Feasibility of Baker's Ares today?

Status
Not open for further replies.
N

nilstycho

Guest
Zubrin's Grand Plan hinges on the development of a HLLV. I am very pleased that Griffin seems to think that developing one is NASA's <i>numero uno</i> priority. However, I'm concerned that what may have once been the best concept design may be no longer viable.<br /><br />NASA's next HLLV must be either SDV or expensive, and, knowing NASA, they'll want to opt for the former. This is not unreasonable. Reviving the Energia or Saturn V is nonsense. NASA's Magnum, however, doesn't have the sufficient capacity. Baker's Ares, popularized by Zubrin, fits the bill.<br /><br />However, Ares (and Magnum, for that matter) needs ASRMs (or LFBBs?) to achieve full capacity, and with anything less than a full-capacity Ares we're going to have to do in-orbit assembly, etc.<br /><br />ASRMs (and LFBBs) have been scrapped, and nothing has taken their place. I thought RL-60s would be a nice upgrade from the Ares' RL-10s, but RL-60s have apparently been shelved.<br /><br />My question is simply this: in 1990, the Ares looked spectacular. Today, is the Ares feasible?
 
S

smradoch

Guest
Why do you think Ares is necessary for Lunar mission? 80t to LEO is enough to get 3 astronauts to Lunar Orbit by CEV and to lunar surface by ultralight lunar module. At surface excursion module (cca 20t) by another 80t launcher will be placed. Then you can refuel 2t hypergolics and aim back the Earth. 2 x 80t SDV will be enough.
 
S

smradoch

Guest
Ares is too big, maybe smaler SDV would be better as first step. SRB+modifiedET with 2 RS-68 (or 3 SSME) engine block at the bottom and RL-60 as upper stage+cargo at the top. Upper stage can be used as EDS to Moon. Maybe you will not get 80t to LEO, but it does'n matter because you can still deliver 3 astronaut to a habitat waiting at Moon and bring them back. Ares needs too much to develop at once.
 
S

smradoch

Guest
I think there's confusion in Zubrin's plan. There are much more scenarios how to get to Moon. Bush initiative calls for Moon station and to test resources utilization. So you will need to get there one-way cargo and two-way crew. It's nonsens to deliver cargo with crew, because it's utterly unefficient (as we learn from STS). Is it safer? Don't think so. Hopefully there will be CEV soon to get crew to low lunar orbit. How to get crew to the Moon station (or landed habitat) when you will have only about 5t or less for lunar module? Is it possible to support crew for several hours of lunar landing? I think it's possible with light open landing platform, hyperbolics and refueling at base.
 
J

JonClarke

Guest
Which one of Zubrin's plans are you talking about and how is it confused?<br /><br />Jon <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

smradoch

Guest
Plans for Ares HLLV and mission similar to Apollo or mission refueling LO at Moon. It's too optimistic. US (or NASA) can't develop that anytime soon. I believe it's possible in 20y horizon to have small base (and testbed) at Moon spradicaly visited. But plans for Mars are too much optimistic as Freedom or STS were before.
 
N

najab

Guest
><i>But plans for Mars are too much optimistic as Freedom or STS were before.</i><p>The plans for Project Apollo were also over optimistics and <i>definitely</i> beyond the capabilities of 1961 technology. However, it was sucessfully accomplished within the allotted timeframe. The reason was that, unlike Freedom and the STS, it was consistently given national (and more importantly, Congressional) support and was fully funded.<p>MtM can be even more sucessful than Apollo....<b>if</b> it is supported.</p></p>
 
S

smradoch

Guest
Right. You will never get more than 8mld/year. So it will not be supported. Be realistic and you can have small base at Moon. Be unrealistic and you will end up with fragments. It will be easy for politics to kill too expensive adventure for few.
 
N

najab

Guest
At $8M/year NASA would pack up and go home. MtM will require at least a consistent $3-4 <b>billion</b> a year to be sucessful.
 
S

smradoch

Guest
I thought that it's clear now that STS was system fault. Even with more money it would be always too complex, too expensive, unefficient and unsafe. On contrary Apollo was only too expensive. Freedom would have been too expensive and without soujuz and progres unsafe as well.<br />Yet, I still think that Shuttle is the most wonderfull spacecraft ever built. So why not to continue with SDV?
 
S

smradoch

Guest
Sorry, small mistake... $8 billion/year. 3-4 B would be for salaries only :)
 
N

najab

Guest
><i> Even with more money it would be always too complex, too expensive, unefficient and unsafe.</i><p>Actually, if Congress had given NASA the money the Shuttle would have been a <b>very</b> different beast. As it was the Shuttle was built to <i>Air Force</i> specifications on a reduced budget. Do some reading up on the topic.</p>
 
S

smradoch

Guest
Can you give me some link to realistic parameters Shuttle could achieve even with unlimited money? What statment (too complex, too expensive, unefficient, unsafe, wonderful) do you think is not true?
 
S

shyningnight

Guest
I think what najaB is saying (and I trust he'll correct me if I'm wrong...) is this;<br />Had NASA not been saddled with the Air Force's requirements in order to get the Air Forces MONEY to complete the Shuttle from day one... the system would be quite different, and probably superior in many respects.<br />Because Congress wouldn't shell out the cash, the Air Force stepped in with it's checkbook... and their "conditions". Their "conditions" put the technology at far more of a "reach" than what NASA originally had in mind, and hence we get a Shuttle that is more complex and more costly to operate than what COULD have been done. That was the price NASA paid to get the Shuttle funded at ALL.<br /><br />Trying to throw money at the Shuttle system TODAY to make it better, cheaper, and more efficient would be an example of good money after bad. Of course, Congress is pretty good at doing that... so I better not speak too soon...<br /><br /><br />Paul F.<br />
 
J

JonClarke

Guest
smradoch<br /><br /><br />Do you think that the projects you list - Ares class HLV, return to the moon, lunar ISPP, missions to mars - are too optimistic technically or politicially? In what time frame?<br /><br />Jon <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>
 
Y

yurkin

Guest
Ares <b>is</b> shuttle derived.<br /><br /><font color="yellow">SRB+Modified-ET with 2 RS-68 (or 3 SSME)</font><br /><br />Ares <b>does</b> have 3 SSMEs and 2 Advanced SRBS.<br />http://www.astronautix.com/lvs/ares.htm<br /><br />I suspect making a smaller SDV would increase the cost of engineering. It involves designing a scaled down SDV which would be more complicated then building a same size version.<br /><br />Or are we talking about 2 different vehicles?<br />
 
N

nilstycho

Guest
<b>smradoch:</b><br /><br />"Why do you think Ares is necessary for Lunar mission? [etc]"<br /><br />I don't. I never said anything about a lunar mission. <img src="/images/icons/smile.gif" /> However, now that you mention it, I just think greater capacity is a Good Thing, and highly desirable if we want to (1) use common hardware for our Mars missions and (2) scale up our lunar capability significantly.<br /><br /><b>offsprey5:</b><br /><br />"Ok, what rocket do we have already that can put 80t in LEO in one launch?"<br /><br />I think he's (hope I got your gender correct) referring to a Magnum, which is relatively conservative and probably feasible.<br /><br /><b>yurkin:</b><br /><br />No kidding. I am certainly talking about "your" Ares. For the record, Ares also has a modified ET (to accomodate payload faring). And I completely agree with you. (The only other "Ares" I know of is "ARES", the Mars plane.)<br /><br /><br />I'm still waiting for an anwer to my original question, if anybody is interested in tackling it: <i>do you think Ares is feasible today?</i> <img src="/images/icons/smile.gif" />
 
S

space_dreamer

Guest
Simple answer, yes ! <br /><br />However If were going for a real HLLV then I think it should be bigger 200t to LEO min ! this makes the engineering of moon/mars space craft simpler.<br /><br />
 
S

space_dreamer

Guest
Your right there Shyningnight<br /><br />...if only.<br /><br />
 
G

gofer

Guest
I'm not sure how NASA can afford it as its yearly exploration allowance is ~1.2-3.4 bill or so peaking at 3.4 in 2010 with CEV's first operational fly off. I don't see Congress giving extra money for the HLV. If it uses CEV money I'd say it can't afford to spend more than 15% on developing a new rocket because payloads typically cost much much more than rockets they ride on. (or is the HLV just for bulk consumables?)<br /><br />So, 6.4 B *.15 = .96 bil for the HLV. Can Ares be done (developed AND manufactured) for .96 B? I don't see it.<br /><br />budget info source: http://www.cbo.gov/showdoc.cfm?index=5772&sequence=2 (table 1-4)<br /><br />Technically, Ares is feasible though. Lots of work but nothing impossible.<br /><br />Feasible technically, although I wouldn't call it 'shuttle-derived'. Only the 1st stage engines seem to be 'off the shelf' STS hardware (the SSME option). The ET with top payload mounting and the engine pod - new. Advanced SRBs - new. Ground launch and other infrustructure - new. <br /><br />Money wise, it's very doubtful. <br /><br />Is this to be done on NASA's or Zubrin's (lol) money? If on NASA's, consider that its CEV/Exploration systems yearly allowance will be 1-3+ billion (peaks at 3.4 in 2010 first CEV fly-off) <br /><br />I haven't seen Ares cost analysis, but having seen reasonable Shuttle-C (also a bad idea) estimates from 3 to 5 bil for development, which is more 'off the shelf' than Ares, and being the optimist that I'm, I'll eyball it at 4-5 bil for Ares factoring in overruns, underperformances and misc. red tape. <br /><br />So, NASA spends from 80% to 40% of its total Constellation/exploration budget per year on this dream rocket. <br /><br />Ok, great. Time to launch something with it. No-one knows yet how much the CEV/Constellation hardware itself will cost. Consider that normally payloads cost much much much more than the rockets they
 
S

smradoch

Guest
I absolutely agree with gofer. <br />Though I think CEV and HLV can be done for different money. CEV is for extra money relocated from other parts of budget and later from STS. But there are still lot of money and lot of people working on STS and doing basicaly nothing but keeping STS going on. They are busy with doing something what will be binned soon.<br />The idea is to use this people and resources to built SDV. There is not much funds to do that, so it should be as simple as possible. There will be no money to improve SRB, develop new engines, train people or to make big changes to infrastructure. <br />Recently big part of budget is going to orbiters. Delete them and rest of STS with RS-68 engine will be relatively cheap and simple. And I hope you can still use STS infrastructure.<br />I think that this job fits perfectly to NASA and their engineers. They work with STS for so long, that I would let them die with it.
 
S

smradoch

Guest
Ares and Moon are not dificult technically, but it will be exspensive and Nasa will not get more money than 1% of GDP. That means $16 B or so. For these money you have to keep lot of engineers, lot of infrastructure and lot of projects. I suppose that many people left NASA looking for something new. Mostly people satisfied with their work stayed. Therefore I would advice NASA to continue with STS or SDV because many pople can work with STS, will be satisfied and suitable for that work. <br />Mars is different story you need new Hi-tech technology and private companies with dynamic people. It will be very expensive and people will need lot of training. Maybe that people at NASA can gain experiences at Moon but it's in 30 years horizont and it will be with new generation of engineers.
 
S

smradoch

Guest
The problem with Ares is that it's using advanced SRB, non specified upper stage and expensive SSME, which are lost every mission. You would need to develop Earth departure stage (EDS) as well. <br />Using the common SRB and common RS-68 and RL-60 (which has to be developed anyway for EELV or for EDS) you will get smaller (smaler fairing), lighter and cheaper SDV than Ares and you can still use STS infrastructure (I hope after small changes only). <br />You can upgrade this SDV later. This SDV would have max 80t to LEO, which allows to place 20t cargo to the Moon or to support 3 astronauts in CEV to the Moon base and back. <br />You can still use it instead of Magnum for Mars. But don't forget that Mars is at least 30 years away (very optimistic).
 
G

gofer

Guest
Need to add that the link I provided does have a separate HLV budget in 2010-2020 with the total NASA exploration budget of $57.5Bil (!!!) for that decade (adjusted for inflation?), it's just I, personally, don't put stock in those long-term budget projections, as that will be under different presidents, different congress, different NASA admin, and frankly I don't see that much of a jump in NASA exploration financing as something to rely on in planning. <br /><br />[edit] It's true though that by that time the ISS and the STS are supposed to finish being financed, but even if so, in the past it's not been a guarntee that the freed up funds will stay in NASA and not be appropriated for some other part of the country's budget, or for some other pet project ("well", the congress(wo)men could say, "you've built your station, you've got something to fly to it in. You dont' need that money anymore, but I promised this medical center in my state... and there's shortage of money... etc..."). So you have to base plans on the worst budgetary outcomes. How to make the program's importance and its single-minded (in the good sense of the word) drive for human exploration 'stick' beyond 2010 is something Mr. Griffin will have to work on and in which I wish him all of luck.
 
S

smradoch

Guest
It's easy. There are engineers at Nasa and they have to eat and they are voters. You have to give them a work. When you cancel STS they have to do something and SDV is the best option. People around orbiters will work with CEV and people in eploration will have their job too. You can't give NASA less or more than 1% of GDP ($16B) it's clear.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.

Similar threads

Latest posts