Ares IV

[pmn1]

Flight International has an article on a proposed Ares IV similar in idea to Ares V but with reduced capacity, anyone have any information? <div class="Discussion_UserSignature"> </div>

 

[pmn1]

'fraid not, I only had a quick scan of the article in the shop this morning thinking (wrongly as it turned out) I could have a better look at it on line but I cant seem to find it on the Flight website.. ...even with the now correct spelling. <div class="Discussion_UserSignature"> </div>

 

[rocketman5000]

Would be an interesting development. Would there really be a demand for such a vehicle?

 

[radarredux]

> <i><font color="yellow">Flight International has an article on a proposed Ares IV similar in idea to Ares V but with reduced capacity, anyone have any information?</font>/i><br /><br />I haven't read the article, but I was recently thinking of something that might be similar. I'd be curious if this is feasible and, if so, desirable:<br /><br />Develop a mini Earth Departure Stage (EDS) that only had the power to launch the Orion capsule into orbit around the Moon -- no lander and supporting life support system and propellant -- and launch it into LEO on a <b><i>existing</i></b> (or then existing) launch vehicle (e.g., a Delta, Atlas, or even Ares I) instead of the Atlas V. In effect, it would be an Apollo-8 class mission.<br /><br />It would accomplish several goals. (1) It would break humans out of LEO for the first time since Apollo and provide an emotional boost. (2) It would help develop and test the Orion-EDS docking procedures, equipment, and software. (3) It would help test the Orion capsule re-entry system with beyond LEO velocities. (4) It would be done well before the Ares V is ready.<br /><br />Orion will be ready for use in the 2012-2014 timeframe. Ares V won't be ready until 2017-2020. A mini-EDS launched on an existing medium lift vehicle could provide beyond LEO capabilities during this gap.<br /><br />Comments?</i>

 

[nyarlathotep]

<font color="yellow">newsartist: A GUESS would be that they are still looking at all options, to make sure they haven't overlooked simpler, easier, and less expensive ways to do the job. </font><br /><br />For some strange reason they seem to have overlooked clustering a number of large kerolox engines already in production in the first stage, say five RD-170's (or if you want all american, finish development of RS-84) and building a nice large RL-60 powered centaur to stack on top. This could be a much simpler and more easily transportable rocket which could be integrated horizontally using a standing army of a tenth the size. It would probably have an order of magnitude lower operations cost than maintaining the decaying VAB, crawlers, and the production line and transport infrastructure for segmented solids.<br /><br />Odd really. Perhaps I'm wrong and giving ATK $10B development upfront and $400m in annual fixed costs (source: ATK annual report) for SRBs really is cheaper. Perhaps we really do need to spend $2B to completely rebuild a complex and inefficient 1960s era J-2S to stack on top when P&W could finish development of a suitable more powerful derivative of the most reliable LH2 engine ever built for a tenth of that. After all, I'm not a NASA rocket scientist. ESAS must be correct because those NASA guys are geniuses.<br /><br /><font color="yellow">RadarRedux: Develop a mini Earth Departure Stage (EDS) that only had the power to launch the Orion capsule into orbit around the Moon -- no lander and supporting life support system and propellant -- and launch it into LEO on a existing (or then existing) launch vehicle</font><br /><br />Or simply launch an 8T capsule (i.e the Raytheon submission) into L1 on an unmodified Delta IV or Atlas V Heavy. But that would be too sensible, it would give us a vehicle that is both cheap and flexible enough to launch to the station a

 

[docm]

No, their primary mission has been to get funding which means begging on their knees for votes in Congress. Try to go EELV or whatever and influential Congressmen or Senator with existing STS contracts in their district or state go into a hissy fit. <br /><br />Uppance: we get Ares I instead of more economical alternatives. <div class="Discussion_UserSignature"> </div>

 

[nyarlathotep]

So destroying potential for American advancement in space flight for the last thirty years was just an unintended consequence?

 

[docm]

No; an <i><b>inevitable</b></i> consequence. <div class="Discussion_UserSignature"> </div>

 

[scottb50]

No; an inevitable consequence...<br /><br />If it is for no practical purpose then you are right. Since it all began as a political gesture and has snowballed into a grand project it might do everybody a favor by simply pulling the plug.<br /><br />Even if NASA could pull it off it leads to nothing more than a flag waving opportunity. Sure we put a few Astronauts on the Moon, but we've been there and done that, what we need to do is put scientists, astronomers, explorers and other people who can benefit from being there, there.<br /><br />ISS would be great, if it was opened up to industry and not restricted to Space professionals and thrill seakers. What I would like to see is NASA getting out of Shuttle by 2010 and turning it over to private operators. There is no reason the remaining Shuttles can't keep flying for another ten or even twenty years, lease them to private operators, along with the launch and control facilities. <div class="Discussion_UserSignature"> </div>

 

[cuddlyrocket]

"Sure we put a few Astronauts on the Moon ... what we need to do is put scientists, astronomers, explorers and other people who can benefit from being there, there."<br /><br />Which astronauts can be of course (e.g. Harrison Schmitt).

 

[ragnorak]

<br />I have seen it too but it says its the 2 January issue so maybe the website will be updated this week????? <br /><br />It's a long article so I'll leave it for you guys to see the web story when it is finally up. But it seems more than just proposed, it even has a first flight test date! It occured to me that if COTS delivers crew as well as cargo transportation, as its planned too, then NASA doesn't need the ISS mission Orion vehicle. That means it doesn't need Ares I as well. That would save NASA a chunk of money.<br /><br />Especially when you consider it can dump the Ares V EDS, the Ares IV story does refer to this story interestingly.<br /><br />http://www.flightglobal.com/Articles/2006/10/09/Navigation/200/209764/NASA+develops+two+versions+of+J-2X+engine+for+Ares+boosters+I+and.html<br /><br />

 

[pmn1]

bobthemonkey at NASASpaceflight has found the link.<br /><br />http://www.flightglobal.com/Articles/2007/01/02/Navigation/177/211318/NASA+quietly+sets+up+budget+for+Ares+IV+lunar+crew+launch+vehicle+with+2018+test+flight.html <div class="Discussion_UserSignature"> </div>

 

[ragnorak]

The story is up!<br /><br />http://www.flightglobal.com/Articles/2007/01/02/Navigation/177/211318/NASA+quietly+sets+up+budget+for+Ares+IV+lunar+crew+launch+vehicle+with+2017+test+flight.html<br /><br /><br />

 

[josh_simonson]

"If the Ares I was unable to launch the Block 1 Orion International Space Station mission variant, an Ares IV without its SRBs could be used. But NASA has denied that Ares I is not powerful enough to launch the Block 1 and 2 variants despite Orion project manager Caris Hatfield admitting that Orion is about 1,300kg over weight."<br /><br />That's interesting...

 

[ragnorak]

The story is up!<br /><br />http://www.flightglobal.com/Articles/2007/01/02/Navigation/177/211318/NASA+quietly+sets+up+budget+for+Ares+IV+lunar+crew+launch+vehicle+with+2017+test+flight.html<br /><br /><br />

 

[rocketman5000]

5g (4.92) maximum acceleration seems like a high number for a manned vehicle.

 

[holmec]

Hmm...Lunar Orbit Rendezvous....or is it Lunar Orbit Rendezvous For Landing?<br /><br />Sounds interesting.<br /><br />Also if you only had Ares IV but it was configurable. I wonder how that might affect cost of several missions, both Lunar and orbital. And how would it affect development costs as well. <div class="Discussion_UserSignature"> <p> </p><p><font color="#0000ff"><em>"SCE to AUX" - John Aaron, curiosity pays off</em></font></p> </div>

 

[j05h]

<i>> Also if you only had Ares IV but it was configurable.</i><br /><br />That begins to sound like the proposed Jupiter rocket, or a bigger Delta - modular cores stacked together as needed. It makes a lot of sense, but ceases to be "Shuttle Derived" at some point. I'm all for Lunar Orbit Rendezvous - it's smarter than ESAS, but L1 basing makes the most sense. <br /><br />Rocketman is right to question that 5G number - that's a lot of acceleration for anyone to handle. <br /><br />Josh <div class="Discussion_UserSignature"> <div align="center"><em>We need a first generation of pioneers.</em><br /></div> </div>

 

[radarredux]

> <i><font color="yellow">If the Ares I was unable to launch the Block 1 Orion International Space Station mission variant, an Ares IV without its SRBs could be used.</font>/i><br /><br />First question: I wonder how long this would delay the first operational launch of the Orion capsule to ISS?<br /><br />First question redux: Suppose nine months from now NASA decides there is a high probability that Ares I won't succeed and starts in earnest to develop the Ares IV for launching Orion. When would be expect the first Orion launch?<br /><br />Second question: Suppose NASA does accelerate Ares IV for launching Orion to the ISS, and NASA chooses the Lunar Orbit Rendezvous mission (and the Ares V would not be built). Could this accelerate the timeline for the landing on the Moon?</i>

 

[docm]

To me it's a non-solution.<br /><br />Why not just go a bit bigger and launch the Orion and lander <i>together</i> like Saturn V? <br /><br />1 booster instead of 2 = lower cost/mission and it simplifies the rendezvous of Orion and the lander.<br /><br />Jupiter is starting to sound pretty good. <div class="Discussion_UserSignature"> </div>

 

[rocketman5000]

By launching together you'll need an even more powerful rocket than the Saturn V. The orion capsule and the LSAM are much more massive. (which is a good thing) than the LEM and Apollo capsule. The benefit is more tonnage of supplies and equipment delivered to the surface.

 

[mrmorris]

<font color="orange">"If the Ares I was unable to launch the Block 1 Orion International Space Station mission variant, an Ares IV without its SRBs could be used. "</font><br /><br /><font color="yellow">"First question: I wonder how long this would delay the first operational launch of the Orion capsule to ISS?"</font><br /><br />Two things. First of all -- unless I'm very much mistaken -- the masses they're talking about being *potentially* overweight for the Orion CEV are for the lunar variant. An ISS-taxi version would be considerably less massive from reductions in ECLSS, TPS, and battery requirements among other things. <b>If</b> we're going to assume the CEV truly is overweight -- I still see no issue, as the first one to three capsules they build will be only for the ISS. By the time they start building versions destined for the moon, the mass will have shrunk for the same engineering reasons that made Endeavor a <b>heckuva</b> lot lighter than Columbia.<br /><br />Second of all -- it's my considered opinion that the current hoopla around the overage of the Orion CEV is a load of bovine byproduct. I'm not a rocket scientist, but I play one on SDC. <img src="/images/icons/smile.gif" /> I've spent more time, effort, and research on capsule design and mass estimation than just about anyone on this board. Given the figures being tossed around for the CEV -- I don't know where they think they're going to cram in all that mass. I believe that what we have is the very first NASA spacecraft where the mass will shrink during the design process. I've read a couple of NASA documents about weight estimation and mass 'creep' of spacecraft design. From the docs, generally they <b>expect</b> about 25% of creep. Given that, I think what's happening is that the managers of each of the subsystems providing mass estimates have their thumb on the scale to pad their section enough that they'll end up coming in underweight at the end. If you have enough

 

[josh_simonson]

>To me it's a non-solution.<br /><br /> />Why not just go a bit bigger and launch the Orion and lander together like Saturn V?<br /><br /> />1 booster instead of 2 = lower cost/mission and it simplifies the rendezvous of Orion and the lander.<br /><br />It costs NASA exactly the same amount to fly the shuttle 2x as it does 1x. Why would we expect Aries IV or V to be different? Once they have the ability to launch, they launches are basically free untill they reach the capacity of the infrastructure (which is being built for 6 launches/year).

 

[docm]

So using that logic a Jupiter could fly the same number of lunar missions as Ares IV given a similar "capacity of infrastructure" determination, which sounds like a "means what you want" specification. <br /><br />I vote for post-launch refurbishment of the pads half as many times. <div class="Discussion_UserSignature"> </div>

 

[josh_simonson]

The jupiter infrastructure might cost more. NASA also has to be able to afford the payloads for these rockets too, which is more expensive than the booster. However they shouldn't pay for 'up to 6 launches', but then only fly twice.