Ares IV

[j05h]

<i>> 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.</i><br /><br />I've got a better suggestion, then. Why doesn't NASA just build the payloads and fly them on pre-existing rockets? Come on, guys, you're a bunch of rocket scientists, you can figure it out. <br /><br />Instead of arguing over fixed infrastructure costs, workforce maintenance, etc, just fly using existing launchers. Build the Lunar/Mars payloads in 20ton pieces (mostly fuel anyway) and fly on our under-utilized launchers. And help Lockheed demo orbital propellant transfer, because we need it for any real space development. <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">Why doesn't NASA just build the payloads and fly them on pre-existing rockets?</font>/i><br /><br />Because NASA and their primary contractors want to build new rockets. There are all these existing rocket scientists and managers of rocket scientist employed by NASA and the prime contractors. Got to put them to work.<br /><br />(There are less cynical reasons too).</i>

 

[j05h]

<i>> Because NASA and their primary contractors want to build new rockets. There are all these existing rocket scientists and managers of rocket scientist employed by NASA and the prime contractors. Got to put them to work. </i><br /><br />I agree that is the realpolitik answer. My problem with the status quo is that the current NASA-Contractor system is very very good at operating deep space hardware and a very poor at flying rockets. On top of that, as a tax payer, I don't want to see my "space" taxes go to putting cool stuff on other planets, not waiting for another $15G and 10 years of development by ATK to replicate current launch capabiliities. Whatever, as long as Elon succeeds I'm all set. <br /><br />Josh <div class="Discussion_UserSignature"> <div align="center"><em>We need a first generation of pioneers.</em><br /></div> </div>

 

[gunsandrockets]

"bobthemonkey at NASASpaceflight has found the link. "<br /><br />Hmmm. After reading the article the first thing that pops to mind are the stories currently circulating about NASA considering a NEO mission which would take place before the next lunar landing. The Ares IV vehicle would have just the right capacity for a NEO mission. <br /><br />It's also notable that the 41,000 kg lunar payload of the Ares IV is within 10% of the 46,000 kg payload of the old Saturn V.<br />

 

[ragnorak]

<br />Interesting point about the NEO capability. Its occured to me that if COTS comes through with its manned option then this could replace ISS Orion and Ares I. SpaceX has already passed its SRR for COTS, see here;<br /><br />http://www.flightglobal.com/Articles/2006/12/19/211213/launcher-systems-pass-cots-review.html<br /><br />Its pressurised cargo Falcon 9/Dragon stack is basically the man-rated vehicle but with a changed internal capsule configuration, for boxes instead of people. <br /><br />So then with Ares IV you can abandon the Ares V and its EDS by 2014, or earlier, and this whole 1.5 launches to the Moon scenario with its operational problems of an EDS that orbits for months at a time.<br /><br />The Ares I upper stage and its J2X engine that would be the EDS for the Ares IV are already under development, as are the 5-segment SRBs and the RS-68s (I expect mods to them) that would power the core stage.<br /><br />So really Ares IV is already under development.<br /><br />With ISS being served by Dragon your Moon mission is then a process of launching the lunar lander first and it uses storable propellant, it goes into lunar orbit with none of the problems of 'long term ' LOX/LH2 storage and then you fire the lunar Orion off to the Moon and a few days later it docks with the lander. Easy. ;-)<br /><br />Rob. <br />

 

[nyarlathotep]

<font color="yellow">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? </font><br /><br />Why not go smaller and launch the Raytheon capsule to L1 on a stock standard Delta IV Heavy? Growth variant? Do the regen nozzle development too, shouldn't cost much more than the pad modifications for the crew access tower. <br /><br />If the 2009 executive and congress still wants to go to the moon, lets think about the Atlas with a Wide Body Centaur. (Oddly this will also give us the exact same throw weight as the Ares IV.) If we need more lift for a lunar base, which I really think we dont, perhaps we should also look at the second Atlas growth phase further down the track. <br /><br />Should save us a fortune over building entirely new crawlers, pads, VAB modifications, new 5 segment SRBs, and designing two new 'derived' rockets entirely from scratch. Why don't we also bulldoze the VAB. With 40 years of wear and tear plus hurricane damage it costs a fortune to maintain.

 

[montmein69]

Sorry for my basic questions :<br />1 - Does it mean Ares IV would replace both Ares 1 and Ares V ? Or is it a third launcher to create ?<br /><br />2- Why is the timing of two Ares IV launches different from that of an Ares V followed by an Ares 1 ? Does it depend on the ground structures ?<br /><br />3 - Assembly in a lunar orbit could be efficient for a lunar mission but for "Mars and Beyond" ??? it is of no use to go to the Moon ...<br />Then assembly in Earth orbit is still an issue ? <div class="Discussion_UserSignature"> </div>

 

[holmec]

Outstanding info.<br /><br />Why the name change though? Ares IV is just second stage of Ares I on a main stage Ares V. I'd just call it an Ares V variant configuration. For that matter I bet this is only the beginning of the variant configurations. The reason is that it seems that several different types of missions require several different type of rocket configurations. <div class="Discussion_UserSignature"> <p> </p><p><font color="#0000ff"><em>"SCE to AUX" - John Aaron, curiosity pays off</em></font></p> </div>

 

[ragnorak]

<br />1. IMHO could replace both. Lose the SRBs and reduced (if necessary) propellant levels in the core and upper stage could be used to determine an ISS mission mass to LEO requirement capability. Then you probably don't have to use the Orion service module main engine to push the crew vehicle from a suborbital trajectory (as is currently planned) into LEO. The Ares IV upper stage does it. Admittedly its a lot of metal to get a capsule just into LEO but the life cycle costs of only having to develop and use one booster probably outweights Ares I development costs. Then again Spacex's Falcon 9 could make this idea redundant.<br /><br />2. No, ground structure has nothing to do with it. The timing of Ares IV launches is what it is because neither the lunar lander or Orion necessarily need to use cryogenic propellants, liquid oxygen (LOX) and liquid hydrogen (LH2). These propellants, used by Ares V's EDS, for the thrust it needs, boil off - meaning they become vapour inside their container, dangerously increasing internal tank pressure - unless kept at extremely low temperatures, but the sun's radiation in space will heat any spacecraft to levels where they will boil off over time, so you need to have an onboard coolant system to keep the LH2 and LOX as cold as need be. This adds mass and complexity to the EDS and so puts a time limit on Ares I launches following an Ares V launch. Ares IV avoids that operational nightmare. <br /><br />3. You have a variant of the Ares IV that uses a wider fairing (that is the cone that covers the payload during launch) to accomodate larger, heavier Marsship modules that require all the Ares IV's power just to put them into LEO or higher - for eventual in-orbit assembly before going to Mars.

 

[radarredux]

> <i><font color="yellow">1 - Does it mean Ares IV would replace both Ares 1 and Ares V ? Or is it a third launcher to create ?</font>/i><br /><br />The current plan/rumor is that the Ares V would <b><i>not</i></b> be built, instead two Ares IV would launch the moon mission components. Ares IV would not fly until 2017, so that would probably mean that Ares I would still be built to get Orion to ISS.<br /><br />However... there are two interesting twists to this. First, the article states that the Ares IV might be used to launch Orion to ISS if Ares I isn't powerful enough to launch Orion to ISS. Discussion of Ares I being underpowered or Orion being overweight is largely considered a non-issue right now as weight issues are common in early aerospace developments. However, there are some concerns, and this could be used to hedge the bets.<br /><br />Second, if the Ares IV architecture is used, Ares I will only have a useful life of 2-3 years!! Ares I would only be used to fly Orion to ISS; Ares I isn't scheduled for flight until 2014, and NASA plans to exit ISS in 2016. IMHO, it seems a bit of waste to spend 6-7 more years to develop a rocket that will only be used for 2-3 years.</i>

 

[josh_simonson]

With the Aries IV upperstage in hand, it wouldn't be all that big of a deal to kick out the width to the full Aries V upperstage for Mars missions. <br /><br />Also the dV to Mars isn't a whole lot greater than to the moon, assembly of a Mars ship at EML1 could be superior to LEO because the bulk of the dV is spent up front before assembly, significantly reducing the amount of propellants needed to be stored on orbit for the departure burn. This would perhaps get a 3 EDS stage mars craft down to a 1 stage ship, making it simpler and more reliable. A switch from EOR-LOR to LOR-LOR could actually be favorable to Mars missions.<br /><br />Aries IV would also be ideal for launching servicing flights to an EML1 space station/supply depot/assembly facility.<br /><br />It's really starting to look like Aries 1 might just be a Rube Goldberg rocket comprised of all the critical comoponents needed for the Aries V. Once Aries 1 exists, all the components for Aries V are off the shelf. With Aries IV, the only part of Aries 1 that won't carry on will be the interstage.

 

[holmec]

I wonder if they are considering a larger service module for the Orion capsule on some missions? <div class="Discussion_UserSignature"> <p> </p><p><font color="#0000ff"><em>"SCE to AUX" - John Aaron, curiosity pays off</em></font></p> </div>

 

[holmec]

Maybe they should call the whole system The Ares Launch System (ALS). If your breaking it down in to interchangeable components, the name should reflect that. <div class="Discussion_UserSignature"> <p> </p><p><font color="#0000ff"><em>"SCE to AUX" - John Aaron, curiosity pays off</em></font></p> </div>

 

[themanwithoutapast]

"I wonder if they are considering a larger service module for the Orion capsule on some missions? "<br /><br />That would make a lot more sense than to add another stage to break Orion into lunar orbit. If the specs are correct and Ares 4 can actually deliver 41mt into a trans-lunar injectory, there should not be a problem for the Orion SM to do the lunar orbit break.<br /><br />

 

[montmein69]

>Second, if the Ares IV architecture is used, Ares I will only <br /> /> have a useful life of 2-3 years!! Ares I would only be used <br /> />to fly Orion to ISS; Ares I isn't scheduled for flight until 2014,<br /> /> and NASA plans to exit ISS in 2016. IMHO, it seems a bit of<br /> /> waste to spend 6-7 more years to develop a rocket that<br /> /> will only be used for 2-3 years.<br /><br />If Ares 1 and the variant of Orion (ISS) are anyway developped ... does it mean that COTS ... (SpaceX or Rocketplane-Kistler) solutions to supply the ISS are considered as a pure dream ?<br />If NASA is confindent of their results ... why such an expensive redundancy ? <div class="Discussion_UserSignature"> </div>

 

[rocketman5000]

the redundency is part of NASA's mandate to foster commercial space and aerospace.

 

[montmein69]

Thanks for your answers Ragnorak and RadarRedux<br /><br /> />3. You have a variant of the Ares IV that uses a wider <br /> />fairing (that is the cone that covers the payload during <br /> />launch) to accomodate larger, heavier Marsship modules <br /> />that require all the Ares IV's power just to put them into <br /> />LEO or higher - for eventual in-orbit assembly before <br /> />going to Mars.<br /><br />Well, if I don't misunderstood, the Lunar mission is done with Two Ares IV sending directly all the stuff in a Lunar orbit and no Earth Departure Stage is needed.<br /><br />But for a Mars mission ... if all the thrust of the two Ares iV is used to go in LEO ... an EDS is really useful to power the spaceship to go to Mars ... and the problem (LH2/LOX in the tanks for a long time) is coming back ? <div class="Discussion_UserSignature"> </div>

 

[radarredux]

> <i><font color="yellow">If NASA is confindent of their results ... why such an expensive redundancy ?</font>/i><br /><br />If at some point a commercial company (and its financial backers) decide that the market isn't profitable enough (that is, they can get a better return on investment in some other field), they have the freedom to pull out of the market and redirect their funds elsewhere.<br /><br />NASA doesn't want to be rely on a commercial organization that then chooses to pursue other opportunities. So that is why NASA wants to develop its own independent means to do stuff (like reach ISS).<br /><br />On the other hand, Griffin wants to promote an independent private sector to space. This has a number of potential benefits to NASA including lowering costs to NASA for certain functions, increasing interest in space, attracting more total dollars to space development (e.g., bringing in investor dollars, tourist dollars, etc.).<br /><br />To that end, Griffin has said, if the commercial sector shows up in a particular area, NASA will step down. That is, NASA is saying they (a taxpayer funded organization) will not directly compete with private companies.<br /><br />[Side note: This last point might become interesting if Bigelow succeeds in launching an inflatable station suitable for research. Will NASA direct research towards Bigelow and away from ISS?]</i>

 

[mrmorris]

<font color="yellow">"If NASA is confindent of their results ... why such an expensive redundancy ? "</font><br /><br />The money NASA is spending on COTS contracts is <b>piddly</b> compared with development costs for Ares I. Besides -- even if the ISS goes away, LEO operations are unlikely to disappear completely. Also, if COTS capability had existed *now*, NASA wouldn't have to be spending the money to develop Ares I at all. If it's developed, NASA will find ways to use it to save money. <br /><br />COTS provides redundancy in the short term, savings in the long term.

 

[nyarlathotep]

<font color="yellow">the redundency is part of NASA's mandate to foster commercial space and aerospace.</font><br /><br />That seems like a usage of the words 'foster' and 'mandate' that I've been previously unfamiliar with.

 

[nyarlathotep]

<font color="yellow">But for a Mars mission ... if all the thrust of the two Ares iV is used to go in LEO ... an EDS is really useful to power the spaceship to go to Mars ... and the problem (LH2/LOX in the tanks for a long time) is coming back ?</font><br /><br />That's why you use dense, storable, easily transferable propellants. Peroxide and ethylene perhaps.

 

[rocketman5000]

Think back to the days of the NACA (before my time) when the goal was research of aerodynamics. Data would be passed to big aerospace

 

[montmein69]

>That's why you use dense, storable, easily transferable propellants. Peroxide and ethylene perhaps.<br /><br />This solution seemed to be of high efficiency (enough thrust) and well adapted to solve the problem of the propellant storage in LEO.<br /><br />So ... why is it unusuable for the Moon ? <br /><br />Modify the EDS propulsion -with storable propellants- ... is easier than creating a new man-rated launcher ... isn't it ? <div class="Discussion_UserSignature"> </div>

 

[ragnorak]

<br />A Mars mission is so far away that they have plenty of time to develop the necessary tech for a in-space coolant system for the LOX/LH2. They will need one anyway as it will take months to get to Mars and so they will need to store propellant for the braking manouveres when they get there.

 

[edkyle98]

"Modify the EDS propulsion -with storable propellants- ... is easier than creating a new man-rated launcher ... isn't it ?"<br /><br />This would require a substantially bigger launch vehicle. Replacing the LH2/LOX in the Ares 4 upper stage with UDMH/N2O4 storable propellants would cut translunar payload capacity by more than half. Using hydrogen peroxide and ethlyene would result in a TLI payload that was less than 25% of the LH2/LOX version. <br /><br />To match the original LH2/LOX capability with the most efficient storables, the launch vehicle would have to be able to lift about 1.5 times more mass to low earth orbit than currently planned. For an Ares V capability, that means switching to a vehicle that could orbit nearly 200 tonnes. This would add perhaps $1 billion to the cost of each launch, driving the cost of a single launch up to or beyond perhaps $2.5 billion. Just for the launch, not including the cost of the spacecraft, astronauts, mission control, etc.<br /><br />High energy propellants are essential for human lunar exploration missions.<br /><br /> - Ed Kyle