Author Topic: Ares I 1st stage replacement  (Read 125103 times)

Offline John Duncan

  • Member
  • Full Member
  • ****
  • Posts: 447
  • Odenville, Al
  • Liked: 2
  • Likes Given: 0
Re: Ares I 1st stage replacment.
« Reply #20 on: 07/23/2008 07:01 PM »
Oh my, the Delta IV mod seems almost too easy and is better looking than the "shaft".

Now I'm cheat'n on DIRECT!  Sorry Ross!

-John
"We'll remember the Shuttle days with fondness 20 years from now when we still don't have a replacement.  The something we had was better than the nothing we wound up with."


www.apollosaturn.com

Offline BogoMIPS

  • Veteran
  • Full Member
  • **
  • Posts: 271
  • Liked: 0
  • Likes Given: 0
Re: Ares I 1st stage replacment.
« Reply #21 on: 07/23/2008 07:35 PM »
So would Atlas V Phase 2

Agreed.  If you are going to replace Ares I's SRB with a liquid stage, I would much prefer an RP-1 solution, and Atlas derivative is the best head start.

Offline Capt. Nemo

  • Member
  • Full Member
  • *
  • Posts: 143
  • USS Nautilus
  • New Jersey
  • Liked: 0
  • Likes Given: 0
Re: Ares I 1st stage replacment.
« Reply #22 on: 07/23/2008 07:38 PM »
So would Atlas V Phase 2

Why do you prefer Atlas V Phase 2 to the Delta's Jim? (I remember in the ESAS that an 'Atlas Phase X' was mentioned.) Also, would it be impossible (or extremely difficult) to have 4 segment SRB's instead of the left and right CCB's that Delta IV Heavy has?
 {It looks nice when I draw it, but I really don't know what would be involved with actually building it}
 
"You can't declare yourself the boss of a chicken farm when you've only got one egg."  - Chinese saying

Offline simonbp

Re: Ares I 1st stage replacment.
« Reply #23 on: 07/23/2008 08:49 PM »
Agreed.  If you are going to replace Ares I's SRB with a liquid stage, I would much prefer an RP-1 solution, and Atlas derivative is the best head start.

With an RS-68 stage, you keep Ares V commonality, and don't have to deal with the "political issues" of using a Russian engine (even if it's built in the USA). Plus, you can still launch from LC-39 and not have to install an RP-1 feed system...

Simon ;)

Offline BogoMIPS

  • Veteran
  • Full Member
  • **
  • Posts: 271
  • Liked: 0
  • Likes Given: 0
Re: Ares I 1st stage replacment.
« Reply #24 on: 07/23/2008 09:19 PM »
With an RS-68 stage, you keep Ares V commonality,

This assumes that Ares V will exist, which I unfortunately question at this point.

Quote
and don't have to deal with the "political issues" of using a Russian engine (even if it's built in the USA).

Agreed, you need an "americanized" RP-1 engine, however you choose to slice it.  My preference is an RS-84, my opinion is that an american-built russian-designed system will still not pass congressional muster.

Quote
Plus, you can still launch from LC-39 and not have to install an RP-1 feed system...

Also valid.  But if, in this theoretical exercise, the Ares I doesn't use SRB hardware, my opinion is that Ares V will likely die. 

At this point, LC-39 might as well get rebuilt to support RP-1 again anyways, and plan to handle a larger evolution of an RP-1 first stage system.

Don't get me wrong... I suspect a new RP-1 first stage for crew launch is impossible in the current political climate.  A expanded Delta stage, like depicted in this thread, is probably an order of magnitude more likely.

But you let yourself go farther away from STS towards a clean-sheet with regards to infrastructure and workforce though, I think you end up with a more optimal crew launch system in the end.

Offline libs0n

  • Member
  • Full Member
  • ****
  • Posts: 476
  • Ottawa
  • Liked: 5
  • Likes Given: 2
Re: Ares I 1st stage replacment.
« Reply #25 on: 07/23/2008 09:53 PM »
With an RS-68 stage, you keep Ares V commonality, and don't have to deal with the "political issues" of using a Russian engine (even if it's built in the USA)...

Ditch the Ares V and its developmental and production costs.  Use a multi-core Ares 1B instead.  But I say this with either a RS-68 or RD-180 core.  Production line already exists with the Ares 1B, and you can order more components for their marginal cost, more or less.

I disagree with the severity of the "political issues" of NASA using the RD-180.  These are my arguments in support of that position:

1. The Air Force uses it, a military institution, for national security payloads.  Does Congress object?
2. NASA accepts as necessary an order of magnitude greater reliance of Russian services currently.
3. NASA has used the Atlas 5 for science missions.  Does Congress object?
4. Atlas 5 was included for consideration in ESAS.

All show a level of pragmatism in the institutions involved that is not in line with the idea that RD-180 use is unacceptable.  If NASA wanted to use it they would, and they could.
« Last Edit: 07/23/2008 10:02 PM by libs0n »

Offline Jim

  • Night Gator
  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 32377
  • Cape Canaveral Spaceport
  • Liked: 11063
  • Likes Given: 329
Re: Ares I 1st stage replacment.
« Reply #26 on: 07/23/2008 11:06 PM »
So would Atlas V Phase 2

Why do you prefer Atlas V Phase 2 to the Delta's Jim?
 

More efficent

nobodyofconsequence

  • Guest
Re: Ares I 1st stage replacment.
« Reply #27 on: 07/24/2008 12:01 AM »
The irony of Ed Kyles Ares 1b is that you could continue the idea backwards to Shuttle and forwards to Ares V (Ares Vb anyone?) and eliminate the need for the solids completely. Bye-bye ATK.

Offline Lampyridae

  • Veteran
  • Full Member
  • ****
  • Posts: 1689
  • Liked: 101
  • Likes Given: 199
Re: Ares I 1st stage replacment.
« Reply #28 on: 07/24/2008 12:24 AM »
The short-term logic of Ares-1B, especially an RS-68 1st stage, seems hard to argue. Unfortunately this puts the ATK component out of the loop... even though "shuttle derived" went out the window a couple of years back.

Jim, why do you say a 75mT to MTLEO Atlas V Phase 2 more efficient than, say, Atlas V HLV which is 29mT MTLEO? Is it more efficient for the moon, ie 1 vehicle 3-launch?

A baseball card PDF from ULA:
http://www.ulalaunch.com/images/product_sheet/Atlas_Product_Sheet_FINAL.pdf
SKYLON... The League of Extraordinary Gentlemen's preferred surface-to-orbit conveyance.

Offline edkyle99

  • Expert
  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 12807
    • Space Launch Report
  • Liked: 3787
  • Likes Given: 740
Re: Ares I 1st stage replacment.
« Reply #29 on: 07/24/2008 01:44 AM »
So would Atlas V Phase 2

Why do you prefer Atlas V Phase 2 to the Delta's Jim?
 

More efficent

Here's a comparison with a stretched Atlas V with two RD-180s, for example.  This particular concept has 335 tonnes of first stage propellant and 119 tonnes of second stage propellant.  Lockheed Martin proposed a fatter "Phase 2" Atlas, topped by a multi-engine Fat Centaur, that would have been even shorter, lighter, and therefore, presumably, less expensive than a Delta IV based hydrogen booster alternative.

For fun, pretend it is 2005 again and ponder which of the three seems least likely to be selected by NASA.  :/   

 - Ed Kyle
« Last Edit: 07/24/2008 02:09 AM by edkyle99 »

Offline kfsorensen

  • aerospace and nuclear engineer
  • Full Member
  • ****
  • Posts: 1550
  • Huntsville, AL
    • Flibe Energy
  • Liked: 117
  • Likes Given: 0
Re: Ares I 1st stage replacment.
« Reply #30 on: 07/24/2008 01:47 AM »
2 RD180s?  Why not 1 RD-171?

Oh, then it would be a Zenit first stage...

Offline edkyle99

  • Expert
  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 12807
    • Space Launch Report
  • Liked: 3787
  • Likes Given: 740
Re: Ares I 1st stage replacment.
« Reply #31 on: 07/24/2008 02:01 AM »
2 RD180s?  Why not 1 RD-171?

Oh, then it would be a Zenit first stage...

This stretched Atlas would carry a bit more propellant than the Zenit 2/3 first stage, but not much more.  A "Fat" (Phase 2) Atlas would probably have a better propellant mass fraction than either Zenit or this concept.  RD-180 would be more likely than RD-171 because it is already being imported by ULA, etc..

 - Ed Kyle
« Last Edit: 07/24/2008 02:03 AM by edkyle99 »

Offline Free2Think

  • Member
  • Posts: 35
  • Liked: 0
  • Likes Given: 0
Re: Ares I 1st stage replacment.
« Reply #32 on: 07/24/2008 02:02 AM »
A new administration may allow all sorts of rational changes to exploration. 

The simplest way to launch Orion is on either the Delta IV HLV or the Atlas V HLV, both with over 25 mT performance and the ability to close black zones, despite what some people might want to lead us all to believe.  Human rating these vehicles is relatively straight forward. http://www.ulalaunch.com/docs/publications/Atlas/Atlas_Human_Rating/Atlas_Emergency_Detection_System_2007-6127.pdf.


The single stick, dual engine concepts talked about here requires more near term development, though only a 3rd of that required for Ares I or Jupiter 120.  This would provide a cheaper recurring solution that is more reliable (fewer staging events and engines) while still common with rockets supporting the non-exploration of the market. Such a rocket is also on the path to provide much greater performance if desired.
http://www.ulalaunch.com/docs/publications/Atlas/Evolved_Atlas_To_Meet_Space_Transportation_Needs_2005-6815.pdf

Offline kfsorensen

  • aerospace and nuclear engineer
  • Full Member
  • ****
  • Posts: 1550
  • Huntsville, AL
    • Flibe Energy
  • Liked: 117
  • Likes Given: 0
Re: Ares I 1st stage replacment.
« Reply #33 on: 07/24/2008 03:47 AM »
RD-180 would be more likely than RD-171 because it is already being imported by ULA, etc..

Even though you say that Pratt and Whitney is abandoning their RD-AMROSS effort?

Offline kraisee

  • Expert
  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 10483
  • Liked: 414
  • Likes Given: 19
Re: Ares I 1st stage replacment.
« Reply #34 on: 07/24/2008 05:38 AM »
Running some numbers quickly, this *might* be able to fly the current ~22,500kg Lunar-capable Orion.

T:W at liftoff carrying a full Ares-I Upper Stage is only 1.03 and first stage performance carrying that is truly awful. So, to get any sort of reasonable performance you're looking at the US needing to being shrunk quite a bit.

Dropping it to around the optimum, which appears to be around 50,000kg capacity, the first stage still seems underpowered with a T:W 1.19. I can insert an Orion to 130x130nm, 29.0deg, but dynamic pressure (max-Q) is obscenely high, well above 1000psf.   All my runs assumed the full 108% RS-68 and the full 294,000lb thrust J-2X.

A couple of other points...

Schedule: J-2X is still in the critical path so this still won't fly before 2015/16.

Cost: ATK are shut-out entirely so there won't be any way to escape paying a compensation fee to them to terminate the current Ares-I contract. Also two new cryo stages, 1 new liquid engine and 2 liquid engine human-rating programs are still needed so this won't be any cheaper than Ares-I. Not to mention new tooling, launch facilities etc so there won't be any savings over Ares-I in this department either.

Performance: Assuming the heating conditions are still viable (I don't think so, but YMMV), this can't improve upon Ares-I's performance. So it still requires a second HLLV system to be implemented to perform the planned 2-launch architecture - but now that system has to include the costs of the 5-seg boosters so it'll be an even worse horse-pill for Congress to swallow.

Politics: Doesn't save any jobs or infrastructure. Won't win friends. And ATK being shut out will earn a powerful enemy in D.C. - Underestimate them at your peril.

IMHO, This system needs a 3rd RS-68 and a more efficient (higher Isp, longer burning) Upper Stage.   But that's essentially what Delta-IV Heavy is already.   And it is a far cheaper and easier solution than this - mostly because its already in production.


But I'll also return to my preference:   If you are going to the effort of designing a new Thrust Structure for a new stage and you are going to human-rate the RS-68, why not combine those with the existing ET tooling, the existing human-rated SRB's and the existing infrastructure and make something in a performance class of its own where there is no competition at all? Especially as that will scale to Lunar & Mars missions as well.

I just don't see any common sense in making "yet another" EELV class booster.   There are enough of those to choose from already and for that performance range we should be using those not developing more.   If you *are* going to spend money developing something new, it really needs to be something *NEW*.

Ross.
« Last Edit: 07/24/2008 05:43 AM by kraisee »
"The meek shall inherit the Earth -- the rest of us will go to the stars"
-Robert A. Heinlein

Online MATTBLAK

  • Elite Veteran & 'J.A.F.A'
  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 4342
  • 'Space Cadets' Let us; UNITE!! (crickets chirping)
  • New Zealand
  • Liked: 1132
  • Likes Given: 2150
Re: Ares I 1st stage replacment.
« Reply #35 on: 07/24/2008 08:59 AM »
Thanks, Ross. However, I for one wasn't trying to imply that Ares 1B would be better than J-120   ;) -- this thread has been an interesting and refreshing discussion!! However, I certainly meant that, like J-120, Ares 1B would get rid of thrust oscillation, would likely cost less than Ares 1 with its 5-Segment solid, and unlike the Ares 1-solid, Ares 1B has clear upgrade paths and options open if Orion has an upwards-creeping mass trend. Also, the Ares 1B with its RS-68 engines avoids the will-they, wont-they use Russian engines controversy.

Of course, if the RS-84 or TR-107 had been built, many of these discussions probably wouldn't even exist or would be academic at best.

Or would they...? You pointed out in several posts and threads that ATK is very powerful, that many non-solid options would be stiff-armed into non-existence. Now, I may be asked to save it for another thread (or desist entirely) but doesn't it bother most everyone else here the power they have? Should it, someday, have that power broken down?
"Those who can't, Blog".   'Space Cadets' of the World - Let us UNITE!! (crickets chirping)

Offline kraisee

  • Expert
  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 10483
  • Liked: 414
  • Likes Given: 19
Re: Ares I 1st stage replacment.
« Reply #36 on: 07/24/2008 09:11 AM »
Just my personal opinion - if we already had some 1m lb+ thrust RP-1 *domestic* engines, I think the SRB's would have been in trouble for the new program.   Russian engines, while they exist already, were never going to cut it with Congress for this flagship program.

If we had had RS-84/TR-107/F-1A in production by 2004, I personally think that Atlas would probably have been in a great position to switch to them and could probably have been up-and-running on their own dime with their Phase-2 system even before ESAS would ever got published.

If they had done that - and human-rated it too - entirely speculatively at the very first hint of a new program (say, staring work just 6 months after Columbia's loss) I don't think we'd be having any of the discussions we're having now and they would have essentially wrapped up the whole market.

Congress would have just turned around with ESAS and said 'but hang on a minute NASA - Lockheed already have a human rated launcher in this performance class which can do this job for a lot less, you need to use it because $14bn sounds like a lot to pay for a duplicate'.

But we don't have, they didn't speculate and we are still discussing.

That's entirely IMHO.


As for ATK's power - you have to realise that Boeing and Lockheed have similar sized lobby groups too.   But space is a fairly small part of their overall businesses so their lobbyists spend only a portion of their efforts on this market.   For ATK, it's this business and weapons only, so they can afford to spend a lot more of their effort in the space arena.   And it shows.

It also helps when you have one of your guys in real close to the new Administrator who ultimately puts him in charge of the whole shooting match too.   That gets you a long long way in any business.

Ross.
« Last Edit: 07/24/2008 09:28 AM by kraisee »
"The meek shall inherit the Earth -- the rest of us will go to the stars"
-Robert A. Heinlein

Offline MB123

  • Full Member
  • **
  • Posts: 234
  • Liked: 0
  • Likes Given: 0
Re: Ares I 1st stage replacment.
« Reply #37 on: 07/24/2008 09:34 AM »
Someone, earlier, introduced the fact that the SRB (compared to the liquid engines) will always light and won't shut down until it is supposed to.

Is this still a factor?

Offline Magnus_Redin

  • Regular
  • Full Member
  • *
  • Posts: 144
  • Liked: 0
  • Likes Given: 1
Re: Ares I 1st stage replacment.
« Reply #38 on: 07/24/2008 10:01 AM »
Someone, earlier, introduced the fact that the SRB (compared to the liquid engines) will always light and won't shut down until it is supposed to.

Brilliant spinn on SRB:s being almost uncontrollable! (There are SRB:s with thrust
termination devices but that is a violent process. )

Offline renclod

  • Extreme Veteran
  • Full Member
  • ****
  • Posts: 1663
  • EU.Ro
  • Liked: 8
  • Likes Given: 2
Re: Ares I 1st stage replacment.
« Reply #39 on: 07/24/2008 11:32 AM »

As for ATK's power - you have to realise that Boeing and Lockheed have similar sized lobby groups too.   But space is a fairly small part of their overall businesses so their lobbyists spend only a portion of their efforts on this market.   For ATK, it's this business and weapons only, so they can afford to spend a lot more of their effort in the space arena.   And it shows.
Ross.

From ATK's Form 10-K annual reports to SEC (for the fiscal year ending March 31) :

RSRM sales represents xx% from total ATK sales:
2008 9%
2007 11%
2006 13%
2005 14%
2004 16%

Total sales to NASA xx% from total ATK sales (as prime and sub):
2008 20%
2007 15%
2006 14%
2005 15%
2004 16%

I would encourage other forum members to do a similar research for Boeing and for LM. (10-K's are in the public domain). Then come back and report here !


Tags: