NASASpaceFlight.com Forum

SLS / Orion / Beyond-LEO HSF - Constellation => Cancelled Ares I and Ares Tests => Topic started by: Lobo on 08/12/2011 07:27 PM

Title: Could Ares 1 have Worked if things had been different?
Post by: Lobo on 08/12/2011 07:27 PM
This is just an intellectual exercise at this point, but I'm curious. 

If Ares V had turned out to be something like Direct's Jupiter back in 2005 or whenever CxP was minted (two Shuttle 4-seg SRB's, modified ET with 3 or 4 SSME aft thrust structure, development of new 8.4m upper stage).

As I understand, Ares 1 originally was going to be a standard 4-seg Shuttle SRB, same as Ares V would have used, with an upper stage that would have used an air-lit SSME, which would have had commonality with the SSME's used on the Ares V.  But then they figured it would be too hard to develop an air-lit SSME, so that was scrapped in favor of a new J2X.  Then they got rid of the SSME's on Ares V and replacement them with RS-68's. (which later developed a base-heating problem).
And thus the program's expenses spiraled out of control.

But what if they had been able to develop an air-lit SSME for Ares 1 cost effectively, and thus stayed with the same 4-seg Shuttle booster?
And what if Ares V had been a Jupiter-246.  And perhaps if the JUS had used the same air-lit SSME the ARes 1 used?
Or, if they'd shrunk the Orion CSM down enough so that an EELV upper stage could have been used to get it to LEO.  A DCSS or maybe even ACES with 4X RL10 (then ULA woudl have gotten ACES, which they want anyway).  And then the JUS woudl have used the 6XRL10 for commonality.
Again, Ares 1 would have stuck with the stock 4-seg booster.

So, if they'd stuck with the LV components they had available, and then designed the ORion CSM and Altair to fit within those limits, could Ares 1 and thus CxP have worked cost effectively.  Could we be flying them today if that had been the PoR.?

Two new LV's, but both sharing the exact same Shuttle SRB's we've been using for 30 years.  Both sharing RS25's, or RL10's (depending on Ares 1 upper stage).  Ares 1 using ULA's ACES upper stage for commonality with the EELV program. 

4-seg Ares 1 plus J246 Ares V?

Could that have worked, and worked well?  Or would that have still been too expensive and unfeasible?
 
Title: Re: Could Ares 1 have Worked if things had been different?
Post by: Lars_J on 08/12/2011 08:04 PM
You still have the problem of the 1.5 launch architecture - and two different launch vehicles.
Title: Re: Could Ares 1 have Worked if things had been different?
Post by: Tony Ostinato on 08/12/2011 08:06 PM
there was an issue flying a single solid engine, where as it burned it could create a resonating "organ pipe" low frequency vibration that could become so intense it could shake the astronauts to death. i remember even reading that it could liquify them.

it said that when you use 2, like shuttle, that they never are at exactly the same frequency so its not a problem.

ares designers were talking about building a weighted dampener section and other such kludges.

now all that could be misread by me or just completely out of date. it seemed like at that time is when nasa people started pushing direct and other alternatives.
Title: Re: Could Ares 1 have Worked if things had been different?
Post by: Lars_J on 08/12/2011 08:21 PM
I don't think the oscillation problem was a deal breaker. It could have worked, and seemed to be under control at the end of Ares I development. But with enough money and effort, you can make a brick fly. (At least that's what was said about the F-4 Phantom)

The question is if it is worth the effort, compared to other approaches.
Title: Re: Could Ares 1 have Worked if things had been different?
Post by: Rocket Science on 08/12/2011 08:28 PM
Money pit....
Title: Re: Could Ares 1 have Worked if things had been different?
Post by: Downix on 08/12/2011 09:12 PM
*could* it have worked, absolutely.  The cost would have been incredibly high, the time to develop long, but it would have worked, not well.  And then, once finished, shelved to never be launched due to the laws governing NASA requiring them to launch on commercial vehicles when one is available which can fulfill the need, and the Ares I was only viable because it could lift 4 metric tons more than the EELV's, but with the upgrades the EELV's could lift the same *if not more* than Ares I, eliminating that argument.
Title: Re: Could Ares 1 have Worked if things had been different?
Post by: beb on 08/12/2011 09:29 PM
I think in the end it would have been cheaper and quicker to develop "Stumpy" than Ares I. The two side-by-side SRB would have evened out the thrust oscillation problem, and the upper stage could have been lit on the ground, thus allowing use of SSME.
Title: Re: Could Ares 1 have Worked if things had been different?
Post by: Prober on 08/12/2011 10:06 PM
*could* it have worked, absolutely.  The cost would have been incredibly high, the time to develop long, but it would have worked, not well.  And then, once finished, shelved to never be launched due to the laws governing NASA requiring them to launch on commercial vehicles when one is available which can fulfill the need, and the Ares I was only viable because it could lift 4 metric tons more than the EELV's, but with the upgrades the EELV's could lift the same *if not more* than Ares I, eliminating that argument.

What was that NASA project called that cut the solids into two 3-4 sections ? 
Title: Re: Could Ares 1 have Worked if things had been different?
Post by: Lobo on 08/12/2011 10:34 PM
Assuming that the TO wouldn't be a problem, for the sake of argument.

1)  Why would this be so expensive?  I know why the PoR Ares 1 became so expensive.  It required a brands new SRB, brand new upper stage engine, and a brand new upper stage.  None of which shared commonality with anything else (unless Ares V were to use J2X on it's upper stage, which it probably would have).
If Ares 1 had a standard Shuttle 4-seg SRB, RL-10 (or affordable air-lit SSME if such a thing would have been practical) upper stage engine, and EELV upper stage (ACES for example), and Orion CSM had been designed to not exceed what that can put into LEO, that doesn't seem like it would have been all that expensive.

Again, I'm not advocating Ares 1 by any means.  I think EELV's should have been the crew LV for a 1.5 architechure.  But again, just curious if had NASA "lived within it's means" and limits of what it's exisitng hardware could lift, would Ares 1 have been practical and affordable?  Or still too expensive?
Title: Re: Could Ares 1 have Worked if things had been different?
Post by: Rocket Science on 08/12/2011 10:53 PM
Lobo,
The reason why it is so expensive is because it is made so…
Launch Provider: “How much will it cost”?
ATK: “Well, how much do you have”?

Robert  ::)

P.S. Better ask Ed Kyle, I believe he was a fan and perhaps can make an informed case…

I still say you can use them to launch Prop Depots...
Title: Re: Could Ares 1 have Worked if things had been different?
Post by: Lobo on 08/12/2011 11:10 PM
Lobo,
The reason why it is so expensive is because it is made so…
Launch Provider: “How much will it cost”?
ATK: “Well, how much do you have”?

Robert  ::)

P.S. Better ask Ed Kyle, I believe he was a fan and perhaps can make an informed case…

I still say you can use them to launch Prop Depots...

If that's the case, then would an EELV as the crew lifter been any different?

Launch Provider:  "How much will it cost?
ULA:  "How much do you have?"

Back in 2005 or whenever the PoR took shape, ULA was the only game in town for American LV providers.
Title: Re: Could Ares 1 have Worked if things had been different?
Post by: Rocket Science on 08/12/2011 11:19 PM
Lobo,
The reason why it is so expensive is because it is made so…
Launch Provider: “How much will it cost”?
ATK: “Well, how much do you have”?

Robert  ::)

P.S. Better ask Ed Kyle, I believe he was a fan and perhaps can make an informed case…

I still say you can use them to launch Prop Depots...

If that's the case, then would an EELV as the crew lifter been any different?

Launch Provider:  "How much will it cost?
ULA:  "How much do you have?"

Back in 2005 or whenever the PoR took shape, ULA was the only game in town for American LV providers.
Lobo,
That’s why someone like SpaceX, with their “disruptive technology model” is good for the industry.  Did you notice how all of a sudden… mysteriously the “old space” firms were offering reduced prices…
Robert
Title: Re: Could Ares 1 have Worked if things had been different?
Post by: Jim on 08/12/2011 11:37 PM
I think in the end it would have been cheaper and quicker to develop "Stumpy" than Ares I. The two side-by-side SRB would have evened out the thrust oscillation problem, and the upper stage could have been lit on the ground, thus allowing use of SSME.

Stumpy was not "real" design.  It was "developed" by ground ops people.

It has no redeeming value.  EELVs could do the job, since there is no re.ation to Ares V
Title: Re: Could Ares 1 have Worked if things had been different?
Post by: Jim on 08/12/2011 11:41 PM

That’s why someone like SpaceX, with their “disruptive technology model” is good for the industry.  Did you notice how all of a sudden… mysteriously the “old space” firms were offering reduced prices…
Robert


Who is reducing prices?
Title: Re: Could Ares 1 have Worked if things had been different?
Post by: Rocket Science on 08/12/2011 11:56 PM

That’s why someone like SpaceX, with their “disruptive technology model” is good for the industry.  Did you notice how all of a sudden… mysteriously the “old space” firms were offering reduced prices…
Robert


Who is reducing prices?
Hey Jim!
You looking for a deal…? LOL Seriously, when I wrote that what came to mind was USA alleged offer to operate the Shuttle for 1.5B. You would know better that me if any other firms were offering any deals. ATK/ Liberty?
Regards
Robert
Title: Re: Could Ares 1 have Worked if things had been different?
Post by: Jim on 08/13/2011 12:06 AM
The USA proposal had nothing to do with Spacex and it wasn't "reducing" prices, it was eliminating NASA oversight.

ATK/Liberty is not a case of reducing prices
Title: Re: Could Ares 1 have Worked if things had been different?
Post by: Rocket Science on 08/13/2011 12:25 AM
The USA proposal had nothing to do with Spacex and it wasn't "reducing" prices, it was eliminating NASA oversight.

ATK/Liberty is not a case of reducing prices
Fair enough Jim makes sense, without getting too OT. That ATK/liberty proposal might relate better to this thread as it relates closer to Ares 1, if you have any thoughts on it.

Regards
Robert
Title: Re: Could Ares 1 have Worked if things had been different?
Post by: Downix on 08/13/2011 12:31 AM
I think in the end it would have been cheaper and quicker to develop "Stumpy" than Ares I. The two side-by-side SRB would have evened out the thrust oscillation problem, and the upper stage could have been lit on the ground, thus allowing use of SSME.

Stumpy was not "real" design.  It was "developed" by ground ops people.

It has no redeeming value.  EELVs could do the job, since there is no re.ation to Ares V
That depended on the particulars of the Ares V.  The stumpy design, upon studying it, would have mirrored one of the EDS configurations which were developed for Ares V.  Switch out the EDS interstage with the original shuttle interstage, and you now have relation, in fact you'd have a lot more relation than you did with Ares I and Ares V.
Title: Re: Could Ares 1 have Worked if things had been different?
Post by: Rocket Science on 08/13/2011 04:14 PM
Ed.... Say something....
Robert :)
Title: Re: Could Ares 1 have Worked if things had been different?
Post by: Prober on 08/13/2011 07:22 PM
I think in the end it would have been cheaper and quicker to develop "Stumpy" than Ares I. The two side-by-side SRB would have evened out the thrust oscillation problem, and the upper stage could have been lit on the ground, thus allowing use of SSME.

Stumpy was not "real" design.  It was "developed" by ground ops people.

It has no redeeming value.  EELVs could do the job, since there is no re.ation to Ares V
That depended on the particulars of the Ares V.  The stumpy design, upon studying it, would have mirrored one of the EDS configurations which were developed for Ares V.  Switch out the EDS interstage with the original shuttle interstage, and you now have relation, in fact you'd have a lot more relation than you did with Ares I and Ares V.

Still think this is the short term answer.

http://www.nasaspaceflight.com/2006/07/nasa-has-5-seg-clv-alternatives/

The J2-X engine would have to go however.
Title: Re: Could Ares 1 have Worked if things had been different?
Post by: Downix on 08/13/2011 08:08 PM
I think in the end it would have been cheaper and quicker to develop "Stumpy" than Ares I. The two side-by-side SRB would have evened out the thrust oscillation problem, and the upper stage could have been lit on the ground, thus allowing use of SSME.

Stumpy was not "real" design.  It was "developed" by ground ops people.

It has no redeeming value.  EELVs could do the job, since there is no re.ation to Ares V
That depended on the particulars of the Ares V.  The stumpy design, upon studying it, would have mirrored one of the EDS configurations which were developed for Ares V.  Switch out the EDS interstage with the original shuttle interstage, and you now have relation, in fact you'd have a lot more relation than you did with Ares I and Ares V.

Still think this is the short term answer.

http://www.nasaspaceflight.com/2006/07/nasa-has-5-seg-clv-alternatives/

The J2-X engine would have to go however.

Use a single SSME, problem solved.
Title: Re: Could Ares 1 have Worked if things had been different?
Post by: Rocket Science on 08/13/2011 08:16 PM
Like this... for Ed :)
Jarvis
Title: Re: Could Ares 1 have Worked if things had been different?
Post by: luke strawwalker on 08/17/2011 01:38 AM
The problem with Ares I/V was the airlit SSME.  Originally the plan was to develop and use the SSME for both the upper stage of Ares I AND the EDS.  While the airlit SSME WAS possible, RELIGHTING one for a TLI burn on an EDS stage was totally non-viable.  Ergo, J-2S, which COULD be relit, HAD to be on the critical path for the EDS (at least with Ares V as it stood then-- it MIGHT have been possible to replace the pair of J-2S with a cluster of RL-10's on the EDS and forego the development of the J-2S/X completely).  SO, the decision was taken to replace the SSME on the second stage of Ares I with the J-2S, which almost instantly was recognized as being too low a thrust for the massive second stage weight it had to push, leading to the upgrade in thrust, making it J-2X.  The beancounters justified this as paying down the development of Ares V since it would share the same J-2X on the EDS stage. The lower efficiency of J-2X versus SSME (and lower thrust) meant more propellants and thus a larger second stage on Ares I, thus forcing the move to the five segment booster, and the thing just snowballed from there. 

NOW, HAD Ares I kept the airstart single-burn version of SSME on its second stage, and therefore been able to retain the four segment booster revamped as a first stage, Ares I wouldn't have become as convoluted a mess as it was.  I STILL don't think it was the best solution by a LONGSHOT, but it could have worked.  Had the decision to switch Ares V back to SSME for the main core propulsion come about the same time (certainly the thermal environment wouldn't be THAT difficult to work out and put RS-68 out of the running, would it?) then the airlit SSME program could have been justified as an adjunct to a 'disposable SSME' program "sharing costs", which would have made the beancounters happy.  Ares V could then have stayed with four segment boosters with the possibility of an UPGRADE to five segment boosters down the road. 

Personally, I think that Ares I was a road to nowhere, and had the 1.5 launch solution been tossed out early on and development of the four segment SRB/4-5 SSME Ares V been pursued as a "2 launches, 1 rocket" solution (instead of the so called 1.5 launch solution which was really 2 launches of TWO different rockets, and actually FAR less desirable from a commonality/flight rate point of view) for exploration missions, I think we could have had an "affordable" HLV along those lines with Ares I 'along for the ride' for LEO/ISS backup.  Once exploration began, though, obviously Ares I would be pretty much useless and would be phased out. 

That's just my thoughts on "what might have been"... When the whole thing devolved into keeping Ares I no matter HOW stupid, expensive, and behind schedule it got, and forcing Ares V into becoming the "super-duper uber booster that ate NASA's budget", it could only lead to where we are now...

Later!  OL JR :)
Title: Re: Could Ares 1 have Worked if things had been different?
Post by: Chris Bergin on 08/17/2011 01:39 AM

Still think this is the short term answer.

http://www.nasaspaceflight.com/2006/07/nasa-has-5-seg-clv-alternatives/

The J2-X engine would have to go however.


Stumpy!! ;D
Title: Re: Could Ares 1 have Worked if things had been different?
Post by: A_M_Swallow on 08/17/2011 02:29 AM
Can a SRB be airlit?
Title: Re: Could Ares 1 have Worked if things had been different?
Post by: edkyle99 on 08/17/2011 02:42 AM
Ed.... Say something....
Robert :)

O.K.  Consider this alternative.  We have to go back in time for this.  Back to 2005.  Have NASA develop the ESAS Crew Launch Vehicle with the RS-25 upper stage engine and the four segment booster.  Then use it.  Don't spend billions more for Ares V.  Fly lots of Ares I rockets, using the unparalleled scoot and shoot capability of LC 39 - the purpose for which it was originally designed, and go to the Moon using LEO rendezvous as Von Braun intended.  Use the Ares I upper stage as the basis for propellant depot and TLI stage. 

After the program is underway, if deemed helpful, NASA could go ahead and develop five-segment booster or liquid RP booster.  Either would push payload up to 35 or more tonnes to LEO. 

 - Ed Kyle
Title: Re: Could Ares 1 have Worked if things had been different?
Post by: Downix on 08/17/2011 04:15 AM

Still think this is the short term answer.

http://www.nasaspaceflight.com/2006/07/nasa-has-5-seg-clv-alternatives/

The J2-X engine would have to go however.


Stumpy!! ;D
I still love Stumpy, in all of it's... stumpyness.  8)

Title: Re: Could Ares 1 have Worked if things had been different?
Post by: Lars_J on 08/17/2011 05:44 AM
IMO the biggest problem with Ares I/V were that there was two launch vehicles to begin with. NASA cannot afford to own and operate two different launch vehicles. The only time they could was during the Apollo era budgets.

They should have settled on a compromise... Like the Jupiter 130. They had all the pieces practically in place! Oh well.

Now SLS seems to be slowly heading for an early cancellation. Imagine what could have been done if Griffin & company had not decided to build "the largest rocket EVAH!"  ;D

Perhaps it was an inevitable result of the institutional rot of NASA over the last decades. Hopefully something leaner and greater will rise in its place. NASA will remain, the only question is how it will be changed.
Title: Re: Could Ares 1 have Worked if things had been different?
Post by: Rocket Science on 08/17/2011 12:44 PM
Ed.... Say something....
Robert :)

O.K.  Consider this alternative.  We have to go back in time for this.  Back to 2005.  Have NASA develop the ESAS Crew Launch Vehicle with the RS-25 upper stage engine and the four segment booster.  Then use it.  Don't spend billions more for Ares V.  Fly lots of Ares I rockets, using the unparalleled scoot and shoot capability of LC 39 - the purpose for which it was originally designed, and go to the Moon using LEO rendezvous as Von Braun intended.  Use the Ares I upper stage as the basis for propellant depot and TLI stage. 

After the program is underway, if deemed helpful, NASA could go ahead and develop five-segment booster or liquid RP booster.  Either would push payload up to 35 or more tonnes to LEO. 

 - Ed Kyle
Thank you for your thoughts Ed :)
BTW, I'm enjoying the Jupiter history page.
Regards
Robert
Title: Re: Could Ares 1 have Worked if things had been different?
Post by: Downix on 08/17/2011 03:17 PM
Ed.... Say something....
Robert :)

O.K.  Consider this alternative.  We have to go back in time for this.  Back to 2005.  Have NASA develop the ESAS Crew Launch Vehicle with the RS-25 upper stage engine and the four segment booster.  Then use it.  Don't spend billions more for Ares V.  Fly lots of Ares I rockets, using the unparalleled scoot and shoot capability of LC 39 - the purpose for which it was originally designed, and go to the Moon using LEO rendezvous as Von Braun intended.  Use the Ares I upper stage as the basis for propellant depot and TLI stage. 

After the program is underway, if deemed helpful, NASA could go ahead and develop five-segment booster or liquid RP booster.  Either would push payload up to 35 or more tonnes to LEO. 

 - Ed Kyle
I can raise you one, and save a ton of money in the process. Don't develop Ares I at all and launch those payloads on EELV. When the need for more lift is there, peruse one of the evolution options.

Without Ares V, Ares I had no purpose for existing.
Title: Re: Could Ares 1 have Worked if things had been different?
Post by: strangequark on 08/17/2011 04:03 PM
Can a SRB be airlit?

Definitely. But why?
Title: Re: Could Ares 1 have Worked if things had been different?
Post by: Rocket Science on 08/17/2011 04:05 PM
"Big Bunker Buster Bomb"? :D
Title: Re: Could Ares 1 have Worked if things had been different?
Post by: Downix on 08/17/2011 04:22 PM
Can a SRB be airlit?

Definitely. But why?
I think SRB-X used an air-lit SRB as it's main stage.
Title: Re: Could Ares 1 have Worked if things had been different?
Post by: Prober on 08/17/2011 05:25 PM

Still think this is the short term answer.

http://www.nasaspaceflight.com/2006/07/nasa-has-5-seg-clv-alternatives/

The J2-X engine would have to go however.


Stumpy!! ;D

shame on you had to look it up!

http://forum.nasaspaceflight.com/index.php?topic=3537.0

edit: next time i should click the link on the page.hehhe
Title: Re: Could Ares 1 have Worked if things had been different?
Post by: renclod on 08/17/2011 05:42 PM
Can a SRB be airlit?

A solid rocket motor with class 1.3 propellant was "successfully ignited, terminated the burn, and then re-ignited " in 2003 - though not in flight but in static firing test.
Start - Stop - Start.

Title: Re: Could Ares 1 have Worked if things had been different?
Post by: racshot65 on 08/17/2011 07:20 PM
Can a SRB be airlit?

A solid rocket motor with class 1.3 propellant was "successfully ignited, terminated the burn, and then re-ignited " in 2003 - though not in flight but in static firing test.
Start - Stop - Start.



I always thought SRB's couldn't be stopped without destroying them once they were lit ?

How did they do it ?
Title: Re: Could Ares 1 have Worked if things had been different?
Post by: Alpha Control on 08/17/2011 07:50 PM
Can a SRB be airlit?

A solid rocket motor with class 1.3 propellant was "successfully ignited, terminated the burn, and then re-ignited " in 2003 - though not in flight but in static firing test.
Start - Stop - Start.



I always thought SRB's couldn't be stopped without destroying them once they were lit ?

How did they do it ?

That's what I thought, too. The solid fuel mixture has both fuel and oxidizer in it, so how do you shut that down once it has started burning?
Title: Re: Could Ares 1 have Worked if things had been different?
Post by: renclod on 08/17/2011 08:17 PM
How did they do it ?
http://www.thefreelibrary.com/ATK+Successfully+Conducts+Its+First-Ever+Start-Stop-Start+Solid...-a0131555528

Title: Re: Could Ares 1 have Worked if things had been different?
Post by: Downix on 08/17/2011 08:28 PM
How did they do it ?
http://www.thefreelibrary.com/ATK+Successfully+Conducts+Its+First-Ever+Start-Stop-Start+Solid...-a0131555528


Ok, so it's a pre-designed shutoff, not whereby you can shut off something already underway in case of emergency.
Title: Re: Could Ares 1 have Worked if things had been different?
Post by: renclod on 08/17/2011 08:33 PM
How did they do it ?
http://www.thefreelibrary.com/ATK+Successfully+Conducts+Its+First-Ever+Start-Stop-Start+Solid...-a0131555528


Ok, so it's a pre-designed shutoff, not whereby you can shut off something already underway in case of emergency.

 It has a variable area nozzle (pintle nozzle) which they can control to reduce the internal pressure at any time in flight, and so terminate burn.

It is "pre-designed", of course !

Title: Re: Could Ares 1 have Worked if things had been different?
Post by: Downix on 08/17/2011 08:35 PM
How did they do it ?
http://www.thefreelibrary.com/ATK+Successfully+Conducts+Its+First-Ever+Start-Stop-Start+Solid...-a0131555528


Ok, so it's a pre-designed shutoff, not whereby you can shut off something already underway in case of emergency.

 It has a variable area nozzle (pintle nozzle) which they can control to reduce the internal pressure at any time in flight, and so terminate burn.

That would need to be a big nozzle to drop the pressure that much.
Title: Re: Could Ares 1 have Worked if things had been different?
Post by: renclod on 08/17/2011 08:37 PM
That would need to be a big nozzle to drop the pressure that much.

They did the experiment for Army tactical stuff, so... no too big, I'd guess.

Title: Re: Could Ares 1 have Worked if things had been different?
Post by: edkyle99 on 08/17/2011 09:12 PM
Ed.... Say something....
Robert :)

O.K.  Consider this alternative.  We have to go back in time for this.  Back to 2005.  Have NASA develop the ESAS Crew Launch Vehicle with the RS-25 upper stage engine and the four segment booster.  Then use it.  Don't spend billions more for Ares V.  Fly lots of Ares I rockets, using the unparalleled scoot and shoot capability of LC 39 - the purpose for which it was originally designed, and go to the Moon using LEO rendezvous as Von Braun intended.  Use the Ares I upper stage as the basis for propellant depot and TLI stage. 

After the program is underway, if deemed helpful, NASA could go ahead and develop five-segment booster or liquid RP booster.  Either would push payload up to 35 or more tonnes to LEO. 

 - Ed Kyle
I can raise you one, and save a ton of money in the process. Don't develop Ares I at all and launch those payloads on EELV. When the need for more lift is there, peruse one of the evolution options.

Without Ares V, Ares I had no purpose for existing.

I agree with you for today - with the modification that I wouldn't limit it to just EELVs, but in 2005 the fiscal and political realities were different.  Imagine, had such a "one-rocket" approach been followed from the get-go.  Today the mass layoffs would not be quite as massive.  "Padrat" and friends would still be at work.  Ares I would have already performed a couple of test flights (since Ares I-X would have actually been an Ares I test - we're assuming a four-segment booster Ares I) and the upper stage engine would probably be further along than today's J-2X.  There might be an Ares I stacked in the VAB on that big new MLP right now.  The Orion coming to KSC next year wouldn't be flying on a Delta IV, it would be flying on a crew-rated Ares I.

 - Ed Kyle
Title: Re: Could Ares 1 have Worked if things had been different?
Post by: Jim on 08/17/2011 09:30 PM
Actually, it is true for today and 2005. There was never a need for Ares I.  In 2005, CEV was going fly in EELV and should have flown already.  The layoffs were inevitable.

There could have been addition pads for Atlas and Delta and billions left over for payloads,  both unmanned and for HSF.
Title: Re: Could Ares 1 have Worked if things had been different?
Post by: A_M_Swallow on 08/17/2011 11:44 PM
Can a SRB be airlit?

Definitely. But why?

You swap the design of the Ares 1 around.  The SSME is a stage 1 engine.  An airlit SRB gives you the stage 2.

There are a few flight path design problems such as changing where the stage 1 shuts down depending on the destination.  The stage 3, probably the SM, controls the final orbit.
Title: Re: Could Ares 1 have Worked if things had been different?
Post by: Oberon_Command on 08/17/2011 11:50 PM
Can a SRB be airlit?

Definitely. But why?

You swap the design of the Ares 1 around.  The SSME is a stage 1 engine.  An airlit SRB gives you the stage 2.

Why would you do that, though? I don't see what that buys you. The SRM is really big and heavy, and hydrogen has a low density, so you'd need a HUGE first stage and lots of SSMEs just to get the thing off the ground, never mind into orbit.
Title: Re: Could Ares 1 have Worked if things had been different?
Post by: Jorge on 08/17/2011 11:57 PM
Can a SRB be airlit?

Definitely. But why?

You swap the design of the Ares 1 around.  The SSME is a stage 1 engine.  An airlit SRB gives you the stage 2.

That's silly. The SRB is much better suited as a first stage due to its high thrust. It's poorly suited for a second stage due to its poor Isp.
Title: Re: Could Ares 1 have Worked if things had been different?
Post by: Jason1701 on 08/17/2011 11:59 PM
Solids are the epitome of what you don't want in a second stage: high mass, low Isp, very high thrust, short burn time.
Title: Re: Could Ares 1 have Worked if things had been different?
Post by: ChileVerde on 08/18/2011 12:00 AM
Can a SRB be airlit?

Sure. There have been ICBMs dropped out of C-5s and biggish MDA target rockets out of C-17s. And, if you're looking for air-lit at high velocities, solid second stages of SLVs do it at as a matter of course. Whatever else you may think about them, solid rockets are relatively straightforward animals.
Title: Re: Could Ares 1 have Worked if things had been different?
Post by: ChileVerde on 08/18/2011 12:04 AM
Solids are the epitome of what you don't want in a second stage: high mass, low Isp, very high thrust, short burn time.

Which hasn't kept people from using them as second stages.  Cheap, compact and simple sometimes wins the game, other technical matters notwithstanding.
Title: Re: Could Ares 1 have Worked if things had been different?
Post by: baldusi on 08/18/2011 01:13 AM
Solids are the epitome of what you don't want in a second stage: high mass, low Isp, very high thrust, short burn time.

Which hasn't kept people from using them as second stages.  Cheap, compact and simple sometimes wins the game, other technical matters notwithstanding.

If I might reinforce the fundamental part: solids are cheap, at least on the marginal cost. That's why Orbital use them on the Taurus II (that and the fact that they needed 100% US made).
Title: Re: Could Ares 1 have Worked if things had been different?
Post by: edkyle99 on 08/18/2011 04:19 AM
Actually, it is true for today and 2005. There was never a need for Ares I.  In 2005, CEV was going fly in EELV and should have flown already.  The layoffs were inevitable.

There could have been addition pads for Atlas and Delta and billions left over for payloads,  both unmanned and for HSF.

Perhaps, but time-traveling back to 2005, neither EELV then available could lift a lunar-mission Orion.  Ares I, especially an Ares I with an SSME upper stage, would have out-lifted 2005's Delta IV Heavy.   There was also the safety thing, which was a dominant force in the post-Columbia years.   

Yes, Ares I was costly, but the version postulated in this thread should have cost less than the version cancelled last year.  Meanwhile, EELV costs have skyrocketed, so that's also no picnic.

 - Ed Kyle
Title: Re: Could Ares 1 have Worked if things had been different?
Post by: Downix on 08/18/2011 04:45 AM
Actually, it is true for today and 2005. There was never a need for Ares I.  In 2005, CEV was going fly in EELV and should have flown already.  The layoffs were inevitable.

There could have been addition pads for Atlas and Delta and billions left over for payloads,  both unmanned and for HSF.

Perhaps, but time-traveling back to 2005, neither EELV then available could lift a lunar-mission Orion.  Ares I, especially an Ares I with an SSME upper stage, would have out-lifted 2005's Delta IV Heavy.   There was also the safety thing, which was a dominant force in the post-Columbia years.   

Yes, Ares I was costly, but the version postulated in this thread should have cost less than the version cancelled last year.  Meanwhile, EELV costs have skyrocketed, so that's also no picnic.

 - Ed Kyle
You're making stuff up Ed.  ESAS agreed that the EELV's could lift a lunar mission Orion.  It did list that Ares I could outlift the Delta IV, by a half ton, but also that the Atlas V HLV could outlift the Ares I.  They sold Ares I based on inflated safety numbers, not in lift demands.
Title: Re: Could Ares 1 have Worked if things had been different?
Post by: edkyle99 on 08/18/2011 04:44 PM
Actually, it is true for today and 2005. There was never a need for Ares I.  In 2005, CEV was going fly in EELV and should have flown already.  The layoffs were inevitable.

There could have been addition pads for Atlas and Delta and billions left over for payloads,  both unmanned and for HSF.

Perhaps, but time-traveling back to 2005, neither EELV then available could lift a lunar-mission Orion.  Ares I, especially an Ares I with an SSME upper stage, would have out-lifted 2005's Delta IV Heavy.   There was also the safety thing, which was a dominant force in the post-Columbia years.   

Yes, Ares I was costly, but the version postulated in this thread should have cost less than the version cancelled last year.  Meanwhile, EELV costs have skyrocketed, so that's also no picnic.

 - Ed Kyle
You're making stuff up Ed.  ESAS agreed that the EELV's could lift a lunar mission Orion.  It did list that Ares I could outlift the Delta IV, by a half ton, but also that the Atlas V HLV could outlift the Ares I.  They sold Ares I based on inflated safety numbers, not in lift demands.

ESAS proper described EELV rockets that didn't exist.  The Delta IV Heavy had a "new upper stage".  Atlas V Heavy of course still doesn't exist, but even the version in ESAS had a "new upper stage" (not Centaur).

Infamous Appendix 6 showed Ares I (the SSME version) out lifting the base EELV Heavies (including the Atlas V Heavy) by nearly a tonne gross, given that NASA wouldn't have used the RL10B-2 on a crew launcher.

 - Ed Kyle
Title: Re: Could Ares 1 have Worked if things had been different?
Post by: Downix on 08/18/2011 05:12 PM
Actually, it is true for today and 2005. There was never a need for Ares I.  In 2005, CEV was going fly in EELV and should have flown already.  The layoffs were inevitable.

There could have been addition pads for Atlas and Delta and billions left over for payloads,  both unmanned and for HSF.

Perhaps, but time-traveling back to 2005, neither EELV then available could lift a lunar-mission Orion.  Ares I, especially an Ares I with an SSME upper stage, would have out-lifted 2005's Delta IV Heavy.   There was also the safety thing, which was a dominant force in the post-Columbia years.   

Yes, Ares I was costly, but the version postulated in this thread should have cost less than the version cancelled last year.  Meanwhile, EELV costs have skyrocketed, so that's also no picnic.

 - Ed Kyle
You're making stuff up Ed.  ESAS agreed that the EELV's could lift a lunar mission Orion.  It did list that Ares I could outlift the Delta IV, by a half ton, but also that the Atlas V HLV could outlift the Ares I.  They sold Ares I based on inflated safety numbers, not in lift demands.

ESAS proper described EELV rockets that didn't exist.  The Delta IV Heavy had a "new upper stage".  Atlas V Heavy of course still doesn't exist, but even the version in ESAS had a "new upper stage" (not Centaur).

Infamous Appendix 6 showed Ares I (the SSME version) out lifting the base EELV Heavies (including the Atlas V Heavy) by nearly a tonne gross, given that NASA wouldn't have used the RL10B-2 on a crew launcher.

 - Ed Kyle
*sigh* Ed, I point you to LV3, a baseline Delta IV with regular upper stage. And the ESAS report itself underreported the DIVH's performance by a full tonne, according to the DIVH Payload Planners Guide. The performance compared to the Ares I, well, I'll let you see for yourself, not a tonne difference at the standard 28.5 degree inclination:

Title: Re: Could Ares 1 have Worked if things had been different?
Post by: edkyle99 on 08/18/2011 07:16 PM
*sigh* Ed, I point you to LV3, a baseline Delta IV with regular upper stage. And the ESAS report itself underreported the DIVH's performance by a full tonne, according to the DIVH Payload Planners Guide. The performance compared to the Ares I, well, I'll let you see for yourself, not a tonne difference at the standard 28.5 degree inclination:

That is LV 3.1, not a stock Delta IV Heavy (that was LV 3.0), but a version with a different upper stage engine (the RL10B-2 second stage engine replaced with an RL10A-4-2).  This version also used modified RS-68 engines.

The reason for the payload differences were two-fold.  First, the planners guides give information for unmanned launches flown on highly lofted trajectories.  Crewed flights would follow flatter trajectories, giving up some payload capacity in the process.  Second, the planners guides give data for payloads enclosed in relatively lightweight fairings rather than for spacecraft topped by much heavier launch abort systems.

As I said, I agree that existing or soon to exist launch vehicles could support a lunar landing program.  Here, we're discussing a "what if" about 2005 and a 4-segment booster/SSME upper stage inline Shuttle Derived crew launch vehicle.  Politically, in 2005, I believe that Shuttle-Derived was a winner compared to EELVs.  We're still seeing that today with SLS.  I'm not saying that I agree with the politics, just that it exists.  The all-existing rocket to the moon program that I would prefer does not exist, has not been seriously proposed, and as near as I can tell will never happen.

 - Ed Kyle 
Title: Re: Could Ares 1 have Worked if things had been different?
Post by: yinzer on 08/19/2011 02:21 AM
Agreed that Shuttle-derived rockets are politically preferable to EELVs, but they don't seem preferable enough to actually get built.

Assuming the switch to 5-segment/J-2X hadn't happened, the Ares I and ISS Orion could probably be flying today.  I suspect the operational costs would have grown to the point that there'd be nothing left for developing Ares V or going to the moon, but we might have gotten a cargo Orion out of it.
Title: Re: Could Ares 1 have Worked if things had been different?
Post by: strangequark on 08/19/2011 09:32 PM
You swap the design of the Ares 1 around.  The SSME is a stage 1 engine.  An airlit SRB gives you the stage 2.

There are a few flight path design problems such as changing where the stage 1 shuts down depending on the destination.  The stage 3, probably the SM, controls the final orbit.

You'd need 6 SSMEs to do it, aside from all the other problems. Complete non-starter that adds way more problems than it fixes.
Title: Re: Could Ares 1 have Worked if things had been different?
Post by: A_M_Swallow on 08/19/2011 10:14 PM
You swap the design of the Ares 1 around.  The SSME is a stage 1 engine.  An airlit SRB gives you the stage 2.

There are a few flight path design problems such as changing where the stage 1 shuts down depending on the destination.  The stage 3, probably the SM, controls the final orbit.

You'd need 6 SSMEs to do it, aside from all the other problems. Complete non-starter that adds way more problems than it fixes.

I did not say that it was cheap.
Title: Re: Could Ares 1 have Worked if things had been different?
Post by: Patchouli on 08/20/2011 07:09 PM
Ares I probably could have worked if they were willing to do a lot of unmanned flight testing and accept that a few will end up in the Atlantic during development.

But Ares I should have fell under the ax when the air started SSME did not work out as it was the SSME's performance that made it work as a a Delta IV-H class LV.

The 1.5 launch architecture also put far too many requirements on the CaLV Ares V.
If they switched to Jupiter and a 2 launch architecture when the air started SSME fell through they'd be flight testing hardware already.

Another fix they could have went with a kerolox first stage on Ares I using the nearly finished TR-107 engine pretty much reinventing Jarvis.
This would have gave them upwards of a 38,000kg payload giving the Orion design team much needed breathing room.
One of biggest delays was the move from a 5.5M OML to a 5M one.
It also should be powerful enough to allow testing of the LSAM in LEO.
Fuel would have to be off loaded or Altair would have to perform part of the orbital injection.
Title: Re: Could Ares 1 have Worked if things had been different?
Post by: edkyle99 on 08/21/2011 03:16 PM
Ha!  Here's a call to bring back Ares I!

http://blog.al.com/space-news/2011/08/is_the_answer_to_heavy-lift_ro.html

They have until September 30.

As previously noted, NASA has five-segment booster and J-2X well into development.  It has an Ares I upper stage tank prototype welded together at Michoud.  It has a launch platform and the first phase of its launch pad work (LC 39B demolition) is complete.  It has Orion and Orion's LAS, which were designed specifically for Ares I, well along.  It has proven the basic control of the vehicle with a test flight, has contracts in place, and so on. 

 - Ed Kyle
Title: Re: Could Ares 1 have Worked if things had been different?
Post by: apace on 08/21/2011 03:40 PM
Ha!  Here's a call to bring back Ares I!

http://blog.al.com/space-news/2011/08/is_the_answer_to_heavy-lift_ro.html

They have until September 30.

As previously noted, NASA has five-segment booster and J-2X well into development.  It has an Ares I upper stage tank prototype welded together at Michoud.  It has a launch platform and the first phase of its launch pad work (LC 39B demolition) is complete.  It has Orion and Orion's LAS, which were designed specifically for Ares I, well along.  It has proven the basic control of the vehicle with a test flight, has contracts in place, and so on. 

 - Ed Kyle

It's disappointing that all looking for rockets (as we have not already to much rockets flying around) than on missions...
Title: Re: Could Ares 1 have Worked if things had been different?
Post by: Downix on 08/21/2011 04:05 PM
Ha!  Here's a call to bring back Ares I!

http://blog.al.com/space-news/2011/08/is_the_answer_to_heavy-lift_ro.html

They have until September 30.

As previously noted, NASA has five-segment booster and J-2X well into development.  It has an Ares I upper stage tank prototype welded together at Michoud.  It has a launch platform and the first phase of its launch pad work (LC 39B demolition) is complete.  It has Orion and Orion's LAS, which were designed specifically for Ares I, well along.  It has proven the basic control of the vehicle with a test flight, has contracts in place, and so on. 

 - Ed Kyle
Great idea Ed. Scrap Orion and start that all over again as Ares I cannot lift it.
Title: Re: Could Ares 1 have Worked if things had been different?
Post by: beb on 08/21/2011 04:25 PM
It seemed like at the time NASA was obsessed with crew-safety, hence the idea of launching the crew on a separate rocket. And also NASA seemed convinced at that time that single-engine stages were inherently safer than multiple engine stages. Thus the J-2X had be large enough by itself to finish the ascent to orbit. But Downix had talked about early plans for a J-2s+ which would have high ISP at a moderate amount of thrust. A single J-2S+ would not have been enough to finish the launch, hence the next for a J-2X, but would two J-2S+ have worked?
Title: Re: Could Ares 1 have Worked if things had been different?
Post by: Downix on 08/21/2011 05:51 PM
It seemed like at the time NASA was obsessed with crew-safety, hence the idea of launching the crew on a separate rocket. And also NASA seemed convinced at that time that single-engine stages were inherently safer than multiple engine stages. Thus the J-2X had be large enough by itself to finish the ascent to orbit. But Downix had talked about early plans for a J-2s+ which would have high ISP at a moderate amount of thrust. A single J-2S+ would not have been enough to finish the launch, hence the next for a J-2X, but would two J-2S+ have worked?
Yes, and they even had a basic configuration for that in ESAS, LV17.2 (which used the J-2S and not the J-2S+).  You could not do two J-2S+ due to the space under the tank, the nozzle extension (which is a big portion of what the + had over the original) would make them too big to fit.  This configuration would lift 23.6 metric tons to the ISS, plenty for Orion.
Title: Re: Could Ares 1 have Worked if things had been different?
Post by: Prober on 08/21/2011 06:37 PM
Ha!  Here's a call to bring back Ares I!

http://blog.al.com/space-news/2011/08/is_the_answer_to_heavy-lift_ro.html

They have until September 30.

As previously noted, NASA has five-segment booster and J-2X well into development.  It has an Ares I upper stage tank prototype welded together at Michoud.  It has a launch platform and the first phase of its launch pad work (LC 39B demolition) is complete.  It has Orion and Orion's LAS, which were designed specifically for Ares I, well along.  It has proven the basic control of the vehicle with a test flight, has contracts in place, and so on. 

 - Ed Kyle

Interesting:  thought the layoffs Sept 30th were at Michoud Assembly Facility.

Someone hates Alabama for the Ares I.  Can't believe these people would be put out of a job.  Jim you might be wrong on this one.  NASA isn't a jobs program, otherwise Senator Shelby wouldn't let this happen.



Title: Re: Could Ares 1 have Worked if things had been different?
Post by: ugordan on 08/21/2011 06:42 PM
Here's a call to bring back Ares I!

<bridge_on_the_river_Kwai>
Madness...
</bridge_on_the_river_Kwai>
Title: Re: Could Ares 1 have Worked if things had been different?
Post by: Jim on 08/21/2011 06:43 PM
I ain't wrong about this
Title: Re: Could Ares 1 have Worked if things had been different?
Post by: Prober on 08/21/2011 06:55 PM
I ain't wrong about this

I'll take your word on this one.

If these employees were the ones responsible for the "stick" or pushed the J2-X, they should have been held accountable a long time ago.

Title: Re: Could Ares 1 have Worked if things had been different?
Post by: strangequark on 08/21/2011 08:40 PM
Ha!  Here's a call to bring back Ares I!

http://blog.al.com/space-news/2011/08/is_the_answer_to_heavy-lift_ro.html

They have until September 30.

As previously noted, NASA has five-segment booster and J-2X well into development.  It has an Ares I upper stage tank prototype welded together at Michoud.  It has a launch platform and the first phase of its launch pad work (LC 39B demolition) is complete.  It has Orion and Orion's LAS, which were designed specifically for Ares I, well along.  It has proven the basic control of the vehicle with a test flight, has contracts in place, and so on. 

 - Ed Kyle

Where's Max Brooks (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Zombie_survival) when you need him.
Title: Re: Could Ares 1 have Worked if things had been different?
Post by: edkyle99 on 08/21/2011 09:24 PM
Great idea Ed. Scrap Orion and start that all over again as Ares I cannot lift it.

Sure it can.  Constellation is gone, no one is going to the Moon.  There isn't an Ares V.  The mission has changed.  Orion can weigh whatever NASA decides it should weigh. 

 - Ed Kyle
Title: Re: Could Ares 1 have Worked if things had been different?
Post by: Downix on 08/21/2011 09:55 PM
Great idea Ed. Scrap Orion and start that all over again as Ares I cannot lift it.

Sure it can.  Constellation is gone, no one is going to the Moon.  There isn't an Ares V.  The mission has changed.  Orion can weigh whatever NASA decides it should weigh. 

 - Ed Kyle
So you advocate scrapping the already built capsules in order to design an all-new capsule to save weight?  How does this help the situation Ed?
Title: Re: Could Ares 1 have Worked if things had been different?
Post by: edkyle99 on 08/22/2011 12:52 AM
Great idea Ed. Scrap Orion and start that all over again as Ares I cannot lift it.

Sure it can.  Constellation is gone, no one is going to the Moon.  There isn't an Ares V.  The mission has changed.  Orion can weigh whatever NASA decides it should weigh. 

 - Ed Kyle
So you advocate scrapping the already built capsules in order to design an all-new capsule to save weight?  How does this help the situation Ed?

Assuming any capsules actually existed (only ground test articles have been completed to date) why would capsules need to be scrapped?  Why would weight need to be saved?  Much of the weight was in the propellant needed for lunar missions.  NASA isn't going to the Moon, so that propellant mass is not needed.  The rest of the spacecraft could fly pretty much "as-is", loaded with less propellant for whatever non-lunar mission NASA chose, except that the service module probably doesn't exist at this point.

Even if NASA was going to the Moon, the premise of this recent proposal would be to use Ares I (without SLS or Ares V, etc.) for LEO rendezvous type missions.  Orion launch mass is not a constraint for such an architecture.

 - Ed Kyle
Title: Re: Could Ares 1 have Worked if things had been different?
Post by: Downix on 08/22/2011 02:13 AM
Great idea Ed. Scrap Orion and start that all over again as Ares I cannot lift it.

Sure it can.  Constellation is gone, no one is going to the Moon.  There isn't an Ares V.  The mission has changed.  Orion can weigh whatever NASA decides it should weigh. 

 - Ed Kyle
So you advocate scrapping the already built capsules in order to design an all-new capsule to save weight?  How does this help the situation Ed?

Assuming any capsules actually existed (only ground test articles have been completed to date) why would capsules need to be scrapped?  Why would weight need to be saved?  Much of the weight was in the propellant needed for lunar missions.  NASA isn't going to the Moon, so that propellant mass is not needed.  The rest of the spacecraft could fly pretty much "as-is", loaded with less propellant for whatever non-lunar mission NASA chose, except that the service module probably doesn't exist at this point.

Even if NASA was going to the Moon, the premise of this recent proposal would be to use Ares I (without SLS or Ares V, etc.) for LEO rendezvous type missions.  Orion launch mass is not a constraint for such an architecture.

 - Ed Kyle
By law, however, NASA could not use the Ares I. The launch Services Procurement Act of 1990 prevents that:

 Requires NASA to purchase launch services for its primary payloads from commercial providers. Allows exceptions on a case-by-case basis if the Administrator determines that: (1) the payload requires the unique capabilities of the space shuttle; (2) cost effective commercial services to meet mission requirements are not reasonably available; or (3) the use of commercial services poses an unacceptable risk or loss of a unique scientific opportunity. Requires the determination to be made at Preliminary Design Review and prohibits it from being delegated. Allows launch vehicles to be acquired or owned by NASA, except for historical displays, only as required by such exceptions or for conducting research, development, and testing of launch technology. Requires contracts to provide launch services to NASA to be awarded on the basis of full, fair, and open competition. Requires NASA to limit its requirements for submission of cost or pricing data in support of a bid or proposal. Requires performance specifications, not detailed Government design or construction specifications, to be used. Prohibits acceptance of commercial payloads for launch as primary payloads on the space shuttle unless: (1) the payload requires unique shuttle capabilities; or (2) launching on the shuttle is important for national security or foreign policy purposes.

So, sadly, you could not launch it even if it was free.

There is, however, one way they could pull it off.  if NASA authorized a technology transfer, or a partnership, to allow a private firm to operate Ares I, like USA, and they could then purchase flights from them.
Title: Re: Could Ares 1 have Worked if things had been different?
Post by: Patchouli on 08/22/2011 02:37 AM
Great idea Ed. Scrap Orion and start that all over again as Ares I cannot lift it.

Sure it can.  Constellation is gone, no one is going to the Moon.  There isn't an Ares V.  The mission has changed.  Orion can weigh whatever NASA decides it should weigh. 

 - Ed Kyle

No Ares V there is no need for Ares I as it's primary purpose was to help pay for Ares V.

 The EELVs already can do the CLV mission for a fraction of the cost.
If you're going to play around with Orion's design to save weight you might as well replace the SM with ACES and go with a depot based architecture.
Title: Re: Could Ares 1 have Worked if things had been different?
Post by: edkyle99 on 08/22/2011 02:44 AM
Great idea Ed. Scrap Orion and start that all over again as Ares I cannot lift it.

Sure it can.  Constellation is gone, no one is going to the Moon.  There isn't an Ares V.  The mission has changed.  Orion can weigh whatever NASA decides it should weigh. 

 - Ed Kyle

No Ares V there is no need for Ares I as it's primary purpose was to help pay for Ares V.

 The EELVs already can do the CLV mission for a fraction of the cost.

Only one EELV can currently lift the mass, and as others love to point out it can't do crewed launch without the expenditure of much money, negating much of the presumed savings.  Even then, it would have more engines and separation events. 

Ares I primary purpose was crew launch with the fewest moving parts - i.e. safest launch.  Safety or cost?

 - Ed Kyle
Title: Re: Could Ares 1 have Worked if things had been different?
Post by: Jim on 08/22/2011 03:09 AM
The cost is not worth the approx. 0.4% increase in design reliability and since the flight rate is so low is overshadowed by process influences (design reliability matters if you are going to manufacture 1000's of an item).
Title: Re: Could Ares 1 have Worked if things had been different?
Post by: Patchouli on 08/22/2011 03:23 AM
The cost is not worth the approx. 0.4% increase in design reliability and since the flight rate is so low is overshadowed by process influences (design reliability matters if you are going to manufacture 1000's of an item).

I agree on that over all the reliability between a man rated Delta IV-H and Ares-I would be negligible.
Safety wise either EELV wins out because you can actually escape from one of them at all points in flight.

Besides on separation events Soyuz has five vs the Delta IV-H's three yet it's considered a safe vehicle due to flight rates.

I doubt Ares I would ever fly often enough to establish a proven safety record that compares with Soyuz let alone either EELV.
Title: Re: Could Ares 1 have Worked if things had been different?
Post by: Lars_J on 08/22/2011 03:26 AM
The cost is not worth the approx. 0.4% increase in design reliability and since the flight rate is so low is overshadowed by process influences (design reliability matters if you are going to manufacture 1000's of an item).

I agree on that over all the reliability between a man rated Delta IV-H and Ares-I would be negligible.
Safety wise either EELV wins out because you can actually escape from one of them at all points in flight.

Besides on separation events Soyuz has five vs the Delta IV-H's three yet it's considered a safe vehicle due to flight rates.

I don't see a realistic scenario where Delta IV-H has a lower flight rate than what a completed Ares I would have.
Title: Re: Could Ares 1 have Worked if things had been different?
Post by: Patchouli on 08/22/2011 03:43 AM

I don't see a realistic scenario where Delta IV-H has a lower flight rate than what a completed Ares I would have.

Neither do I which was why I brought up Soyuz as according to the thinking behind Ares I it should be a death trap but it's not.

As for manrating half the things needed to marate the Delta IV where done on the RS68A upgrades.

Atlas V also could lift if it had ACES 41 which also would act as the SM for the Orion CM.

ANother option is this Boeing HLVB concept.
http://newpapyrusmagazine.blogspot.com/2010/05/boeings-new-hlv-concept-could-be-dc-3.html
In this case the core of the HLV minus the SRBs is the CLV which should get more flights on the hardware and be much safer then Ares I.
Title: Re: Could Ares 1 have Worked if things had been different?
Post by: notsorandom on 08/22/2011 05:14 AM
Great idea Ed. Scrap Orion and start that all over again as Ares I cannot lift it.

Sure it can.  Constellation is gone, no one is going to the Moon.  There isn't an Ares V.  The mission has changed.  Orion can weigh whatever NASA decides it should weigh. 

 - Ed Kyle
Orion's needs to carry a minimum mass of propellant to enable ATO, TAL and RTAL abort options. Would that minimum propellant loading still be over what the Ares I could carry?
Title: Re: Could Ares 1 have Worked if things had been different?
Post by: edkyle99 on 08/22/2011 01:47 PM
Great idea Ed. Scrap Orion and start that all over again as Ares I cannot lift it.

Sure it can.  Constellation is gone, no one is going to the Moon.  There isn't an Ares V.  The mission has changed.  Orion can weigh whatever NASA decides it should weigh. 

 - Ed Kyle
Orion's needs to carry a minimum mass of propellant to enable ATO, TAL and RTAL abort options. Would that minimum propellant loading still be over what the Ares I could carry?
Orion wouldn't have a "TAL" abort mode, would it?  I'm not sure what "RTAL" means.  Regardless, I believe that Ares I could carry Orion with whatever abort mode propellant was needed.  Ares I is an EELV-Heavy class launch vehicle. 

 - Ed Kyle
Title: Re: Could Ares 1 have Worked if things had been different?
Post by: edkyle99 on 08/22/2011 01:51 PM
I agree on that over all the reliability between a man rated Delta IV-H and Ares-I would be negligible.

Safety wise either EELV wins out because you can actually escape from one of them at all points in flight.
Orion's LAS is designed for escape from Ares I during all phases of flight.
Quote

Besides on separation events Soyuz has five vs the Delta IV-H's three yet it's considered a safe vehicle due to flight rates.
NASA wants to be safer than Soyuz.  The Soyuz launch system has about a 2% failure rate during crewed missions.

 - Ed Kyle
Title: Re: Could Ares 1 have Worked if things had been different?
Post by: Jorge on 08/22/2011 02:46 PM
Great idea Ed. Scrap Orion and start that all over again as Ares I cannot lift it.

Sure it can.  Constellation is gone, no one is going to the Moon.  There isn't an Ares V.  The mission has changed.  Orion can weigh whatever NASA decides it should weigh. 

 - Ed Kyle
Orion's needs to carry a minimum mass of propellant to enable ATO, TAL and RTAL abort options. Would that minimum propellant loading still be over what the Ares I could carry?
Orion wouldn't have a "TAL" abort mode, would it?

Yes. Orion TAL is a second-stage abort using a posigrade OME burn to fly over the North Atlantic Exclusion Zone.

Quote
  I'm not sure what "RTAL" means.

Retrograde TAL. Same as above, except the OME burn is retrograde to bring Orion down short of the exclusion zone.
Title: Re: Could Ares 1 have Worked if things had been different?
Post by: Prober on 08/22/2011 04:59 PM
Great idea Ed. Scrap Orion and start that all over again as Ares I cannot lift it.

Sure it can.  Constellation is gone, no one is going to the Moon.  There isn't an Ares V.  The mission has changed.  Orion can weigh whatever NASA decides it should weigh. 

 - Ed Kyle

You might wish to check the new weight of Orion, it might have gone up alot for BEO.

Someone wrote about the test of Orion and the abort system and gave the note of the weight of 22,000 pounds.   Said the Orion has be upgraded for long term explore.   

Wasn't sure if they just didn't do their homework or Orion has taken on some weight.


Title: Re: Could Ares 1 have Worked if things had been different?
Post by: Patchouli on 08/22/2011 05:26 PM

Orion's LAS is designed for escape from Ares I during all phases of flight.
I heard about black zones close to T+0 mostly due to flaming pieces of SRB fuel in the fire ball which would damage the parachutes.
http://articles.orlandosentinel.com/2009-07-18/news/new_1_nasa-constellation-program-rocket-ares-i

Though something like Dream Chaser might be able to escape by attempting to glide past the 3 mile cone of flaming debris before using contingency parachutes.
Quote
NASA wants to be safer than Soyuz.  The Soyuz launch system has about a 2% failure rate during crewed missions.

 - Ed Kyle

I doubt they'd ever be able to prove that and since it likely won't fly very often and issues in the manufacturing process could completely over shadow any inherent safety in the design.

It took a shuttle blowing up get the worst defect in the RSRM design fixed.

Either way though the project is now deader then a dodo bird.
Title: Re: Could Ares 1 have Worked if things had been different?
Post by: Downix on 08/22/2011 05:29 PM
Great idea Ed. Scrap Orion and start that all over again as Ares I cannot lift it.

Sure it can.  Constellation is gone, no one is going to the Moon.  There isn't an Ares V.  The mission has changed.  Orion can weigh whatever NASA decides it should weigh. 

 - Ed Kyle
Orion's needs to carry a minimum mass of propellant to enable ATO, TAL and RTAL abort options. Would that minimum propellant loading still be over what the Ares I could carry?
Orion wouldn't have a "TAL" abort mode, would it?  I'm not sure what "RTAL" means.  Regardless, I believe that Ares I could carry Orion with whatever abort mode propellant was needed.  Ares I is an EELV-Heavy class launch vehicle. 

 - Ed Kyle
No, it's actually an EELV medium class launch vehicle, as the Atlas V 552 outlifts it, since the Atlas V 552 can lift Orion in it's current state while Ares I cannot.
Title: Re: Could Ares 1 have Worked if things had been different?
Post by: Downix on 08/22/2011 05:34 PM
Great idea Ed. Scrap Orion and start that all over again as Ares I cannot lift it.

Sure it can.  Constellation is gone, no one is going to the Moon.  There isn't an Ares V.  The mission has changed.  Orion can weigh whatever NASA decides it should weigh. 

 - Ed Kyle

You might wish to check the new weight of Orion, it might have gone up alot for BEO.

Someone wrote about the test of Orion and the abort system and gave the note of the weight of 22,000 pounds.   Said the Orion has be upgraded for long term explore.   

Wasn't sure if they just didn't do their homework or Orion has taken on some weight.

Last I saw on Orion, it had not gained weight.  In fact it's 2 metric tons lighter than the original CEV proposal.
Title: Re: Could Ares 1 have Worked if things had been different?
Post by: edkyle99 on 08/22/2011 06:12 PM
Ares I is an EELV-Heavy class launch vehicle. 
 - Ed Kyle
No, it's actually an EELV medium class launch vehicle, as the Atlas V 552 outlifts it, since the Atlas V 552 can lift Orion in it's current state while Ares I cannot.
Atlas 552 doesn't exist, but if it did it would lift 20.5 tonnes (gross) to a 185 km x 28.5 deg orbit. 

Delta IV Heavy is currently listed in its payload planners guide as 23 tonnes maximum payload at a 400 km x 28.5 deg orbit.  That is, by definition, "EELV Heavy Class".

Ares I also does not exist, but it was listed at more than 25 tonnes (gross) to a -20 x 185 km x 28.5 deg orbit.  That means that it should be able to lift at least 24 tonnes (gross) directly to 185 km x 28.5 deg, still more than Atlas 552.  Definitely "EELV Heavy Class".

 - Ed Kyle
Title: Re: Could Ares 1 have Worked if things had been different?
Post by: Patchouli on 08/22/2011 06:53 PM
Ares I is an EELV-Heavy class launch vehicle. 
 - Ed Kyle
No, it's actually an EELV medium class launch vehicle, as the Atlas V 552 outlifts it, since the Atlas V 552 can lift Orion in it's current state while Ares I cannot.
Atlas 552 doesn't exist, but if it did it would lift 20.5 tonnes (gross) to a 185 km x 28.5 deg orbit. 

Delta IV Heavy is currently listed in its payload planners guide as 23 tonnes maximum payload at a 400 km x 28.5 deg orbit.  That is, by definition, "EELV Heavy Class".

Ares I also does not exist, but it was listed at more than 25 tonnes (gross) to a -20 x 185 km x 28.5 deg orbit.  That means that it should be able to lift at least 24 tonnes (gross) directly to 185 km x 28.5 deg, still more than Atlas 552.  Definitely "EELV Heavy Class".

 - Ed Kyle

The GTO and TLI payloads on Ares I where really bad though due to the mass of the Ares I US which precludes it's use for launching space probes.

You could use a Centaur like was proposed on the Saturn IB but a Delta IV-H probably would be both cheaper and offer better performance.
Title: Re: Could Ares 1 have Worked if things had been different?
Post by: apace on 08/22/2011 06:56 PM
Ares I is an EELV-Heavy class launch vehicle. 
 - Ed Kyle
No, it's actually an EELV medium class launch vehicle, as the Atlas V 552 outlifts it, since the Atlas V 552 can lift Orion in it's current state while Ares I cannot.
Atlas 552 doesn't exist, but if it did it would lift 20.5 tonnes (gross) to a 185 km x 28.5 deg orbit. 

Delta IV Heavy is currently listed in its payload planners guide as 23 tonnes maximum payload at a 400 km x 28.5 deg orbit.  That is, by definition, "EELV Heavy Class".

Ares I also does not exist, but it was listed at more than 25 tonnes (gross) to a -20 x 185 km x 28.5 deg orbit.  That means that it should be able to lift at least 24 tonnes (gross) directly to 185 km x 28.5 deg, still more than Atlas 552.  Definitely "EELV Heavy Class".

 - Ed Kyle

The GTO and TLI payloads on Ares I where really bad though due to the mass of the Ares I US which precludes it's use for launching space probes.

You could use a Centaur like was proposed on the Saturn IB but a Delta IV-H probably would be both cheaper and offer better performance.


And that's what I never understand from Ares I, there was no advantage of this rocket over the other rockets available...
Title: Re: Could Ares 1 have Worked if things had been different?
Post by: Patchouli on 08/22/2011 07:02 PM
[quote author=Patchouli link=topic=26432.msg796548#msg796548 d
And that's what I never understand from Ares I, there was no advantage of this rocket over the other rockets available...

The only advantage was perceived safety and it would help offset the fixed costs for the HLV.
Of course when Ares V went to a 5.5 segment SRB and a possible change to HTBP would have made the second argument less valid.
The marginal cost only became low if it flew often ie more then six times a year.
 But how many missions would there be for an LV with poor performance beyond LEO and requires the payload to have substantial OMS capability?

The unmanned side of NASA probably would not want to touch it for their larger missions due to the TO.
Title: Re: Could Ares 1 have Worked if things had been different?
Post by: Prober on 08/22/2011 07:28 PM
Ares I is an EELV-Heavy class launch vehicle. 
 - Ed Kyle
No, it's actually an EELV medium class launch vehicle, as the Atlas V 552 outlifts it, since the Atlas V 552 can lift Orion in it's current state while Ares I cannot.
Atlas 552 doesn't exist, but if it did it would lift 20.5 tonnes (gross) to a 185 km x 28.5 deg orbit. 

Delta IV Heavy is currently listed in its payload planners guide as 23 tonnes maximum payload at a 400 km x 28.5 deg orbit.  That is, by definition, "EELV Heavy Class".

Ares I also does not exist, but it was listed at more than 25 tonnes (gross) to a -20 x 185 km x 28.5 deg orbit.  That means that it should be able to lift at least 24 tonnes (gross) directly to 185 km x 28.5 deg, still more than Atlas 552.  Definitely "EELV Heavy Class".

 - Ed Kyle

The GTO and TLI payloads on Ares I where really bad though due to the mass of the Ares I US which precludes it's use for launching space probes.

You could use a Centaur like was proposed on the Saturn IB but a Delta IV-H probably would be both cheaper and offer better performance.


And that's what I never understand from Ares I, there was no advantage of this rocket over the other rockets available...

Nice thing about this site is you can read the history and also get the feel for why decisions were made.

Recently, bumped up the Stumpy thread.  If you read it timeline  2006, you can feel the decisions being made from Columbia's event.

Title: Re: Could Ares 1 have Worked if things had been different?
Post by: edkyle99 on 08/22/2011 09:58 PM
The GTO and TLI payloads on Ares I where really bad though due to the mass of the Ares I US which precludes it's use for launching space probes.

You could use a Centaur like was proposed on the Saturn IB but a Delta IV-H probably would be both cheaper and offer better performance.
Like Space Shuttle, Ares I was only designed to go to LEO as a human space launcher for NASA. 

 - Ed Kyle
Title: Re: Could Ares 1 have Worked if things had been different?
Post by: Downix on 08/22/2011 11:46 PM
You know, all of these discussions of payload comparisons made me think a moment.  The payload given in the D4H and Atlas V users guide is for a delivery to orbit, while the payload given for Ares I was for a suborbital burn, a 30x180nmi orbit, in other words, a non-orbit which would despose of the upper stage.  So I thought to do a proper comparison, we need to take the EELV's and calculate for them for delivery into the same non-orbit as Ares I, using Schillings with the spreadsheet I've been using for AJAX to then calculate out margins, g-load reductions, and blackzone elimination. D4H according to Schillings can throw 28,773 kg, but with proper margins, elimination of blackzones, etc, it drops down to 25,942 kg.  With the soon to arrive upgrade to the RS-68A and common core, this increases to 30,299 kg with margins bringing that down to 27,448 kg.  With the Atlas V 552, we get 24,123 kg, dropping down to 21,973 kg with the same addition of margin, blackzones, etc.  For the same comparison, using the Ares I gets a payload of 25,240 kg, which with margin puts it down to 22,468.  In all cases, I used the LAS weight as the fairing, and the actual fairing I added to the weight of the upper stage.
Title: Re: Could Ares 1 have Worked if things had been different?
Post by: Lobo on 08/23/2011 09:33 PM
Can a SRB be airlit?

Sure. There have been ICBMs dropped out of C-5s and biggish MDA target rockets out of C-17s. And, if you're looking for air-lit at high velocities, solid second stages of SLVs do it at as a matter of course. Whatever else you may think about them, solid rockets are relatively straightforward animals.

SRB's aren't very efficient upper stages, but if your over arching need is for something that's storable long term, and ready to go on a moments notice, then SRB's have their advantages.  YOu wouldn't want a ballistic missile sub to be launching kerolox or hydrolox ICBM's.  YOu need those rocket fueled and ready to go on a moment's notice.  You don't want to have to fuel them then launch them, or have those systems taking up room on your sub.  Not to mention if there's a leak of those highly flamable liquids on an enclosed sub (RP-1 wouldn't be as bad, but LH2 and LOX would go to gas and now you are talking trouble.)

Same with remote ICBM silos. They need to just sit tight for years and be ready to go on a moment's notice if the call every came in.  Modern nuclear warheads really aren't all that big or heavy, so the amount of payload they really need to deliver isn't all that much.  So they'll gladly take the efficiency hit from solid upper stages.
Title: Re: Could Ares 1 have Worked if things had been different?
Post by: notsorandom on 08/24/2011 08:36 AM
Speaking of submarines store-able liquids are not good to have either. The submarine K-219 was lost due to an explosion. Sea water leaked into a silo and reacted with inhibited red fuming nitric acid leaking from an SS-N-6 SLBM. Solids are going to be around for quite some time since they are the safest propulsion for SLBMs.
Title: Re: Could Ares 1 have Worked if things had been different?
Post by: Lobo on 08/24/2011 07:09 PM
So, lets see if I can summarize what's been discussed.

Ares 1 -could- have worked, had it stuck with the original 4-seg shuttle booster, and gotten the air-startable SSME to work for the upper stage.

It wouldn't have been a -bad- LV, but it would have been cheaper and faster to pay to man-rate a D4H or develop and man-rate an A5H for the purpose of getting the Orion CSM to LEO, even in that case. 

There just wasn't much need for NASA to have a brand new LV that only mimicked what existing EELV's (or easy to develop EELV's like A5H) could already do?

And if it had been chosen to go with an EELV crew launcher plus an Ares V that was basically a Jupiter-246, if J2X and 5-seg SRB had never even been started, then we'd have probably had a pretty affordable NASA HSF system with some commonality with other systems (EELV for crew launch) and a lot of the Shuttle workforce wouldn't have been laid off by now, and with the retirement of the shuttle, contracts could have been inked for the development of a new lunar lander?
And in another 5-8 years would could launch the Orion CSM on an EELV for EOR with a fuelled EDS with new LEM stacked on top launched by "Ares V/J246", done a TLI burn after EOR, and been landing on the moon with a system that would have still been almost 20% more capable than Apollo (108mt to LEO + 25mt to LE0 vs. 110mt to LEO with Saturn V)  More probably with cyro used for lunar descent. 

That would have eliminated the "gap" as a version of Orion should have been ready by 2011 (for LEO anyway) if the PoR had been continuous since inception, that would have rolled existing Shuttle Legacy tech into a new HLV and kept jobs and talent in place, and it would have bolstered commercial with Orion crew launches on existing EELV's.

That sound about right?
Title: Re: Could Ares 1 have Worked if things had been different?
Post by: Prober on 08/24/2011 07:13 PM
Speaking of submarines store-able liquids are not good to have either. The submarine K-219 was lost due to an explosion. Sea water leaked into a silo and reacted with inhibited red fuming nitric acid leaking from an SS-N-6 SLBM. Solids are going to be around for quite some time since they are the safest propulsion for SLBMs.

Solids will only be available if the chemicals used are changed.  Obama's EPA has stuff on the books to "look" into banning Perchloride.

Title: Re: Could Ares 1 have Worked if things had been different?
Post by: Lobo on 08/24/2011 07:19 PM
OK,

One more intellectual exercise for you big brains out there.

Let's say Ares 1 was chosen as it was originally.  then they ran into the problems with developing an air-lit SSME. 
But they didn't want to give up the idea of an Ares 1 that shared components with other LV.
So they keep the 4-seg shuttle booster.
And decide to work with ULA to develop the ACES upper stage.
How much could an Ares 1 with a 4-seg SRB and 5m ACES upper stage lift to LEO?  Could it lift a 5m dia. lighter version of an Orion CSM capsule that would have been adequate for BLEO exploration?
Something that might be more like a BLEO version of Dragon or CST-100?
Or would that LEO lift capability of such an LV be inadequate for any useful Orion CSM?

Title: Re: Could Ares 1 have Worked if things had been different?
Post by: Lobo on 08/24/2011 07:25 PM
Speaking of submarines store-able liquids are not good to have either. The submarine K-219 was lost due to an explosion. Sea water leaked into a silo and reacted with inhibited red fuming nitric acid leaking from an SS-N-6 SLBM. Solids are going to be around for quite some time since they are the safest propulsion for SLBMs.

Yea, I would think the problem with storable liquid propellents, would be over time, if a leak developed in a sub, it could have toxic fumes or like K-219, react with water or something else.  Or it could be highly flamable in an open, oxygen environmentm or other things (I'm not familiar with the types of storable propellents that might be used for such applications to know the toxicity and/or flamability of leaked liquids, so I'm just speculating here)

Your solid fuel isn't going to really "leak" like a liquid can. 
Title: Re: Could Ares 1 have Worked if things had been different?
Post by: Downix on 08/24/2011 09:00 PM
OK,

One more intellectual exercise for you big brains out there.

Let's say Ares 1 was chosen as it was originally.  then they ran into the problems with developing an air-lit SSME. 
But they didn't want to give up the idea of an Ares 1 that shared components with other LV.
So they keep the 4-seg shuttle booster.
And decide to work with ULA to develop the ACES upper stage.
How much could an Ares 1 with a 4-seg SRB and 5m ACES upper stage lift to LEO?  Could it lift a 5m dia. lighter version of an Orion CSM capsule that would have been adequate for BLEO exploration?
Something that might be more like a BLEO version of Dragon or CST-100?
Or would that LEO lift capability of such an LV be inadequate for any useful Orion CSM?
Would have violated the conditions of ESAS. Payload would have been anemic; the SRB stages too low, so the low thrust would kill performance. You need more thrust. I still think. they put themselves into too narrow a box. If they had not insisted on Hydrogen upper stage for Ares I, the LR-87 would have the thrust needed. Also have given Ares I a real advantage, ready-state launch.
Title: Re: Could Ares 1 have Worked if things had been different?
Post by: Patchouli on 08/24/2011 10:11 PM
Speaking of submarines store-able liquids are not good to have either. The submarine K-219 was lost due to an explosion. Sea water leaked into a silo and reacted with inhibited red fuming nitric acid leaking from an SS-N-6 SLBM. Solids are going to be around for quite some time since they are the safest propulsion for SLBMs.

Solids will only be available if the chemicals used are changed.  Obama's EPA has stuff on the books to "look" into banning Perchloride.


They Navy and the military in general would likely get an exception as it's a national security issue.


Would have violated the conditions of ESAS. Payload would have been anemic; the SRB stages too low, so the low thrust would kill performance. You need more thrust. I still think. they put themselves into too narrow a box. If they had not insisted on Hydrogen upper stage for Ares I, the LR-87 would have the thrust needed. Also have given Ares I a real advantage, ready-state launch.

I doubt you could bring a UDMH fueled stage that large to market today as they're extremely dangerous for the ground crews and range.

We're talking stage filled with about 140tons of a propellant that's about as toxic as agent orange sitting on top of a giant firework.
If a UDMH stage similar in impulse to the Ares I US blew up it probably would create more pollution then all the P-BAN SRBs ever launched for the shuttle program.
People talk about the EPA getting antsy over perchlorate they'd have a heart attack over that.

Safer might have been using kerolox in the upper stage maybe run a cluster of merlins or RS-27s.
Title: Re: Could Ares 1 have Worked if things had been different?
Post by: Downix on 08/25/2011 03:18 AM
Speaking of submarines store-able liquids are not good to have either. The submarine K-219 was lost due to an explosion. Sea water leaked into a silo and reacted with inhibited red fuming nitric acid leaking from an SS-N-6 SLBM. Solids are going to be around for quite some time since they are the safest propulsion for SLBMs.

Solids will only be available if the chemicals used are changed.  Obama's EPA has stuff on the books to "look" into banning Perchloride.


They Navy and the military in general would likely get an exception as it's a national security issue.


Would have violated the conditions of ESAS. Payload would have been anemic; the SRB stages too low, so the low thrust would kill performance. You need more thrust. I still think. they put themselves into too narrow a box. If they had not insisted on Hydrogen upper stage for Ares I, the LR-87 would have the thrust needed. Also have given Ares I a real advantage, ready-state launch.

I doubt you could bring a UDMH fueled stage that large to market today as they're extremely dangerous for the ground crews and range.

We're talking stage filled with about 140tons of a propellant that's about as toxic as agent orange sitting on top of a giant firework.
If a UDMH stage similar in impulse to the Ares I US blew up it probably would create more pollution then all the P-BAN SRBs ever launched for the shuttle program.
People talk about the EPA getting antsy over perchlorate they'd have a heart attack over that.

Safer might have been using kerolox in the upper stage maybe run a cluster of merlins or RS-27s.

Well, thankfully the LR-87 didn't run on pure UDMH.  It ran on Aerozine-50, or Kerosene, and even a version was made which ran on Hydrogen.  I was more thinking the kerosene form of the engine.
Title: Re: Could Ares 1 have Worked if things had been different?
Post by: Jim on 08/25/2011 03:22 AM

If a UDMH stage similar in impulse to the Ares I US blew up it probably would create more pollution then all the P-BAN SRBs ever launched for the shuttle program.
People talk about the EPA getting antsy over perchlorate they'd have a heart attack over that.


Not one bit of truth in that statement.
a.  the UDMH would burn
b.  It is not worse than perchorate
Title: Re: Could Ares 1 have Worked if things had been different?
Post by: Patchouli on 08/25/2011 03:40 AM

If a UDMH stage similar in impulse to the Ares I US blew up it probably would create more pollution then all the P-BAN SRBs ever launched for the shuttle program.
People talk about the EPA getting antsy over perchlorate they'd have a heart attack over that.


Not one bit of truth in that statement.
a.  the UDMH would burn
b.  It is not worse than perchorate
No but the range safety system would explode it and hopefully ignite it.

As for the second I must disagree as it's almost laughable to compare the toxicity of ammonium perchlorate  to that of hydrazine.
Perchlorate itself confers little acute toxicity it has a LD50 of 2-4 g/kg and is eliminated rapidly after ingestion.
In theory one could eat a spoonful of it and not suffer serious ill effects just don't make it a habit.
Though chronic exposure to perchlorates, even in low concentrations, can cause various thyroid problems, as it is taken up in place of iodine.

Hydrazine on the other hand is scary stuff it's corrosive and exposure causes everything from pulmonary edema to kidney and liver failure.
UDMH also is a known carcinogen.
The only thing safer about it is that it does not normally explode.


Well, thankfully the LR-87 didn't run on pure UDMH.  It ran on Aerozine-50, or Kerosene, and even a version was made which ran on Hydrogen.  I was more thinking the kerosene form of the engine.
Yah I forgot they did test it on several other fuels.
I remember reading about an Ares I like SDLV that had a kerolox second stage but it was much lower performance then Ares I.

Title: Re: Could Ares 1 have Worked if things had been different?
Post by: Downix on 08/25/2011 04:11 AM


Well, thankfully the LR-87 didn't run on pure UDMH.  It ran on Aerozine-50, or Kerosene, and even a version was made which ran on Hydrogen.  I was more thinking the kerosene form of the engine.
Yah I forgot they did test it on several other fuels.
I remember reading about an Ares I like SDLV that had a kerolox second stage but it was much lower performance then Ares I.
18mT is better than a kick in the shins, and if you planned through incremental upgrades, would be more than sufficient.

Let us use that as a basis.  Let us now take the Boeing CEV, with it's orbital module, instead of the apollo-like all-in-capsule-and-sm approach.  Initial flights on the kerolox design lack the orbital module, to lighten the load.  LR-87 had a hydrolox form, so ressurect that for the block II, switching upper stage from kerolox to hydrolox, increasing your lift accordingly.  Now you add your OM back in.  Then move to 5-segments, you can then increase your SM to a full BEO SM.
Title: Re: Could Ares 1 have Worked if things had been different?
Post by: MrTim on 08/25/2011 04:47 AM
And that's what I never understand from Ares I, there was no advantage of this rocket over the other rockets available...
Sure there was. Ares I was part of a system that included Ares V. As such, it was the testbed for the new SRBs and the J-2X of the Ares V as well as some of the engineering and manufacturing techniques that would have carried to the bigger rocket. I was not a big fan, but I found myself defending it on this site (and occasionally still do) because the over-the-top arguments against it have taken on a nearly religious fervor in some quarters and sometimes blot-out the fact that there were actually some good arguments for the system within the political framework where it lived. Even the Augustine panel found the Constellation program and its rockets to be reasonable, and saw no show-stoppers. It's fashionable to rant that "the stick" was never going to work, etc but that's at odds with the Augustine report which so many CxP critics embraced. Oh, and Augustine also found that man-rating an EELV would not really save anything over finishing Ares I (with all the usual caveats about all NASA's plans lacking sufficient funding etc) I know, I'm not citing that report exactly and others spin it differently... just go read the report, and read the transcripts from the Augustine testimony before congress, I'm not about to re-type it all here just to make Jim happy.  ::)

I dislike throw-away rockets, and would have been happier if they'd mated a venture star to a flyback booster for a 2nd gen fully-reusable shuttle system instead of either over-reaching for an SSTO (and failing), or turning the clock back 40 years with CxP (and failing)...



 
Title: Re: Could Ares 1 have Worked if things had been different?
Post by: luke strawwalker on 08/26/2011 06:00 AM
IMO the biggest problem with Ares I/V were that there was two launch vehicles to begin with. NASA cannot afford to own and operate two different launch vehicles. The only time they could was during the Apollo era budgets.

They should have settled on a compromise... Like the Jupiter 130. They had all the pieces practically in place! Oh well.

Now SLS seems to be slowly heading for an early cancellation. Imagine what could have been done if Griffin & company had not decided to build "the largest rocket EVAH!"  ;D

Perhaps it was an inevitable result of the institutional rot of NASA over the last decades. Hopefully something leaner and greater will rise in its place. NASA will remain, the only question is how it will be changed.

Spot on! 

It was lunacy to think NASA could ever afford two vehicles from the get-go.  The ONLY way that would have worked is if they'd put Orion on EELV and NASA focused virtually exclusively on the HLV.  That was the ONLY way IMHO that "1.5 launch" EVER had a chance of working...

With NASA doing BOTH rockets exclusively, "1.5 launch" was really "2x2 launch" using two launches of two different vehicles-- crazy expensive! 

That's what happens when agencies become bloated bureaucracies...

I guess all we can do now is hope for the best, and expect the worst...

Later!  OL JR :)
Title: Re: Could Ares 1 have Worked if things had been different?
Post by: luke strawwalker on 08/26/2011 06:07 AM
Can a SRB be airlit?

Definitely. But why?

You swap the design of the Ares 1 around.  The SSME is a stage 1 engine.  An airlit SRB gives you the stage 2.

There are a few flight path design problems such as changing where the stage 1 shuts down depending on the destination.  The stage 3, probably the SM, controls the final orbit.

That's silly-- SSME has nowhere NEAR the thrust needed to lift a solid second stage for a payload capacity needed to loft Orion... it'd take a HUGE first stage with a big cluster of SSME's do do that...

It would make more sense to simply use the SRB first stage with a solid second stage...  at least that keeps the SRB where it belongs-- as a booster! 

Later!  OL JR :)
Title: Re: Could Ares 1 have Worked if things had been different?
Post by: luke strawwalker on 08/26/2011 06:24 AM
Speaking of submarines store-able liquids are not good to have either. The submarine K-219 was lost due to an explosion. Sea water leaked into a silo and reacted with inhibited red fuming nitric acid leaking from an SS-N-6 SLBM. Solids are going to be around for quite some time since they are the safest propulsion for SLBMs.

Solids will only be available if the chemicals used are changed.  Obama's EPA has stuff on the books to "look" into banning Perchloride.


If the perchlorates in ICBM/SLBM motors are ever burned for their intended purpose, everybody is going to have a lot bigger issues to deal with...

Later!  OL JR :)
Title: Re: Could Ares 1 have Worked if things had been different?
Post by: Lobo on 08/26/2011 06:57 PM
If the perchlorates in ICBM/SLBM motors are ever burned for their intended purpose, everybody is going to have a lot bigger issues to deal with...

Later!  OL JR :)

Ha!  fair point Luke.  Fair point...
Title: Re: Could Ares 1 have Worked if things had been different?
Post by: luke strawwalker on 09/04/2011 05:24 AM
If the perchlorates in ICBM/SLBM motors are ever burned for their intended purpose, everybody is going to have a lot bigger issues to deal with...

Later!  OL JR :)

Ha!  fair point Luke.  Fair point...

Thanks... Goes back to a story I wrote for an assignment in high school back in the late 80's...

A few years or so after a limited nuclear war, nuclear power becomes the new power source of choice-- nuclear electric power, nuclear ships, nuclear powered railway locomotives.  Coal/oil/gas infrastructure was mostly destroyed in the war, and nuclear was the quickest and easiest to get major power generating capabilities constructed, and nuclear powered railroad locomotives (using modified sub reactors) the fastest way to replace destroyed transportation capabilities that were shut down for lack of fossil fuels.  Nobody worried about the possibility of radiation leaks since everybody was already exposed to varying levels anyway from fallout and long-life isotopes making their way into the food chain...

Later! OL JR :)
Title: Re: Could Ares 1 have Worked if things had been different?
Post by: dks13827 on 09/04/2011 05:37 AM
 
Well let's not forget the rationale for Ares 1 was very enhanced crew safety.  ( coming off the loss of Columbia. )  Theory being that the redesigned SRB's have been way safer than any rocket ever, in history, proven by it's record since Challenger.  Hard to fault the thinking of those guys.  Everyone forgets that.
Title: Re: Could Ares 1 have Worked if things had been different?
Post by: Downix on 09/04/2011 07:00 AM

Well let's not forget the rationale for Ares 1 was very enhanced crew safety.  ( coming off the loss of Columbia. )  Theory being that the solid booster is way safer than any rocket ever, in history, proven by it's record since Challenger.  Hard to fault the thinking of those guys.  Everyone forgets that.
Yes it is, considering how many SRB's failed after Challenger.  While they did not fail on the Shuttle, they still failed. 

Like this:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=gdBwjtgHDi8&feature=related

and this:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=nqlgUuYQU30

So unless the Ares I was to use some magical unobtanium in it's composition, the failures which cost us other SRB launched payloads is just as likely to have occured to it as well.
Title: Re: Could Ares 1 have Worked if things had been different?
Post by: dks13827 on 09/04/2011 03:07 PM
   
See original point, the SRB's have a great record and a predicted low ( not zero ! ) failure rate.

( Can't say that for any recent LV's in the world, that I can think of. )
Title: Re: Could Ares 1 have Worked if things had been different?
Post by: baldusi on 09/04/2011 03:19 PM
   
See original point, the SRB's have a great record and a predicted low ( not zero ! ) failure rate.

( Can't say that for any recent LV's in the world, that I can think of. )
So Atlas V, Delta IV, and even the Soyuz (believe it or not, the realized failure rate has been lower than the Shuttle), don't have the necessary track records? Really?
Title: Re: Could Ares 1 have Worked if things had been different?
Post by: Downix on 09/04/2011 04:28 PM
   
See original point, the SRB's have a great record and a predicted low ( not zero ! ) failure rate.

( Can't say that for any recent LV's in the world, that I can think of. )
Of course not relevant, as Ares I never used an off the shelf Shuttle SRB but a new unit that recycled the casing.
Title: Re: Could Ares 1 have Worked if things had been different?
Post by: edkyle99 on 09/04/2011 04:37 PM
Yes it is, considering how many SRB's failed after Challenger.  While they did not fail on the Shuttle, they still failed.
[like] this:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=nqlgUuYQU30

Titan 4 A-20 was not a solid motor failure.  It was an electrical (wiring harness short circuit) failure in the liquid core stages that caused loss of guidance/flight control.

The entire big throat solid Titan experience actually argues for solid motor reliability when compared to liquid rockets.  There were 123 flights of Titan 3C/D/E and 4 rockets, using 246 big throat solid motors.  Two of those solid motors suffered failures (a 99.19% success rate).  An additional 13 of these solid-boosted Titan-launched missions were thwarted by failures that affected the liquid stages or upper stages, lowering the overall mission success rate to 87.80 %. 

- Ed Kyle
Title: Re: Could Ares 1 have Worked if things had been different?
Post by: Jason1701 on 09/04/2011 07:36 PM
If the solid is so great, we should do SRB-X!
Title: Re: Could Ares 1 have Worked if things had been different?
Post by: baldusi on 09/04/2011 08:14 PM
The entire big throat solid Titan experience actually argues for solid motor reliability when compared to liquid rockets.  There were 123 flights of Titan 3C/D/E and 4 rockets, using 246 big throat solid motors.  Two of those solid motors suffered failures (a 99.19% success rate).  An additional 13 of these solid-boosted Titan-launched missions were thwarted by failures that affected the liquid stages or upper stages, lowering the overall mission success rate to 87.80 %. 
But that's the whole point! Using solids forces you to use bigger and more extreme second stages. You can't decide the reliability of the whole vehicle by using only a part that individually might have less failure occurrences, but that forces a higher complexity in the rest of the stack (namely, second stage and LAS).
Title: Re: Could Ares 1 have Worked if things had been different?
Post by: edkyle99 on 09/04/2011 10:42 PM
The entire big throat solid Titan experience actually argues for solid motor reliability when compared to liquid rockets.  There were 123 flights of Titan 3C/D/E and 4 rockets, using 246 big throat solid motors.  Two of those solid motors suffered failures (a 99.19% success rate).  An additional 13 of these solid-boosted Titan-launched missions were thwarted by failures that affected the liquid stages or upper stages, lowering the overall mission success rate to 87.80 %. 
But that's the whole point! Using solids forces you to use bigger and more extreme second stages. You can't decide the reliability of the whole vehicle by using only a part that individually might have less failure occurrences, but that forces a higher complexity in the rest of the stack (namely, second stage and LAS).

I don't follow.  The alternatives to Ares I were more, not less, complex than Ares I.  Atlas V Heavy, for example, would have used four liquid propulsion units using a total of four or five or more complex liquid rocket engines (including three staged-combustion engines).  Ares I would have used one solid motor and one gas generator engine powering two stages.  Show me a simpler rocket that can orbit as much mass.

 - Ed Kyle
Title: Re: Could Ares 1 have Worked if things had been different?
Post by: Lars_J on 09/04/2011 11:50 PM
Slavish devotion to "simple" is exactly what led down the Ares I path. And the end result was a whole system which was NOT simple.
Title: Re: Could Ares 1 have Worked if things had been different?
Post by: alexw on 09/05/2011 01:39 AM
Ares I would have used one solid motor and one gas generator engine powering two stages.  Show me a simpler rocket that can orbit as much mass.
    An AV-Phase II variant using 1x RD-171 and 1x J-2S would probably have been fairly comparable, yes?

    The upper stage is much the same idea but somewhat smaller than AIUS (and could perhaps have been on 5m instead of 5.5m tooling), the J-2S was already developed and need not be pushed into the J-2X. Alternatively, build the core on the 5.5m tooling; indeed, building the core at Michoud as LockMart originally intended.
           -Alex
Title: Re: Could Ares 1 have Worked if things had been different?
Post by: Patchouli on 09/05/2011 03:39 AM
Slavish devotion to "simple" is exactly what led down the Ares I path. And the end result was a whole system which was NOT simple.

The pretty much sums it it up.

The people running the project would not change the design when it became obvious it was the wrong direction.

If the people doing Apollo had the same stubborn mindset we may have never landed on the moon and certianly would not have done so before the end of the decade.
Apollo originally was going to use a direct landing LOR was the underdog at first.

Kinda like Direct vs Ares.
Title: Re: Could Ares 1 have Worked if things had been different?
Post by: Downix on 09/05/2011 04:46 AM
Slavish devotion to "simple" is exactly what led down the Ares I path. And the end result was a whole system which was NOT simple.

The pretty much sums it it up.

The people running the project would not change the design when it became obvious it was the wrong direction.

If the people doing Apollo had the same stubborn mindset we may have never landed on the moon and certianly would not have done so before the end of the decade.
Apollo originally was going to use a direct landing LOR was the underdog at first.

Kinda like Direct vs Ares.
The 1961 vehicle was a cluster of Saturn C-3 first stages with super upper stages. 
Title: Re: Could Ares 1 have Worked if things had been different?
Post by: edkyle99 on 09/05/2011 05:36 AM
Slavish devotion to "simple" is exactly what led down the Ares I path. And the end result was a whole system which was NOT simple.

The pretty much sums it it up.

The people running the project would not change the design when it became obvious it was the wrong direction.

If the people doing Apollo had the same stubborn mindset we may have never landed on the moon and certianly would not have done so before the end of the decade.
Apollo originally was going to use a direct landing LOR was the underdog at first.

Kinda like Direct vs Ares.

Nothing like "Direct vs. Ares".  If it were, NASA would be planning a lunar landing right now, using Direct.  It isn't.  Instead, the clamor for alternative ideas like "Direct" helped kill NASA's lunar landing program.

It wasn't about the rocket.  It was about the lack of funding from the outset.  There still isn't enough funding for a lunar landing even with Ares dead.

 - Ed Kyle
Title: Re: Could Ares 1 have Worked if things had been different?
Post by: edkyle99 on 09/05/2011 05:38 AM
Slavish devotion to "simple" is exactly what led down the Ares I path. And the end result was a whole system which was NOT simple.

It was simpler than the alternatives.

 - Ed Kyle
Title: Re: Could Ares 1 have Worked if things had been different?
Post by: Lars_J on 09/05/2011 05:48 AM
Slavish devotion to "simple" is exactly what led down the Ares I path. And the end result was a whole system which was NOT simple.

It was simpler than the alternatives.

 - Ed Kyle

It seems like you still aren't getting my point - or you are playing devils advocate. If you stare yourself blind on "only two engines" and ignore all the other complexities arising from that decision, then you can't see the forest because of all the damn trees in the way.

There's a lot more to consider than the plain number of engines. You can have drastically different designs that both have two engines. In Ares 1's case the issue is compounded by a very poor first stage decision. (And looking at the number of small thrusters that have to fire during its ascent, and for its stage separation - one could actually argue that it has a LOT of engines that HAVE TO work)
Title: Re: Could Ares 1 have Worked if things had been different?
Post by: Patchouli on 09/05/2011 05:56 AM
Slavish devotion to "simple" is exactly what led down the Ares I path. And the end result was a whole system which was NOT simple.

The pretty much sums it it up.

The people running the project would not change the design when it became obvious it was the wrong direction.

If the people doing Apollo had the same stubborn mindset we may have never landed on the moon and certianly would not have done so before the end of the decade.
Apollo originally was going to use a direct landing LOR was the underdog at first.

Kinda like Direct vs Ares.

Nothing like "Direct vs. Ares".  If it were, NASA would be planning a lunar landing right now, using Direct.  It isn't.  Instead, the clamor for alternative ideas like "Direct" helped kill NASA's lunar landing program.

It wasn't about the rocket.  It was about the lack of funding from the outset.  There still isn't enough funding for a lunar landing even with Ares dead.

 - Ed Kyle

Both Ares I and V had serious design issues that made them unviable designs.
I knew Ares was doomed the moment they started gutting Orion to make it fly on Ares I and started talking about six engines on Ares V.
Even if they were finished NASA could not afford to fly two very different SDLVs.
Direct was an attempt to save Project Constellation.

What killed project constellation in the end was stubbornness on the part of people like  Mike Griffin and Scott Horowitz.

Title: Re: Could Ares 1 have Worked if things had been different?
Post by: Will on 09/05/2011 03:09 PM
Slavish devotion to "simple" is exactly what led down the Ares I path. And the end result was a whole system which was NOT simple.

It was simpler than the alternatives.

 - Ed Kyle

Simplicity isn't the only figure of merit. Zenit 2 is simpler than Soyuz, but less reliable. Flight experience is also very important to build reliability. Ares I would have flown so rarely that it would have a low level of flight experience compared to other launchers.
Title: Re: Could Ares 1 have Worked if things had been different?
Post by: Will on 09/05/2011 04:34 PM
Yes it is, considering how many SRB's failed after Challenger.  While they did not fail on the Shuttle, they still failed.
[like] this:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=nqlgUuYQU30

Titan 4 A-20 was not a solid motor failure.  It was an electrical (wiring harness short circuit) failure in the liquid core stages that caused loss of guidance/flight control.

The entire big throat solid Titan experience actually argues for solid motor reliability when compared to liquid rockets.  There were 123 flights of Titan 3C/D/E and 4 rockets, using 246 big throat solid motors.  Two of those solid motors suffered failures (a 99.19% success rate).  An additional 13 of these solid-boosted Titan-launched missions were thwarted by failures that affected the liquid stages or upper stages, lowering the overall mission success rate to 87.80 %. 

- Ed Kyle

However, the history also suggests that we can't expect the five segment solid to inherit the reliability of the four segment version. Titan 3C/D/E solids failed once in 84 flights, Titan 4 once in 39.
Title: Re: Could Ares 1 have Worked if things had been different?
Post by: Downix on 09/05/2011 05:24 PM
Slavish devotion to "simple" is exactly what led down the Ares I path. And the end result was a whole system which was NOT simple.

The pretty much sums it it up.

The people running the project would not change the design when it became obvious it was the wrong direction.

If the people doing Apollo had the same stubborn mindset we may have never landed on the moon and certianly would not have done so before the end of the decade.
Apollo originally was going to use a direct landing LOR was the underdog at first.

Kinda like Direct vs Ares.

Nothing like "Direct vs. Ares".  If it were, NASA would be planning a lunar landing right now, using Direct.  It isn't.  Instead, the clamor for alternative ideas like "Direct" helped kill NASA's lunar landing program.

It wasn't about the rocket.  It was about the lack of funding from the outset.  There still isn't enough funding for a lunar landing even with Ares dead.

 - Ed Kyle
False Ed. The enemy always was those who wished to kill the lunar program. DIRECT was an attempt to save the moon mission from those forces. The egos of those in charge saw it as the enemy, which means they handed the weapons to their true enemy.
Title: Re: Could Ares 1 have Worked if things had been different?
Post by: baldusi on 09/05/2011 05:54 PM
The entire big throat solid Titan experience actually argues for solid motor reliability when compared to liquid rockets.  There were 123 flights of Titan 3C/D/E and 4 rockets, using 246 big throat solid motors.  Two of those solid motors suffered failures (a 99.19% success rate).  An additional 13 of these solid-boosted Titan-launched missions were thwarted by failures that affected the liquid stages or upper stages, lowering the overall mission success rate to 87.80 %. 
But that's the whole point! Using solids forces you to use bigger and more extreme second stages. You can't decide the reliability of the whole vehicle by using only a part that individually might have less failure occurrences, but that forces a higher complexity in the rest of the stack (namely, second stage and LAS).

I don't follow.  The alternatives to Ares I were more, not less, complex than Ares I.  Atlas V Heavy, for example, would have used four liquid propulsion units using a total of four or five or more complex liquid rocket engines (including three staged-combustion engines).  Ares I would have used one solid motor and one gas generator engine powering two stages.  Show me a simpler rocket that can orbit as much mass.

 - Ed Kyle

So the complexity of the stack is only the "complexity" of the engines? The extra difficulty of the MECO is not an added complexity? The catastrophic failure modes of the solids is not a complexity? The LAS requirements of using solids is not a complexity? The post use inspection to keep the human rating on segmented solids is not a complexity? The limited flexibility of the solids design (up or down rate) is not a complexity? And you're wrong in that the only solution would have been an Atlas IV. You could have used an Atlas Phase II. And if you're worried about the amount of engines, then put an RD-171M. And the ACES with an J-2X. Traded one solid engine for one staged engine. But a very well characterized, tested and human rated engine. And let's recall that the Shuttle did had engine out on the pure SSME phase. And in fact it saved the STS-51L mission. So it's not clear that many engine with engine out capabilities are bad. You take every complexity as the same. And Tauffte was very clear in his Challenger failure findings that you have to add a degree of severity to each failure. Staged combustion is more complex? Yes, but that's why it gets so much testing before, is fired for acceptance, and is even tested while firing just before lift-off. And if correctly instrumented, it can be shut down gracefully most of the times. Yes, the solids are "simpler", but once on the pad, if it fails is a kaboom. I know, the "trade studies" said solids where still safer. I'm an econometrist and know perfectly well how you can put thumbs on the scale on those studies. Like saying taking the SSRM, changing the formula, the grain, the casing, the number of segments and nozzle and saying that it's the same engine. But then forgetting any sort of experience of actual liquid engines doing actual missions and getting actual reliabilities. It's like when they (allegedly) said that the bumble bee couldn't fly.
If Rusky engines were a no no (even made by AMROSS in the US), then do develop the TR-107, or PWR-1000. Meanwhile, use the RD-171M to test the rest of the stack. Aerojet would have developed eventually the AJ-500, too.
Title: Re: Could Ares 1 have Worked if things had been different?
Post by: edkyle99 on 09/05/2011 06:50 PM
There's a lot more to consider than the plain number of engines. You can have drastically different designs that both have two engines. In Ares 1's case the issue is compounded by a very poor first stage decision. (And looking at the number of small thrusters that have to fire during its ascent, and for its stage separation - one could actually argue that it has a LOT of engines that HAVE TO work)

Ares I uses a roll control thruster as I understand it, not a bunch of small thrusters, at least during first stage flight.  The second stage has thrusters, but so does Centaur (Centaur has 12 monopropellant thrusters for pitch, yaw, roll).

An Atlas V core fires eight stage separation motors.  Heavy would fire even more ordnance.

Atlas V Heavy would have more engines (high chamber pressure staged combustion engines on the cores), more separation events, more points of failure, and more complexity. 

 - Ed Kyle
Title: Re: Could Ares 1 have Worked if things had been different?
Post by: edkyle99 on 09/05/2011 06:58 PM
Both Ares I and V had serious design issues that made them unviable designs.

I don't see the Ares I design in particular as nonviable.  Augustine and others have said that Ares I would have worked. 

I see the "nonviable" claim as an excuse for lack of national will.  It is a way for decision makers to blame their own failure on someone's rocket design.  Ares I became the scapegoat because it was the first thing under development that, as all complex systems do, ran into design challenges.  It was surmounting those challenges. 

The issue was lack of funding for landing on the Moon - regardless of rocket.  If NASA could land on the Moon with less money, it would be happening. 

 - Ed Kyle
Title: Re: Could Ares 1 have Worked if things had been different?
Post by: Lee Jay on 09/05/2011 07:38 PM
Both Ares I and V had serious design issues that made them unviable designs.

I don't see the Ares I design in particular as nonviable.

It was.  The premise behind Ares-I was to take two existing engines and use their extensive flight experience to make a simple, reliable rocket for Orion.  Then they discovered their choice for the second stage engine (SSME) wouldn't work and that they'd have to design a new second stage engine.  Then they discovered that the new engine wasn't going to give the performance of the original so they'd have to design a new first stage engine as well.  So the entire premise was falsified and the entire project should have been re-evaluated at that point.  Instead, they chose to push forward on a project that was in direct violation of its original design premise.  To me, that's non-viable unless there are very compelling cost and reliability reasons it isn't.  In this case, it was going to be very expensive and not necessarily reliable because of all the technical problems and their solutions, and the total lack of flight experience with either stage or either engine.
Title: Re: Could Ares 1 have Worked if things had been different?
Post by: edkyle99 on 09/05/2011 11:51 PM
Both Ares I and V had serious design issues that made them unviable designs.

I don't see the Ares I design in particular as nonviable.

It was.  The premise behind Ares-I was to take two existing engines and use their extensive flight experience to make a simple, reliable rocket for Orion.  Then they discovered their choice for the second stage engine (SSME) wouldn't work and that they'd have to design a new second stage engine.  Then they discovered that the new engine wasn't going to give the performance of the original so they'd have to design a new first stage engine as well. 
This is not correct. 

ESAS recommended the four-segment booster and SSME stage 2 design, but also described a five-segment booster and J-2 derived alternative.  The alternative was selected soon after ESAS.  It was selected not for any of the reasons you describe.  Instead, it was selected to speed up development of five-segment booster and J-2X for Ares V - a choice that was expected to save development costs for Ares V down the road.  In addition, the five-segment booster design actually outperformed the four-segment SSME design.  It's all right there in the ESAS report.

Quote
So the entire premise was falsified and the entire project should have been re-evaluated at that point. 

The falsification comes from your incorrect description of events!

 - Ed Kyle

Title: Re: Could Ares 1 have Worked if things had been different?
Post by: Lee Jay on 09/06/2011 12:14 AM
This is not correct. 

Sure it is.  Jan 14, 2004:

http://smartech.gatech.edu/jspui/bitstream/1853/8025/2/SSEC_SB4_doc.pdf

Quote
One logical, attractive approach to providing the launch capabilities necessary to support the overall exploration vision would be to leverage the existing Space Transportation System (STS) components and
infrastructure.

...

Since STS hardware has already been demonstrated in a human-rated environment, the cost associated with qualifying components for future human-rated applications would be significantly reduced.
Additionally, the proven aspect of that hardware would significantly reduce the risk and improve the safety of future missions involving human exploration and presence in space.

...

The baseline Inline CLV configuration, represented in Figure 1, is a 4 segment Reusable Solid Rocket Motor (RSRM) booster first stage and a LO2/LH2 Space Shuttle Main Engine (SSME) upper stage engine modified for air start capability with 385,000 lbm of propellant.

I'm pretty sure there's an even earlier paper with the same basic approach, but I can't find it right now.
Title: Re: Could Ares 1 have Worked if things had been different?
Post by: Downix on 09/06/2011 01:29 AM
Both Ares I and V had serious design issues that made them unviable designs.

I don't see the Ares I design in particular as nonviable.

It was.  The premise behind Ares-I was to take two existing engines and use their extensive flight experience to make a simple, reliable rocket for Orion.  Then they discovered their choice for the second stage engine (SSME) wouldn't work and that they'd have to design a new second stage engine.  Then they discovered that the new engine wasn't going to give the performance of the original so they'd have to design a new first stage engine as well. 
This is not correct. 

ESAS recommended the four-segment booster and SSME stage 2 design, but also described a five-segment booster and J-2 derived alternative.  The alternative was selected soon after ESAS.  It was selected not for any of the reasons you describe.  Instead, it was selected to speed up development of five-segment booster and J-2X for Ares V - a choice that was expected to save development costs for Ares V down the road.  In addition, the five-segment booster design actually outperformed the four-segment SSME design.  It's all right there in the ESAS report.

Yes, along with this gem about LC16, the 5-segment J-2 (and expander-cycle LR-85) derived solution (which scored behind both Atlas and Delta in the ESAS report):

"The J–2 or J–2S could not support the 2011 launch date requirement."
"...would be too expensive and exhibit an unacceptable development risk to meet the goal of the 2011 IOC for the CEV."
"However, the five-segment development added significant near-term cost and risk and the J–2S+/expander engine could not meet the 2011 schedule target."
"The J–2S option could not meet the 2011 target (whereas the SSME could) and had 6 percent less performance than the SSME-based option (LV 13.1)."

In short, ESAS did include LV16, the Ares I which was developed, and it came in *behind* the other CLV options, with a risk factor of 1.3, almost to the bottom, and the highest facilities cost out of any of the other options.  By the ESAS, the model to be designed should LV13.1 not be persued, was LV2, the Atlas V Heavy with a custom upper stage, with a risk of 1.03, second from the top.

So, just including it in the report does not mean that it was endorsed by the report.  Reading the report, it was the complete opposite, it was included and listed as a high risk of running over the budget, and missing the schedule, as well as listed as a severe risk of failing to meet performance predicted.
Title: Re: Could Ares 1 have Worked if things had been different?
Post by: dks13827 on 09/06/2011 02:49 AM
Quote:
"However, the history also suggests that we can't expect the five segment solid to inherit the reliability of the four segment version. Titan 3C/D/E solids failed once in 84 flights, Titan 4 once in 39. "


SRB's in current configuration, 100+ flights times 2 boosters = 200 successful consecutive flight items without a failure.  Top that !

Ares 1 design intent was to drastically increase crew safety during ascent.
Title: Re: Could Ares 1 have Worked if things had been different?
Post by: Will on 09/06/2011 02:53 AM
Both Ares I and V had serious design issues that made them unviable designs.

I don't see the Ares I design in particular as nonviable.

It was.  The premise behind Ares-I was to take two existing engines and use their extensive flight experience to make a simple, reliable rocket for Orion.  Then they discovered their choice for the second stage engine (SSME) wouldn't work and that they'd have to design a new second stage engine.  Then they discovered that the new engine wasn't going to give the performance of the original so they'd have to design a new first stage engine as well. 
This is not correct. 

ESAS recommended the four-segment booster and SSME stage 2 design, but also described a five-segment booster and J-2 derived alternative.  The alternative was selected soon after ESAS.  It was selected not for any of the reasons you describe.  Instead, it was selected to speed up development of five-segment booster and J-2X for Ares V - a choice that was expected to save development costs for Ares V down the road.  In addition, the five-segment booster design actually outperformed the four-segment SSME design.  It's all right there in the ESAS report.

Yes, along with this gem about LC16, the 5-segment J-2 (and expander-cycle LR-85) derived solution (which scored behind both Atlas and Delta in the ESAS report):

"The J–2 or J–2S could not support the 2011 launch date requirement."
"...would be too expensive and exhibit an unacceptable development risk to meet the goal of the 2011 IOC for the CEV."
"However, the five-segment development added significant near-term cost and risk and the J–2S+/expander engine could not meet the 2011 schedule target."
"The J–2S option could not meet the 2011 target (whereas the SSME could) and had 6 percent less performance than the SSME-based option (LV 13.1)."

In short, ESAS did include LV16, the Ares I which was developed, and it came in *behind* the other CLV options, with a risk factor of 1.3, almost to the bottom, and the highest facilities cost out of any of the other options.  By the ESAS, the model to be designed should LV13.1 not be persued, was LV2, the Atlas V Heavy with a custom upper stage, with a risk of 1.03, second from the top.

So, just including it in the report does not mean that it was endorsed by the report.  Reading the report, it was the complete opposite, it was included and listed as a high risk of running over the budget, and missing the schedule, as well as listed as a severe risk of failing to meet performance predicted.

The 5 segment J-2 upper stage variant was rated by ESAS only slightly behind the original choice of 4 segment solid plus air started SSME.

This demonstrates how deeply flawed the ESAS process was. Operating cost per launch was not even considered as a figure of merit. When cost per launch was discussed, it was based on an absurd assumption of six launches a year for all launchers.

That's no way to run a space program.
Title: Re: Could Ares 1 have Worked if things had been different?
Post by: Downix on 09/06/2011 03:13 AM
Both Ares I and V had serious design issues that made them unviable designs.

I don't see the Ares I design in particular as nonviable.

It was.  The premise behind Ares-I was to take two existing engines and use their extensive flight experience to make a simple, reliable rocket for Orion.  Then they discovered their choice for the second stage engine (SSME) wouldn't work and that they'd have to design a new second stage engine.  Then they discovered that the new engine wasn't going to give the performance of the original so they'd have to design a new first stage engine as well. 
This is not correct. 

ESAS recommended the four-segment booster and SSME stage 2 design, but also described a five-segment booster and J-2 derived alternative.  The alternative was selected soon after ESAS.  It was selected not for any of the reasons you describe.  Instead, it was selected to speed up development of five-segment booster and J-2X for Ares V - a choice that was expected to save development costs for Ares V down the road.  In addition, the five-segment booster design actually outperformed the four-segment SSME design.  It's all right there in the ESAS report.

Yes, along with this gem about LC16, the 5-segment J-2 (and expander-cycle LR-85) derived solution (which scored behind both Atlas and Delta in the ESAS report):

"The J–2 or J–2S could not support the 2011 launch date requirement."
"...would be too expensive and exhibit an unacceptable development risk to meet the goal of the 2011 IOC for the CEV."
"However, the five-segment development added significant near-term cost and risk and the J–2S+/expander engine could not meet the 2011 schedule target."
"The J–2S option could not meet the 2011 target (whereas the SSME could) and had 6 percent less performance than the SSME-based option (LV 13.1)."

In short, ESAS did include LV16, the Ares I which was developed, and it came in *behind* the other CLV options, with a risk factor of 1.3, almost to the bottom, and the highest facilities cost out of any of the other options.  By the ESAS, the model to be designed should LV13.1 not be persued, was LV2, the Atlas V Heavy with a custom upper stage, with a risk of 1.03, second from the top.

So, just including it in the report does not mean that it was endorsed by the report.  Reading the report, it was the complete opposite, it was included and listed as a high risk of running over the budget, and missing the schedule, as well as listed as a severe risk of failing to meet performance predicted.

The 5 segment J-2 upper stage variant was rated by ESAS only slightly behind the original choice of 4 segment solid plus air started SSME.

This demonstrates how deeply flawed the ESAS process was. Operating cost per launch was not even considered as a figure of merit. When cost per launch was discussed, it was based on an absurd assumption of six launches a year for all launchers.

That's no way to run a space program.
No it wasn't.  It was rated only slightly behind in two categories, namely LOC and LOM, and even those are suspect when you check the numbers. In other categories, such as DDT&E, schedule risk, political risk, facilities cost, even performance, it rated worse. 

The ESAS process itself was not a major issue, even with the finger on the scale which is clear in the LOC/LOM sections, the raw numbers are still there to pull from.  The issue was *after* ESAS, when the LV16 lost, flat, period, to other vehicles such as LV2 and LV7. The best vehicles studied in the appendix against it were not shown in the final report either.
Title: Re: Could Ares 1 have Worked if things had been different?
Post by: edkyle99 on 09/06/2011 04:24 AM
This is not correct. 

Sure it is.  Jan 14, 2004:

http://smartech.gatech.edu/jspui/bitstream/1853/8025/2/SSEC_SB4_doc.pdf

No, its not.  You asserted that "they discovered their choice for the second stage engine (SSME) wouldn't work and that they'd have to design a new second stage engine."  This is not correct.  Air start SSME was a viable option - it would have worked - and was still n the SLS trades as recently as this year.  NASA decided at the time that spending money on SSME wouldn't be worth it since it had no other use on Ares V. 

You also stated that "[t]hen they discovered that the new engine wasn't going to give the performance of the original so they'd have to design a new first stage engine ..."  This is also not correct.  NASA did not "discover" that J-2X wasn't going to perform as well as SSME.  It already knew that was true.  The trade off was a much simpler gas generator engine that could restart in space.   

The original SRB in-line design investigated by the Astronaut Office about two years before ESAS was a four segment SRB topped by a J-2 type powered upper stage that would have lifted less than 20 tonnes to LEO.  A kerosene upper stage was even considered at one point.

 - Ed Kyle
Title: Re: Could Ares 1 have Worked if things had been different?
Post by: edkyle99 on 09/06/2011 04:32 AM

"The J–2 or J–2S could not support the 2011 launch date requirement."
"...would be too expensive and exhibit an unacceptable development risk to meet the goal of the 2011 IOC for the CEV."
"However, the five-segment development added significant near-term cost and risk and the J–2S+/expander engine could not meet the 2011 schedule target."
"The J–2S option could not meet the 2011 target (whereas the SSME could) and had 6 percent less performance than the SSME-based option (LV 13.1)."

Right.  NASA accepted the schedule slip.  It had to accept the slip because Congress did not provide sufficient funding for Constellation, or for any human lunar exploration program. 

NASA could not afford to do SSME and J-2X and RS-68B and four segment booster and five segment booster.  It decided to drop SSME and four segment booster and to accept the Ares I delay in favor of making Ares V more viable.  Even then, Orion and Ares V were going to slip unless more money was authorized.  The plan did not work out, but I'm not sure the Agency had a choice. 

 - Ed Kyle
Title: Re: Could Ares 1 have Worked if things had been different?
Post by: 93143 on 09/06/2011 04:43 AM
Sure they did.  Go DIRECT...

You really want a separate CLV capability?  Man rate an EELV Heavy.

Seriously, spending more than twice the money on a continuous basis just for a negligible decrease in mission risk is not a good use of cash, especially after it became plain said cash was not going to materialize.  I thought we had this discussion years ago.

Ed, you were the one who inspired Ross' original question.  Have you forgotten everything we learned over those five years?
Title: Re: Could Ares 1 have Worked if things had been different?
Post by: Downix on 09/06/2011 05:56 AM

"The J–2 or J–2S could not support the 2011 launch date requirement."
"...would be too expensive and exhibit an unacceptable development risk to meet the goal of the 2011 IOC for the CEV."
"However, the five-segment development added significant near-term cost and risk and the J–2S+/expander engine could not meet the 2011 schedule target."
"The J–2S option could not meet the 2011 target (whereas the SSME could) and had 6 percent less performance than the SSME-based option (LV 13.1)."

Right.  NASA accepted the schedule slip.  It had to accept the slip because Congress did not provide sufficient funding for Constellation, or for any human lunar exploration program. 

NASA could not afford to do SSME and J-2X and RS-68B and four segment booster and five segment booster.  It decided to drop SSME and four segment booster and to accept the Ares I delay in favor of making Ares V more viable.  Even then, Orion and Ares V were going to slip unless more money was authorized.  The plan did not work out, but I'm not sure the Agency had a choice. 

 - Ed Kyle
And you're re-inventing things.  Those statements were *with* the added budget NASA never got.  So, you can't say it was accounted for, when the ESAS report itself says it wasn't.
Title: Re: Could Ares 1 have Worked if things had been different?
Post by: yinzer on 09/06/2011 07:08 AM

"The J–2 or J–2S could not support the 2011 launch date requirement."
"...would be too expensive and exhibit an unacceptable development risk to meet the goal of the 2011 IOC for the CEV."
"However, the five-segment development added significant near-term cost and risk and the J–2S+/expander engine could not meet the 2011 schedule target."
"The J–2S option could not meet the 2011 target (whereas the SSME could) and had 6 percent less performance than the SSME-based option (LV 13.1)."

Right.  NASA accepted the schedule slip.  It had to accept the slip because Congress did not provide sufficient funding for Constellation, or for any human lunar exploration program. 

NASA could not afford to do SSME and J-2X and RS-68B and four segment booster and five segment booster.  It decided to drop SSME and four segment booster and to accept the Ares I delay in favor of making Ares V more viable.  Even then, Orion and Ares V were going to slip unless more money was authorized.  The plan did not work out, but I'm not sure the Agency had a choice. 

Why didn't they have a choice?  There was no indication that the money for designing and flying Ares V and Altair was actually going to materialize, and an Ares I that was actually flying would be much harder to cancel than one that was still on the drawing boards.
Title: Re: Could Ares 1 have Worked if things had been different?
Post by: edkyle99 on 09/06/2011 02:06 PM
Sure they did.  Go DIRECT...

You really want a separate CLV capability?  Man rate an EELV Heavy.

Seriously, spending more than twice the money on a continuous basis just for a negligible decrease in mission risk is not a good use of cash, especially after it became plain said cash was not going to materialize.  I thought we had this discussion years ago.

Ed, you were the one who inspired Ross' original question.  Have you forgotten everything we learned over those five years?

If "Direct" could have saved the lunar mission, NASA would be going to the Moon right now.  It isn't.  Instead, it is trying to figure out how to pay for, and what to do with, a big "Direct"-like SLS design that it can't afford to use. 

 - Ed Kyle
Title: Re: Could Ares 1 have Worked if things had been different?
Post by: edkyle99 on 09/06/2011 02:11 PM

"The J–2 or J–2S could not support the 2011 launch date requirement."
"...would be too expensive and exhibit an unacceptable development risk to meet the goal of the 2011 IOC for the CEV."
"However, the five-segment development added significant near-term cost and risk and the J–2S+/expander engine could not meet the 2011 schedule target."
"The J–2S option could not meet the 2011 target (whereas the SSME could) and had 6 percent less performance than the SSME-based option (LV 13.1)."

Right.  NASA accepted the schedule slip.  It had to accept the slip because Congress did not provide sufficient funding for Constellation, or for any human lunar exploration program. 

NASA could not afford to do SSME and J-2X and RS-68B and four segment booster and five segment booster.  It decided to drop SSME and four segment booster and to accept the Ares I delay in favor of making Ares V more viable.  Even then, Orion and Ares V were going to slip unless more money was authorized.  The plan did not work out, but I'm not sure the Agency had a choice. 

 - Ed Kyle
And you're re-inventing things.  Those statements were *with* the added budget NASA never got.  So, you can't say it was accounted for, when the ESAS report itself says it wasn't.

http://waynehale.wordpress.com/2010/09/23/6/
"Our first reaction on seeing the Vision Sand Chart was that we were appalled.  There was no way we could do our job with that little amount of money, and to develop a new deep space system for that pittance was beyond belief."  Wayne Hale

However you dice or slice it, the bottom line is that there wasn't enough money.  There still isn't enough money.

 - Ed Kyle
Title: Re: Could Ares 1 have Worked if things had been different?
Post by: Downix on 09/06/2011 02:28 PM

"The J–2 or J–2S could not support the 2011 launch date requirement."
"...would be too expensive and exhibit an unacceptable development risk to meet the goal of the 2011 IOC for the CEV."
"However, the five-segment development added significant near-term cost and risk and the J–2S+/expander engine could not meet the 2011 schedule target."
"The J–2S option could not meet the 2011 target (whereas the SSME could) and had 6 percent less performance than the SSME-based option (LV 13.1)."

Right.  NASA accepted the schedule slip.  It had to accept the slip because Congress did not provide sufficient funding for Constellation, or for any human lunar exploration program. 

NASA could not afford to do SSME and J-2X and RS-68B and four segment booster and five segment booster.  It decided to drop SSME and four segment booster and to accept the Ares I delay in favor of making Ares V more viable.  Even then, Orion and Ares V were going to slip unless more money was authorized.  The plan did not work out, but I'm not sure the Agency had a choice. 

 - Ed Kyle
And you're re-inventing things.  Those statements were *with* the added budget NASA never got.  So, you can't say it was accounted for, when the ESAS report itself says it wasn't.

http://waynehale.wordpress.com/2010/09/23/6/
"Our first reaction on seeing the Vision Sand Chart was that we were appalled.  There was no way we could do our job with that little amount of money, and to develop a new deep space system for that pittance was beyond belief."  Wayne Hale

However you dice or slice it, the bottom line is that there wasn't enough money.  There still isn't enough money.

 - Ed Kyle
Ed, the report said that the 5 seg, j-2 design was too expensive, even under the planned budget. Which means, the budget was limited already, and switching to that only made the problem worse. If I go out to buy a car, having a budget of $15k, even if I can only really spend $12k, buying one for $20k makes the problem worse as now, rather than $3k over, it is now $8k over.
Title: Re: Could Ares 1 have Worked if things had been different?
Post by: edkyle99 on 09/06/2011 08:48 PM
Ed, the report said that the 5 seg, j-2 design was too expensive, even under the planned budget. Which means, the budget was limited already, and switching to that only made the problem worse.
Five segment J-2 cost more in the short term, but eliminating SSME and four-segment booster would save much more money in the long term.  That was the rationale.  The budget was busted even before the project began regardless.

 - Ed Kyle
Title: Re: Could Ares 1 have Worked if things had been different?
Post by: 93143 on 09/06/2011 09:20 PM
If "Direct" could have saved the lunar mission, NASA would be going to the Moon right now.  It isn't.  Instead, it is trying to figure out how to pay for, and what to do with, a big "Direct"-like SLS design that it can't afford to use.

That's a distortion of the facts.

First, the design we've seen floating around for SLS is not quite Jupiter.  It's bigger, more expensive, and takes longer to develop.  Especially since Shuttle is already gone.

Second, the only reason NASA "can't afford" to use it is because with the current fuss over the budget, NASA has produced a "worst-case scenario" which has been leaked and convinced a bunch of excitable outside observers that the "worst-case scenario" is the best we can hope for.

Third, the goals of NASA as authorized by Congress do include going back to the moon - they referred to the '05 and '08 Authorizations as guidance for the decadal survey.  The only reason it looks like NASA isn't going back to the moon is because Obama doesn't want to and Bolden is his puppet.

If NASA had switched to Jupiter internally back when Ares I ran into problems, we'd most likely have already had multiple test flights by now, and the lunar program would be on course.

On the other hand, this mess seems to have prompted some soul-searching, and perhaps NASA will be the better for it...

...

Finally, you said you were "not sure the Agency had a choice" but to switch to a plan that would cost roughly twice as much as DIRECT and take about twice as long.  There's a link missing from your logic...

...

Quote
Five segment J-2 cost more in the short term, but eliminating SSME and four-segment booster would save much more money in the long term.

That assumes the subsequent development of Ares V and the resultant need for J-2X and 5-seg.  Leaving aside the fact that Ares V ended up not being able to use the Ares I 5-seg, the fact remains that you're optimizing with the wrong variables held constant.
Title: Re: Could Ares 1 have Worked if things had been different?
Post by: Downix on 09/06/2011 11:34 PM
Ed, the report said that the 5 seg, j-2 design was too expensive, even under the planned budget. Which means, the budget was limited already, and switching to that only made the problem worse.
Five segment J-2 cost more in the short term, but eliminating SSME and four-segment booster would save much more money in the long term.  That was the rationale.  The budget was busted even before the project began regardless.

 - Ed Kyle
But that was the post-ESAS rationale, so you cannot claim that LV16 was endorsed by ESAS for reasons which are not in ESAS.  They listed LV16 as the wrong option, and gave very good reasons why.  Any rationale given to the decision was rationalizing a bad mistake to themselves.
Title: Re: Could Ares 1 have Worked if things had been different?
Post by: edkyle99 on 09/07/2011 04:18 AM
... the goals of NASA as authorized by Congress do include going back to the moon - they referred to the '05 and '08 Authorizations as guidance for the decadal survey.  The only reason it looks like NASA isn't going back to the moon is because Obama doesn't want to and Bolden is his puppet.

The President does not want NASA to go to the Moon.  So, the reason it looks like NASA isn't going back to the Moon is - because NASA is not going back to the Moon!

Quote
Finally, you said you were "not sure the Agency had a choice" but to switch to a plan that would cost roughly twice as much as DIRECT and take about twice as long.  There's a link missing from your logic...

The missing link is that a "Direct" plan would not have cost half as much as the Constellation plan.  NASA itself showed in ESAS that a dual-launch plan like "Direct" cost somewhat less, but only fractionally less than the 1.5 launch architecture.  The really big costs, the crew and lander spacecraft, would not have been reduced with a dual-launch plan like "Direct". 

 - Ed Kyle
Title: Re: Could Ares 1 have Worked if things had been different?
Post by: Downix on 09/07/2011 04:26 AM
... the goals of NASA as authorized by Congress do include going back to the moon - they referred to the '05 and '08 Authorizations as guidance for the decadal survey.  The only reason it looks like NASA isn't going back to the moon is because Obama doesn't want to and Bolden is his puppet.

The President does not want NASA to go to the Moon.  So, the reason it looks like NASA isn't going back to the Moon is - because NASA is not going back to the Moon!

Quote
Finally, you said you were "not sure the Agency had a choice" but to switch to a plan that would cost roughly twice as much as DIRECT and take about twice as long.  There's a link missing from your logic...

The missing link is that a "Direct" plan would not have cost half as much as the Constellation plan.  NASA itself showed in ESAS that a dual-launch plan like "Direct" cost somewhat less, but only fractionally less than the 1.5 launch architecture.  The really big costs, the crew and lander spacecraft, would not have been reduced with a dual-launch plan like "Direct". 

 - Ed Kyle
Only if the original launchers for 1.5 were the ones chosen.  Instead they chose LV16 and LV52, which had dramatically higher costs, making the point of DIRECT.  While, yes, against LV13 and LV27 the LV25/LV26 based DIRECT only had a marginally better cost, against the final Constellation it was dramatically better, per the ESAS report.
Title: Re: Could Ares 1 have Worked if things had been different?
Post by: edkyle99 on 09/07/2011 04:30 AM
Ed, the report said that the 5 seg, j-2 design was too expensive, even under the planned budget. Which means, the budget was limited already, and switching to that only made the problem worse.
Five segment J-2 cost more in the short term, but eliminating SSME and four-segment booster would save much more money in the long term.  That was the rationale.  The budget was busted even before the project began regardless.

 - Ed Kyle
But that was the post-ESAS rationale, so you cannot claim that LV16 was endorsed by ESAS for reasons which are not in ESAS.  They listed LV16 as the wrong option, and gave very good reasons why.  Any rationale given to the decision was rationalizing a bad mistake to themselves.

I don't think I said it was "endorsed", only that it was studied and described as an alternative.  Griffin later said that it came in a close second, or words to that effect.  By switching to five segment/J-2X, Griffin was prioritizing Ares V - a rocket really designed to go to Mars. 
 
Had they stayed with four-segment and SSME, they would have suffered the same final result (cancellation).  Ares I would still have been delayed due to tight budgets and Shuttle overhang, and Ares V would have been utterly impossible to afford.  I don't see NASA's Ares I decision as a mistake.  The mistake was lack of funding from the outset.

 - Ed Kyle
Title: Re: Could Ares 1 have Worked if things had been different?
Post by: 93143 on 09/07/2011 04:35 AM
The President does not want NASA to go to the Moon.  So, the reason it looks like NASA isn't going back to the Moon is - because NASA is not going back to the Moon!

Well, nuts.  I guess the lunar mission is on hold indefinitely.  Because unless someone assassinates the Dear Leader, he's in for the long haul, right?  And his sons will inherit his attitude, and...  oh, wait...

Worst case scenario, Obama stays to 2016.  Assuming SLS survives, it will be just about ready by then.  Orion will be ready before then.  Due to the magic of sequential development, the lunar lander won't really get started before then regardless of who's the president, so does Obama really have any say at all in whether or not NASA goes to the moon with SLS?

Besides, he's not the only one with any say in what NASA does.  Congress has given the decadal survey the goals of the VSE.  They've already gotten Obama to sign a law he didn't want; SLS is now national policy.  If they want the moon badly enough, and NASA backs them on technical grounds, Obama won't stand in their way.  Heck, with the policy statements in the Authorization, coupled with the decadal survey, the lunar mission may just slip back in below the political level...
Title: Re: Could Ares 1 have Worked if things had been different?
Post by: Downix on 09/07/2011 04:39 AM
Ed, the report said that the 5 seg, j-2 design was too expensive, even under the planned budget. Which means, the budget was limited already, and switching to that only made the problem worse.
Five segment J-2 cost more in the short term, but eliminating SSME and four-segment booster would save much more money in the long term.  That was the rationale.  The budget was busted even before the project began regardless.

 - Ed Kyle
But that was the post-ESAS rationale, so you cannot claim that LV16 was endorsed by ESAS for reasons which are not in ESAS.  They listed LV16 as the wrong option, and gave very good reasons why.  Any rationale given to the decision was rationalizing a bad mistake to themselves.

I don't think I said it was "endorsed", only that it was studied and described as an alternative.  Griffin later said that it came in a close second, or words to that effect.  By switching to five segment/J-2X, Griffin was prioritizing Ares V - a rocket really designed to go to Mars. 
 
Had they stayed with four-segment and SSME, they would have suffered the same final result (cancellation).  Ares I would still have been delayed due to tight budgets and Shuttle overhang, and Ares V would have been utterly impossible to afford.  I don't see NASA's Ares I decision as a mistake.  The mistake was lack of funding from the outset.

 - Ed Kyle
So, in effect you are saying Griffin lied, as it did not come in a close second, and instead came in near the bottom.  By switching, he guaranteed the budget issues. 

And no, if they had stayed, the cancellation is not a foregone conclusion.  For one, Orion would not have needed 9 redesigns, and the billions that consumed.  Another, the initial launch had a better chance of being done on time, and a flying launch system is difficult to cancel.
Title: Re: Could Ares 1 have Worked if things had been different?
Post by: edkyle99 on 09/07/2011 04:45 AM
Worst case scenario, Obama stays to 2016.  Assuming SLS survives, it will be just about ready by then.  Orion will be ready before then.  Due to the magic of sequential development, the lunar lander won't really get started before then regardless of who's the president, so does Obama really have any say at all in whether or not NASA goes to the moon with SLS?

Yes.  By dismantling NASA infrastructure now, especially during this long decade-plus of economic stagnation, he is having the ultimate say in NASA's future.  Who's going to rebuild it once its gone?  Seriously.  Tea Party Republicans?  President Romney?

 - Ed Kyle
Title: Re: Could Ares 1 have Worked if things had been different?
Post by: edkyle99 on 09/07/2011 04:52 AM

So, in effect you are saying Griffin lied, as it did not come in a close second, and instead came in near the bottom.  By switching, he guaranteed the budget issues. 

And no, if they had stayed, the cancellation is not a foregone conclusion.  For one, Orion would not have needed 9 redesigns, and the billions that consumed.  Another, the initial launch had a better chance of being done on time, and a flying launch system is difficult to cancel.

You must be reading a different ESAS report than I am reading.  (Different from the one Mr. Griffin read also.)  Mine shows that five segment-J-2S outperforms four segment-SSME (Figure 6-95).  Mine shows that the five segment rocket costs more to develop (nothing like twice as much as claimed elsewhere in this thread), but costs less to fly.  Mine says nothing about an RS-68 powered Ares V (costs or performance), so offers no comparison of the savings that would result from its use.

 - Ed Kyle 
Title: Re: Could Ares 1 have Worked if things had been different?
Post by: 93143 on 09/07/2011 04:55 AM
Quote
By dismantling NASA infrastructure now, especially during this long decade-plus of economic stagnation, he is having the ultimate say in NASA's future.  Who's going to rebuild it once its gone?

I said "assuming SLS survives".  That means I'm assuming the dismantling fails, at least partially, and NASA maintains its ability to do this sort of thing.

This is rather far from the question of whether Jupiter was a better choice than LV16.
Title: Re: Could Ares 1 have Worked if things had been different?
Post by: Downix on 09/07/2011 05:11 AM

So, in effect you are saying Griffin lied, as it did not come in a close second, and instead came in near the bottom.  By switching, he guaranteed the budget issues. 

And no, if they had stayed, the cancellation is not a foregone conclusion.  For one, Orion would not have needed 9 redesigns, and the billions that consumed.  Another, the initial launch had a better chance of being done on time, and a flying launch system is difficult to cancel.

You must be reading a different ESAS report than I am reading.  (Different from the one Mr. Griffin read also.)  Mine shows that five segment-J-2S outperforms four segment-SSME (Figure 6-95).  Mine shows that the five segment rocket costs more to develop (nothing like twice as much as claimed elsewhere in this thread), but costs less to fly.  Mine says nothing about an RS-68 powered Ares V (costs or performance), so offers no comparison of the savings that would result from its use.

 - Ed Kyle 
You just destroyed your own argument.  You just admitted that it shows that it costs more to develop, 39% more according to the ESAS report.  And yes, it costs 6% less to fly.  As for an RS-68 powered Ares V, you're glossing over the LV28 grouping, including the ones which utilize the larger tank and 5-segment SRB, included in the ESAS Appendices but not in the main report.  The Appendices are in L2 is you need a refresher.
Title: Re: Could Ares 1 have Worked if things had been different?
Post by: edkyle99 on 09/07/2011 09:28 PM
You just destroyed your own argument.  You just admitted that it shows that it costs more to develop, 39% more according to the ESAS report.  And yes, it costs 6% less to fly.  As for an RS-68 powered Ares V, you're glossing over the LV28 grouping, including the ones which utilize the larger tank and 5-segment SRB, included in the ESAS Appendices but not in the main report.  The Appendices are in L2 is you need a refresher.

I haven't argued that 5-segment/J-2X cost less than 4-segment/SSME to develop.  I've argued that its use lowered total program costs for the complete Ares I/V architecture.  In addition, the J-2X Ares I cost less to fly than the SSME Ares I.  Over time, those savings would have added up.  The savings weren't just 6%, they were 7% for production and 15% for operations. 

The cargo vehicle costs are not in the Appendix, but the crew vehicle costs are.  The Appendix says "LV16 with the J-2S+ upper stage engine has the lowest production cost", and "the cost of launch operations is lowest for LV16 and greatest for LV13.1".   Etc.

 - Ed Kyle
Title: Re: Could Ares 1 have Worked if things had been different?
Post by: kraisee on 09/07/2011 10:22 PM
Griffin became NASA's Administrator by making a political deal with few key DC players, promising to protect the jobs by developing a new system based on Shuttle hardware and systems.   His plan was clearly stated that it was going to require about $3bn more each year for NASA -- extra money that would mostly end-up in the states of those political players.

The final Ares-I and Ares-V configurations ended up with virtually nothing at all to do with Shuttle, and actually promised to need even more than that $3bn plus-up for the agency in order to be affordable (with Altair and Orion).

The politicians though, FAILED to step up to the plate and increase the budget by the necessary amount.   They still wanted their increased pie slices, but they weren't willing to provide enough flour and eggs to make the larger pie in the first place -- so they actually screwed themselves (and the rest of us in the process, thank-you DC).

So Griffin and his political partners were responsible for planning something that was ultimately just plain-old "unaffordable".   They just bit off far more than they could chew.

Even though Griffin and most of his Lieutenants are gone, the same-old political cronies are still there and are still trying to increase their share of a now-decreasing pie.   Because of their continuing stupidity and down-right GREED, the new SLS-based program, is heading back in precisely the same direction for precisely the same reasons.

It'll take a few years, but I'm convinced that SLS (unless it is severely de-scoped) will be proven to be unaffordable as well.   Before then, I actually predict it will probably "grow", just like Ares-V did.   But that still won't be the reason it'll be killed.

The reason SLS will fail, is simply because the people defining it, are failing to plan the program's costs to fit comfortably within the expected budget.   End of story.   They failed to learn the lessons from Constellation.

Its also worth noting that they're also being maneuvered (very professionally) by their enemies who want SLS killed for competing reasons.   The latest MSFC vs. KSC issue is a perfect example of "Divide and Conquer" -- the oldest and most successful strategy in the book.

Man, am I the only one who thinks the Dilbert Principle (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Dilbert_principle) is the only healthy thing remaining in this industry?

Ross.
Title: Re: Could Ares 1 have Worked if things had been different?
Post by: yinzer on 09/08/2011 06:53 PM
You just destroyed your own argument.  You just admitted that it shows that it costs more to develop, 39% more according to the ESAS report.  And yes, it costs 6% less to fly.  As for an RS-68 powered Ares V, you're glossing over the LV28 grouping, including the ones which utilize the larger tank and 5-segment SRB, included in the ESAS Appendices but not in the main report.  The Appendices are in L2 is you need a refresher.

I haven't argued that 5-segment/J-2X cost less than 4-segment/SSME to develop.  I've argued that its use lowered total program costs for the complete Ares I/V architecture.  In addition, the J-2X Ares I cost less to fly than the SSME Ares I.  Over time, those savings would have added up.  The savings weren't just 6%, they were 7% for production and 15% for operations. 

The 5-segment/J-2X approach certainly lowered total program costs for the complete Ares I/V architecture, but probably not in the way that its proponents intended.

It looks like there was never support for a grandiose back-to-the-moon effort which meant that the theoretical program cost savings from commonality between Ares I and Ares V would never materialize.

Was this foreseeable at the time?  Or was an Ares I / Orion that could only go to ISS for years considered not much better than no NASA human spaceflight at all?
Title: Re: Could Ares 1 have Worked if things had been different?
Post by: dks13827 on 09/08/2011 09:17 PM
" Or was an Ares I / Orion that could only go to ISS for years considered not much better than no NASA human spaceflight at all?  "

Extremely perceptive point.  Right now we are on the precipice to............................................
Title: Re: Could Ares 1 have Worked if things had been different?
Post by: Downix on 09/08/2011 09:28 PM
You just destroyed your own argument.  You just admitted that it shows that it costs more to develop, 39% more according to the ESAS report.  And yes, it costs 6% less to fly.  As for an RS-68 powered Ares V, you're glossing over the LV28 grouping, including the ones which utilize the larger tank and 5-segment SRB, included in the ESAS Appendices but not in the main report.  The Appendices are in L2 is you need a refresher.

I haven't argued that 5-segment/J-2X cost less than 4-segment/SSME to develop.  I've argued that its use lowered total program costs for the complete Ares I/V architecture.  In addition, the J-2X Ares I cost less to fly than the SSME Ares I.  Over time, those savings would have added up.  The savings weren't just 6%, they were 7% for production and 15% for operations. 

The 5-segment/J-2X approach certainly lowered total program costs for the complete Ares I/V architecture, but probably not in the way that its proponents intended.

It looks like there was never support for a grandiose back-to-the-moon effort which meant that the theoretical program cost savings from commonality between Ares I and Ares V would never materialize.

Was this foreseeable at the time?  Or was an Ares I / Orion that could only go to ISS for years considered not much better than no NASA human spaceflight at all?
Very foreseeable.  Anyone with half a brain would know that there is significant anti-exploration sentiment in several areas, and they would find any excuse to kill the program.  Not taking this into account, and by the regular and repeated attacks on any attempts to save the program from these forces, did nothing to benefit Constellation, and only gave ammunition to those who wished to destroy it.  They literally handed the weapons to their true enemies, in an attempt to defend themselves from their allies, such as DIRECT.

There were methods to save the program, at all points along the path.  What prevented it from happening was egos got in the way of common sense.  Once the Shuttle was gone, then Constellation was doomed if it was not flying, no matter whom was in the oval office.  You needed something flying, period, to keep it going.  Failure to understand politics, and whom the enemy was, is what doomed Constellation.  They thought to save money in the long term by spending huge up front, making the fiscal argument stick.  They thought to save time in the long term by living with a gap between shuttle and Ares, making the waste of time argument stick.  At all points, they played right into their true enemies hands, and crippled the efforts of those who would try and save the VSE, to save Constellation.
Title: Re: Could Ares 1 have Worked if things had been different?
Post by: Patchouli on 09/09/2011 01:23 AM
The main thing that is needed to fix Ares I's design two large kerolox engines of around 1 million lbs thrust also would simplify Atlas Phase II.

Even a dinosaur of a design such as the F-1A would seriously improve performance and safety.
Though the lower ISP would hurt Atlas vs the RD-180 that and the F-1 is built completely differently from modern engines.

I kinda like the idea of making a modern Jarvis with the Ares I upper stage.
Title: Re: Could Ares 1 have Worked if things had been different?
Post by: Downix on 09/09/2011 01:43 AM
The main thing that is needed to fix Ares I's design two large kerolox engines of around 1 million lbs thrust also would simplify Atlas Phase II.

Even a dinosaur of a design such as the F-1A would seriously improve performance and safety.
Though the lower ISP would hurt Atlas vs the RD-180 that and the F-1 is built completely differently from modern engines.

I kinda like the idea of making a modern Jarvis with the Ares I upper stage.

indeed, a single F-1A using a stretched 5.5m tank would have met every single criteria listed in esas, and beaten the 5-segment srb in safety and performance even by the odd standards they used.
Title: Re: Could Ares 1 have Worked if things had been different?
Post by: Patchouli on 09/09/2011 03:45 AM
The main thing that is needed to fix Ares I's design two large kerolox engines of around 1 million lbs thrust also would simplify Atlas Phase II.

Even a dinosaur of a design such as the F-1A would seriously improve performance and safety.
Though the lower ISP would hurt Atlas vs the RD-180 that and the F-1 is built completely differently from modern engines.

I kinda like the idea of making a modern Jarvis with the Ares I upper stage.

indeed, a single F-1A using a stretched 5.5m tank would have met every single criteria listed in esas, and beaten the 5-segment srb in safety and performance even by the odd standards they used.

Too bad it would be a new engine program if brought back though I guess two RS-84s or TR-107 also would work.

The two RS-84s probably would be more expensive per flight then one F-1A but two TR-107s might actually be cheaper.

Though I was thinking two F-1As on a 8.3M core and going for a 40MT launcher.

That way you have lots of margin and if you need an HLV just cluster three cores.

Three Jarvis 1 cores plus the Ares I US should net about 80MT which is nothing to sneeze at.
Title: Re: Could Ares 1 have Worked if things had been different?
Post by: Downix on 09/09/2011 03:46 AM
The main thing that is needed to fix Ares I's design two large kerolox engines of around 1 million lbs thrust also would simplify Atlas Phase II.

Even a dinosaur of a design such as the F-1A would seriously improve performance and safety.
Though the lower ISP would hurt Atlas vs the RD-180 that and the F-1 is built completely differently from modern engines.

I kinda like the idea of making a modern Jarvis with the Ares I upper stage.

indeed, a single F-1A using a stretched 5.5m tank would have met every single criteria listed in esas, and beaten the 5-segment srb in safety and performance even by the odd standards they used.

Too bad it would be a new engine program if brought back though I guess two RS-84s or TR-107 also would work.

The two RS-84s or even two RD-180s probably would be more expensive per flight then one F-1A but two TR-107s might actually be cheaper.
No more a new engine program than J-2X was, but with a significant advantage:

There are several warehoused engines that can be refurbished and readied for initial flight status.
Title: Re: Could Ares 1 have Worked if things had been different?
Post by: Patchouli on 09/09/2011 04:11 AM
I did decide to calculate what would one F-1A lift using this rocket calculator.
http://www.silverbirdastronautics.com/cgi-bin/LVPcalc.pl
Assuming the stage would be over all half the mass of a Jarvis 1 I got 23MT.

Just barely enough to lift Orion.

Though Orion can act as a third stage so this is probably not as bad as it seems.

Still can the F-1A be made with a modern nozzle without messing things up too much?

I guess for cheapness do the whole thing in channel wall as modern flight avionics probably would more then make up for the extra weight.
Title: Re: Could Ares 1 have Worked if things had been different?
Post by: Downix on 09/09/2011 05:25 AM
I did decide to calculate what would one F-1A lift using this rocket calculator.
http://www.silverbirdastronautics.com/cgi-bin/LVPcalc.pl
Assuming the stage would be over all half the mass of a Jarvis 1 I got 23MT.

Just barely enough to lift Orion.

Though Orion can act as a third stage so this is probably not as bad as it seems.

Still can the F-1A be made with a modern nozzle without messing things up too much?

I guess for cheapness do the whole thing in channel wall as modern flight avionics probably would more then make up for the extra weight.
I used an AVP2 style vehicle, double dry weight of the AIUS with about 120% more fuel mass due to the density.  I got about 26 metric tons.
Title: Re: Could Ares 1 have Worked if things had been different?
Post by: luke strawwalker on 09/10/2011 06:07 AM
Slavish devotion to "simple" is exactly what led down the Ares I path. And the end result was a whole system which was NOT simple.

The pretty much sums it it up.

The people running the project would not change the design when it became obvious it was the wrong direction.

If the people doing Apollo had the same stubborn mindset we may have never landed on the moon and certianly would not have done so before the end of the decade.
Apollo originally was going to use a direct landing LOR was the underdog at first.

Kinda like Direct vs Ares.
The 1961 vehicle was a cluster of Saturn C-3 first stages with super upper stages. 

Do you have a link to a study or paper showing that?? I'd LOVE to see it!

Any information greatly appreciated!  OL JR :)
Title: Re: Could Ares 1 have Worked if things had been different?
Post by: luke strawwalker on 09/10/2011 06:14 AM
There's a lot more to consider than the plain number of engines. You can have drastically different designs that both have two engines. In Ares 1's case the issue is compounded by a very poor first stage decision. (And looking at the number of small thrusters that have to fire during its ascent, and for its stage separation - one could actually argue that it has a LOT of engines that HAVE TO work)

Ares I uses a roll control thruster as I understand it, not a bunch of small thrusters, at least during first stage flight.  The second stage has thrusters, but so does Centaur (Centaur has 12 monopropellant thrusters for pitch, yaw, roll).

An Atlas V core fires eight stage separation motors.  Heavy would fire even more ordnance.

Atlas V Heavy would have more engines (high chamber pressure staged combustion engines on the cores), more separation events, more points of failure, and more complexity. 

 - Ed Kyle

And how many vehicles have we lost due to stage or booster separation failures in recent history?? (Excluding SpaceX). 

If we can't do simple pyros for stage/booster separation reliably by now, then we don't even need to be THINKING about going to the moon or anywhere else...

Total strawman argument...
Later!  OL JR :)
Title: Re: Could Ares 1 have Worked if things had been different?
Post by: luke strawwalker on 09/10/2011 06:15 AM
Both Ares I and V had serious design issues that made them unviable designs.

I don't see the Ares I design in particular as nonviable.

It was.  The premise behind Ares-I was to take two existing engines and use their extensive flight experience to make a simple, reliable rocket for Orion.  Then they discovered their choice for the second stage engine (SSME) wouldn't work and that they'd have to design a new second stage engine.  Then they discovered that the new engine wasn't going to give the performance of the original so they'd have to design a new first stage engine as well.  So the entire premise was falsified and the entire project should have been re-evaluated at that point.  Instead, they chose to push forward on a project that was in direct violation of its original design premise.  To me, that's non-viable unless there are very compelling cost and reliability reasons it isn't.  In this case, it was going to be very expensive and not necessarily reliable because of all the technical problems and their solutions, and the total lack of flight experience with either stage or either engine.

Spot on...

As for Augustine-- well, ANYTHING can work if you throw enough money at it! 

OL JR :)
Title: Re: Could Ares 1 have Worked if things had been different?
Post by: luke strawwalker on 09/10/2011 06:19 AM

Ares 1 design intent was to drastically increase crew safety during ascent.

So what??  STS's "design intent" was to radically reduce the cost of spaceflight and look how that turned out...

"Design intent" doesn't mean much... IMHO...

Later!  OL JR :)
Title: Re: Could Ares 1 have Worked if things had been different?
Post by: Downix on 09/10/2011 06:47 AM
Slavish devotion to "simple" is exactly what led down the Ares I path. And the end result was a whole system which was NOT simple.

The pretty much sums it it up.

The people running the project would not change the design when it became obvious it was the wrong direction.

If the people doing Apollo had the same stubborn mindset we may have never landed on the moon and certianly would not have done so before the end of the decade.
Apollo originally was going to use a direct landing LOR was the underdog at first.

Kinda like Direct vs Ares.
The 1961 vehicle was a cluster of Saturn C-3 first stages with super upper stages. 

Do you have a link to a study or paper showing that?? I'd LOVE to see it!

Any information greatly appreciated!  OL JR :)
Found it in a book, actually:

http://www.amazon.com/Saturn-F-1-Engine-Powering-Exploration/dp/0387096299

Lots of good information on the engine, and the various uses they studied for it.  Adding some artists renderings of this design.
Title: Re: Could Ares 1 have Worked if things had been different?
Post by: Jason1701 on 09/10/2011 06:58 AM
Looks like a US N-1!
Title: Re: Could Ares 1 have Worked if things had been different?
Post by: Patchouli on 09/10/2011 03:47 PM
I did decide to calculate what would one F-1A lift using this rocket calculator.
http://www.silverbirdastronautics.com/cgi-bin/LVPcalc.pl
Assuming the stage would be over all half the mass of a Jarvis 1 I got 23MT.

Just barely enough to lift Orion.

Though Orion can act as a third stage so this is probably not as bad as it seems.

Still can the F-1A be made with a modern nozzle without messing things up too much?

I guess for cheapness do the whole thing in channel wall as modern flight avionics probably would more then make up for the extra weight.
I used an AVP2 style vehicle, double dry weight of the AIUS with about 120% more fuel mass due to the density.  I got about 26 metric tons.

Looking at that it may actually be a good investment to bring back the F-1A.
Title: Re: Could Ares 1 have Worked if things had been different?
Post by: Downix on 09/10/2011 10:45 PM
I did decide to calculate what would one F-1A lift using this rocket calculator.
http://www.silverbirdastronautics.com/cgi-bin/LVPcalc.pl
Assuming the stage would be over all half the mass of a Jarvis 1 I got 23MT.

Just barely enough to lift Orion.

Though Orion can act as a third stage so this is probably not as bad as it seems.

Still can the F-1A be made with a modern nozzle without messing things up too much?

I guess for cheapness do the whole thing in channel wall as modern flight avionics probably would more then make up for the extra weight.
I used an AVP2 style vehicle, double dry weight of the AIUS with about 120% more fuel mass due to the density.  I got about 26 metric tons.

Looking at that it may actually be a good investment to bring back the F-1A.
I still wouldn't bring back the F-1A, it's overhead and cost would be far higher today than in the past.  Instead I would look to computerize the F-1 design, automate it's manufacturing methods.  HIP combustion chambers using the same machines as used on the RS-68 and J-2X, sandwich or ablative nozzle, adapt the RS-68's gas generator for it rather than use a unique system, etc.  It would be more time consuming, but the cost reduction for production would be significant.
Title: Re: Could Ares 1 have Worked if things had been different?
Post by: luke strawwalker on 09/13/2011 04:35 AM
Slavish devotion to "simple" is exactly what led down the Ares I path. And the end result was a whole system which was NOT simple.

The pretty much sums it it up.

The people running the project would not change the design when it became obvious it was the wrong direction.

If the people doing Apollo had the same stubborn mindset we may have never landed on the moon and certianly would not have done so before the end of the decade.
Apollo originally was going to use a direct landing LOR was the underdog at first.

Kinda like Direct vs Ares.
The 1961 vehicle was a cluster of Saturn C-3 first stages with super upper stages. 

Do you have a link to a study or paper showing that?? I'd LOVE to see it!

Any information greatly appreciated!  OL JR :)
Found it in a book, actually:

http://www.amazon.com/Saturn-F-1-Engine-Powering-Exploration/dp/0387096299

Lots of good information on the engine, and the various uses they studied for it.  Adding some artists renderings of this design.

Ah, ok, thanks... I appreciate it downix! 

I've seen those before... in some of the old studies that I've looked at. 
I think I have both those very graphics, at least I KNOW I have the second one! 

I just can't help thinking-- what if the 'common core booster' idea had come along in say 1960...

What would a Saturn C-3 with a core and two identical core booster LRB's been capable of??  I've seen Saturn V upgrades that proposed adding a sixth F-1 to the first stage, by moving the outboard engines outward by 39 inches and mounting two F-1's in the center equidistant off the centerpoint.  A three-body C-3 would have had six F-1's for liftoff.  Four J-2's on the upper stage seems a bit small (since most of the Saturn V uprated versions were proposing switching to HG-3 (SSME predecessor) engines, uprated J-2 based aerospikes, or increasing J-2 count from 5 to 6 or even 7.  Still, a 4 J-2 upperstage, topped by a J-2 powered third stage (S-IVB) would have been something else (my gut tells me that 4 J-2's aren't enough though for the second stage, especially if you're increasing the payload enough to make use of 6 F-1's at liftoff-- maybe a single F-1 second stage would work better??  Course that means developing an airstart vaccuum nozzle F-1 and STILL suffering the lower ISP...) 

At any rate, it's an interesting "what might have been".  Blue sky thinking ala 1961...

Another strange vision popped into my head... A Titan II with a pair of Titan II first stages on either side of the core vehicle... 6 LR-87's at liftoff, single LR-91 upper stage... maybe an Agena third stage... Bet that thing could move some mail!  Better yet, swap the LR-91 upper stage for a DEC or Centaur G Prime... now we're cookin!  OL JR :)
Title: Re: Could Ares 1 have Worked if things had been different?
Post by: Downix on 09/13/2011 04:55 AM
Slavish devotion to "simple" is exactly what led down the Ares I path. And the end result was a whole system which was NOT simple.

The pretty much sums it it up.

The people running the project would not change the design when it became obvious it was the wrong direction.

If the people doing Apollo had the same stubborn mindset we may have never landed on the moon and certianly would not have done so before the end of the decade.
Apollo originally was going to use a direct landing LOR was the underdog at first.

Kinda like Direct vs Ares.
The 1961 vehicle was a cluster of Saturn C-3 first stages with super upper stages. 

Do you have a link to a study or paper showing that?? I'd LOVE to see it!

Any information greatly appreciated!  OL JR :)
Found it in a book, actually:

http://www.amazon.com/Saturn-F-1-Engine-Powering-Exploration/dp/0387096299

Lots of good information on the engine, and the various uses they studied for it.  Adding some artists renderings of this design.

Ah, ok, thanks... I appreciate it downix! 

I've seen those before... in some of the old studies that I've looked at. 
I think I have both those very graphics, at least I KNOW I have the second one! 

I just can't help thinking-- what if the 'common core booster' idea had come along in say 1960...

What would a Saturn C-3 with a core and two identical core booster LRB's been capable of??  I've seen Saturn V upgrades that proposed adding a sixth F-1 to the first stage, by moving the outboard engines outward by 39 inches and mounting two F-1's in the center equidistant off the centerpoint.  A three-body C-3 would have had six F-1's for liftoff.  Four J-2's on the upper stage seems a bit small (since most of the Saturn V uprated versions were proposing switching to HG-3 (SSME predecessor) engines, uprated J-2 based aerospikes, or increasing J-2 count from 5 to 6 or even 7.  Still, a 4 J-2 upperstage, topped by a J-2 powered third stage (S-IVB) would have been something else (my gut tells me that 4 J-2's aren't enough though for the second stage, especially if you're increasing the payload enough to make use of 6 F-1's at liftoff-- maybe a single F-1 second stage would work better??  Course that means developing an airstart vaccuum nozzle F-1 and STILL suffering the lower ISP...) 

At any rate, it's an interesting "what might have been".  Blue sky thinking ala 1961...

Another strange vision popped into my head... A Titan II with a pair of Titan II first stages on either side of the core vehicle... 6 LR-87's at liftoff, single LR-91 upper stage... maybe an Agena third stage... Bet that thing could move some mail!  Better yet, swap the LR-91 upper stage for a DEC or Centaur G Prime... now we're cookin!  OL JR :)
Two of the Titan IV cores w/ the dual LR-87's for boosters, kerolox, with the Titan II center kept hypergolic, and the Centaur for an upper stage.... mmmm
Title: Re: Could Ares 1 have Worked if things had been different?
Post by: luke strawwalker on 09/20/2011 05:58 AM
Slavish devotion to "simple" is exactly what led down the Ares I path. And the end result was a whole system which was NOT simple.

The pretty much sums it it up.

The people running the project would not change the design when it became obvious it was the wrong direction.

If the people doing Apollo had the same stubborn mindset we may have never landed on the moon and certianly would not have done so before the end of the decade.
Apollo originally was going to use a direct landing LOR was the underdog at first.

Kinda like Direct vs Ares.
The 1961 vehicle was a cluster of Saturn C-3 first stages with super upper stages. 

Do you have a link to a study or paper showing that?? I'd LOVE to see it!

Any information greatly appreciated!  OL JR :)
Found it in a book, actually:

http://www.amazon.com/Saturn-F-1-Engine-Powering-Exploration/dp/0387096299

Lots of good information on the engine, and the various uses they studied for it.  Adding some artists renderings of this design.

Ah, ok, thanks... I appreciate it downix! 

I've seen those before... in some of the old studies that I've looked at. 
I think I have both those very graphics, at least I KNOW I have the second one! 

I just can't help thinking-- what if the 'common core booster' idea had come along in say 1960...

What would a Saturn C-3 with a core and two identical core booster LRB's been capable of??  I've seen Saturn V upgrades that proposed adding a sixth F-1 to the first stage, by moving the outboard engines outward by 39 inches and mounting two F-1's in the center equidistant off the centerpoint.  A three-body C-3 would have had six F-1's for liftoff.  Four J-2's on the upper stage seems a bit small (since most of the Saturn V uprated versions were proposing switching to HG-3 (SSME predecessor) engines, uprated J-2 based aerospikes, or increasing J-2 count from 5 to 6 or even 7.  Still, a 4 J-2 upperstage, topped by a J-2 powered third stage (S-IVB) would have been something else (my gut tells me that 4 J-2's aren't enough though for the second stage, especially if you're increasing the payload enough to make use of 6 F-1's at liftoff-- maybe a single F-1 second stage would work better??  Course that means developing an airstart vaccuum nozzle F-1 and STILL suffering the lower ISP...) 

At any rate, it's an interesting "what might have been".  Blue sky thinking ala 1961...

Another strange vision popped into my head... A Titan II with a pair of Titan II first stages on either side of the core vehicle... 6 LR-87's at liftoff, single LR-91 upper stage... maybe an Agena third stage... Bet that thing could move some mail!  Better yet, swap the LR-91 upper stage for a DEC or Centaur G Prime... now we're cookin!  OL JR :)
Two of the Titan IV cores w/ the dual LR-87's for boosters, kerolox, with the Titan II center kept hypergolic, and the Centaur for an upper stage.... mmmm

Heck, lets use up all those Titan I kerolox first stages that went unused when Titan I was retired in ('64? IIRC).  Use those suckers as strap on boosters flanking your hypergol Titan II core. 

Definitely Centaur upper stage...

Now you're cooking with gas!!!  OL JR :)
Title: Re: Could Ares 1 have Worked if things had been different?
Post by: Patchouli on 09/20/2011 07:17 PM
I would not even bother with Titan parts as the tooling was long gone by the time Constellation was announced and a hypergolic core stage would not be a non starter.
The best move would have been to develop a kerolox first stage built with ET tooling and run two RS-84s or two TR-107s.

The target payload 38,000kg.
I always thought of Jarvis as an ideal CLV.
Title: Re: Could Ares 1 have Worked if things had been different?
Post by: luke strawwalker on 09/30/2011 10:15 PM
I would not even bother with Titan parts as the tooling was long gone by the time Constellation was announced and a hypergolic core stage would not be a non starter.
The best move would have been to develop a kerolox first stage built with ET tooling and run two RS-84s or two TR-107s.

The target payload 38,000kg.
I always thought of Jarvis as an ideal CLV.

Well, yeah... I was referring more I guess to the "what if Apollo had continued" thread.  Clearly Titan I wouldn't make much sense in the Cx era unless you wanted to use it as a basis for a new booster-- restart LR-87 production or something like that...

lateR! OL JR :)
Title: Re: Could Ares 1 have Worked if things had been different?
Post by: Downix on 09/30/2011 11:46 PM
I would not even bother with Titan parts as the tooling was long gone by the time Constellation was announced and a hypergolic core stage would not be a non starter.
The best move would have been to develop a kerolox first stage built with ET tooling and run two RS-84s or two TR-107s.

The target payload 38,000kg.
I always thought of Jarvis as an ideal CLV.

Well, yeah... I was referring more I guess to the "what if Apollo had continued" thread.  Clearly Titan I wouldn't make much sense in the Cx era unless you wanted to use it as a basis for a new booster-- restart LR-87 production or something like that...

lateR! OL JR :)
LR-87's were run on LH2 and RP-1 as well, so that is a non-issue as well.
Title: Re: Could Ares 1 have Worked if things had been different?
Post by: Downix on 07/06/2012 05:37 PM
I was asked to break down the Ares I development and noted something revealing about the issues of Ares I. There was in ESAS a 5segment, j-2s+ vehicle studied, LV16. Comparing it to the final form of Ares I reveals one gaping issue, LV16 had a significantly different upper stage, smaller and lighter, closer to Centaur construction. With this, the severe redesign on the J-2s was not needed, it did not lose ISP to gain thrust. Its length and design also would not be at the occilation sweet spot, having LOX and LH2 arranged differently. Reveals to me how many of the issues are inertia.
Title: Re: Could Ares 1 have Worked if things had been different?
Post by: Ben the Space Brit on 11/02/2012 12:19 PM
Reveals to me how many of the issues are inertia.

I have to agree with this.  I remember thinking at the time that a lot of Ares-I's problems were due to a fundamental unwillingness on NASA's part to acknowledge that there were any problems.  NASA seemed to be trying to "little modification here, little modification there" their way out of their fix when, instead, a full redesign to make a joined-up solution of the underlying problems was needed.  This would have probably meant real progress, either towards solving the problems or identifying that a resolution (at acceptable safety levels) was unachievable.

It seems that at least some in the ALS project were unwilling to admit that they were having problems, perhaps for fear of panicking Congress; consequently it was difficult for the teams to really sit down and fix the issues.  Everyone seemed to be toeing the party line of "it's just a minor glitch that we can work past" instead of saying "hey, this is potentially bad, we need to fix this thing!"

So, in terms of this thread, Ares-I could possibly have ultimately worked if the psychology of the project leadership at the middle- to high-level was fundamentally different.

(BTW - Something like Stumpy would have worked, as would have dividing up the SRB into a three-seg and, perhaps, 2.5-seg; a three-stage vehicle would have broken the harmonic issue too and, by the nature of solids, not greatly increased statistical failure rates.)
Title: Re: Could Ares 1 have Worked if things had been different?
Post by: MATTBLAK on 11/02/2012 12:34 PM
Ares 1 - even with the mass of thrust oscillation reduction equipment - might have come close to the promised L.E.O. payload performance if the first stage had been made expendable by deleting the not-insignificant mass of recovery systems and if the J-2X had been redesigned for much more thrust quite early on in its development phase.

For example; getting P&W/R to bring the engine's thrust up to 350k from the 294k design goal.
Title: Re: Could Ares 1 have Worked if things had been different?
Post by: edkyle99 on 11/02/2012 04:14 PM
Ares 1 - even with the mass of thrust oscillation reduction equipment - might have come close to the promised L.E.O. payload performance if the first stage had been made expendable by deleting the not-insignificant mass of recovery systems and if the J-2X had been redesigned for much more thrust quite early on in its development phase.

For example; getting P&W/R to bring the engine's thrust up to 350k from the 294k design goal.

Could we turn this thread off?  We've talked about this for seven years.  Everybody seems to "know" what killed Ares I, but they're wrong.

 - Ed Kyle
Title: Re: Could Ares 1 have Worked if things had been different?
Post by: MATTBLAK on 11/04/2012 05:26 AM
You're right Ed - probably time it was locked. But I was just trying to make a simple, technical summary.
Title: Re: Could Ares 1 have Worked if things had been different?
Post by: tnphysics on 12/04/2012 05:25 AM
Maybe if a third stage had been used, the second stage uprated, and the first stage liquid-fuelled...but then it would not be the Ares 1 anymore :)
Title: Re: Could Ares 1 have Worked if things had been different?
Post by: edkyle99 on 12/30/2012 05:12 PM
Maybe if a third stage had been used, the second stage uprated, and the first stage liquid-fuelled...but then it would not be the Ares 1 anymore :)
Liquid would not be the solution.  Liquid was the problem, if there was a problem. 

It has become clearer that Ares I performance was challenged most by liquid upper stage technical details.  The J-2X engine, for various reasons, was (and is) being designed to perform at a lower specific impulse than originally advertised.  As for the upper stage structure itself, Boeing accomplished little based on the public information it released.  The liquid upper stage, its engine, and its avionics were the Ares I pacing items, both on schedule and on mass/performance. 

The solid first stage motor and its avionics, meanwhile, were being tested.     

 - Ed Kyle
Title: Re: Could Ares 1 have Worked if things had been different?
Post by: clongton on 12/30/2012 06:15 PM
Actually, it is true for today and 2005. There was never a need for Ares I.  In 2005, CEV was going fly in EELV and should have flown already.  The layoffs were inevitable.

There could have been addition pads for Atlas and Delta and billions left over for payloads,  both unmanned and for HSF.

Haven't posted here before but followed it from the beginning. But for an end-of-year exercise I started re-reading the threads that really interested me. This is one of them.

Specific to this post from Jim I wanted to say that in spite of my involvement with DIRECT, in the beginning I was an EELV man. I wanted to see the existing EELV fleet evolved. We had everything we needed already in place. Orion didn't need to be as big as it turned out to be. Of course Griffin ordered the lunar-class Orion to be too big for the EELV to lift, forcing the adoption of the HLV, much the same way as I believe ATK is attempting to force SLS back to a 5-engine core, to force the adoption of the large SRB.

Context: DIRECT came about because Congress made a Shuttle-Derived HLV mandatory and the CxP design choice was beyond stupidity. DIRECT was an effort to obey the law but make the HLV make sense.

Ares-I WAS the problem with CxP. The concept of the 1.5 architecture itself was not the problem. It was the choice of LV for the booster/CLV that was the problem. For an excellent example of how a 1.5 architecture would have worked beautifully, go back and peruse the AJAX threads. The booster/CLV was the existing Atlas-V CCB, sharing everything with the EELV family. THAT would have worked, but it was not allowed by Congress. When we first started DIRECT we had long conversations about the CLV and I advocated strongly for the Atlas CCB but over and over again we kept coming back to the NASA Authorization Act which mandated the SRB be used. There was no getting around it so DIRECT became what all of you saw.

I personally liked the 1.5 architecture. It was the choice of CLV that screwed CxP. So I say again, Ares-I WAS the problem.

Ares-I would not have worked.
Title: Re: Could Ares 1 have Worked if things had been different?
Post by: edkyle99 on 12/31/2012 05:10 AM
Ares-I would not have worked.
We're going to disagree on that one.  There might be schedule or money reasons, but I don't see any technical reason why Ares I could not have worked. 

 - Ed Kyle
Title: Re: Could Ares 1 have Worked if things had been different?
Post by: clongton on 12/31/2012 12:19 PM
Ares-I would not have worked.
We're going to disagree on that one.  There might be schedule or money reasons, but I don't see any technical reason why Ares I could not have worked. 

 - Ed Kyle

Ed have you looked at the results of the Ares-IX launch? In spite of the transition section being nearly 3x the thickness of design reference it buckled under aerodynamic load. Had the section been the actual design thickness for the real Ares-I the vehicle would have bent right over with that section failing completely in flight. TO had been successfully addressed but at the cost of major payload capacity loss and millions of dollars. If the money hadn't run out Griffin could have kept going and ultimately made a rocket that would fly but its payload capacity would have likely dropped below that of the existing EELV's. At that point it would have been a total waste to even consider using.

The only way Ares-I would have worked would have been for Griffin to abandon the solid 1st stage and create the liquid 1st stage that you designed. THAT would have worked very nicely. But by then it was too late. Griffin had bet his professional reputation on the solid and pissed away the budget. Both his reputation and the vehicle budget were gone.

Title: Re: Could Ares 1 have Worked if things had been different?
Post by: MATTBLAK on 12/31/2012 12:44 PM
Ironic really about the First Stage - assuming the Solid first stage were abandoned for Ares 1 and kept only for Ares V. Then using a 5-meter diameter first stage (Delta IV tooling) with either 2x RD-180 engines (shades of Atlas V Phase II) or 2x RS-68 (too close together for thermal stability?) along with the Ares 1 J-2X upper stage would have resulted in a fine launch vehicle, well able to lift a fully-featured Orion. 'Simple' upgrades could have included a cluster of GEM-60 solids to that first stage, or even 'ganging' three-in-a-row together just like Delta IV-H.

But then that enters Heavy Lift territory - threatening to make Ares V redundant and erasing ATK Solids altogether. And we just couldn't have that now, could we?! I mean; just imagine - a modular family of launch vehicles, able to lift whatever payload you allocated to a custom-clustered configuration of stages. Heaven forbid NASA and the powers-that-be could ever be that logical!

...As I'm typing this, suddenly I'm having a deja-vu flashback to the old Nasaspaceflight.com pages - like this were 2007 or something.

Sigh... :(
Title: Re: Could Ares 1 have Worked if things had been different?
Post by: Patchouli on 01/21/2013 02:56 AM
Ironic really about the First Stage - assuming the Solid first stage were abandoned for Ares 1 and kept only for Ares V. Then using a 5-meter diameter first stage (Delta IV tooling) with either 2x RD-180 engines (shades of Atlas V Phase II) or 2x RS-68 (too close together for thermal stability?) along with the Ares 1 J-2X upper stage would have resulted in a fine launch vehicle, well able to lift a fully-featured Orion. 'Simple' upgrades could have included a cluster of GEM-60 solids to that first stage, or even 'ganging' three-in-a-row together just like Delta IV-H.

But then that enters Heavy Lift territory - threatening to make Ares V redundant and erasing ATK Solids altogether. And we just couldn't have that now, could we?! I mean; just imagine - a modular family of launch vehicles, able to lift whatever payload you allocated to a custom-clustered configuration of stages. Heaven forbid NASA and the powers-that-be could ever be that logical!

...As I'm typing this, suddenly I'm having a deja-vu flashback to the old Nasaspaceflight.com pages - like this were 2007 or something.

Sigh... :(

A bit a of a late reply but I think it could have worked if SLI never was axed and the TR-107 or RS-84 was used as a first stage engine.

A two TR-107 first stage based off ET tooling and a single J-2X second stage probably would have made a very capable LV.
The J-2X actually would be over kill and the cheaper J-2S could be used instead.

The danger is the TR-107 and RS-84 could have eliminated the need for SRBs on Ares V.
Title: Re: Could Ares 1 have Worked if things had been different?
Post by: edkyle99 on 01/21/2013 02:15 PM
Ed have you looked at the results of the Ares-IX launch? In spite of the transition section being nearly 3x the thickness of design reference it buckled under aerodynamic load.

The SRB casing buckled when it hit the water hard after the parachute failed, but I've never seen or heard any mention of problems with the interstage.  It looks good in the images and movies I've seen.

 - Ed Kyle
Title: Re: Could Ares 1 have Worked if things had been different?
Post by: Lobo on 01/31/2013 05:06 PM
Ares 1 - even with the mass of thrust oscillation reduction equipment - might have come close to the promised L.E.O. payload performance if the first stage had been made expendable by deleting the not-insignificant mass of recovery systems and if the J-2X had been redesigned for much more thrust quite early on in its development phase.

For example; getting P&W/R to bring the engine's thrust up to 350k from the 294k design goal.

Could we turn this thread off?  We've talked about this for seven years.  Everybody seems to "know" what killed Ares I, but they're wrong.

 - Ed Kyle

I'd forgotten all about this thread that I started.

If they don't get out of control with bickering, I think threads like this give people an outlet for things that are otherwise rolling around their head.  Sometimes ideas you thought seemed like the -obvioius- answer, are shown to not have worked.  And thus we get better educated over all. 

I think there is merit to the 1.5 launch architechture, especially betofe commercial cargo and crew when NASA's new capsule would be hauling cargo and crews to the ISS, as well as whatever BLEO architecture is chosen.  Even a J-120/130 is a little overkill for routine ISS support, and if new module needs brought up, that’s what you have your HLV for.  For that occasional need.
So making a “0.5” launcher from the booster of the HLV is a pretty good idea really. 

However, when you are building a brand new HLV with brand new boosters, and then the MLV booster really isn’t even the exact booster used by the HLV, and your MLV upper stage is a brand new engine, etc, etc….that’s about the most horribly inefficient way possible to try to implement it.

Instead, if they’d decided to utilize existing assets in the EELV program used for other government launches as your HLV boosters and MLV first stage, now you are introducing triple commonality, instead of 3 different boosters for MLV, HLV, and EELV.  Atlas V could have been that triple common booster.  Two pairs of them (as a base) on a ET-sized inline core with two RS-68’s, with the core designed to take up to 8 of them so the mission can be scaled.  It’s upper stage is RL-10 powered and only used as the final bit of the ascent, and as an EDS (Block 1B upper stage).  For the MLV, either Orion is scaled back some and launched on an Atlas V-552, or AVH is developed, or NASA/USAF pay to have ULA develop ACES/WBC.  That on an Atlas-552 would give D4H performance (according to Jim), as well as giving ULA a common upper stage for the EELV line, which they’ve been kicking around for awhile.   

So yea, basically AJAX + AV-552 with either a smaller Orion or 5m common EELV upper stage.  How much faster/cheaper would that have been to develop?

If that had been minted as CxP after ESAS, how quickly could Orion have been flying on AV-552?  Even with the heavy Orion, the SM wouldn’t need much propellant to get to the ISS and back, so it could have been short-filled like Apollo launching on Saturn 1B.  So, just the Atlas V core and Centaur US and Atlas SRB’s would need to be man-rated, to get NASA flying to the ISS by the time the Shuttle was retired.  WBC/ACES could have been added later and only needed by the time the first lunar mission was to fly so it could loft a fully loaded Orion SM.  Centaur already exists, and so the new A1US never needs developed, and thus J2X never needs developed.  (or the 5-seg booster)
After Orion with short-filled SM is flying to ISS on Atlas-552, Then AJAX and AJAX upper stage (we’ll call it AUS) are developed in earnest, followed by a lunar lander after they are flying.

A1US, J2X, and 5-seg booster are never developed, so no money spent on them.
The Atlas V core and upper stage are already flying, so there’s no money spent trying to get a solid first stage flying, just man-rating it, which I would assume is no more money than trying to figure out how to make a 5-seg booster fly as a first stage.
RS-25 can be retired, and RS-68 shared with EELV’s (and perhaps NASA works with USAF to upgrade it to RS-68A, and maybe RS-68R across the line for better AJAX performance) 
WBC/ACES is developed over time. No rush, it’s not needed until the first lunar mission. 

Seems like a very affordable, sustainable, and doable 1.5 architecture to me.  Atlas-552 with WBC/ACES would be around 23mt to LEO, and I believe per Downix, AJAX would 8 Atlas cores could loft about 130mt to LEO.  Although back in 2005, there was no NAA2010 to mandate 130mt to LEO, still, that version of AJAX along with AV-552/ACES would get north of 150mt to LEO.   Which I think would have met the goals they’d originally hoped for with Ares V and Ares 1?
Plus AJAX can fly with only four Atlas boosters for a medium-heavy lift version.  Which would be great for robotic flagship exploration missions and replacement modules for the ISS if necessary, or other medium-heavy payloads like a large space telescope, without having to launch it in it’s fully heaviest configuration every time if the mission doesn’t need it.
Title: Re: Could Ares 1 have Worked if things had been different?
Post by: Lobo on 01/31/2013 05:18 PM
As a side note, if there were some reason ULA would want to have scrapped it’s two EELV’s, and went with Ares 1 as a common EELV launcher for all government payloads…then 1.5 with SRB’s probably would have worked fairly well.

Perhaps instead of a 5-seg booster, with the big A1US needing an air-startable SSME or a new J2X, if they developed a 1-seg 2nd stage about of a booster segments.  Sort of like a big Castor 120 or 30XL.  That would give that high-thrust after SRB separation, and thus not needing that high thrust liquid engine right there.  A 1-segment 2nd stage poured for about 300-400klbs thrust.  The Castor 120 is 300Klbs, so making a 1-seg stage to do that shouldn’t be a problem.
Then put an RL-10 powered 3rd stage on it, like an existing DCSS, Centaur, or other common upper stage.  An viola, you have an EELV that should be able to cover the entire current EELV line
The stack wouldn’t be any taller, as a DCSS would be shorter than the A1US, to make up for the 1-seg 2nd stage. 
And, a smaller version could be developed using a 5-1 seg booster, or a 5-2 seg booster, with the 1-seg 2nds tage and DCSS on top for smaller government payloads.

Ed’s “American Araine 6” concept, of EELV made from various segmented solid booster combinations, then that would have probably worked out ok too, again with the triple common components.  Although I think my concept would be more “common” with the HLV boosters than strapping smaller boosters together in parallel.

However…that would all sort of be reinventing the wheel, where there were already liquid EELV’s flying that could have been used for the MLV and HLV, rather than the other way around.  So that seems like by far the more common sense and obvious way to go.  There are already rockets flying safely…why pay a bunch of money to develop a brand new one to put your crew on? (Ares 1).
Ares V is a new LV regardless of if it’s using SRB’s or EELV-CCB’s for LRB’s.  Designing and building AJAX would be no more difficult or costly than Ares V or SLS.  A J-120 might have been a little cheaper than AJAX as it was more common to the Shuttle stack, but the somewhat extra money for AJAX would have been worth the investment in using boosters common to the MLV and EELV’s. 
Title: Re: Could Ares 1 have Worked if things had been different?
Post by: spectre9 on 01/31/2013 08:15 PM
NASA wants Orion to weigh so much that only they can launch it.

This is still true today  ::)
Title: Re: Could Ares 1 have Worked if things had been different?
Post by: Lobo on 02/02/2013 06:45 AM
NASA wants Orion to weigh so much that only they can launch it.

This is still true today  ::)

I'm not sure NASA would -want- to intentionally make Orion so heavy no one else could launch it.  Probably more like it became too heavy to accomodate various political forces in NASA.  Also with NASA wanting to still with a more "conservative" approach of an Apollo Redux rather than trying to be a little creative like SpaceX and Boeing are.
I don't think there's a reason the Orion SM couldn't be a pusher LAS as well.  Then the 0.5 crew launcher wouldn't have to lift the SM's TEI propellant plus the LAS propellant/tower.  And after they abandon the SSME as the 2nd stage, things really started going sideways.  Orion without the LAS would have saved about 7mt liftoff mass.   the SM propellant mass (not the ATV one, the old design) has about 8mt of propellant, and the LAS tower masses a little over 7mt I think.  By having your SM propellant as the LAS propellant, that same mass does double duty.  if it's not used for an abort, then it's used for the TEI burn and maneuvering during the mission.

http://www.nasa.gov/pdf/617408main_fs_2011-12-058-jsc_orion_quickfacts.pdf

That's one way the Orion CSM could have been trimmed down. It would require a new engine be designed and built (unless there's an existing one that could do it?) But SpaceX designed the superdraco in a reasonable amount of time, so I'm sure one could be had.
Make them deep throttling hypergolic like superdraco.  They can do full throttle for abort, and throttled back for main propulsion. 

That would trim the Orion CSM down to around 22mt or less depending on the mass of the engines.
That puts it in the range of D4H, or Atlas-552 with WBC/ACES.
If another 1.5mt was trimmed off of it, Then normal Atlas-552 could have been the crew launcher.

So, I think the mass of Orion was more the result of too conservative and traditional thinking, rather than creative thinking using advances in tech since Apollo.  They were going for the "brute force" method, rather thinking a little outside the box.
The same goes for Altair.  They went with a big LEM Redux rather than with a crasher stage (using an existing EELV stage), or horizontal lander using EELV upper stage tech (DTAL), etc.

So not too surprising they just made Orion a BFA (Big F**king Apollo).

;-)


Title: Re: Could Ares 1 have Worked if things had been different?
Post by: Proponent on 02/02/2013 10:08 AM
I do not think low-altitude abort with the SM would be practical:  the mass to be accelerated would be huge.  Dragon can do it, because the abort engines and propellant are contained within Dragon itself, not within something akin to an SM.
Title: Re: Could Ares 1 have Worked if things had been different?
Post by: tnphysics on 02/02/2013 08:07 PM
Dragon does not have an SM - the entire vehicle (except for the trunk) lands and, in later versions, will be reused.
Title: Re: Could Ares 1 have Worked if things had been different?
Post by: spectre9 on 02/03/2013 12:32 AM
If 3 people could go to the moon in an Apollo sized capsule 40 years ago I'm not sure why things are different now.

The laws of physics didn't change. The politics of NASA did.

Who cares how big the SM is. The whole thing is bloated.

The shape was fine and so was the SIZE. I still haven't seen any rationalisation for needing a capsule of Orion's diameter.

Either cancel MPCV or allow commercial providers to launch it to LEO.

Delta IV only needs a few SRBs.

Changing to a pusher abort would change the whole design. It would be extremely costly to move the load bearing segments of the structure to the aft.

I really think BFA (I like that  ;D ) is doomed when commercial companies start showing off their non-bloated capsule designs.

Dragon does not have an SM - the entire vehicle (except for the trunk) lands and, in later versions, will be reused.

The Dragon SM is squeezed into the bottom below the pressure vessel and above the heat shield. That's where the Draco nozzles are and there's also a compartment for the parachutes.

Fitting all that into a manned version with the extra stuff needed for the LAS is only theory at this point. I have doubts that it will become an engineering reality but we'll see how SpaceX goes, it's gonna be a tight squeeze with nozzles ringing the whole capsule.
Title: Re: Could Ares 1 have Worked if things had been different?
Post by: QuantumG on 02/03/2013 04:26 AM
If 3 people could go to the moon in an Apollo sized capsule 40 years ago I'm not sure why things are different now.

Bigger is better, in America :)

The argument from the Constellation days is that they were planning longer duration missions than Apollo, so you needed more space. Whether or not you considered this a retroactive justification for a decision already made depended upon your default level of cynicism.
Title: Re: Could Ares 1 have Worked if things had been different?
Post by: edkyle99 on 02/03/2013 05:24 AM
If 3 people could go to the moon in an Apollo sized capsule 40 years ago I'm not sure why things are different now.

The laws of physics didn't change. The politics of NASA did.

Who cares how big the SM is. The whole thing is bloated. tight squeeze with nozzles ringing the whole capsule.
NASA, and Orion, aren't going to the Moon.  That's not the mission.

 - Ed Kyle
Title: Re: Could Ares 1 have Worked if things had been different?
Post by: QuantumG on 02/03/2013 05:37 AM
NASA, and Orion, aren't going to the Moon.  That's not the mission.

It was when Orion was designed.

Title: Re: Could Ares 1 have Worked if things had been different?
Post by: Lobo on 02/03/2013 05:38 AM
If 3 people could go to the moon in an Apollo sized capsule 40 years ago I'm not sure why things are different now.

The laws of physics didn't change. The politics of NASA did.

Who cares how big the SM is. The whole thing is bloated.

The shape was fine and so was the SIZE. I still haven't seen any rationalisation for needing a capsule of Orion's diameter.


Apollo was a fine size, if you only wanted to launch 3 astronauts maxiumu, period.

However, Orion as originally envisioned as I understand, was to have a LEO taxi to the ISS to hold 7 people, and then a long duration BLEO mission of 4 people.  An Apollo sized capsule couldn't do that.

CST-100 is based on Boeing initial design for the Orion competition, and is very similar in size to Orion.  It's lighter, but not hugely lighter than the Orion CM.  like 2mt or something lighter?  And a lot of that are things that relate to the long duration BLEO missions Orion will be doing that CST-100 will not.  (as it was redesigned after Boeing's Orion concept was not chosen for CxP) 
The Orion CM vs. CST-100 or Dragon or Apollo CM is only a few mt heavier.  it's the service module that's around 13mt fully fueled, with a 7mt LAS tower.
The CM is not that big mass drag.  And in fact, the Apollo CSM was about 8mt heavier than Orion CSM.  Obviously because of the larger propellant load.

Dragon and CST-100 don't need to keep a crew alive for a long time, and they don't need to perform a TEI burn.

Besides, it reality, the Orion CSM might not even be lighter than NASA was planning on with CxP.   I believe Boeing's alternative lunar architecture plan states that Orion doesn't need to be fully fueled to do the TEI burn from EMLP instead of from low lunar orbit like Apollo or CxP.  So the existing tractor tower might be overdesigned for the lunar missions it actually does...although it might need more fuel for other missions like a NEO or Venus flyby or Mars mission, than it does for coming home from EMLP.  So the extra capacity isn't necessarily a bad option to have.

Anyway, in short, Orion is a product of an original variety of missions it's not longer going to be doing since commercial crew will take care of the ISS taxi service.  But, I think Orion was probably too far along at that point to redesign down to shave off what would amount to just a metric tonne or two for only a long duration support of up to 4 crew.



Title: Re: Could Ares 1 have Worked if things had been different?
Post by: Lobo on 02/03/2013 06:01 AM
I do not think low-altitude abort with the SM would be practical:  the mass to be accelerated would be huge.  Dragon can do it, because the abort engines and propellant are contained within Dragon itself, not within something akin to an SM.

the mass would be more than CST-100.  CST-100 CSM is about 10mt I believe, and Orion CSM is more like 22mt or so.  so yea, about double. 
But the LAS tower is already doing it.  I merely propose using storables in the SM as pusher LAS so that that mass does double duty.  It's either aborting, or doing the TEI burn and acting as the OMS system.  It is just scaled up accordingly.  The SM gains some mass by having more engine power than it needs for non-abort operations, but it looses a lot more mass by not having the single-purpose LAS tower.
If CST-100 can abort the command AND Service module with LOX and ethanol, and Dragon can abort the command module with hypergolics, and Dreamchaser can abort the whole lifting body with whatever the heck it will use....then I'd think that Orion can abort the whole CSM with the right engines and proper propellant sizing.  And whatever is necessary for an abort will probably be more than adequate for TEI burn and OMS burns. 

CST-100 (which is the closest analogous sytem to what I'm speculating about) will have four RS-88 engines which produce about 50klbs each.  so 200klbs will be enough to about about 10mt.
So an Orion CSM would need a little over double that thrust at around 22mt.
420Klbs?

I'm no expert on rocket engines, but the Titan LR-87 hypergolic engines on the core of the Titan III put out over 500Klbs per pair.  They were about 0.8mt each. 
Not sure if they could be lit fast enough to get the CSM away in case of a problem, and I don't think they could be throttled, which they'd need to be in case of a successful launch, they'd need to throttle deeply to give proper thrust for OMS burns.
but you get the idea.  Put a single large 420+lbs hypergolic engine, or a pair of 210+klbs, or a quad of 110+klbs engines on the base of the SM, and just throttle it down (or use a single throttling engine of multi engine cluster) and I don't know why it couldn't be done.
it's already being done, just on a smaller scale.
Title: Re: Could Ares 1 have Worked if things had been different?
Post by: Proponent on 02/04/2013 12:09 PM
Dragon does not have an SM - the entire vehicle (except for the trunk) lands and, in later versions, will be reused.

That's what I meant to say, though I put it unclearly:  it's much easier for Dragon to do a high-G abort, because it doesn't have to drag an SM along.
Title: Re: Could Ares 1 have Worked if things had been different?
Post by: Proponent on 02/04/2013 12:30 PM
I do not think low-altitude abort with the SM would be practical:  the mass to be accelerated would be huge.  Dragon can do it, because the abort engines and propellant are contained within Dragon itself, not within something akin to an SM.

the mass would be more than CST-100.  CST-100 CSM is about 10mt I believe, and Orion CSM is more like 22mt or so.  so yea, about double. 
But the LAS tower is already doing it.  I merely propose using storables in the SM as pusher LAS so that that mass does double duty.  It's either aborting, or doing the TEI burn and acting as the OMS system.  It is just scaled up accordingly.  The SM gains some mass by having more engine power than it needs for non-abort operations, but it looses a lot more mass by not having the single-purpose LAS tower.
If CST-100 can abort the command AND Service module with LOX and ethanol, and Dragon can abort the command module with hypergolics, and Dreamchaser can abort the whole lifting body with whatever the heck it will use....then I'd think that Orion can abort the whole CSM with the right engines and proper propellant sizing.  And whatever is necessary for an abort will probably be more than adequate for TEI burn and OMS burns.

The Orion CSM has a much larger delta-V than Dragon, CST-100 or Dream Chaser.  I don't have the exact numbers, but we're talking well over a kilometer per second rather than a few hundred meters per second.  Therefore, it's going to be quite heavy.  On top of that, because Orion rides on a rocket where most of the thrust comes from SRBs that can't be shut down in an abort, it needs higher abort abort acceleration than do the other craft.  Add all of that up, and I think it's going to turn out that using SM propulsion for low-altitude aborts is very tough.

I think the better approach would be to launch Orion without a crew and send the crew up commercially.  Then the LAS isn't needed and Orion can be simplified and lightened.  It would still need to be capable of re-entry, since aerobraking into LEO on return from a BEO mission is presently still a technology yet to be developed.
Title: Re: Could Ares 1 have Worked if things had been different?
Post by: Lobo on 02/04/2013 05:35 PM

The Orion CSM has a much larger delta-V than Dragon, CST-100 or Dream Chaser.  I don't have the exact numbers, but we're talking well over a kilometer per second rather than a few hundred meters per second.  Therefore, it's going to be quite heavy.  On top of that, because Orion rides on a rocket where most of the thrust comes from SRBs that can't be shut down in an abort, it needs higher abort abort acceleration than do the other craft.  Add all of that up, and I think it's going to turn out that using SM propulsion for low-altitude aborts is very tough.

I think the better approach would be to launch Orion without a crew and send the crew up commercially.  Then the LAS isn't needed and Orion can be simplified and lightened.  It would still need to be capable of re-entry, since aerobraking into LEO on return from a BEO mission is presently still a technology yet to be developed.

Well, this is above my knowledge base enough that I can’t argue your points.  It just seems like a CST-100-type  system could be scaled up enough for Orion.  Yea, more delta-V, but Orion’s SMs hold much more propellant, and most of the SM’s mass in propellant anyway.  The Orion capsule isn’t really much heavier than CST-100.  Most of the mass difference is the service module and it’s propellant, when comparing 22mt vs. 10mt.

You make a good point about the SRB’s though, although in this thread, although in this thread, we are talking about CxP’s 1.5 launch architecture, and theorizing that Orion would ride up on a smaller rocket, which may or may not be Ares 1.  My post further up was talking about using an AJAX + EELV 1.5 architecture for CxP, instead of the solids.  And if Orion could have been lighted up about 1.5mt, then is could fly on Atlas-552 with a pusher combo SM/LAS system.  Although an Atlas-552 has 5 SRB’s, so perhaps form an LAS standpoint, that would have similar problems to Ares 1 or current SLS.
Hypergolic abort motors might not be adequate to escape burning SRB’s, whether they are a 5-seg SRB, or an Atlas SRB.  Someone with more knowledge than I would need to comment on that.  Although CST-100 –will- have a single SRB on it’s Atlas LV, so if it’s ethanol powered abort system is adequate for that, I’d assume a MMH/N2O4 powered abort system would be adequate too.

You make an interesting idea about launching a NASA crew on a commercial LV with LEO rendezvous, with current SLS.   I hadn’t thought of that, but that’d be a possibility.  There wouldn’t be a need for that with a 1.5 launch architecture as we’ve discussed, and also because there probably wouldn’t be a commercial crew program if CxP has used something like AJAX + EELV, as Orion would have likely been launching on schedule on something like an Atlas-552, or Atlas-55x with WBC upper stage (which could get even the current 22-23mt Orion to LEO) and would be servicing the ISS when STS was retired. 
But for current SLS, that is a possibility.  The LAS tower could be omitted completely, allowing more capacity from SLS.   The commercial crew vehicle could dock with Orion at the top of the stack and transfer the crew, then the vehicle could autonomously return to earth for possible reuse.  The crew in Orion could translate Orion if necessary (depending on the stack configuration) for the TLI burn. 
But if Boeing’s gateway plan is adopted by NASA, then that probably wouldn’t gain much, other than the expense of another launch, as Block 1B can launch Orion with tractor tower, and a fully fueled in-space stage to the gateway station for a mission.  The tractor tower is already designed, etc. etc.

Still, an interesting idea.
Title: Re: Could Ares 1 have Worked if things had been different?
Post by: Avron on 04/27/2013 01:24 PM
It did work.. 100% success.. Ares 1 was a great success, so much of a success that its been covered as an option years later when there is no assured access to space, other than via the Russian's and maybe the Chinese.. in fact its still been applauded, what else do you need?
Title: Re: Could Ares 1 have Worked if things had been different?
Post by: newpylong on 05/03/2013 06:12 PM
It did work.. 100% success.. Ares 1 was a great success, so much of a success that its been covered as an option years later when there is no assured access to space, other than via the Russian's and maybe the Chinese.. in fact its still been applauded, what else do you need?

Do you mean the one test that was basically nothing like the final vehicle?

Successful? Sure... a home run and still being considered? not really...
Title: Re: Could Ares 1 have Worked if things had been different?
Post by: Lobo on 06/11/2013 07:18 PM
I just had a odd thought.

Things started to go bad for Ares 1 once they ran into problem with the air startable SSME, which then meant instead of Ares V using just a simple updated J2S, they needed the completely redesinged J2X and all of that cost.  And they ran into performance problems with the lower thrust J2X, and problems snowballed from there for Ares 1 and Orion.

But, what if, at that point, they just decided to make the Ares 1 5.5m upper stage longer, and make a booster stage out of it?  They were plannning to design and build that element anyway, making it longer should have been a pretty minor thing, especially when all the problems of stacking the stage on a 4 and then 5 and then 5.5 seg SRB started to really get out of control.
You make it about the length of a Delta IV core, put four RS-25E's on the bottom (which will be shared with Ares V) and a man-rated DCSS on top (iCPS), and I'd think you could get Orion to LEO.
I think it'd have quite a bit better perfomrance than Delta IV, because I believe the A1US was to be made out of AL2195, and have a common bulkhead.  Both of those same things would go into this, just the stage is longer, with an EELV upper stage.  And it'd have the high performance RS-25's rather than the lower performning RS-68's. 

You don't have to develop the air-lit SSME, you can then develop just the more simple J2S for Ares V, you are using the same engine as Ares V and it's already man rated, and you remove solids from the equation completely for crews.

Or you could make the core shorter, use maybe 2 RS-25's, and then a cluster of GEM-60's or Atlas SRB's to augment the performance to get it where NASA wanted it.  That way more SRB's mean Orion could be fatter for BLEO missions later.  The crew launcher would be adjustable to what it needed to be then, to account for Orion mass creep.
You have SRB's then, but heh...Ares 1 was going to use a really big solid anyway.

And if they didn't want to use an EELV upper stage, they could have still made the A1US, but it would be common with the Ares 1 liquid booster then.  It could then use the J2S that Ares V would use for more commonality if they wanted to go that route instead of fostering EELV synergy.

It's still far from ideal compared to just using EELV's directly, but it seems much more desirable than trying to make Ares 1 work for so long, and in effect, creating the gap by not having an LV in time to fly after STS was retired.
THey were making a new liquid 5.5m core anyway to make an upper stage out of it...which was to have no synergy with anything else....so why not just make the LV out of that and don't worry about the big solid or the upper stage engine at all?  And they could have still had "their" rocket, which seems to probably be the major reason the more obvious choices of using EELV's were discarded in the ESAS study.

Could this have worked and been developed in time to establish ISS service after STS retired?


 
Title: Re: Could Ares 1 have Worked if things had been different?
Post by: Downix on 06/15/2013 05:38 PM
I just had a odd thought.

Things started to go bad for Ares 1 once they ran into problem with the air startable SSME, which then meant instead of Ares V using just a simple updated J2S, they needed the completely redesinged J2X and all of that cost.  And they ran into performance problems with the lower thrust J2X, and problems snowballed from there for Ares 1 and Orion.

But, what if, at that point, they just decided to make the Ares 1 5.5m upper stage longer, and make a booster stage out of it?  They were plannning to design and build that element anyway, making it longer should have been a pretty minor thing, especially when all the problems of stacking the stage on a 4 and then 5 and then 5.5 seg SRB started to really get out of control.
You make it about the length of a Delta IV core, put four RS-25E's on the bottom (which will be shared with Ares V) and a man-rated DCSS on top (iCPS), and I'd think you could get Orion to LEO.
I think it'd have quite a bit better perfomrance than Delta IV, because I believe the A1US was to be made out of AL2195, and have a common bulkhead.  Both of those same things would go into this, just the stage is longer, with an EELV upper stage.  And it'd have the high performance RS-25's rather than the lower performning RS-68's. 

You don't have to develop the air-lit SSME, you can then develop just the more simple J2S for Ares V, you are using the same engine as Ares V and it's already man rated, and you remove solids from the equation completely for crews.

Or you could make the core shorter, use maybe 2 RS-25's, and then a cluster of GEM-60's or Atlas SRB's to augment the performance to get it where NASA wanted it.  That way more SRB's mean Orion could be fatter for BLEO missions later.  The crew launcher would be adjustable to what it needed to be then, to account for Orion mass creep.
You have SRB's then, but heh...Ares 1 was going to use a really big solid anyway.

And if they didn't want to use an EELV upper stage, they could have still made the A1US, but it would be common with the Ares 1 liquid booster then.  It could then use the J2S that Ares V would use for more commonality if they wanted to go that route instead of fostering EELV synergy.

It's still far from ideal compared to just using EELV's directly, but it seems much more desirable than trying to make Ares 1 work for so long, and in effect, creating the gap by not having an LV in time to fly after STS was retired.
THey were making a new liquid 5.5m core anyway to make an upper stage out of it...which was to have no synergy with anything else....so why not just make the LV out of that and don't worry about the big solid or the upper stage engine at all?  And they could have still had "their" rocket, which seems to probably be the major reason the more obvious choices of using EELV's were discarded in the ESAS study.

Could this have worked and been developed in time to establish ISS service after STS retired?

In theory, yes, but it would have failed in the ESAS guidelines they put down, namely "one engine per stage."

Anything more than that, then the ESAS would have been shown to have been in error, and could have opened up the entire thing to lawsuits by the losers of the competition.
Title: Re: Could Ares 1 have Worked if things had been different?
Post by: renclod on 06/16/2013 10:08 PM
I just had a odd thought.

Things started to go bad for Ares 1 once they ran into problem with the air startable SSME,

My data recorder says different ! Things started to go bad for Ares I, and for the whole Constellation program, when NASA realized that the administration would not fund the program as promised. More, Shuttle return to flight and other contingencies further diminished the available funding.

The solution was to reduce the number of program elements, to eliminate expensive elements, to enforce commonalities between CLV and CaLV, to find commonalities with external programs.

From 3 liquid fuel engine elements (RS-25 air start, RS-25 ground start, J-2S) they went to 2 (RS-68, J-2X).

Quote
[...]
 they could have still made the A1US, but it would be common with the Ares 1 liquid booster then.
This is quite a stretch. An upper stage must be optimized or it would not reach orbit with a significant payload, or at all. 

Quote
[...]
don't worry about the big solid

That would have been a bug, not a feature - wrt politics. The Constellation program was designed such that it would keep the "big solid" in the big picture. CLV was the funded project, not CaLV.

Title: Re: Could Ares 1 have Worked if things had been different?
Post by: Lobo on 06/19/2013 06:01 AM

My data recorder says different ! Things started to go bad for Ares I, and for the whole Constellation program, when NASA realized that the administration would not fund the program as promised. More, Shuttle return to flight and other contingencies further diminished the available funding.

The solution was to reduce the number of program elements, to eliminate expensive elements, to enforce commonalities between CLV and CaLV, to find commonalities with external programs.

From 3 liquid fuel engine elements (RS-25 air start, RS-25 ground start, J-2S) they went to 2 (RS-68, J-2X).


Well, I don't really have data, that's just what I understood.  When the air startable RS-25 started to look non feasible, then a relatively simple J2S program became a very complex J2X project, then the Ares 1 first stage needed more power to compensate and grew finally to 5.5 seg.  Then they had to start removing features from Orion to lighten it up, etc.

But again, that's just what I picked up from various discussion on these forums.


This is quite a stretch. An upper stage must be optimized or it would not reach orbit with a significant payload, or at all. 


Doesn't the Falcon 9 upper stage share tooling with the Falcon 9 booster?  And the 5m DCSS share tooling with the Delta IV core (the LH2 tank anyway)?
Perhaps my understanding there is mistaken.   But I'm mainly just saying using the same tooling, alloys, tank bulkheads, etc, as the booster and upper stage would be the same diameter.


That would have been a bug, not a feature - wrt politics. The Constellation program was designed such that it would keep the "big solid" in the big picture. CLV was the funded project, not CaLV.


Bummer...   That sort of limits options then for a crew launcher to basically Ares 1.  Not many other ways to get Orion to LEO with a 4 or 5 seg booster, unless you go with a Jupiter -130, but then you are looking 2 launch instead of 1.5 launch.

I'll take one last hail Mary pass at it though.  Given that a big solid was required and an RS-25 couldn't feasible be made to air start.

Maybe take a Delta IV core, modify it with a single RS-25 engine, and side mount it to an SRB with the RS-25 angled outwards like the Shuttle's were.  The SRB's are designed to be side mounted anyway, although obviously it wouldn't quite be the same.  But should be any harder than trying to inline mount it.
Then you remove the air-startable RS-25, and the J2X.  Ares 1 and Ares V both use RS-25 and SRB's.  You remove the extra 5.5m upper stage development too. 
With one RS-25, the Delta IV core should burn to disposable orbit, and then on ISS support missions, Orion does it's own EOI burn to get to the ISS.
For Lunar missions, maybe an EELV upper stage is used, or the Service Module is designed with enough prop to get itself to EOR, and then the TEI burn from LLO.

Put Orion above the top of the SRB So that it's not next to it...which would be undesirable.

Not that it would be a good LV...but perhaps more workable than Ares 1?
Title: Re: Could Ares 1 have Worked if things had been different?
Post by: Lobo on 06/19/2013 06:06 AM
In theory, yes, but it would have failed in the ESAS guidelines they put down, namely "one engine per stage."

Anything more than that, then the ESAS would have been shown to have been in error, and could have opened up the entire thing to lawsuits by the losers of the competition.

Is that true?

I'm trying to remember the ESAS report off the top of my head.  They looked at several multi-engine per stage CLV's, and although they rejected them for various reasons, I don't recall one of the reasons was multiple engines per stage.
They looked at Atlas V Phase 2 which had two RD-180's.  And an 8m Atlas V with like 5 RD-180's on the core.  they also looked at D4H and A5H.  They each would have 3 engines on the first stage.  They showed them with existing DCSS and centaur, and with new larger upper stages (ACES-like I think) that I think had multiple RL-10's on them.  But I'd have to go back and look at it when I get time.

They seemed to evaluate a lot of multi engine CLV's and rejected them for various "reliability" and "black zone" and other reasons.  I don't recall engine count being a reason for the rejections though?

Title: Re: Could Ares 1 have Worked if things had been different?
Post by: renclod on 06/19/2013 08:09 AM

I'll take one last hail Mary pass at it though.  Given that a big solid was required and an RS-25 couldn't feasible be made to air start.

Maybe take a Delta IV core, modify it with a single RS-25 engine, and side mount it to an SRB with the RS-25 angled outwards like the Shuttle's were.  The SRB's are designed to be side mounted anyway, although obviously it wouldn't quite be the same.  But should be any harder than trying to inline mount it.
Then you remove the air-startable RS-25, and the J2X.  Ares 1 and Ares V both use RS-25 and SRB's.  You remove the extra 5.5m upper stage development too. 
With one RS-25, the Delta IV core should burn to disposable orbit, and then on ISS support missions, Orion does it's own EOI burn to get to the ISS.
For Lunar missions, maybe an EELV upper stage is used, or the Service Module is designed with enough prop to get itself to EOR, and then the TEI burn from LLO.

Put Orion above the top of the SRB So that it's not next to it...which would be undesirable.

Not that it would be a good LV...but perhaps more workable than Ares 1?


He he... great minds think alike LOL !

Lobo, search this forum for
"1 1/2 SD CLV"
and you'll see the same crazy ideea explored 6 years ago.
Or something much like that.

I even toyed with moving the Lox tank out-of-axis wrt. the H2 tank so that the c-of-m would be as close as possible to the SRB axis; and that was because one of the critics said that if the RS-25 quits in the early stage, the rocket goes cartwheel.

But the basic principle still haunts me occasionally !

Yes, with such a stage-and-a-half-to-orbit CLV design,
- you have the great RS-25, ground started and firing all the way to orbit;
- you can adjust the sizing of liquid propellant tanks without growing to monster height, because the LH2 tank lies parallel to the SRB;
- you have Orion on top

Since this is a speculation thread, I will attach some of the graphics that I used to play with at the time, and no one needs to feel offended, OK ?
Just having fun !

Title: Re: Could Ares 1 have Worked if things had been different?
Post by: Lobo on 06/19/2013 07:08 PM

He he... great minds think alike LOL !

Lobo, search this forum for
"1 1/2 SD CLV"
and you'll see the same crazy ideea explored 6 years ago.
Or something much like that.

I even toyed with moving the Lox tank out-of-axis wrt. the H2 tank so that the c-of-m would be as close as possible to the SRB axis; and that was because one of the critics said that if the RS-25 quits in the early stage, the rocket goes cartwheel.

But the basic principle still haunts me occasionally !

Yes, with such a stage-and-a-half-to-orbit CLV design,
- you have the great RS-25, ground started and firing all the way to orbit;
- you can adjust the sizing of liquid propellant tanks without growing to monster height, because the LH2 tank lies parallel to the SRB;
- you have Orion on top

Since this is a speculation thread, I will attach some of the graphics that I used to play with at the time, and no one needs to feel offended, OK ?
Just having fun !



Heheheh...and here I thought it was a crazy idea.

I think it'd be a kludge (to use Jim's term) but it could be made to work easier than Ares 1 given the flawed criteria they were working under.

The whole situation could have been avoided if a 1.5 architecture using Atlas V and multiple Atlas boosters with an AJAX core were evaluated and chosen in ESAS.  Then you are able to use EELV for both the CLV and CaLV.  Really the only new elements to be developed would be new 5m wide EELV upper stage (ACES-41) for the CLV, and a stretched version for the CaLV, and then the new ET-derived core with multiple CCB boosters mounts.  I'm pretty sure Atlas Phase 1-552 or Atlas V-Heavy w/ 5m upp stage could have been developed far cheap and faster than Ares 1...even this sidemount Ares 1.

But that's for another thread...I just had to vent.

This is about making Ares 1 work....if possible.  ;-)

You have an interesting concept there with the merged adaptor on top.  I'm just wondering if it would be more trouble developing than it'd be worth.
I am thinking the 5m Orion, on a tall 5m spacer, directly over the 5m Delta IV core.  The top SRB attach point could be mounted to mount which would be similar to the ET/Ares V core top SRB mount, but the lifting would be done from the bottom because that's what the D4 core is already designed to be lifted from.  I'm guessing the SRB itself, being basically just a thick steel case, doesn't mind if it's lifting from the top or bottom.  So make the bottom mount the load bearing one, and the top just a stabilizer mount. 

The spacer on top of the D4 core would be to get the Orion CSM above the top of the SRB.  Maybe the SRB gets a sloped nose cone like Ariane 5's boosters to sreamline the air flow.  Even with the spacer this would be much shorter than in-line Ares 1. 

An alternative might have been to have chosen an NK-43/AJ26-59, as it had about 400klbs thrust in vacuum, and it was air-startable.  As it'd be kerolox, the upper stage for it could be much shorter than the hydrolox one.  It wouldn't have the vacuum ISP of J2X or SSME, but Ares 1 is only going to LEO, so I think it could work.  I think the AJ26-59 would have been available enough to have planned around in the mid 2000's?
Anyone know what the performance of that might have been?
Maybe I'm way off on if that could get the Orion CSM to LEO.

A 3rd option might have been to use a modified D4 core with a single RS-25 on it, and two 3-seg boosters on it where the outboard CCB's would be in a D4H.  This would look sort of like an H-IIA/B.  With two fat, short SRB's.  This would require the developent of a new pour for a 3-seg booster...but Ares 1 was going to have a 5.5-seg booster before it was cancelled anyway, so I don't know if a 2-seg would be any more difficult to develop from the base 5-seg than the 5.5-seg.  And using 6-segs total wouldn't be much different than using 5.5-segs for the Ares 1 that almost was.

This option might have been less of a kludge than the side mount configuration

As a side note, I wonder about a single D4 core with a single RS-25, and a cluster of GEM-60's.  Basically like a 5m Delta II/III.  I wonder what that LV would do with like 10 GEM-60's?
That gets away from the big SRB requirement, I know, just curious what such a thing would do.  The RS-25 could handle the heating of that many GEM-60's, although the base of D4 would be modified to mount that many.  And I think it'd be easier to develop than either a side mount, or two 3-seg boosters.  The clustering concept had be used already on Delta II, and to a lesser degree, D4 and Atlas V.  So it doesn't seem like too much of a reach. 





 
Title: Re: Could Ares 1 have Worked if things had been different?
Post by: Downix on 06/23/2013 06:14 AM
In theory, yes, but it would have failed in the ESAS guidelines they put down, namely "one engine per stage."

Anything more than that, then the ESAS would have been shown to have been in error, and could have opened up the entire thing to lawsuits by the losers of the competition.

Is that true?

I'm trying to remember the ESAS report off the top of my head.  They looked at several multi-engine per stage CLV's, and although they rejected them for various reasons, I don't recall one of the reasons was multiple engines per stage.
They looked at Atlas V Phase 2 which had two RD-180's.  And an 8m Atlas V with like 5 RD-180's on the core.  they also looked at D4H and A5H.  They each would have 3 engines on the first stage.  They showed them with existing DCSS and centaur, and with new larger upper stages (ACES-like I think) that I think had multiple RL-10's on them.  But I'd have to go back and look at it when I get time.

They seemed to evaluate a lot of multi engine CLV's and rejected them for various "reliability" and "black zone" and other reasons.  I don't recall engine count being a reason for the rejections though?


The multiple-engine setups were rejected in part for reliability concerns. If you read the ESAS report, you'll note that the 2-engined Centaur was given a yellow-mark for safety and the 4-engined 5m Centaur-like stage (we'd today call it ACES) given a red, with the number of engines the specific reason given.

Title: Re: Could Ares 1 have Worked if things had been different?
Post by: Lobo on 07/11/2013 06:21 PM

He he... great minds think alike LOL !

Lobo, search this forum for
"1 1/2 SD CLV"
and you'll see the same crazy ideea explored 6 years ago.
Or something much like that.

I even toyed with moving the Lox tank out-of-axis wrt. the H2 tank so that the c-of-m would be as close as possible to the SRB axis; and that was because one of the critics said that if the RS-25 quits in the early stage, the rocket goes cartwheel.

But the basic principle still haunts me occasionally !

Yes, with such a stage-and-a-half-to-orbit CLV design,
- you have the great RS-25, ground started and firing all the way to orbit;
- you can adjust the sizing of liquid propellant tanks without growing to monster height, because the LH2 tank lies parallel to the SRB;
- you have Orion on top

Since this is a speculation thread, I will attach some of the graphics that I used to play with at the time, and no one needs to feel offended, OK ?
Just having fun !



Very cool pics.

Although, perhaps we are trying to be too cute by half.

What about a Delta IV core, fitted with an RS-25 engine like we had, but then put two 4-seg SRB's on it?
Firstly, it would use an existing core and existing SRB.  So no real new development, other than the new MPS for Delta IV to mount the RS-25, and a shorter upper thrust beam for the Delta IV core.  Here's a picture size comparson between shuttle and D4H.  Perhaps if you moved the upper attachment point on the SRB from the top segment, to the one below that, then you could put an upper thrust beam in the D4 intertank area, like it was on the ET intertank area?  Or move the boosters down so the upper attach point lines up with the D4 intertank.  Like an Ariane 5, with the core engine farther up?  Then you don't need the core core strengthening like you might if the SRB's were lifting from the bottom, they push up on the upper thrust beam like they did for STS.
The Delta IV core acts as a sustainer stage all the way to orbit.  And while this seems like overkill for launching Orion, with all of that margin, it could accomodate a lot of growth in Orion.  It should prefent the thrust oscillation issues of Ares 1, and could directly use the Shuttle boosters, and recover and reuse them.  I would think the amount of development of this LV would be -far- cheaper than Ares 1.  This LV could use extra RS-25D's until RS-25E's started production for the original Ares V. 

It would look kind of like a Titan IV.

With the original 5-seg SRB plan for Ares V with RS-25's, This LV could switch to a 5-1 seg booster for standardization.

And yes, in the greater scope of things, just man-rating the D4H or development of a man-rated AVH would have been much cheaper and better...but this thread is looking at making an "Ares 1" work better...so...

So, any major drawbacks to this new two SRB "Ares 1"? 
Would the acceleration be too high with two SRB's?  Although you could probably put ballast on this LV to reduce those, so they could keep using the same boosters as STS initially, and then the 5-1 segs from Ares V, without needing a different propellant pour to change how they throttle, as they are designed to throttle based on a much heavier load.  Load up a bunch of weight on top and throttle the RS-25 down to keep that in check?

Title: Re: Could Ares 1 have Worked if things had been different?
Post by: betaking12 on 12/27/2013 05:48 PM
I wonder if Aries 1 could have found some use as a cargo-only vessel, assuming that it would be realized that the mass of the LES would compromise the design of orion too much.
Title: Re: Could Ares 1 have Worked if things had been different?
Post by: Jim on 12/27/2013 07:55 PM
I wonder if Aries 1 could have found some use as a cargo-only vessel, assuming that it would be realized that the mass of the LES would compromise the design of orion too much.

It would just unnecessarily duplicate existing capabilities.
Title: Re: Could Ares 1 have Worked if things had been different?
Post by: Patchouli on 12/31/2013 02:29 AM
I wonder if Aries 1 could have found some use as a cargo-only vessel, assuming that it would be realized that the mass of the LES would compromise the design of orion too much.

If the first stage and second stage of Ares I were pretty much the same as the boosters and EDS of Ares V it might have been competitive but they diverged so much they became separate production items.

But then the Delta IV would be significantly cheaper if it were flown more often as the LV was designed to have low reoccurring costs.
Title: Re: Could Ares 1 have Worked if things had been different?
Post by: Danderman on 12/31/2013 02:44 AM
In aerospace projects, 90% of costs are incurred in the first 10% of the program.

This means that the strategic decisions made at the beginning are what generally control costs.

In the case of Ares, the strategic decisions were to:

Develop an interplanetary launch capability by re-using Shuttle hardware.

and,

The architecture would be two launch EOR/LOR.

Once those two high level requirements were in place, disaster was inevitable.


Title: Re: Could Ares 1 have Worked if things had been different?
Post by: Patchouli on 12/31/2013 02:51 AM
Actually the 1.5 launch decision.
If they were willing to go with two HLV launches , use SEP tugs, or fuel depots for future capability etc they might have avoided disaster.

Title: Re: Could Ares 1 have Worked if things had been different?
Post by: M129K on 02/05/2014 02:51 PM
Actually the 1.5 launch decision.
If they were willing to go with two HLV launches , use SEP tugs, or fuel depots for future capability etc they might have avoided disaster.
No SEP or depots needed. Two 95 ton launchers where more than enough as well as cheaper than AresV/ Ares I.
Title: Re: Could Ares 1 have Worked if things had been different?
Post by: TomH on 02/12/2014 09:26 PM
Even with the 5.5 segment booster, Orion's mass was still problematic. I have to wonder what would have happened if ATK had proposed the Dark Knights at that point in time-for use on Ares V and Ares I. Composite casing, lower mass, simpler production with lower cost, and advanced propellant (I don't think the chemists have finalized their formula yet have they?).  I have no idea how problematic thrust oscillation might be for a single stick first stage of that design, though I realize that issue and development time might be significant problems. Still, it seems one Dark Knight stage 1 with 2 x J-2X or 1 x RS-25 (air started) US should get Orion CSM to LEO with margin.
Title: Re: Could Ares 1 have Worked if things had been different?
Post by: baldusi on 02/12/2014 10:20 PM
But then it would have not been a legacy design and all the talks they had had been in vain. What's more, they went with that architecture only after a trade with very strict criteria, that not even Ares 1 met. After the restartable RS-25 failed to realize, they should have done the trades again, or go with the second best. They did neither.
Title: Re: Could Ares 1 have Worked if things had been different?
Post by: TomH on 02/13/2014 02:26 AM
But then it would have not been a legacy design and all the talks they had had been in vain. What's more, they went with that architecture only after a trade with very strict criteria, that not even Ares 1 met. After the restartable RS-25 failed to realize, they should have done the trades again, or go with the second best. They did neither.

Yea, it wouldn't have been all legacy, but this entire thread is about hypothetical ways things may have been "different". You still have same sized boosters that are still solids. I just wonder whether and how well it might have worked from a technical standpoint.Things like:  Would advanced propellants in a composite casing have had better or worse oscillation? Could it have been dampened? etc.
Title: Re: Could Ares 1 have Worked if things had been different?
Post by: Zed_Noir on 02/13/2014 07:20 PM
I wonder if the mass of the Orion was the root of all the Ares-1's woes.

So if they gone with a light weight strictly launch & reentry capsule and use the Altair as a hab with a smaller crew. Even the J-2X could have work.

Oh wait. If they use a lighter capsule, Then why developed the Ares-1, when the EELVs could do the job.  ;)
Title: Re: Could Ares 1 have Worked if things had been different?
Post by: baldusi on 02/13/2014 08:25 PM
But then it would have not been a legacy design and all the talks they had had been in vain. What's more, they went with that architecture only after a trade with very strict criteria, that not even Ares 1 met. After the restartable RS-25 failed to realize, they should have done the trades again, or go with the second best. They did neither.

Yea, it wouldn't have been all legacy, but this entire thread is about hypothetical ways things may have been "different". You still have same sized boosters that are still solids. I just wonder whether and how well it might have worked from a technical standpoint.Things like:  Would advanced propellants in a composite casing have had better or worse oscillation? Could it have been dampened? etc.
Then yes, sure. Just makr use of composite casing with improved formula, use a composite tank for the upper stage and develop a 1MN full stage and restartable H2/LOX engine for the upper stage. That could have worked more than fine.
Title: Re: Could Ares 1 have Worked if things had been different?
Post by: Wigles on 02/21/2014 05:42 AM
In aerospace projects, 90% of costs are incurred in the first 10% of the program.

-snip-

Slight ammendment, in aerospace projects 90% of the decisions which most impact overall cost are incurred in the first 10% of the project. Not the actual cost.
Title: Re: Could Ares 1 have Worked if things had been different?
Post by: clongton on 02/21/2014 08:45 AM
Actually the 1.5 launch decision.
If they were willing to go with two HLV launches , use SEP tugs, or fuel depots for future capability etc they might have avoided disaster.
No SEP or depots needed. Two 95 ton launchers where more than enough as well as cheaper than AresV/ Ares I.

We offered just such a solution. NASA wasn't interested.
Title: Re: Could Ares 1 have Worked if things had been different?
Post by: JohnFornaro on 02/22/2014 01:36 PM
But then it would have not been a legacy design and all the talks they had had been in vain. ...

Unfortunately, it is no longer a "legacy" LV.  It is a clean sheet LV with a legacy diameter core.
Title: Re: Could Ares 1 have Worked if things had been different?
Post by: edkyle99 on 02/22/2014 05:35 PM
I wonder if the mass of the Orion was the root of all the Ares-1's woes.
Shortly before it was cancelled, Ares I had a 15% margin over the Orion mass requirement.  I think the woes were budget related.

 - Ed Kyle
Title: Re: Could Ares 1 have Worked if things had been different?
Post by: clongton on 02/22/2014 07:40 PM
I wonder if the mass of the Orion was the root of all the Ares-1's woes.
Shortly before it was cancelled, Ares I had a 15% margin over the Orion mass requirement.  I think the woes were budget related.

 - Ed Kyle

NASA leadership held completely unrealistic expectations about what they could get the Congress to give them. Leadership was in denial right up to the end. CxP could have been completely different if that leadership had operated from the beginning with realistic expectations.
Title: Re: Could Ares 1 have Worked if things had been different?
Post by: JohnFornaro on 02/22/2014 09:58 PM
Would that be an "expectation" of accomplishment?  Or am I missing the whole "intent to not accomplish" meme?

I know.  Depends on how you define "accomplishment".
Title: Re: Could Ares 1 have Worked if things had been different?
Post by: beb on 02/23/2014 01:53 AM
The title of this thread is "Could Ares I have Worked if Things have been different?"  It seems, from having read NASA Flight over the last decade that  the chief problem was Ares I was always the weight of Orion. And best solution there would have been to radically rethink the purpose of Orion. Does it need to be a "Commnd" module or could be, like with the Russian Soyuz, just a re-entry module. Making Orion into a tiny 4-man BEO re-entry vehicle and leaving mission life-support and propulsion as part of the hardware launched on the Ares 5/SLS would have made it a lot easier for Ares I to carry it into orbit. The trouble with that idea is that if you get the Orion capsule down to 10-12 mT than you ca launch it on an existing Atlas or Delta and not need the Ares I at all.
   But Ares 1 and 5 were supposed to leverage the commonality of shuttle technology. Dropping Ares 1 for an existing EELV leaves the Ares 5 development costs all on Ares 5's shoulders. And that would have been non-viable. (As if Ares 1 and 5 were ever viable)
   Putting the Ares I service module on the Ares 5 stack would have had on advantage, it would have been possible to use the service module to do the Lunar Orbital Insertion instead of using the Lander's engine. That would have eliminated the need for either a crasher stage on the lander or massively over building the lander's tanks so it could do the LOI as well as descend to the surface. A smaller lander would not have stood so high off the ground causing logistical problems in descending to the surface or having the lander tip over.  Lofting the Service Module on Ares 5 would have increased its payload by maybe 10-15 mT, but I don't think that would have been that much of a problem.
   So I guess the answer to the question comes down to -- no. The only way to have made Ares I work would have been to make Orion small wnough/light enough that an existing EELV could have done the job as well. Ares I simply didn't have enough difference from Atlas and Delta to justify its seperate existence.
Title: Re: Could Ares 1 have Worked if things had been different?
Post by: MATTBLAK on 02/23/2014 02:17 AM
Delta IV-H or Atlas V-H would have been perfectly adequate as the full-featured 'heavy' Orion launchers, particularly if the Delta IV-H had an uprated upper stage - RL-60/MB-60 or regenerative RS-68 for the first stages. The RS-68 Regen would have been a good development for sharing with Ares V and would have solved the base-heating problem as well and the RL-60/MB-60s used for the upper stage. I know this thread is a retrospective 'what if', so I hope no one gets grumpy and says something like "this is old news", water-under-the-bridge, pointless rehash" etc. But I also think threads like this serve as useful reference/antidote for 'those who don't pay attention to history are doomed to repeat it', etc.

Other in-a-nutshell look backs included keeping the Ares V stages to the 8.4 meter Shuttle diameters, keeping the 4 segment SRBs and using clusters of existing upper stage engines (RL-10s or finishing the RL-60) instead of pouring billions into J-2X and 5 segment boosters - all this was suggested by our DIRECT friends. Finally, the 'overweight' Orion problem could largely have been solved by reducing the Command Module diameter to 4.5 meters - as suggested by Boeing (becomes the CST-100) - and making the capsule all composites (though this would not be strictly necessary). A Boeing engineer I once spoke to said if they had won the Orion contract, they would have pushed for changing Orion to 4.5 meters, as this would have reduced it's mass by at least 1 metric ton - 1.8 if all-composite - and still leave plenty of pressurized volume for 4x Astronauts: about the same per-Astronaut as Apollo had for 3x persons.
Title: Re: Could Ares 1 have Worked if things had been different?
Post by: Coastal Ron on 02/23/2014 02:41 AM
The title of this thread is "Could Ares I have Worked if Things have been different?"  It seems, from having read NASA Flight over the last decade that  the chief problem was Ares I was always the weight of Orion. And best solution there would have been to radically rethink the purpose of Orion...

Given enough time and money the Ares I and Orion configuration could have been made to work, and work safely.  I have no doubt about that.

The question you raise is whether it would have been worth the time and money in the first place, and though it may be OT, I think that is the better question.  The way I see it is that in our modern age, where we have proven that we can build spacious, complex space stations, capsules are best suited for transporting humans and cargo from space to the surface of Earth.

But they are too small to used as primary living and work spaces for more than a few days, so no matter what they would have to be attached to larger vehicles anyways.  Trying to cram lots of functionality into the Orion is what was/is driving the weight issue (and cost too), and it sure seems to me to be an evolutionary dead end - that capsules should not be evolved beyond being just basic transportation.  And with a lighter capsule the launch vehicle options become more numerous.
Title: Re: Could Ares 1 have Worked if things had been different?
Post by: clongton on 02/23/2014 01:29 PM
Delta IV-H or Atlas V-H would have been perfectly adequate as the full-featured 'heavy' Orion launchers, particularly if the Delta IV-H had an uprated upper stage - RL-60/MB-60 or regenerative RS-68 for the first stages....Other in-a-nutshell look backs included keeping the Ares V stages to the 8.4 meter Shuttle diameters, keeping the 4 segment SRBs and using clusters of existing upper stage engines (RL-10s or finishing the RL-60) instead of pouring billions into J-2X and 5 segment boosters - all this was suggested by our DIRECT friends.

While DIRECT stayed with the 4-segment SRB because that was the Congressional intent, the alternate proposal (AJAX) would have leveraged the Atlas by using its CCB as an LRB for an 8.4m Ares-V and the Atlas-V as the CLV. This would have provided the 1.5 launch architecture that Dr Griffin wanted but would have eliminated the Ares-I and destroyed the launch vehicle development cost benefit of spreading that cost over 2 launch vehicles.

Given enough time and money the Ares I and Orion configuration could have been made to work, and work safely.  I have no doubt about that.

You would have been wrong. Even Dr Griffin himself finally admitted toward the end of CxP that the Ares-I could not have been made to work for its originally intended mission, which was to deliver a lunar-capable Orion to LEO for meeting the LSAM and EDS delivered on an Ares-V. He assigned a short-fueled Orion to LEO ISS support and left the Moon missions for a future Administration to wrestle with.
Title: Re: Could Ares 1 have Worked if things had been different?
Post by: beb on 02/23/2014 03:52 PM
Given enough time and money the Ares I and Orion configuration could have been made to work, and work safely.  I have no doubt about that.

You would have been wrong. Even Dr Griffin himself finally admitted toward the end of CxP that the Ares-I could not have been made to work for its originally intended mission, which was to deliver a lunar-capable Orion to LEO for meeting the LSAM and EDS delivered on an Ares-V. He assigned a short-fueled Orion to LEO ISS support and left the Moon missions for a future Administration to wrestle with.

Just a quick note: That was "Coastal Ron" not me (Beb) speaking.
Title: Re: Could Ares 1 have Worked if things had been different?
Post by: edkyle99 on 02/23/2014 07:01 PM
The title of this thread is "Could Ares I have Worked if Things have been different?"  It seems, from having read NASA Flight over the last decade that  the chief problem was Ares I was always the weight of Orion.
When John Young was famously reported to have said that "Ares I won't work" in May 2007, he quickly corrected his assertion to point out that it was Orion that was too heavy, not Ares I that was falling short of its objectives. 

Long after Constellation was cancelled Orion was still too heavy.  That can't be Ares I's fault.
http://forum.nasaspaceflight.com/index.php?topic=31670.msg1039792#msg1039792

 - Ed Kyle
Title: Re: Could Ares 1 have Worked if things had been different?
Post by: clongton on 02/23/2014 07:27 PM
The title of this thread is "Could Ares I have Worked if Things have been different?"  It seems, from having read NASA Flight over the last decade that  the chief problem was Ares I was always the weight of Orion.
When John Young was famously reported to have said that "Ares I won't work" in May 2007, he quickly corrected his assertion to point out that it was Orion that was too heavy, not Ares I that was falling short of its objectives. 

Today, nearly seven years later, Orion is still too heavy.  That can't be Ares I's fault.

 - Ed Kyle

That is correct. Ares-I's problem was the weight of Orion. It always was. But that was a command decision by NASA leadership. They specifically wanted Orion to be too heavy to lift on a man-rated EELV in order to justify a 2-vehicle, 1.5 launch architecture.

Reducing Orion's weight to be manageable on the Ares-I would have put it within the lift capacity of either the Atlas or Delta and Dr Griffin was having none of it.

That's why, Ed, I really appreciated the efforts you made to redesign the Ares-I. I knew NASA would not even consider it, but your work was brilliant nonetheless. It would have worked and Griffin could have salvaged CxP with it.
Title: Re: Could Ares 1 have Worked if things had been different?
Post by: MATTBLAK on 02/24/2014 04:26 AM
Hey Chuck and Ed; my memory fails me about Ed's Ares 1 fixes - or maybe I just haven't read it. Does anyone have a link?
Title: Re: Could Ares 1 have Worked if things had been different?
Post by: edkyle99 on 02/25/2014 03:44 AM
Hey Chuck and Ed; my memory fails me about Ed's Ares 1 fixes - or maybe I just haven't read it. Does anyone have a link?
This may be the one.
http://forum.nasaspaceflight.com/index.php?topic=13824.msg299946#msg299946

There were several ideas.  I think "Ares IB" was the most "fun" to consider. 

 - Ed Kyle
Title: Re: Could Ares 1 have Worked if things had been different?
Post by: Archibald on 02/25/2014 05:21 AM
Which in turn links back to an even earlier thread... that started the DIRECT odyssey.  ;D
Title: Re: Could Ares 1 have Worked if things had been different?
Post by: ß-OriCinco on 02/25/2014 06:06 AM
Unfortunately, it is no longer a "legacy" LV.  It is a clean sheet LV with a legacy diameter core.
The diameter of the SRB has an unbelievable story to it.   With specifications, there is always traceability to original documents.  Since NASA was using specifications since the sixties for control of contractor deliverables, the concept of requirements traceability is only a modern day phenomenon.

If you take the SRB diameter, that was constrained by the railway tunnels from Utah to the Cape.  The standard width of railroad tracks is traced back to Imperial Roman chariots that used two war horses to pull the cart.  The width of the Imperial Roman chariot is obviously traced to the conventional width of two horses' (rear ends).

So the legacy of future spaceflight is  going to be constrained to our limited capabilities.

We really need a bigger railway system to be able to get larger launch vehicles built for Moon/Mars bases.  So then I'm sure you would agree, that what we need to get back into exploring space are a couple of really big .....
Title: Re: Could Ares 1 have Worked if things had been different?
Post by: MATTBLAK on 02/25/2014 07:43 AM
The title of this thread is "Could Ares I have Worked if Things have been different?"  It seems, from having read NASA Flight over the last decade that  the chief problem was Ares I was always the weight of Orion.
When John Young was famously reported to have said that "Ares I won't work" in May 2007, he quickly corrected his assertion to point out that it was Orion that was too heavy, not Ares I that was falling short of its objectives. 

Long after Constellation was cancelled Orion was still too heavy.  That can't be Ares I's fault.
http://forum.nasaspaceflight.com/index.php?topic=31670.msg1039792#msg1039792

 - Ed Kyle

DOH!! I should have remembered that thread - I had some big postings in it. Then again; I'm wondering these days if my memory is going. I keep having conversations with my Wife that she swears I've already talked about. And twice in the last few days; I typed the wrong address in something - an address I had more than 20 years ago...
Title: Re: Could Ares 1 have Worked if things had been different?
Post by: Starlab90 on 02/27/2014 01:48 AM
You would have been wrong. Even Dr Griffin himself finally admitted toward the end of CxP that the Ares-I could not have been made to work for its originally intended mission, which was to deliver a lunar-capable Orion to LEO for meeting the LSAM and EDS delivered on an Ares-V. He assigned a short-fueled Orion to LEO ISS support and left the Moon missions for a future Administration to wrestle with.

If Mike Griffin actually said that, he gave up too soon. As you describe above, there were 2 crewed Orion configurations planned, the ISS Orion with 2 propellant tanks in in the SM, and the lunar Orion with 4 propellant tanks. The lunar Orion was several thousand pounds heavier than the ISS Orion, so ascent performance for ISS missions was never an issue.

Prior to the DM-1 test, the Ares I design held on to at least a couple of percentage points of margin for the lunar launches. But then the DM-1 test results came in about 1% low of the motor's projected performance, and that blew away most of the margin. On top of that there was weight growth because of vibroacoustics, and the upper stage guys decided they needed more ullage. Now, ATK came back with some motor casting improvements that got back several hundred pounds. So at the time of cancellation, the lunar ascent performance was barely holding on to a very slight positive margin, which made all of us engineers very uneasy. One exasperated engineer finally said, "Let's just fly the thing and see how much performance we've really got." Because we knew we could make the ISS mission, and that would give us flight data and several years of operations to improve the vehicle before we were ever going to have to do a lunar launch. And if we needed to, we could have always brought back the 9.3 nozzle, which would have been a big help.

Bottom line is that ascent performance was not a showstopper problem for Ares I, even though it was very serious. The most serious technical issue of Ares I was vibroacoustics, which was causing a lot of expensive subsystem redesign work. That was giving engineers fits. Other so-called problems, like thrust oscillation and post-destruct debris hazards, were just plain overblown.

Ares I did not deserve to be cancelled because of any technical issues. It did deserve to be cancelled because of cost and schedule issues. At least, that was from my vantage point of working in CxP Level 2 SE&I.