Ares V is now Ares VI

Status
Not open for further replies.
J

job1207

Guest
<p><BR/>Replying to:<BR/><DIV CLASS='Discussion_PostQuote'>NASA's runaway cost of the Ares&nbsp;rockets has just gotten worse.&nbsp; SRB's are now 5.5 segments and 6 RS-68's on the newly, enlarged tank.&nbsp; http://www.nasaspaceflight.com/content/?cid=5451STOP THE INSANITY!!!SLJ <br /> Posted by spacelifejunkie</DIV></p><p>I don't see this as being too big, I see it as finally getting up into the range it needs to be. It is still distressing that it will take them as long to build this rocket as it did to run the entire Apollo space program. I could go on about that. The bottom line, if you are going anywhere for more than a few days, you need to bring everything&nbsp; with you.&nbsp; </p>
 
T

tanstaafl76

Guest
<p>&nbsp;</p><p>Ya know what?&nbsp; That's a big freakin' rocket.</p><p>&nbsp;</p> <div class="Discussion_UserSignature"> </div>
 
W

wubblie

Guest
<p><BR/>Replying to:<BR/><DIV CLASS='Discussion_PostQuote'>&nbsp;Ya know what?&nbsp; That's a big freakin' rocket.&nbsp; <br /> Posted by tanstaafl76</DIV></p><p>Wow. 71 mt to TLI. I wonder how much it can lift to LEO. I would like to see it lift a space station component Energia- piggyback style. I wonder if it could lift a tube with an interior volume equal to the ISS in one go. Even if it lifts a tube on top (in-line), it would only need to be about 5.5m high (from my napkin calculation) if the diameter is 10m. Seems like it could do it easily. (Of course, this does not account for interior volume taken up by shielding, etc). &nbsp; </p><p>http://www.espacial.org/images/jpg/polyus.jpg</p><p>&nbsp;</p>
 
D

DrRocket

Guest
<p><BR/>Replying to:<BR/><DIV CLASS='Discussion_PostQuote'>NASA's runaway cost of the Ares&nbsp;rockets has just gotten worse.&nbsp; SRB's are now 5.5 segments and 6 RS-68's on the newly, enlarged tank.&nbsp; http://www.nasaspaceflight.com/content/?cid=5451STOP THE INSANITY!!!SLJ <br />Posted by spacelifejunkie</DIV></p><p>I'm kinda curious as to why they like the 5.5 segment SRB instead of just putting 3 SRBs on the core.&nbsp; Maybe there are some structural limitations imposed by the core that are not obvious to a casual observer.&nbsp; 3 SRBs ought to provide a significant increase in payload besides easing the logistics issues with carrying two different SRB designs for the Ares family.<br /></p> <div class="Discussion_UserSignature"> </div>
 
Z

Zipi

Guest
Replying to:<BR/><DIV CLASS='Discussion_PostQuote'>I'm kinda curious as to why they like the 5.5 segment SRB instead of just putting 3 SRBs on the core.&nbsp; Maybe there are some structural limitations imposed by the core that are not obvious to a casual observer.&nbsp; 3 SRBs ought to provide a significant increase in payload besides easing the logistics issues with carrying two different SRB designs for the Ares family. <br />Posted by DrRocket</DIV><br /><br />Or maybe they need 5.5 segment SRB for Ares 1 as well? If you think all those lifting capatibility issues impacting to Orion design... <div class="Discussion_UserSignature"> </div>
 
W

wubblie

Guest
<p><BR/>Replying to:<BR/><DIV CLASS='Discussion_PostQuote'>I'm kinda curious as to why they like the 5.5 segment SRB instead of just putting 3 SRBs on the core.&nbsp; Maybe there are some structural limitations imposed by the core that are not obvious to a casual observer.&nbsp; 3 SRBs ought to provide a significant increase in payload besides easing the logistics issues with carrying two different SRB designs for the Ares family. <br /> Posted by DrRocket</DIV></p><p>&nbsp;</p><p>Well, if they are going to do this, they could have just used 4, 4 segment SRB's- two on each side. </p>
 
S

shuttle_guy

Guest
<p><BR/>Replying to:<BR/><DIV CLASS='Discussion_PostQuote'>I'm kinda curious as to why they like the 5.5 segment SRB instead of just putting 3 SRBs on the core.&nbsp; Maybe there are some structural limitations imposed by the core that are not obvious to a casual observer.&nbsp; 3 SRBs ought to provide a significant increase in payload besides easing the logistics issues with carrying two different SRB designs for the Ares family. <br />Posted by DrRocket</DIV></p><p>The new configuration including the MLP&nbsp;is already 1.2 million pounds to over weight for the crawlerway. Inaddition the 11.322 million pounds of lift off thrust from the SRBs pluse the throttled down RS-68s would be way too much thrust for the initial&nbsp;ascent.</p> <div class="Discussion_UserSignature"> </div>
 
S

shuttle_guy

Guest
<p><BR/>Replying to:<BR/><DIV CLASS='Discussion_PostQuote'>&nbsp;Well, if they are going to do this, they could have just used 4, 4 segment SRB's- two on each side. <br />Posted by wubblie</DIV></p><p>&nbsp;Too much initial ascent thrust.<br /></p> <div class="Discussion_UserSignature"> </div>
 
C

Cygnus_2112

Guest
<p><BR/>Replying to:<BR/><DIV CLASS='Discussion_PostQuote'>&nbsp;Well, if they are going to do this, they could have just used 4, 4 segment SRB's- two on each side. <br /> Posted by wubblie</DIV></p><p>&nbsp;3 and 4 SRB's are not viable.&nbsp; pad, MLP, crawlerway can't take the weight.&nbsp; Titusville can't take the noise.</p><p>Attachments for 3 and 4 SRB's would be nightmares.</p>
 
Z

Zipi

Guest
<p>After reading that article once again I started to wonder this Ares V consept once again... Why Nasa won't use Delta IV core stages as boosters with the shuttle derived tank with RS-68 engines? It would be much more something that have been done earlier by Russians (the great and so scifi looking Energia booster). As far as I understand it would have much more of lifting power and flexibility with throtling up/down or shut down completely by using Delta IV cores as boosters. Delta IV core can also be used as Orion booster probably much faster and chaper than new 5/5.5 segment SRBs.</p><p>&nbsp;Ok I know this has been discussed earlier, but still I feel somehow astonished about all these new problems with Ares 1 and Ares 5 lifting capatibility, redesing and thrust oscillation issues... After all this whole Ares program is developing something&nbsp;totally different than direcly shuttle derived components as it should.</p><p>If Nasa wants to add more power to Ares 5 than the current design it will probably mean developing of enforced crawler vehicle and new road to it...I wonder how the Russians managed to transport the Energia and Buran with train and then lift it up. I bet that same kind of transporting consept would be much effecient for Ares rockets as well. But maybe Nasa is like Microsoft, it cannot give up of its old legacy and way of doing things.</p><p>But afterall: I wish best of&nbsp;luck for Nasa and its Ares team. I really want to see these things flying, no matter what kind of vehicles they will eventually be.</p> <div class="Discussion_UserSignature"> </div>
 
J

JonClarke

Guest
<p><BR/>Replying to:<BR/><DIV CLASS='Discussion_PostQuote'>NASA's runaway cost of the Ares&nbsp;rockets has just gotten worse.&nbsp; SRB's are now 5.5 segments and 6 RS-68's on the newly, enlarged tank.&nbsp; http://www.nasaspaceflight.com/content/?cid=5451STOP THE INSANITY!!!SLJ <br />Posted by spacelifejunkie</DIV></p><p>I am not going to complain about 71 tonnes to TLI!</p><p>Jon<br /></p> <div class="Discussion_UserSignature"> <p><em>Whether we become a multi-planet species with unlimited horizons, or are forever confined to Earth will be decided in the twenty-first century amid the vast plains, rugged canyons and lofty mountains of Mars</em>  Arthur Clarke</p> </div>
 
K

keermalec

Guest
<p>The "old" Ares V could lift 140 tons to LEO, if I'm not mistaken. It so happens that the "older still" Saturn V could&nbsp;<u>already</u> lift 140 tons to LEO. Was it so expensive to resurrect the old Saturn V instead of developing this behemoth that will certainly die as soon as congress stops funding it at any&nbsp;moment in the ten years to come?</p><p>&nbsp;</p><p>&nbsp;</p> <div class="Discussion_UserSignature"> <p><em>“An error does not become a mistake until you refuse to correct it.” John F. Kennedy</em></p> </div>
 
D

docm

Guest
71 mt&nbsp;sounds like&nbsp;a lot, but not if you need 75 mt <img src="http://sitelife.space.com/ver1.0/content/scripts/tinymce/plugins/emotions/images/smiley-wink.gif" border="0" alt="Wink" title="Wink" /> <div class="Discussion_UserSignature"> </div>
 
D

DrRocket

Guest
<p><BR/>Replying to:<BR/><DIV CLASS='Discussion_PostQuote'>&nbsp;Too much initial ascent thrust. <br />Posted by shuttle_guy</DIV></p><p>Too&nbsp; much for an unmanned mission ?&nbsp; What is the max allowable g level ?</p> <div class="Discussion_UserSignature"> </div>
 
D

docm

Guest
<font size="3">IIRC Alan Shepard experienced 6 G's during boost and Schirra somewhere north of 8 G's, so one would think that an unmanned cargo launch <em>should</em> be able to handle >4 G's <img src="http://sitelife.space.com/ver1.0/content/scripts/tinymce/plugins/emotions/images/smiley-tongue-out.gif" border="0" alt="Tongue out" title="Tongue out" /></font> <div class="Discussion_UserSignature"> </div>
 
W

windnwar

Guest
<p><BR/>Replying to:<BR/><DIV CLASS='Discussion_PostQuote'>IIRC Alan Shepard experienced 6 G's during boost and Schirra somewhere north of 8 G's, so one would think that an unmanned cargo launch should be able to handle >4 G's <br />Posted by docm</DIV><br /><br />I'd assume the need for the upgrades are to offset what they have lost in capacity on the Ares&nbsp;I so they'll need to put everything they lost on it on the Ares V?</p><p>&nbsp;Will this boondoggle ever end?</p> <div class="Discussion_UserSignature"> <p> </p><p><font size="2" color="#0000ff">""Only two things are infinite, the universe and human stupidity, and I'm not sure about the former." --Albert Einstein"</font></p> </div>
 
F

frodo1008

Guest
<p><BR/>Replying to:<BR/><DIV CLASS='Discussion_PostQuote'>The new configuration including the MLP&nbsp;is already 1.2 million pounds to over weight for the crawlerway. Inaddition the 11.322 million pounds of lift off thrust from the SRBs pluse the throttled down RS-68s would be way too much thrust for the initial&nbsp;ascent. <br /> Posted by shuttle_guy</DIV></p><p>I understand that you still work actively for NASA and so it is somewhat difficult for you to be critical of the plans for the Ares series of rockets in an open forum such as this (this is no criticism of yourself in any way, you have always been a knowledgeable main stay of all of us here).</p><p>I personally don't understand NASA here.&nbsp; Originally, I thought that NASA was going to use as much of the original equipment from the shuttle itself for both the Ares I and Ares V rockets. This was to be a true cost saving idea. However, now it seems that NASA keeps coming up with more and more problems and are getting further and further away from anything that is cost affective.&nbsp; I don't care who the next president is going to be, congress is NOT going to be happy with a continuing increase in these costs!&nbsp;</p><p>From what I can understand here, NASA has now decided that it needs a far larger rocket than the current hsndling equipment (as large as that is) st the Cape can handle?&nbsp; The problem that I can see is that these rockets both need to have far more solid fuel and oxidizer in order to either get enough powered time or thrust to be able to lift what is needed to go back to the moon in the manner that NASA feels it is worth going back.&nbsp; However, in order to do this it would now seem (as solid rockets even as large as the original shuttle solids are very heavy, far heavier than comparable liquids are). This has evidently made the new configuration so heavy that the crawler and its roads can not handle this enormous weight!&nbsp; Further, to then lift all this extra weight the amount of thrust needed is so vast that the pads can't handle it?&nbsp; What on Earth (or off of it for that matter) is going on here?</p><p>This is what you seem to be saying.&nbsp; This is the almost direct result of NASA forgetting about such inconveniences as rocket physics in order to satisfy the powerful congressional delegations from Utah. &nbsp;</p><p>As it currently stands, I would rather see NASA just go back to the Saturn V itself!&nbsp; Just take the equipment in the boneyards of such companies as Rocketdyne, and even NASA itself, and back engineer the whole thing!&nbsp; It is becoming more and more obvious that such a cost would itself be less than continuing to have to deal with the greatly oversized fire crackers that NASA seems bent on using!</p><p>It certainly would seem that such Men such as Robert Goddard and&nbsp; Von Braun really were the greatest rocket scientists that ever existed!&nbsp; And solids were not their idea of how to get into space, let alone keep socst down></p><p>If the Saturn V could really not be revived, then indeed go to ULA (the combined experience of Boeing and LM is absolutely incredible here) and use some form of the Delta IV or the Atlas V (although using the Russian engines for the Atlas might not go over too well with congress, so I think the Delta IV with entirely American engines would be a better choice).&nbsp; I can not believe that the experience of Boeing + LM can not build a far cheaper and better system for going back to the moon.&nbsp; And one that it might just be able to place spacex also in the future running also, if spacex can really bring down even the lower costs of the EELV's to a much lower value, then NASA is going to eventually look terribly foolish for not providing for such a future possibility of such a far lower costs!</p><p>NASA really is going to keep goofing around here until congress really does cut the entire program, and I don't want to see that happen!&nbsp; Playing politics with these types of things just does NOT work!!!</p><p>If I am wrong here, please tell me where?&nbsp;</p><p>&nbsp;</p>
 
S

spacelifejunkie

Guest
<p>It is now time for me to write my Congress Critters.&nbsp; I will vehemently demand that NASA change VSE to the Direct Architechture.&nbsp; I encourage everyone to do the same if they feel Direct is the way to go.&nbsp; I no longer believe that NASA can overcome the politics necessary to get to the moon without the support of the citizens making demands.</p><p>http://www.thespaceshow.com/detail.asp?q=781</p><p>http://www.directlauncher.com/</p><p>SLJ<br /></p>
 
J

JonClarke

Guest
<p><BR/>Replying to:<BR/><DIV CLASS='Discussion_PostQuote'>The "old" Ares V could lift 140 tons to LEO, if I'm not mistaken. It so happens that the "older still" Saturn V could&nbsp;already lift 140 tons to LEO. Was it so expensive to resurrect the old Saturn V instead of developing this behemoth that will certainly die as soon as congress stops funding it at any&nbsp;moment in the ten years to come?&nbsp;&nbsp; <br />Posted by keermalec</DIV></p><p>The listed payload of earlier person of the Ares V were 130 tonnes to LEO.&nbsp; The listed payload of the Saturn V was 108 tonnes, although it could put into very low parking orbit 140.&nbsp; By the same definition the earier Ares V could orbit ~160 tonnes.&nbsp; It was a snignificantly more powerful rocket than the Saturn V.&nbsp; that is why the earlier Ares V could sent 60 tonnes on a trans-lunar trajectory, compared to the Saturn V's 45 tonnes.</p><p>Since the new Ares V Or VI if you refer) is supposed to be able to send 71 tonnes on a trans lunar tragectory, its very low orbit payload must be correspondingly greater.&nbsp; Something of the order of 170-180 tonnes.</p><p>Jon<br /></p> <div class="Discussion_UserSignature"> <p><em>Whether we become a multi-planet species with unlimited horizons, or are forever confined to Earth will be decided in the twenty-first century amid the vast plains, rugged canyons and lofty mountains of Mars</em>  Arthur Clarke</p> </div>
 
J

JonClarke

Guest
<p><BR/>Replying to:<BR/><DIV CLASS='Discussion_PostQuote'>71 mt&nbsp;sounds like&nbsp;a lot, but not if you need 75 mt <br />Posted by docm</DIV></p><p>What do we need 75 tonnes for?<br /></p> <div class="Discussion_UserSignature"> <p><em>Whether we become a multi-planet species with unlimited horizons, or are forever confined to Earth will be decided in the twenty-first century amid the vast plains, rugged canyons and lofty mountains of Mars</em>  Arthur Clarke</p> </div>
 
J

JonClarke

Guest
<p>This is only a concept study.&nbsp; Not a firm committment.</p><p>Jon</p> <div class="Discussion_UserSignature"> <p><em>Whether we become a multi-planet species with unlimited horizons, or are forever confined to Earth will be decided in the twenty-first century amid the vast plains, rugged canyons and lofty mountains of Mars</em>  Arthur Clarke</p> </div>
 
S

shuttle_guy

Guest
<p><BR/>Replying to:<BR/><DIV CLASS='Discussion_PostQuote'>Too&nbsp; much for an unmanned mission ?&nbsp; What is the max allowable g level ? <br />Posted by DrRocket</DIV></p><p>Too much for a vehicle designed to fly a spacecraft to land on the Moon and never have to handle even 1G. The more ascent Gs the more the payload has to be beefed up to take the loads.</p><p>Another big problem is that the 3 or 4 SRBs and&nbsp;5 RS-68s can not throttle down enough to get through max Q successfully.</p><p>There there is the host of facility impacts..........</p> <div class="Discussion_UserSignature"> </div>
 
F

frodo1008

Guest
<p><BR/>Replying to:<BR/><DIV CLASS='Discussion_PostQuote'>Too much for a vehicle designed to fly a spacecraft to land on the Moon and never have to handle even 1G. The more ascent Gs the more the payload has to be beefed up to take the loads.Another big problem is that the 3 or 4 SRBs and&nbsp;5 RS-68s can not throttle down enough to get through max Q successfully.There there is the host of facility impacts.......... <br /> Posted by shuttle_guy</DIV></p><p>Now, the original concept of Ares V was some 4 shuttle type 4 segment SRB's and 4 RS68's, right?&nbsp; And this would allow 60 tons to the moon's surface, instead of the 45 tons for the Apollo, again right?</p><p>Then, NASA has now decided that 60 tons would not now be enough to allow some 4 people to get to the surface of the moon for 2 full weeks, instead of Apollo's 2 people to the surface for some 4 - 5 days max,&nbsp; again right?</p><p>What I originally then thought was that the main problem was with the Ares I which was why NASA needed the 5 segment SRB?</p><p>At that time there was supposedly no problem with the Ares V?</p><p>What I am trying to do here SG is to establish NASA's parameters in my own mind for going back to the moon.</p><p>Se evidently, the same thing that happened with the capability of the Ares I is now happening with the original capability of the Ares V? &nbsp;</p><p>Are these the mission parameters so far for the original concept?</p><p>Now, for the costs.&nbsp; Even with the original concepts the cost of the program to send us back to the moon was going to be some $106 billion, and that was with just using the already established shuttle components of the regular 4 segment SRB and a single already built SSME for the second stage of the Ares I?&nbsp; So now with the changes to even the Ares I about how much is going to be added to the original costs? &nbsp;</p><p>Now then, aside form the technical problems that you say this new Ares V concept wopuld cause (and I have no doubt that the problems are fully as bad as you state them to be) there is going to be a relatively enourmous boost in the over all cost of the Ares V for this with a rresulting increase in the over-all cost of the total program.&nbsp; So the already somewhat high $106 billlion pver all costs of the entire program.&nbsp; Admittedly spent over some 15 years, but still just about all that NASA's budget can handle even with the shuttle being retired, and the ISS costs going way down.&nbsp; Once again, am I correct here?</p><p>So now the program costs would go up to the $150 billion dollar range if both the original Ares I AND the Ares V have to be so modified?</p><p>Now, if I as a retired ex aerospace manufacturing worker with relatively little cost experience can see this, what about the cost accountants of congress? &nbsp;</p><p>So SG, am I somewhat within the ball park here, or am I missing something?</p><p>Just inquiring, is all!!&nbsp;</p>
 
D

DrRocket

Guest
<p><BR/>Replying to:<BR/><DIV CLASS='Discussion_PostQuote'>Too much for a vehicle designed to fly a spacecraft to land on the Moon and never have to handle even 1G. The more ascent Gs the more the payload has to be beefed up to take the loads.Another big problem is that the 3 or 4 SRBs and&nbsp;5 RS-68s can not throttle down enough to get through max Q successfully.There there is the host of facility impacts.......... <br />Posted by shuttle_guy</DIV></p><p>So the ascent accleration is being limited to less than 1g ?&nbsp; Seems kinda low.<br /></p> <div class="Discussion_UserSignature"> </div>
 
Status
Not open for further replies.

ASK THE COMMUNITY

Latest posts