Ares I in political trouble?

[frodo1008]

As the contract to ATK to develope the 5 segment SRB is some 3 billion:<br /><br />Would it have cost that much for either Boeing (Delta IV Heavy) or LM (Atlas V Heavy), or ALS (Boeing +LM) with Delta IV or Atlas V or perhaps both to develope a higher thrust Heavy by one of three methods?<br /><br />Method one being to add two more symmetrical Common Booster Cores to the current Heavy configuration of two such CBC's? This would mean five large liquid thrust engines instead of three, increasing the thrust and payload at a relatively small developement investment.<br /><br />Method two: Some of my own contacts at Rocketdyne had told me that Rocketdyne (which is always doing some kind of in house work of this nature) had already considered and done some work on increasing the thust of the RS68 from its current 665 K lbs of thrust up at least 1 million lbs of thrust (a 50% increase in thrust). I do think that Rocketdyne could do this for far less than ATK's 3 billion! So even the current 3 engine configuration would easily have enough increased thrust for almost any capsule that NASA could possibly want to put on it!<br /><br />Finally, there is the ultimate of doing both methods one and two together for a vehicle fully capable of placing over 100,000 lbs into LEO! <br /><br />There was a chart by Boeing (sorry, I don't know where it is) that I saw on a post on this forum that showed (at least for the Delta IV) all of these steady improvements in the size and thrust of the Delta IV all the way up to a vehicle with far more capability than the venerable Saturn V!!!<br /><br />So I would like to think that there is indeed a technical path to bith a lower cost Ares I and Ares V! Also, I would imagine that any of Elon Musk's or Burt Rutan's eventual lower cost solutions would also involve some kind of liguid engined CBC;s also!!

 

[docm]

IMO either a reconfigured RS68 <i>or</i> the successful development of SpaceX's Merlin 3 blows the Ares 1 logic out of the water. Hell, for that matter metal has not been cut for Orion so how about just clipping <i><b>it</b></i> 10% ? <div class="Discussion_UserSignature"> </div>

 

[thereiwas]

<blockquote><font class="small">In reply to:</font><hr /><p>Yet NASA requires launching some of the propellant for the lunar mission alongside the crew capsule.<p><hr /></p></p></blockquote><br /><br />A cheaper solution for that is to launch the crew and extra fuel separately. Multiple smaller launches to assemble the earth-moon vehicle in LEO is also the Russian's proposal. They took a reasonable approach of "what can we do with what we've got?"

 

[docm]

Not a bad approach, and the next logical question is could that be done with a 4-segment? If so then a whole development step is no longer necessary.<br /><br />While we'er discussing CEV options; what about the PTV that Lockheed's been pushing for use on the Atlas for Bigelow flights? It's a 7-8 crew capsule based on their Genesis, Stardust, and several Mars missions, which makes me wonder if its TPS could be, or could be upgraded to, upgraded to be lunar capable? <br /><br />It's even designed to use LC-41.<br /><br />Graphic below, PDF here <div class="Discussion_UserSignature"> </div>

 

[gunsandrockets]

<So I would like to think that there is indeed a technical path to bith a lower cost Ares I and Ares V!><br /><br />I tend to favor a scaled down CEV and Atlas V 401 for a CLV.<br /><br />For a heavy cargo launcher an EELV derived vehicle is not neccessarily the best solution. Instead I favor a sidemount style Shuttle derived heavy launch vehicle using the standard 4-segment SRB, the lightweight ET, and two RS-68 and two RL-10. ET plus RS-68 staging would occur at slightly suborbital speed, the RL-10 taking the payload the rest of the way into orbit.

 

[gunsandrockets]

<A cheaper solution for that is to launch the crew and extra fuel separately. Multiple smaller launches to assemble the earth-moon vehicle in LEO is also the Russian's proposal.><br /><br />One possibility is to dry launch the CEV and fully fuel it in orbit.<br /><br />I imagine something very like the NASA CEV, only with a 4.3 meter diameter capsule massing 6 tonnes. This smaller CEV would still have a service module capable of holding enough propellant for the trans-earth-injection burn of a lunar mission, just as the NASA CEV. But the smaller CEV would launch with the service module mostly empty of propellant, this would permit even a single core Atlas V to launch the smaller CEV into Earth orbit.<br /><br />For ordinary ISS missions the CEV would have enough propellant when launched to accomplish the mission. But for lunar missions the CEV would require a full propellant load which would have to be supplied after the CEV reaches orbit.

 

[radarredux]

> <i><font color="yellow">Would it have cost that much for either Boeing (Delta IV Heavy) or LM (Atlas V Heavy), or ALS (Boeing +LM) with Delta IV or Atlas V or perhaps both to develope a higher thrust Heavy by one of three methods?</font>/i><br /><br />I have read (although I don't know the numbers) that both Boeing and LM invested a fairly substantial amount of their own money (in addition to the DOD's) to develop the EELV.<br /><br />Does anyone know the accuracy of this? Does anyone have an estimate of the dollars that Boing and LM invested into the EELVs?</i>

 

[tomnackid]

1) Ares 1 / Orion is NOT a taxi to LEO (although it can be used as such when the situation warrants) its sole purpose for existence is to take people to the moon and eventually mars ("Ares", get it?)<br /><br />2) Ares 1 does not have "major problems". Development is moving along rather well--certainly with fewer problems than Saturn V or the Shuttle had by this point. All launch vehicles are a trade off.<br /><br />3) A shuttle derived lauch vehicle like Ares 1 keeps the skills and tooling available for the the real prize--the shuttle derived Ares V. No private company (can you even call Boeng and Lockmart private companies with a straight face?) is going to want to produce a HLLV that has only one customer for the foreseeable future. So, even though an EELV could possibly launch Orion it is a dead end. You will get an Apollo "flags and footprints" sjhow if you are lucky, no moon base, no mars.<br /><br />4) NASA Watch is a rag that regularly posts rumors and inuendo as fact and rarely (if ever?) retracts any of the information that proves to be off base. I belive in accountability for government agancies (and for private agencies for that matter!) but just being a mouth piece for disgruntled mid level engineers, rocket scientist wannabes and knee-jerk, anti government liber-terrorists isn't journalism in my opinion.

 

[christine16]

you have solution

 

[radarredux]

> <i><font color="yellow"> but just being a mouth piece for disgruntled mid level engineers, rocket scientist wannabes and knee-jerk, anti government liber-terrorists isn't journalism in my opinion.</font>/i><br /><br />But Keith does get cited or interviewed a lot in other sources.</i>

 

[radarredux]

> <i><font color="yellow">1) Ares 1 / Orion is NOT a taxi to LEO (although it can be used as such when the situation warrants) its sole purpose for existence is to take people to the moon and eventually mars ("Ares", get it?)</font>/i><br /><br />Although, the Orion won't be leaving leaving LEO for 11-13 more years. It would have been nice to have a development path that would get Orion flying earlier at least for LEO missions.</i>

 

[tomnackid]

Like I said, the trade off is fly the Orion to LEO earlier on a EELV and end up with an Apollo redux (at most) and no mars for the foreseeable future. We have had enough of LEO. Soyuz and private companies can have LEO.

 

[gunsandrockets]

<A shuttle derived lauch vehicle like Ares 1 keeps the skills and tooling available for the the real prize--the shuttle derived Ares V.><br /><br />The Ares I scheme is likely to kill the Ares V rather than save it. Ares I is so expensive that development of a heavy lift launcher is pushed back. And Ares I is turning out to be so expensive in combination with the other problems NASA is suffering, from budget cutbacks and unexpected Shuttle expenses, that NASA may end up with only the Ares I and NO Ares V!

 

[radarredux]

> <i><font color="yellow">The Ares I scheme is likely to kill the Ares V rather than save it.</font>/i><br /><br />Zubrin at one point had argued that NASA should have pursued the Ares V first.</i>

 

[scottb50]

I'd rather see Ares V first, the Ares I could later. Does that mean I agree with Zubrin? <div class="Discussion_UserSignature"> </div>

 

[vishniac2]

It's not a shame to agree with Zubrin.

 

[thereiwas]

I think by the time we are ready to go to Mars (and it won't be soon), Orion is not the vehicle we will want to use. It will be too old, we we will have learned some things, and found a better way.

 

[tomnackid]

I'm not saying the guts of Orion-Mars will be the same as the guts of Orion-Lunar, heck the guts of Atlantis are different than the guts of the Ccolumbia on its first mission, but as a vehicle for high speed reentries into Earth's atmosphere its hard to beat the Apollo "blunt body" shape for safety and practicality. Unless someone discovers antigravity in the next ten years I'm pretty sure will be seeing astronauts returning to earth in something the size ans shape of Orion. Carrying enough fuel all the way to Mars and back just to rendevous in LEO instead of making a direct reentry is a waste. I don't want to see exploration put on hold waiting for a complex space infrastructure to develope. Lewis and Clarke didn't wait for highways and railroads before exploraing the American West. Exploration is NASA's goal for the forseeable future. They tried to kickstart the infrastructure thing with the shuttle and it backfired. No private companies were interested in buying the shuttle (NASA did try to sell it to private industry) it was just too expensive and too far ahead of its time (how much cargo did it ever return to Earth? Yet everytime it launched it had to drag along all of the hardware needed to return a large payload to Earth wether it needed to or not.) Ex[ploration is done with tried and true technology as much as possible. If private industry does get intersted in then it makes NASA's job easier but i don't see a complex, robust space infrastructure with on orbit fuel transfers and ''space docks" perfected before the first Mars expedition departs. ISS is a useful testbed (as it was intended to be) but using it for any mission to the moon or mars at this point simply wastes fuel time and money.

 

[thereiwas]

Besides being in the wrong inclination to help with a moon or mars mission. LEO can be other than ISS. I didn't mean to say that a blunt capsule-type re-entry would not be used coming back from Mars. I meant that Orion specifically, with its bloated capabilities, size and weight would likely not be used by then.

 

[holmec]

I was under the impression that the Orion system allowed for upgrades and enhancements. Different capsule configs, different service modules, enhanced heat shields,...etc. I don't see why not Orion. The key here would be versatility. <div class="Discussion_UserSignature"> <p> </p><p><font color="#0000ff"><em>"SCE to AUX" - John Aaron, curiosity pays off</em></font></p> </div>

 

[holmec]

<blockquote><font class="small">In reply to:</font><hr /><p>Like I said, the trade off is fly the Orion to LEO earlier on a EELV and end up with an Apollo redux (at most) and no mars for the foreseeable future<p><hr /></p></p></blockquote><br /><br />But you keep the manned program alive with astronauts working and Congress dishing out. If we developed the Ares V first then most likely our astronaut corps would have to be postponed for several years and you would have to retrain Congress to cough up money. <div class="Discussion_UserSignature"> <p> </p><p><font color="#0000ff"><em>"SCE to AUX" - John Aaron, curiosity pays off</em></font></p> </div>

 

[holmec]

<blockquote><font class="small">In reply to:</font><hr /><p>As to the use of VAB, an EELV solution to Ares V would not required the use of VAB and can be accomplished via either a horitonal integration approach or an on-pad vertical assembly.<p><hr /></p></p></blockquote><br /><br />??? Ares V is to be bigger than Saturn V how could you raise it up if its contructed horizontally? Not only that where is the savings if you have to create more buildings and tear down a building and create an erecting mechanism? Sounds pretty silly to me. <div class="Discussion_UserSignature"> <p> </p><p><font color="#0000ff"><em>"SCE to AUX" - John Aaron, curiosity pays off</em></font></p> </div>

 

[holmec]

I like the idea of launching the fuel separately. But I believe that would require creating hardware that doesn't exits, like a canister to hold the fuel and attach to the service module.<br /><br />Alternately you could make the CEV service module smaller and launch a booster (a module that contains both fuel and rocket engine) that would attach to the Orion's service module. That way there is no refueling but just an extra docking. <br /><br />But I only see this as a future development. It would also allow for different sizes of a return booster (formally service module) because for Mars we will need a much larger burn to return to Earth than just the moon. <div class="Discussion_UserSignature"> <p> </p><p><font color="#0000ff"><em>"SCE to AUX" - John Aaron, curiosity pays off</em></font></p> </div>

 

[holmec]

<blockquote><font class="small">In reply to:</font><hr /><p>"Orion is overkill for such a taxi service, and that is all COTS is about. "<br /><br />The mission of Orion is to get humans back to the moon and beyond. <p><hr /></p></p></blockquote><br /><br />If all goes well with COTS (big IF), to LEO and ISS using COTS systems might be preferable than using Orion, mission parameters permitted (of course assuming that launching COTS would be cheaper). <br /><br />With any luck, we will have Orion and LM going to the moon/ COTS and New Space going to orbit/ RSA & ESA making larger Soyuz for the moon/ Earth orbit Soyuz (like Soyuz TMA) and progress still flying/ ESA and JAXA launching cargo ATV's/ and lots of tourists going suborbital!<br /><br />And that's a lot! Keep your fingers crossed. <div class="Discussion_UserSignature"> <p> </p><p><font color="#0000ff"><em>"SCE to AUX" - John Aaron, curiosity pays off</em></font></p> </div>

 

[holmec]

<blockquote><font class="small">In reply to:</font><hr /><p>Instead, by specifying a crew of 4 to the surface of the Moon, NASA may have disqualified EELV vehicles. What is so magical about 4? Would crews of 2 to the surface have been so bad? If by choosing a crew of 2, could NASA have dramatically cut development costs, significantly cut operational costs, and dramatically accelerated the schedule?<p><hr /></p></p></blockquote><br /><br />The 'magical' thing about a crew of 4 on the moon is that you can have two teams of two. Twice the work done for a trip. While a crew of two would half your work potential and probably cost more than half of sending up 4. <br /><br />If you look at the problem from a design and mission view:<br /><br />To design a capsule/sm to do a lunar mission AND fit on an existing launcher is twice the difficulty and twice the risk as designing a capsule/sm to do a lunar mission and design a launcher to launch the capsule/sm.<br /><br />To use an existing launcher for the Orion would invite the risk of:<br />1. costing more by taking more time to develope.<br />2. jeopardizing the success of the project (the designing of the capsule and sm).<br />3. turning out an inferior capsule/sm. Inferior as far as performance and safety.<br /><br />This is probably why a pattern is developing here. Orion launched by Ares I, Soyuz TMA by the Soyuz launcher, Dragon by Falcon 9. The pattern is that a specific craft is launched by a specific launcher. This is a proven system of operating, just look at the Russian's record.<br /><br /> <div class="Discussion_UserSignature"> <p> </p><p><font color="#0000ff"><em>"SCE to AUX" - John Aaron, curiosity pays off</em></font></p> </div>