Ares V is now Ares VI

[neuvik]

<p><BR/>Replying to:<BR/><DIV CLASS='Discussion_PostQuote'>http://www.directlauncher.com/SLJ <br /> Posted by spacelifejunkie</DIV></p><p>As cool as it is, I doubt the external fuel tank is structuraly sound enough to support a payload on top of it.&nbsp; Ares has my heart till we can think of a better&nbsp; replacment for our space pickup truck, I'm going to miss those orbiters. </p> <div class="Discussion_UserSignature"> <p> </p><p><strong><font color="#ff0000">I don't think I'm alone when I say, "I hope more planets fall under the ruthless domination of Earth!"</font></strong></p><p><font color="#0000ff">SDC Boards: Power by PLuck - Ph**king Luck</font></p> </div>

 

[bushuser]

<p><font size="3">THe old shuttle C proposal is starting to look mighty good, isn't it?&nbsp; This would have involved less change to infrastructure, less development time and cost than where this is headed now.&nbsp; You would still have to come up with a new man-rated vehicle, but that seems to be the easier part of this project.</font></p><p><font size="3">Hindsight is grand, isn't it?&nbsp; </font></p>

 

[Cygnus_2112]

<p><BR/>Replying to:<BR/><DIV CLASS='Discussion_PostQuote'>As cool as it is, I doubt the external fuel tank is structuraly sound enough to support a payload on top of it.&nbsp; Ares has my heart till we can think of a better&nbsp; replacment for our space pickup truck, I'm going to miss those orbiters. <br /> Posted by neuvik</DIV></p><p>Huh?&nbsp; It isn't the exact same thing as the shuttle ET.&nbsp; Just as the aft would be modified for the thrust section, the forward would be strengthen for the Direct application.&nbsp; No big deal.&nbsp; No different from the Ares V</p>

 

[neuvik]

<p><BR/>Replying to:<BR/><DIV CLASS='Discussion_PostQuote'>Huh?&nbsp; It isn't the exact same thing as the shuttle ET.&nbsp; Just as the aft would be modified for the thrust section, the forward would be strengthen for the Direct application.&nbsp; No big deal.&nbsp; No different from the Ares V <br /> Posted by Cygnus_2112</DIV></p><p>It looked like in that power point they wanted to just modify the shuttle ET core.&nbsp; Wasn't their a recent redesign from the J-2X studies in the vacuum tubes. &nbsp; It cost like 22 mil.&nbsp;&nbsp; Thee Ares were redesigned with a combined effort from the engineers at Stennis Flight Center and Michoud Assembly Facility.&nbsp;&nbsp; </p><p>again just speculating, I dont have any data in hands.&nbsp; I just don't think changing course from the Ares project is a good idea.&nbsp; I also assume that NASA has good reasons to ignore their 9.5 billion cost with a projected completion in&nbsp; 2012. </p> <div class="Discussion_UserSignature"> <p> </p><p><strong><font color="#ff0000">I don't think I'm alone when I say, "I hope more planets fall under the ruthless domination of Earth!"</font></strong></p><p><font color="#0000ff">SDC Boards: Power by PLuck - Ph**king Luck</font></p> </div>

 

[Andrey992]

I am confused, is this official? It doesn't say anything on nasa website. <div class="Discussion_UserSignature"> </div>

 

[docm]

<p>But it's still not the necessary 75+ mt TLI.</p><p>Maybe they need a full 6 segment SRB.....that or do a SpaceX and turn it into the Ares 7/8/9 whatever. </p> <div class="Discussion_UserSignature"> </div>

 

[JonClarke]

<p><BR/>Replying to:<BR/><DIV CLASS='Discussion_PostQuote'>But it's still not the necessary 75+ mt TLI.Maybe they need a full 6 segment SRB.....that or do a SpaceX and turn it into the Ares 7/8/9 whatever. <br />Posted by docm</DIV></p><p>For the 2nd time, what's the evidence that you need 75 tonnes?<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>

 

[MarkStanaway]

<p><BR/>Replying to:<BR/><DIV CLASS='Discussion_PostQuote'>For the 2nd time, what's the evidence that you need 75 tonnes? <br /> Posted by jonclarke</DIV></p><p>A good question! </p><p>Maybe they should be looking at the problem from the other end of the scale and review why the Orion/Altair combination is developing a weight problem. Its starting to look more and more like the old Nova concept from the 60's&nbsp;</p> <div class="Discussion_UserSignature"> </div>

 

[Cygnus_2112]

<p><BR/>Replying to:<BR/><DIV CLASS='Discussion_PostQuote'>A good question! Maybe they should be looking at the problem from the other end of the scale and review why the Orion/Altair combination is developing a weight problem. Its starting to look more and more like the old Nova concept from the 60's&nbsp; <br /> Posted by MarkStanaway</DIV></p><p>Already squeezed too much from that turnip </p>

 

[docm]

<p><font size="2"><BR/>Replying to:<BR/><DIV CLASS='Discussion_PostQuote'>For the 2nd time, what's the evidence that you need 75 tonnes? <br /> Posted by jonclarke</DIV></font></p><p><font size="2">From the previously linked to NASASpaceflight.com article, and Chris Bergin usually has accurate info;</font></p><p><font size="2">Quote:</font></p><p><font size="2">However, the earlier Ares-V configuration has been suffering from an inability to close the performance requirements for being able to&nbsp;heavy lift the four-man Altair Lunar Lander being planned. <font color="#800000"><strong>With Ares I lifting the Orion spacecraft, the Ares-V needs to push 75.1 mT of payload through Trans-Lunar Injection (TLI)</strong></font> but was only able to push 64.6 mT.<br /><br />This new more powerful configuration, identified as the 'LV 51.00.48' is now able to put 71.1 mT through TLI. While this configuration still can not reach its targets, this is a clear improvement towards closing the performance requirements NASA has for the Lunar architecture.</font></p><p><font size="2">EndQuote</font></p><p><font size="2">As to why 75.1 mT is needed: this is not the Apollo LM.&nbsp; Supposedly there will be a crew of 4 with provisions for up to a 180 day "outpost mission" in the manned version and a "cargo only" version capable of deliving 15-17 mT of cargo to any point on the lunar surface.&nbsp;<font size="3"> </font></font></p><p><font size="3">The Apollo LM was very limited as to the latitudes it could land at and could only sustain a crew of 2 for 2-3 days. </font></p><p>&nbsp;</p> <div class="Discussion_UserSignature"> </div>

 

[DrRocket]

<p><BR/>Replying to:<BR/><DIV CLASS='Discussion_PostQuote'>But it's still not the necessary 75+ mt TLI.Maybe they need a full 6 segment SRB.....that or do a SpaceX and turn it into the Ares 7/8/9 whatever. <br />Posted by docm</DIV><br />&nbsp;</p><p>Increasing the number of segments in an SRB is quite a bit more complicated than just adding a segment to the stack.&nbsp; As the lenght to diameter ratio goes up there are additional items to be considered in the design.&nbsp; One is simply structural and dynamica behavior.&nbsp; But there are issues of internal gas dynamics that are at least as important.&nbsp; One needs to make sure that flow velocities internal to the rocket are not too high.&nbsp; In particular one needs to be sure that there is no point at which the flow is choked other than the intended nozzle throat.&nbsp; One also needs to make sure that there are no areas where internal pressure drop is sufficient to cause the grain to deform in a manner that further increases the pressure drop which increases the deformation which increases the pressure drop which increases the deformation......BOOM.</p> <div class="Discussion_UserSignature"> </div>

 

[docm]

<font size="2">I was referring to increasing the number of liquid engines, not the SRB segments.&nbsp; Thought the F9 reference made that clear, but I guess not</font> <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" /> <div class="Discussion_UserSignature"> </div>

 

[shuttle_guy]

<p><BR/>Replying to:<BR/><DIV CLASS='Discussion_PostQuote'>So the ascent accleration is being limited to less than 1g ?&nbsp; Seems kinda low. <br />Posted by DrRocket</DIV></p><p>You know what I was trying to say.......... Obviously the payload must be able to take more than 1 g during the ascent. The limit is a design trade off.<br /></p> <div class="Discussion_UserSignature"> </div>

 

[shuttle_guy]

<p><BR/>Replying to:<BR/><DIV CLASS='Discussion_PostQuote'>It looked like in that power point they wanted to just modify the shuttle ET core.&nbsp; Wasn't their a recent redesign from the J-2X studies in the vacuum tubes. &nbsp; It cost like 22 mil.&nbsp;&nbsp; Thee Ares were redesigned with a combined effort from the engineers at Stennis Flight Center and Michoud Assembly Facility.&nbsp;&nbsp; again just speculating, I dont have any data in hands.&nbsp; I just don't think changing course from the Ares project is a good idea.&nbsp; I also assume that NASA has good reasons to ignore their 9.5 billion cost with a projected completion in&nbsp; 2012. <br />Posted by neuvik</DIV></p><p>The Shuttle Wt diameter is 27.6 ft. in diameter. The Ares V core propellant tank is 33 ft in diameter.<br /></p> <div class="Discussion_UserSignature"> </div>

 

[shuttle_guy]

<p><BR/>Replying to:<BR/><DIV CLASS='Discussion_PostQuote'>I am confused, is this official? It doesn't say anything on nasa website. <br />Posted by Andrey992</DIV></p><p>NO, this concept is simply a design option.<br /></p> <div class="Discussion_UserSignature"> </div>

 

[job1207]

Even though, seeing this larger rocket is good, frankly, it took me about two hours, 5 years ago, to come up with a rocket this large, for moon and Mars expeditions. I am just a smart guy, I am not a rocket scientist. It is a no brainer, that you need a rocket this large. You can argue about how to get there, but if you work back from a six month stay to what you need for translunar insertion, it takes just a little while to figure out that you need a huge rocket, or more than one rocket, and so on and so forth. Frankly, for a Mars expedition, you STILL need two of these, and perhaps three.

 

[Zipi]

Date:&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp; Mon, 23 Jun 2008 16:55:10 -0500<br />From:&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp; info@JSC.NASA.GOV<br />Subject: NASA STUDY PROVIDES NEXT STEP TO ESTABLISHING LUNAR OUTPOST<br /><br />June 23, 2008<br /><br />Lynnette Madison<br />Johnson Space Center, Houston<br />281-483-5111<br /><br /><br />Josh Byerly<br />Johnson Space Center, Houston<br />281-483-5111<br /><br /><br />Stephanie Schierholz<br />Headquarters, Washington<br />202-358-4997<br /><br /><br />Grey Hautaluoma<br />Headquarters, Washington<br />202-358-0668<br /><br /><br /><br />Report #H08-155<br /><br />NASA STUDY PROVIDES NEXT STEP TO ESTABLISHING LUNAR OUTPOST<br /><br />HOUSTON -- NASA engineers and scientists completed a milestone review June 20 that<br />will help determine the systems needed to return humans to the moon and establish a<br />lunar outpost.<br /><br />The three-day Lunar Capability Concept Review capped a nine-month study led by the<br />Exploration Systems Mission Directorate at NASA Headquarters in Washington that<br />incorporated science and exploration objectives earlier developed by representatives<br />of 14 countries as part of the Global Exploration Strategy. <br /><br />The study looked at possible lunar mission scenarios and compared them to the<br />capabilities of the emerging Ares V heavy lift launch vehicle and the Altair lunar<br />lander design concepts. This review of those findings, led by the Constellation<br />Program Office at NASA's Johnson Space Center in Houston, established all the<br />technical parameters that will be needed to begin Phase A, the first phase in<br />preparing vehicle requirements. <br /><br />&quot;We confirmed that Constellation's conceptual designs for both Ares V and<br />Altair will enable us to land astronauts and cargo anywhere on the moon and to build<br />an outpost supporting widespread exploration of the lunar surface,&quot; said Jeff<br />Hanley, Constellation Program manager at Johnson. &quot;This extensive review proves<br />we are ready for the next<br />phase: taking these concepts and moving forward to establish mature requirements.&quot;<br /><br />According to Hanley, the study bears out the strength of the initial concepts<br />showing the vehicles can be built and delivered in time to return humans to the moon<br />by 2020.<br /><br />The review also reinforced the key role of international partnerships and industry<br />collaboration to developing the lunar surface systems for human missions to the<br />moon.<br /><br />Phase A begins the process of defining the vehicle and element requirements. During<br />this phase, the Ares V and Altair Project teams will take what was learned from the<br />Lunar Capability Concept Review and baseline the needs for lunar missions, establish<br />the design needs and determine plans for advancing the technologies needed to be<br />successful. Phase A will culminate in a Systems Requirements Review for NASA's lunar<br />transportation architecture, tentatively planned for 2010.<br /><br /><font color="#ff0000"><strong>The review refined early configurations of the Ares V rocket to ensure its<br />capability to deliver the Altair lunar lander, four astronauts and cargo anywhere on<br />the moon and return the crew to Earth at any time. To accomplish those objectives,<br />the current configuration of the Ares V will use six RS-68B liquid oxygen and liquid<br />hydrogen engines on a core stage along with two five-and-one-half segment solid<br />propellant rocket boosters, which are a direct evolution from the first stage of the<br />Ares I rocket. The Ares V upper stage will propel the Orion crew capsule and Altair<br />to the moon using the same J-2X engine as the Ares I crew launch vehicle. The Ares V<br />will stand about 381 feet tall and be able to send more than 156,600 pounds of cargo<br />and components into orbit to the moon, and later to Mars or other destinations. <br /></strong></font><br />Altair will be capable of landing four astronauts anywhere on the moon, providing<br />life support and a base for the first week-long surface exploration missions, and<br />returning the crew to the Orion spacecraft for the ride home to Earth. A variant of<br />the lunar lander will serve as an autonomous cargo carrier, taking modular outpost<br />components, lunar rovers, and scientific equipment to the moon's surface. <br /><br />The formal decision to start Phase A will be taken to NASA's leaders before the end<br />of this year.<br /><br />The Constellation Program Office at Johnson has the responsibility for developing<br />the next human space transportation system that will be used to extend a human<br />presence throughout the solar system. The program includes multiple project offices<br />and technical teams at all ten NASA centers and at contract organizations around the<br />nation. The Orion Project and Altair Project also are led from Johnson. The Ares<br />Project Office at NASA's Marshall Space Flight Center in Huntsville, Ala., leads the<br />design and development of the Ares I rocket and Ares V cargo launch vehicle. The<br />Ground Operations Project at NASA's Kennedy Space Center in Florida will handle<br />ground and launch operations for the vehicles. <br /><br />For information about NASA's Constellation Program, visit: <br /><br />http://www.nasa.gov/constellation <div class="Discussion_UserSignature"> </div>

 

[trailrider]

<p><BR/>Replying to:<BR/><DIV CLASS='Discussion_PostQuote'>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.http://www.thespaceshow.com/detail.asp?q=781http://www.directlauncher.com/SLJ <br />Posted by spacelifejunkie</DIV></p><p>DIRECT is a concept which would WORK, but NASA committed to the AresI/V or VI thing, and is afraid to admit they are wrong!&nbsp; The Jupiter 120/242 vehicles consist of the 120 has no upper stage, uses 2 or 3 RS-68's and 4-segment SRB's, while the 242 uses 3 RS-68's in the first stage and whatever is feasible in the second, depending on configuration and mission.&nbsp; This would require NO major changes to the Ground Support Equipment other than building a service tower.&nbsp; While the Jupiters would not have the first stage thrust of an Ares V, you could launch two of them from the former Shuttle pads, rendezvous in LEO, and head for the Moon with little difficulty!</p><p>Interestingly, the Orlando Sentinel newspaper, et al, have taken up the case of DIRECT, so it may now get the publicity required to get the attention of Congress and whoever the next President turns out to be.&nbsp; Frankly, I don't see any major decisions/changes prior to 20 January 2009 (Inauguration Day).&nbsp; But, I do agree WE NEED TO START TALKING TO OUR CONGRESSMEN & SENATORS, AND ANYONE RUNNING FOR THOSE OFFICES, PLUS THE PRESIDENTIAL CANDIDATES!&nbsp; (Yeah, I'm shouting!)</p><p>When talking with whoever, do NOT represent yourself as a member of ANY of the major space advocacy groups, however.&nbsp; They could lose their tax exempt status, and we want the candidates to understand we are coming from "the grassroots" of space enthusiasts.</p><p>Ad Luna! Ad Ares! Ad Astra!</p>

 

[Zipi]

Replying to:<BR/><DIV CLASS='Discussion_PostQuote'>To accomplish those objectives,the current configuration of the Ares V will use six RS-68B liquid oxygen and liquidhydrogen engines on a core stage along with two five-and-one-half segment solidpropellant rocket boosters, which are a direct evolution from the first stage of theAres I rocket.<br />Posted by Zipi</DIV><br /><br />Replying to my own post, but I started yet again wondering why they want to make 5,5 SRB for Ares 5, but are not planning to use the same thing for Ares 1... Sounds like waste of resources for me, because now they would need to produce two different types of SRB's and by that way they cannot reuse used Ares 1 SRB's for Ares 5 as I think they have planned to do. <div class="Discussion_UserSignature"> </div>

 

[docm]

<p><font size="3"><BR/>Replying to:<BR/><DIV CLASS='Discussion_PostQuote'>Sounds like waste of resources for me....</DIV></font></p><p><font size="3">Now you're getting it</font> <img src="http://sitelife.space.com/ver1.0/content/scripts/tinymce/plugins/emotions/images/smiley-wink.gif" border="0" alt="Wink" title="Wink" /><br /></p> <div class="Discussion_UserSignature"> </div>

 

[windnwar]

<p><BR/>Replying to:<BR/><DIV CLASS='Discussion_PostQuote'>Now you're getting it <br />Posted by docm</DIV><br /><br />Yep, ARES is rapidly becoming a cancer on NASA's budget if it keeps spiraling out of control in order to make something that shouldn't fly, fly. </p><p>It's like taking a washing machine an turning it in an airplane. With enough hacks, it'll probably fly, but in the end, it won't be worth it. NASA needs to wake up real soon or they won't have anything to fly. Unfortunately they are talking about starting to tear down stuff they wouldn't have to tear down for Direct as soon as the Hubble mission is done since after that they won't have to have 2 shuttles on the pad at the same time. </p><p>&nbsp;What a waste. </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>