T/W ratio.

 - Ed Kyle

Still, it can't restart.
"Paper planes do fly much better than paper spacecrafts."

Offline Will

  • Member
  • Full Member
  • ****
  • Posts: 902
  • Liked: 18
  • Likes Given: 1
Re: Ares I/EELV VSE Architecture
« Reply #90 on: 01/03/2009 09:24 pm »
Assume, for sake of argument, that the new administration wanted to make testing a prototype orbital cryogenic propellant depot for both LH and LOX a priority. How long would it take to approve, fund, build launch and test it in orbit to the level of Orbital Express style propellant transfer and storage over a period of multiple weeks?
« Last Edit: 01/04/2009 07:44 pm by Will »

Offline clongton

  • Expert
  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 12053
  • Connecticut
    • Direct Launcher
  • Liked: 7348
  • Likes Given: 3749
Re: Ares I/EELV VSE Architecture
« Reply #91 on: 01/04/2009 03:22 pm »
[...]

As for thrust to weight ratio, a reloaded Ares I upper stage would weigh about the same as an Ares V EDS at TLI ignition, and of course it would be powered by the same engine and therefore have the same T/W ratio.

 - Ed Kyle

Still, it can't restart.

J-2X is being designed to restart.
On Ares-V:
1st burn - launch vehicle upper stage
2nd burn - spacecraft TLI burn
Chuck - DIRECT co-founder
I started my career on the Saturn-V F-1A engine

Tags:
 

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