NASASpaceFlight.com Forum

SLS / Orion / Beyond-LEO HSF - Constellation => Cancelled Ares I and Ares Tests => Topic started by: catdlr on 08/05/2017 03:34 AM

Title: ARES I-X: NASA Knowledge Session
Post by: catdlr on 08/05/2017 03:34 AM
ARES I-X: Introduction

Playlist: https://www.youtube.com/playlist?list=PLpEqMkxe7Xk8gJ1Ot8dyDLE1lAdwNvYN0

Introduction Video: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=MZAcw3Zm9hw?t=001

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=MZAcw3Zm9hw
Title: Re: ARES I-X: NASA Knowledge Session
Post by: A_M_Swallow on 08/05/2017 06:36 AM
This was nearly 8 years ago. Fun to watch any reason for the video being issued?
Title: Re: ARES I-X: NASA Knowledge Session
Post by: Proponent on 08/05/2017 07:25 AM
I don't understand how the same organization that thought Aries I-X was a good idea can also think its reasonable to fly EM-1 around the moon with a crew (just a little too expensive).
Title: Re: ARES I-X: NASA Knowledge Session
Post by: A_M_Swallow on 08/05/2017 08:55 AM
I don't understand how the same organization that thought Aries I-X was a good idea can also think its reasonable to fly EM-1 around the moon with a crew (just a little too expensive).

That is easy basic politics. If you want to keep your job you do not say "No" the the President. You can how every drop a few hints that it would be inadvisable. Money is a good hint.
Title: Re: ARES I-X: NASA Knowledge Session
Post by: SWGlassPit on 08/07/2017 05:56 PM
I don't understand how the same organization that thought Aries I-X was a good idea can also think its reasonable to fly EM-1 around the moon with a crew (just a little too expensive).

That is easy basic politics. If you want to keep your job you do not say "No" the the President. You can how every drop a few hints that it would be inadvisable. Money is a good hint.

You can also frame it as, "yes, but it will cost $X,XXX to bring the risk to acceptable levels," where $X,XXX is quite a bit more than the target audience wants to spend.
Title: Re: ARES I-X: NASA Knowledge Session
Post by: Patchouli on 08/07/2017 08:52 PM
Ares I was one of those ideas that seemed like a good one on the surface but the devil was in the details esp with the requirements forced by the 1.5 launch architecture and a minimum of LEO assembly for lunar missions.

It might have worked if they stuck with the spiral development program so they were not forced to try and meet a 25+ ton payload target on the first version or drop the requirement that it have only a single upper stage engine.

Though the vehicle would have made a lot more sense during 1990s when low cost EELV class vehicles simply were not available.
Title: Re: ARES I-X: NASA Knowledge Session
Post by: Propylox on 08/08/2017 03:57 AM
...
It might have worked if they stuck with the spiral development program so they were not forced to try and meet a 25+ ton payload target on the first version or drop the requirement that it have only a single upper stage engine. ...
25mT wasn't an issue, nor was a single J-2X. Having to use the same size solid as AresV was the problem. A reduction to a 3.5segment reduces the minimum mass of the 2nd stage so J-2X could actually lift it, resulting in 25mT to LEO and 10mT to GTO with a solid 3rd stage. Discuss here;
https://forum.nasaspaceflight.com/index.php?topic=9460.msg1709872#msg1709872