ARES H - yet another ARES alternative configuration concept

[docm]

<p>Here comes another Rockoon thread <img src="http://sitelife.space.com/ver1.0/content/scripts/tinymce/plugins/emotions/images/smiley-wink.gif" border="0" alt="Wink" title="Wink" /></p><p><br /> <img src="http://sitelife.space.com/ver1.0/Content/images/store/11/7/7b69eafa-859b-4b16-a782-01cbabc41377.Medium.jpg" alt="" /><br />&nbsp;</p> <div class="Discussion_UserSignature"> </div>

 

[Bytor_YYZ]

<p><BR/>Replying to:<BR/><DIV CLASS='Discussion_PostQuote'>not if your launch system is lighter than air. <br /> Posted by BrianSlee</DIV></p><p>This thread is about real launch vehicles and not Scifi/nonplausible schemes </p>

 

[Bytor_YYZ]

<p><BR/>Replying to:<BR/><DIV CLASS='Discussion_PostQuote'>&nbsp;4 SRB vehicle is non viable.The crawlerway, pad and VAB can't support it &nbsp; There is nothing new under the sun when using SRB's, RS-68, J-2's etc.&nbsp; All combinations have been looked at already.Even crazy Gaetano Marano can put together nonviable Ares configurationshttp://www.ghostnasa.com/posts/034ares33.html &nbsp;Launch vehicles are not LEGO's <br /> Posted by Bytor_YYZ</DIV></p><p>Gaetano Marano this is for you.&nbsp; Are H won't work </p>

 

[trailrider]

<p><BR/>Replying to:<BR/><DIV CLASS='Discussion_PostQuote'>Solids and liquids have different failure modes, but liquids have more of them which are catastrophic.&nbsp; For instance, you can grenade the turbomachinery and send a sharpel through the tank causing an immediate explosion. You can also have a sudden loss of thrust during lift off and crash back down and blow up. You can have boil off related overpressure failures. You can have cavitation failure in the fuel lines.On solids the only real safety issue that is not matched by similar problems on liquids is that you can't shut it off. But you never want to shut off a rocket once it leaves the pad. If you have to abort, you'll use your launch abort system to blast clear of the vehicle whether it is shut off or not so the ability to shut down an engine is practically irrelevant for safety. As for burn through of the casing or O-rings, you are just as likely to burn through the chamber or nozzle in a liquid engine so that is not really a downside.Solids give you a lot of thrust is a very small package. This is what you want on a 1st stage, whose perpose is basically to loft a big enough upper stack off the pad and onto a staging event at a high alitude while being compact enough to have a managably sized vehicle with good aerodynamics during the initial ascent. This is why lower stages focus on thrust density not specific impulse and are usually either Kerosene or Solids. A popular arrangement is to use an oversized hydrogen core stage whose engine thrust is less than the weight of the stage. You strap solids onto it and such that the hydrogen engine can burn off enough fuel so the vehicle is light enough for its thrust level after solid separation. This is the mos efficient 1.5 stage to orbit solution and is used by the Shuttle and the Arianne V. <br />Posted by dwightlooi</DIV></p><p>All nice, valid points...up to a point!&nbsp; But when you are riding that rocket, it's nice to be able to shut it down in an emergency and not have to get such a kick in the pants to get away from it.&nbsp; Keep in mind, the last thing Challenger telemetered to the ground was that the SSME's were trying to shut down, having "run out of fuel" (due to disintegration of the ET)!&nbsp; An all-liquid bird got us to the Moon quite nicely, thank you!&nbsp; And on several of those flights, and IIRC two Shuttle Flights, a shutdown of a liquid engine resulted in a successful Abort-to-Orbit! </p><p>Rockets are inherently dangerous beasts!&nbsp; And I have worked more solid systems than big liquids (though I cut my teeth on my own nitric acid/analine jobs as early as 15 years old), and I trust perfected liquids for high-value (manned or expensive satellite) payloads more than those firecrackers!&nbsp; Make no mistake: liquids make lousy quick reaction missiles (ICBM's, etc.), and it is a proven fact you do NOT want one aboard your submarine!&nbsp; But for big boosters, give me a high DENSITY-SPECIFIC IMPULSE combination like LOX/RP-1 or even hypergols.</p><p>Ad Luna! Ad Ares! Ad Astra!<br /></p>

 

[scottb50]

<p><BR/>Replying to:<BR/><DIV CLASS='Discussion_PostQuote'>All nice, valid points...up to a point!&nbsp; But when you are riding that rocket, it's nice to be able to shut it down in an emergency and not have to get such a kick in the pants to get away from it.&nbsp; Keep in mind, the last thing Challenger telemetered to the ground was that the SSME's were trying to shut down, having "run out of fuel" (due to disintegration of the ET)!&nbsp; An all-liquid bird got us to the Moon quite nicely, thank you!&nbsp; And on several of those flights, and IIRC two Shuttle Flights, a shutdown of a liquid engine resulted in a successful Abort-to-Orbit! Rockets are inherently dangerous beasts!&nbsp; And I have worked more solid systems than big liquids (though I cut my teeth on my own nitric acid/analine jobs as early as 15 years old), and I trust perfected liquids for high-value (manned or expensive satellite) payloads more than those firecrackers!&nbsp; Make no mistake: liquids make lousy quick reaction missiles (ICBM's, etc.), and it is a proven fact you do NOT want one aboard your submarine!&nbsp; But for big boosters, give me a high DENSITY-SPECIFIC IMPULSE combination like LOX/RP-1 or even hypergols.Ad Luna! Ad Ares! Ad Astra! <br /> Posted by trailrider</DIV></p><p>Either way you have known conditions that can lead to failure, whether mechanical, human or PFM failures happen in everything, that's what statistics proves, there is a number for everything. Liquids have more avenues for failure then solids, but most of them can be dealt with by having multiple engines and the expectations one or more will fail. Solids fit in a different category, with more then one you could have either or some, fail to ignite, or you could have a Challenger type event. I would even go as far as to say if such a failure as happened to Challenger had been planned for, and as pointed out the computers saw the problem, it may have been possible to save the vehicle and crew, if the failure had been anticipated. Challenger probably wouldn't have made a normal landing, but an ocean ditching might have saved the crew.</p><p>20/20 hindsight is great, but being able to anticipate, and plan for problems is more important. The real downfall of the Shuttle is that was not an option. The crew&nbsp; module is an independant structure mated to the airframe,get rid of all the stuff to support a two week mission and the crew module could be separated and safely recovered.</p><p>Too bad Shuttle 2.0 was never developed.&nbsp;</p><p>&nbsp;</p> <div class="Discussion_UserSignature"> </div>

 

[mattblack]

<p>The only two things really wrong with Ares H are:</p><p>1): The existing crawler transporters, let alone the new ones that are being considered for a 2x 5.5 Segment SRB Ares V -- neither they nor the roadway can withstand the weight of 4x SRBs. Adding 2 more SRBs, even 4 segment ones, will add <strong><em>hundreds</em></strong> of tons to the crawler and road requirements. EXPENSIVE and complex. The SRBs might even have to be attached outdoors, at the launchpad.</p><p>2): 4x SRBs would put <em><strong>tremendous</strong></em> dynamic strain on the corestage/tank --&nbsp;with vastly increased thrust, acceleration and oscillation/vibration stresses to deal with. Lots of new equipment and design features would have to be incorporated into&nbsp;the corestage/tank to withstand these stresses and this would cut into the payload figures.</p> <div class="Discussion_UserSignature"> <p> </p><p>One Percent of Federal Funding For Space: America <strong><em><u>CAN</u></em></strong> Afford it!!  LEO is a <strong><em>Prison</em></strong> -- It's time for a <em><strong>JAILBREAK</strong></em>!!</p> </div>

 

[kyle_baron]

<p><BR/>Replying to:<BR/><DIV CLASS='Discussion_PostQuote'>The only two things really wrong with Ares H are:1): The existing crawler transporters, let alone the new ones that are being considered for a 2x 5.5 Segment SRB Ares V -- neither they nor the roadway can withstand the weight of 4x SRBs. Adding 2 more SRBs, even 4 segment ones, will add hundreds of tons to the crawler and road requirements. EXPENSIVE and complex. The SRBs might even have to be attached outdoors, at the launchpad.</DIV></p><p><strong>Expensive-Yes, Complex-No.&nbsp; The 50 ft.wide grass center strip of the crawlerway, can be dug out and filled in with rock.&nbsp; New crawlers can be designed for the 18 million + lbs. of the entire stack.&nbsp; The main problem would be a new launch pad a 39B.</strong></p><p>&nbsp;Replying to:<BR/><DIV CLASS='Discussion_PostQuote'>2): 4x SRBs would put tremendous dynamic strain on the corestage/tank --&nbsp;with vastly increased thrust, acceleration and oscillation/vibration stresses to deal with.</DIV></p><p><strong>I would think that the opposite would be closer to the truth.&nbsp; The 4 SRB's surrounding the core tank would better balance vibration and occilation.&nbsp; I agree there would be more stress on the core, and that would have to be reinforced.</strong></p><p>&nbsp;Replying to:<BR/><DIV CLASS='Discussion_PostQuote'>Lots of new equipment and design features would have to be incorporated into&nbsp;the corestage/tank to withstand these stresses and this would cut into the payload figures. <br />Posted by mattblack</DIV></p><p><strong>There's plenty of payload mass capacity with 4 SRB's.&nbsp; Actually, more than is required.&nbsp; That's the nice thing about it.</strong></p><p><br /><br />&nbsp;</p> <div class="Discussion_UserSignature"> <p><font size="4"><strong></strong></font></p> </div>

 

[DrRocket]

<p><BR/>Replying to:<BR/><DIV CLASS='Discussion_PostQuote'>All nice, valid points...up to a point!&nbsp; But when you are riding that rocket, it's nice to be able to shut it down in an emergency and not have to get such a kick in the pants to get away from it.&nbsp; Keep in mind, the last thing Challenger telemetered to the ground was that the SSME's were trying to shut down, having "run out of fuel" (due to disintegration of the ET)!&nbsp; An all-liquid bird got us to the Moon quite nicely, thank you!&nbsp; And on several of those flights, and IIRC two Shuttle Flights, a shutdown of a liquid engine resulted in a successful Abort-to-Orbit! Rockets are inherently dangerous beasts!&nbsp; And I have worked more solid systems than big liquids (though I cut my teeth on my own nitric acid/analine jobs as early as 15 years old), and I trust perfected liquids for high-value (manned or expensive satellite) payloads more than those firecrackers!&nbsp; Make no mistake: liquids make lousy quick reaction missiles (ICBM's, etc.), and it is a proven fact you do NOT want one aboard your submarine!&nbsp; But for big boosters, give me a high DENSITY-SPECIFIC IMPULSE combination like LOX/RP-1 or even hypergols.Ad Luna! Ad Ares! Ad Astra! <br />Posted by trailrider</DIV></p><p>The only reason that you could have a liquid shut-down and an abort to orbit is because the solids provided enough boost to get the necessary delta-V.&nbsp; You couldn't do that if the major portion of the thrust were the liquids that get shut down.</p><p>High density and high Isp are good combinations, but difficult to come by.&nbsp; You suggestion is a good one.&nbsp; But even then if that is your main propulsion system and you shut down the engines, you crash.</p><p>I am personally a bit skeptical about escape systems, since most failure modes that I have dealt with result in failure in a few milliseconds and are not readily detected with instrumentation in anything like a timely manner.&nbsp; I think the way to deal with failure modes is to make sure that they don't result in failures rather than to prepare exotic and failure prone escape systems.&nbsp; You are correct -- rockets are a bit dangerous.&nbsp; <br /></p> <div class="Discussion_UserSignature"> </div>

 

[mattblack]

<p><BR/>Replying to:<BR/><DIV CLASS='Discussion_PostQuote'>Expensive-Yes, Complex-No.&nbsp; The 50 ft.wide grass center strip of the crawlerway, can be dug out and filled in with rock.&nbsp; New crawlers can be designed for the 18 million + lbs. of the entire stack.&nbsp; The main problem would be a new launch pad a 39B.&nbsp;I would think that the opposite would be closer to the truth.&nbsp; The 4 SRB's surrounding the core tank would better balance vibration and occilation.&nbsp; I agree there would be more stress on the core, and that would have to be reinforced.&nbsp;There's plenty of payload mass capacity with 4 SRB's.&nbsp; Actually, more than is required.&nbsp; That's the nice thing about it.&nbsp; <br />Posted by kyle_baron</DIV></p><p>I admire your enthusiasm and optimism but you're understating the difficulties and challenges involved; don't let your optimism become blind hand-waving. <em><strong>None</strong></em> of these modifications would be simple, cheap or easy. And this has been amply demonstrated by the Ares 1&nbsp;project so far with much &nbsp;<strong><em>less</em></strong> ambitious goals. New crawlers, VAB&nbsp;and dock/crane facilities, pads and roadways will cost tens of billions of dollars. The wealthiest and most powerful nation on Earth <strong><em>can</em></strong> afford all this relatively easily, they just <strong><em>choose not to</em></strong>:&nbsp;You know the <em>'keepers of the taxpayers treasure'</em> simply wont go for it. As for 4x SRBs? NASA itself has an Ares V-MAX concept under study that has 2x&nbsp;SRBs&nbsp;and 2x Delta IV corestages adapted into strap-on boosters. This&nbsp;might make more sense than 4x SRBs and would yield not much less payload&nbsp;with much less hassle.</p><p>It would make <em><strong>far more</strong></em> sense to utilise existing infrastructure and launchers -- creating a mixed fleet of sensibly modified Atlas V or Delta IV boosters for Orion along with a purer, less-contrived Shuttle-based heavy launcher for cargo, like Jupiter/Direct or even Shuttle B or C.</p><p>Also, NASA is about to undergo a titanic struggle to keep Constellation more or less on track and possibly keep the Shuttle flying another year or so. If I were Griffin and the new Administration I would not stretch Shuttle beyond the middle of 2012,&nbsp;including delays. This might entail retiring <em>Atlantis</em> to be a spare parts hanger queen and only flying <em>Endeavour</em> and <em>Discovery</em> 3 more times each than is currently scheduled. That means building 6 more External Tanks with maybe a spare seventh. After that -- game over, no ifs, buts or maybes. Anything else is risky-- nay crazy. And only then with bi-partisan political support.<br /><br />American citizens -- you guys and you guys <strong><em>alone</em></strong> can save your manned space program. Let your Congress people, Senators and Presidential Candidates know that manned space exploration is important to you and the future of your children. Even if NASA's budget were rounded up to $20 billion dollars per year, Americans would still be spending <strong><em><u>LESS</u></em></strong> then 1% percent of the discretionary Federal Budget -- about the price of one cup of coffee per citizen per week. For one cappucino per week, American citizens could literally have the Solar System!! <img src="http://sitelife.space.com/ver1.0/content/scripts/tinymce/plugins/emotions/images/smiley-wink.gif" border="0" alt="Wink" title="Wink" /></p> <div class="Discussion_UserSignature"> <p> </p><p>One Percent of Federal Funding For Space: America <strong><em><u>CAN</u></em></strong> Afford it!!  LEO is a <strong><em>Prison</em></strong> -- It's time for a <em><strong>JAILBREAK</strong></em>!!</p> </div>

 

[trailrider]

<p><BR/>Replying to:<BR/><DIV CLASS='Discussion_PostQuote'>The only reason that you could have a liquid shut-down and an abort to orbit is because the solids provided enough boost to get the necessary delta-V.&nbsp; You couldn't do that if the major portion of the thrust were the liquids that get shut down.High density and high Isp are good combinations, but difficult to come by.&nbsp; You suggestion is a good one.&nbsp; But even then if that is your main propulsion system and you shut down the engines, you crash.I am personally a bit skeptical about escape systems, since most failure modes that I have dealt with result in failure in a few milliseconds and are not readily detected with instrumentation in anything like a timely manner.&nbsp; I think the way to deal with failure modes is to make sure that they don't result in failures rather than to prepare exotic and failure prone escape systems.&nbsp; You are correct -- rockets are a bit dangerous.&nbsp; <br />Posted by DrRocket</DIV><br /><br />The late, great Gen. Albert Boyd (Chuck Yeager's boss back in the 1940's) said about aircraft, "The only thing you have to do to prang an airplane is be in it, and the nearer the ground you are, the less time you have to do anything about it."&nbsp; I'd say that goes to the 10th power about rockets, liquid or solid.</p><p>Your point about making sure the failures don't result in real problems is well taken.&nbsp; Increasing mass is always a buggaboo in airborne structures.&nbsp; But it is nice to have a bit of overdesign margin, rather than cutting everything to the bone because one has designed a marginal launch vehicle in the first place, which is what Ares I/Orion seems to be doing.</p><p>BTW, Orion PDR has been slipped to September 2009!&nbsp; And the beat goes on...</p><p>Ad LEO??? Ad Luna! Ad Ares (Mars)! Ad Astra!&nbsp; (How do you say that in Mandarin?)</p>

 

[marko_doda]

<p>the ARES V presented in the picture would probably happen when there is demand for a bigger launch vehicle.</p><p>As for the ARES I, i think is good to have a 25 tons Orion Spacecraft, you gonna need a lot of place for seven people on the way to ISS and back from the moon, plus the equipment & supplies needed and the rocks from mars & the moon to bring back. On the way to the ISS the extra space will be used to bring spare part, supplies and experiments, on the way back you can bring the finished experiments & used parts for study, or even some part of the garbage to study the effects of space .... </p>

 

[rubicondsrv]

<p><BR/>Replying to:<BR/><DIV CLASS='Discussion_PostQuote'>the ARES V presented in the picture would probably happen when there is demand for a bigger launch vehicle.As for the ARES I, i think is good to have a 25 tons Orion Spacecraft, you gonna need a lot of place for seven people on the way to ISS and back from the moon, plus the equipment & supplies needed and the rocks from mars & the moon to bring back. On the way to the ISS the extra space will be used to bring spare part, supplies and experiments, on the way back you can bring the finished experiments & used parts for study, or even some part of the garbage to study the effects of space .... <br />Posted by marko_doda</DIV><br /><br />deltaIVh can perform the function of ARES 1 just fine. particularly with the engine upgrade that is being funded by USAF.</p><p>the main benifit of ARES 1 is enabling ARES V. </p><p>without using SRM's you either must pay to keep production capability existing or be perpared to pay to rebuild it.</p><p>no well managed company is going to let resorces sit idle without geting paid for it. the resources used for srm production will be repurposed towards another function unless NASA keeps buying srm's or pays to keep production capability.</p><p>&nbsp;</p> <div class="Discussion_UserSignature"> </div>