More Ares I Modifications

[spacelifejunkie]

http://www.nasaspaceflight.com/content/?cid=5167<br /><br /><br />I hope this doesn't take us down a dead end. I've always believed that politics stands in the way of NASA's success.<br /><br /><br />SLJ

 

[frodo1008]

I am becoming more and more disgusted with this situation. I have almost come to think that NASA would be better off to keep the shuttle than spend billions upon billions in the development of the Ares I just to satisfy the great state of Utah!! <br /><br />Of course the best and least expensive solution would be to use ALS with either the Atlas or Delta vehicles. Even with modifications these are vehicles that are already here. <br /><br />Before ALS, Boeing (and I am certain LM also) had a whole series of far easier upgrades to their EELV vehicles (which cost less for the Air Force to fund than just the new five segment motors alone are going to cost NASA!) that would take such already proven vehicles up to not only the Ares I capabilities, but even the Ares V and beyond!!<br /><br />Heck, even spacex has plans for such vehicles at far less cost!!!

 

[tomnackid]

Do you realize how many modifications Apollo hardware went through before it reached the moon? Right up until the last Apollo flight Gumann was offering bonuses to employees who could come up with viable ideas for reducing the mass of the LM. Do you have any idea of the massive changes between the block 1 and block 2 command module? They were practically different spacecraft. I won't even get into the changes the shuttle program went through. All in all the Ares I design has been comparatively stable.<br /><br />NASA and the US government want the SRBs to stay around for a future HLLV. In order for that to happen they have to be used in vehicles to keep the production line open. Closing production and then reopening it again at a later date will be far more expensive. The Ares I isn't all that much different from the solid first stage Saturn I proposede back in the 60s. The SRBs are by far the most reliable rocket motors in existence. It would be a shame to lose that technology through stinginess and short sightedness.<br /><br />Shuttle -- 2 SRBs per launch, every launch.<br />Ares I -- 1 SRB per launch.<br /><br />Guess which one the "Great State of Utah" would prefer?<br /><br />Is it too much to ask to give just a little benefit of the doubt to the people who have spent years of thier lives designing real launch vehicles as opposed to model rocket builders, software jockeys and other assorted hobbyists?

 

[spacelifejunkie]

I have always given NASA and its contractors the credit they deserve for every single accomplishment. The score at the end of the game is the measuring stick in my mind. I'll give them all the leeway they deserve on how to design a spaceship. But I also believe the "software jockies" will end up winning this game because they only answer to the bottom line. They haven't accomplished a lot, I'll concede that. But it won't be long. If there is a profit to be made, they will make it happen while NASA is hamstrung by politicians, budget cuts, and public opinion. I wish it were not so but it is. Every four years we run the risk of a new president who thinks of NASA as Nixon did when he cancelled Apollo. Unfortunately, we never know who these presidents are until they are elected and start making policy. We also cannot leave out members of Congress whose allegiance is to their populace, not necessarily the long range betterment of mankind. I'm not trying to change the direction of the thread or sound negative. But these are the driving forces behind the current vision. <br /><br />I say we man rate the Ares V and make the CEV as capable as we want it to be. Give ISS supply to SpaceX or ULA. Two Ares V vehicles would make a whopper moon mission. Bring an end to the stick now. <br /><br /><br />SLJ

 

[deapfreeze]

I do agree with giving the supply job to SpaceX or ULA. That would free up some of NASA's budget for more important work. Like getting to the Moon, Mars and other planets. <div class="Discussion_UserSignature"> <p><font size="2" color="#0000ff"><em>William ( deapfreeze ) Hooper</em></font></p><p><font size="1">http://deapfreeze-amateur-astronomy.tk/</font></p><p> </p> </div>

 

[tomnackid]

VSE is not a presidential decree that can be changed at the whim of the next administration. It is a law passed by congress. At this point the only way to stop NASA from working towards the goals of VSE would be to repeal the law. <br /><br />Nixon didn't "cancel" Apollo, he actually declined to support a continuation of it. Apollo had achieved its primary goals. It was unfortunate that we so willingly gave up a working man-rated system, but Vietnam, inflation and the oil embargo were looming large in the public's minds back in the 70s (I remeber those dismal days. They make our current problems look rather tame.) Its amazing that we got the shuttle by the 80s!<br /><br />The US gov. desperately wants private options for space station resupply. That's one of the reasons the CEV is NOT being designed as "more capable" as some put it. Its not intended to be a space truck. Its intended to be the reentry vehicle for manned exploration missions. <br /><br />BTW I wasn't trying to dis the private companies working on launch vehicles. I think they are finally on the right track. By "hobbyists" and "software jockies" I meant those who don't actually have any training in designing rockets but constantly carp about what the professional are doing and claim they have a better--no make that "the best" design. Power Point rockets are ALWAYS cheaper and more capable than the real thing. That's no great accomplishment.

 

[radarredux]

> <i><font color="yellow">I do agree with giving the supply job to SpaceX or ULA. That would free up some of NASA's budget for more important work.</font>/i><br /><br />Well, SpaceX and ULA aren't going to do it for free, so NASA will still need to take money out of their budgets to pay them.</i>

 

[radarredux]

> <i><font color="yellow">It is a law passed by congress. At this point the only way to stop NASA from working towards the goals of VSE would be to repeal the law.</font>/i><br /><br />To kill VSE, all Congress needs to do is choose not to fund it.<br /></i>

 

[spacelifejunkie]

Radar, you beat me to it. Money is the policy. If Nixon didn't provide the money, he cancelled it. Wars, oil and the like will ALWAYS be a part of our daily life. It is simply a matter of priorities.<br /><br />Tomnackid, I agree with you about the entrepeneurs with bold promises with little to show. But they deserve a massive amount of respect if they deliver. Real vision creates much negativity.<br /><br /><br />SLJ

 

[tomnackid]

Again its not the entrepenuers I was criticizing, it is the armchair rocket scientists--the backseat drivers and monday morning quaterbacks of the aerospace world. I will be delighted when private companies take over more and more of the routine infrastructure.

 

[frodo1008]

I don't know if you are referring to me or not here:<br /><br /><font color="yellow"> Is it too much to ask to give just a little benefit of the doubt to the people who have spent years of their lives designing real launch vehicles as opposed to model rocket builders, software jockeys and other assorted hobbyists? </font><br /><br />If not then ignore me here, if so then please be advised that I quite probably have as much actual experience in the actual building and inspection of aerospace hardware as anyone you are likely to find on these boards. While I was not always (except for some six years on the original B!-A bomber, where I was in systems engineering) in design engineering, in order to do my job I had to be familiar with and work with such engineers.<br /><br />Most of my work was involved in the actual manufacturing or the quality control of manufacturing of almost all of the American liquid rocket engines from 1962 up to my retirement in 2000. These were actual engines such as the F1, J2, and all of the smaller RCS Engines on the Saturn rocket system. Also, the engines for the Delta II (and at the end the RS68 for the Delta IV), and the Atlas engines up until LM brought the Russians on board. I was also involved in the upper forth stage of the Peacekeeper ICBM missile, and also the Army's Lance missile system as well as parts of the guidance system of the Minuteman missile (and yes, at one time I also held a Secret clearrance from the Air Force). But most of my years of experience were spent on what is still the greatest single rocket engine achievement in the history of aerospace: the fantastic SSME's. Enough experience for you?<br /><br />When the SSME's were in design development there were two Gods of engineering that the engineers were to worship at the exclusion of all else. These were the God of performance, and the God of weight. These Gods were scrupulously followed at the exclusion of all else, mainly cost!<br /><br />In these particu

 

[spacelifejunkie]

Frodo, great post! Keep them long! I am not an engineer so I use these boards to keep up on news and learn. However, I believe Tomnackid was referring to me. <br /><br />Tomnackid, I think I understood your post from the beginning but I'm glad you've clarified. I think we are basically looking from a similar point of view except for Nixon cutting the money in the 70's. There is another thread in SB&T concerning Space Island Group. A perfect example of the "power point astronaut" crowd that you are referring to. I hate to name names and I do wish them the best of luck but I've followed those guys for years now and they only make promises. <br /><br />I do believe in NASA, but I also think the political winds have damaged the agency over the years into such a bureaucratic mess that it may not ever reach its new vision. I fear "The Stick" controversy is another step in that direction. As I said before, however, I'll reserve my judgement until around 2018.<br /><br /><br />SLJ

 

[propforce]

<blockquote><font class="small">In reply to:</font><hr /><p>Do you realize how many modifications Apollo hardware went through before it reached the moon? <p><hr /></p></p></blockquote><br /><br />I think you confused the subject of this thread. <br /><br />Apollo is a <i>payload</i> sitting on top of a Saturn V <i>launch vehicle</i>, much like the Orion it is today sitting on top of the Ares 1 launch vehicle.<br /><br />This thread addresses the design of a launch vehicle.<br /><br />But there's a big difference between the then-Saturn V launch vehicle and even the latter-day Shuttle Orbiter, from today's Ares 1 launch vehicle design,. The previous vehicles were designed by private companies with both institutional as well as key personnel experience in launch vehicle (rocket) design, development & test. This is not just design on paper (or on the computer) but, as frodo pointed out with his experience, the actual know-how's of manufacturing highly complex and high reliable parts and systems. <br /><br />The decision to give NASA MSFC to design and develop the Ares 1 "in-house" as oppose contracting out to the experienced industry to do so, is a drastic departure from the past sound practice of "choose the best guy to do the job". In fact, it's down-right irresponsible of current NASA management. On one-hand, it claims the "low-risk" approach by choosing a "shuttle-derived" launch vehicle architecture, on the other hand, it picked a design center (MSFC) who has no experience in having successfully design a launch vehicle of any size. It then fumbled on the so-called "shuttle-derived" hardware and now having to spend the extra multi-billion dollars that it doesn't have in its budget to design a 5-segment SRB and a J-2X engine.<br /><br /><blockquote><font class="small">In reply to:</font><hr /><p>NASA and the US government want the SRBs to stay around for a future HLLV.<p><hr /></p></p></blockquote><br /><br />Many seem to use the HLLV (Ares 5) to defend the funding of FSB during Ares 1. The <div class="Discussion_UserSignature"> </div>

 

[josh_simonson]

ATK earns roughly $400M in ~2000 dollars (inflation adjusted up now), no matter how many SRBs they make, be it none during RTF activities or 14 on a busy year. They could really care less how many they deliver because they aren't paid by the booster.<br /><br />Politically however they'd probably prefer to make more so that they don't appear so expensive. Half as many makes them look twice as expensive when accountants break things down.

 

[propforce]

<blockquote><font class="small">In reply to:</font><hr /><p>ATK earns roughly $400M in ~2000 dollars (inflation adjusted up now), no matter how many SRBs they make, be it none during RTF activities or 14 on a busy year. They could really care less how many they deliver because they aren't paid by the booster. <p><hr /></p></p></blockquote><br /><br />ATK is a conglomerate. Each division/ subsidiary is still responsible for their own P&L and either the GM will be replaced or the division/subsidiary will be shutdown/ sold for those who are not profitable. <br /><br />You bet they're still concern with revenues at the SRB facility. Otherwise they would not have pay the big $$$ to hire Scott Horowitz as their marketing man.<br /> <div class="Discussion_UserSignature"> </div>

 

[josh_simonson]

I wasn't saying they weren't concerned about being profitable, just that NASA has a 'Buffet' contract with them for SRBs. All they can eat for ~$400m. A buffet doesn't care how much you eat, just that you're hungry enough to pay to get in.

 

[jimfromnsf]

"It is a law passed by congress. At this point the only way to stop NASA from working towards the goals of VSE would be to repeal the law. "<br /><br />There is no "law" <br /><br />The CEV IS being designed for station resupply<br /><br />Industry is where the rockets designers are. Not at NASA or MSFC. They haven't designed a rocket since the 60's

 

[nuaetius]

http://www.flightglobal.com/articles/2007/07/17/215553/nasa-drops-ares-i-upper-stage-engine.html<br /><br />NASA has stopped developing the 274,000lb-thrust (1,220kN) J-2XD engine version for its Ares I crew launch vehicle (CLV) and will use its 294,000lb-thrust J-2X powerplant for the CLV and the Ares V cargo launch vehicle upper stages.<br /><br />The liquid-oxygen, liquid-hydrogen-fuelled J-2X, named after the Apollo programme upper-stage J-2 engine, will start 133s into the flight at an altitude of 194,000ft (59,000m) and will have a mass of about 2,450kg (5,400lb). Every element of the original powerplant's design will be altered to achieve the higher Ares launchers' thrust needs.<br /><br />To ensure the required 448s specific impulse, the engine will also use a version of the NASA/Lockheed Martin X-33 advanced technology demonstrator's J-2S engine's turbopump. That will be tested in October as part of the J-2X powerpack at NASA's Stennis Space Center. Flight revealed this parallel development last year and now only the J-2X will be available from 2013.<br /><br />As well as a larger nozzle extension, the J-2X will have to use new materials because the J-2 used out-of-date aluminium alloys, its thermal protection system is no longer available, and other components have since been outlawed by the US Environmental Protection Agency.<br /><br />More up-to-date manufacturing technologies will also be employed, including the hot isostatic pressing bonding method used to produce the Pratt & Whitney Rocketdyne RS-68 engine's milled channel combustion chamber.<br /><br />The current J-2X preliminary design review will also decide whether the engine faces 280 or 220 tests.<br /><br />"We had looked at the 274,000lb engine during development...we decided to upgrade when we saw we could do that," says NASA Marshall Spaceflight Centre-based Exploration Launch

 

[jimfromnsf]

"The need for a cold soak-capable Ares I J-2X engine seemed to confirm information obtained by Flight that the agency had considered shifting the Orion crew exploration vehicle's service module propulsion functions to the Ares I upper stage - it would be left attached while Orion was at the International Space Station.<br /><br />This information had been corroborated by a NASA foam debris reduction report passed to Flight, which says that the Ares I's upper-stage insulation would have to operate for more than 90 days in orbit and that the vacuum environment would see small foam pieces liberated. "<br /><br /><br />Total BS.<br /><br />The RCS system would have to greatly increased.<br />What would be the deorbit propellant?<br />What would power the upperstage electrically?<br />SM type engines would be needed for orbit corrections<br />MMOD protection?<br /><br />Their "corroboration" is bunk. The foam would have to survive the 90 days and the cold soak is for the EDS.

 

[propforce]

<blockquote><font class="small">In reply to:</font><hr /><p>I wasn't saying they weren't concerned about being profitable, just that NASA has a 'Buffet' contract with them for SRBs. All they can eat for ~$400m. A buffet doesn't care how much you eat, just that you're hungry enough to pay to get in. <p><hr /></p></p></blockquote><br /><br />Oh I see what you're saying. Sorry if I misunderstood you.<br /><br />Will this 'buffet' contract last after the Shuttle is cancelled? If so, how will the new contract look like? (it's a rhetorical question).<br /><br />I am still sure that ATK welcomes the new $3 BILLION dollar RDT&E contract for the 5-segment SRB (FSB) nevertheless. A R&D contract as such will update their SRB technology base, train new engineers, an increased in revenue, meanwhile still keeping the Shuttle $400M per year 'buffet' contract. <div class="Discussion_UserSignature"> </div>

 

[propforce]

<blockquote><font class="small">In reply to:</font><hr /><p>NASA has stopped developing the 274,000lb-thrust (1,220kN) J-2XD engine version for its Ares I crew launch vehicle (CLV) and will use its 294,000lb-thrust J-2X powerplant for the CLV and the Ares V cargo launch vehicle upper stages. <br /><br />To ensure the required 448s specific impulse, the engine will also use a version of the NASA/Lockheed Martin X-33 advanced technology demonstrator's J-2S engine's turbopump. That will be tested in October as part of the J-2X powerpack at NASA's Stennis Space Center. Flight revealed this parallel development last year and now only the J-2X will be available from 2013. <p><hr /></p></p></blockquote><br /><br />Sounds like a prudent approach.<br /><br />It's also a lower risk approach by using already developed turbopumps from the X-33 program. <br /><br />I am sure that they will end up using every bit of additional thrust they can get on the J-2X by the time the upper stage & the CEV (Orion) are developed. <br /><br /><blockquote><font class="small">In reply to:</font><hr /><p>Despite the adoption of the Ares V engine for the CLV, the J-2X requirements still include the ability to provide a circularisation burn and to cope with a cold soak of up to 95 days in low-Earth orbit. Cook expects to verify those in 2012-13. <br /><br />The need for a cold soak-capable Ares I J-2X engine seemed to confirm information obtained by Flight that the agency had considered shifting the Orion crew exploration vehicle's service module propulsion functions to the Ares I upper stage - it would be left attached while Orion was at the International Space Station.<p><hr /></p></p></blockquote><br /><br />It's good to see that the new J-2X requirements include a "re-start" capability. It could be used for circulation burn on the Ares 1 or multiple burns for the future Ares V. <br /><br />Whether this changes the flight sequence with the Orion CEV or not need not be decided at this point. As minimum, it offers a 'back-up' c <div class="Discussion_UserSignature"> </div>

 

[jimfromnsf]

"It's good to see that the new J-2X requirements include a "re-start" capability. It could be used for circulation burn on the Ares 1 or multiple burns for the future Ares V.<br /><br />Whether this changes the flight sequence with the Orion CEV or not need not be decided at this point. As minimum, it offers a 'back-up' capability to the Orion CEV."<br /><br />Just because the engine is capable of restarts, doesn't mean the stage is. <br /><br />Ares I upperstage is an ascent stage and doesn't have the capability to support restarts. Items needed for restart.<br />1. More electrical power<br />2. Zero g vent system<br />3. axial thrusters<br />4. Propellant/engine conditioning system<br />5. TPS for orbital conditions

 

[gunsandrockets]

I think your subject header "More Ares I modifications" is incorrect. The article you linked to is about the Orion spacecraft instead of the Ares I launch vehicle.<br /><br />I found this part of the article very interesting...<br /><br />"Nitrogen tetroxide (N2O4) and Monomethylhydrazine (MMH) will power the Orion service module's engine, producing 7,300 lbs (3311 kg) of thrust with 326 sec ISP and a 1.85:1 oxidizer to fuel ratio."<br /><br />That information directly contradicts the 'insider' rumor that the Orion service module engine is going to be the AJ10-118K engine from the upper stage of the Delta II launch vehicle. The AJ10-118K is a more powerful engine and also one that burns Aerozine-50 fuel instead of MMH.<br /><br /><br />

 

[gunsandrockets]

$1.2 billion for the J-2X? Yikes! But from all the changes made from the original J-2 it sounds like the J-2X is almost a clean sheet design. I can't help but think money of that magnitude would be better spent on a more advanced technology engine such as a LPNTR.

 

[jimfromnsf]

Things change. Just as the CM RCS has changed from ethanol to methane. The 607 config is due out this fall.