NASA completes requirements review for Ares I vehicle

[kane007]

SpaceDaily 2007/01/05<br /><br />It confirmed that the Ares I architecture and design concept can fulfill the mission objectives and that the Ares project is ready to begin engineering design activities. The Ares preliminary design review is scheduled for mid-2008.<br /><br /><br />Among the items addressed in the review was the commitment to reduce operations costs through streamlined launch vehicle processing. All hardware elements -- the first stage, upper stage and upper stage engine -- are emphasizing operations simplicity to enable NASA to sustain long-term exploration of space within its budget.<br /><br />In January 2007, the Ares project will begin the second in a series of design analyses cycles leading to final design and fabrication of the launch vehicle. This cycle will baseline design changes made during the first cycle.<br /><br />In the updated Ares 1 configuration, a common bulkhead between the upper stage liquid hydrogen and liquid oxygen tanks has been substituted for an intertank, thus shortening the vehicle. The thrust profile for the Ares I first stage also has been baselined. This means requirements have been established for how the solid propellant inside the five-segment reusable solid rocket booster burns during ascent.<br />

 

[JonClarke]

So much for all the panic here that Ares I was doomed because it was overweight.<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>

 

[JonClarke]

<img src="/images/icons/smile.gif" /> <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>

 

[nyarlathotep]

<font color="yellow">Among the items addressed in the review was the commitment to reduce operations costs through streamlined launch vehicle processing. All hardware elements -- the first stage, upper stage and upper stage engine -- are emphasizing operations simplicity to enable NASA to sustain long-term exploration of space within its budget. </font><br /><br /><tongue in cheek /> So does the review indicate that they should be buying a Zenit yet?

 

[j05h]

<i>> Among the items addressed in the review was the commitment to reduce operations costs through streamlined launch vehicle processing.</i><br /><br />Impossible task using that technology base. In terms of cost-per-flight or cost-per-astronaut, the Stick is going to be as expensive (or nearly) as the Shuttle. There has to be a better, smarter way to do this. They are going to blow $15G to develop something we already have? How does that work?<br /><br />Josh <div class="Discussion_UserSignature"> <div align="center"><em>We need a first generation of pioneers.</em><br /></div> </div>

 

[JonClarke]

"They are going to blow $15G to develop something we already have? "<br /><br />We don't <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>

 

[j05h]

<i>> We don't</i><br /><br />I beg to differ. The ARES I is only in the same class as current EELVs. For man-rated access to LEO, the gold standard is the commercially available Soyuz/Progress. These both exist now. Lockheed is discussing man-rating Atlas for Bigelow. If ARES I is really about developing components for heavy-lift, it should be honest about that and pursue a purely development path for ARES IV/V. There is no need for the Stick if NASA buys Soyuz and directly pursues HLV. <br /><br />I like that people are talking about Zenit lately. Excellent rocket in general, under SeaLaunch in particular. <br /><br />Why is CEV so heavy, especially in Block I? I understand that it's six seats, but it shouldn't weigh 5 times more than Soyuz for double capacity. If Block I is for ISS, why should it mass more than 10-15 tons and be neutral to launcher? Following that, a variety of launchers can be used to stage in LEO and L1, then access the Moon or anywhere from there. <br /><br />What hurdles would there be to building a Soyuz factory in the USA? That might be the fastest (and safest) route to American access.<br /><br />Josh <div class="Discussion_UserSignature"> <div align="center"><em>We need a first generation of pioneers.</em><br /></div> </div>

 

[rocketman5000]

The hurdles would be finding funding, import regulations and stuff like that<br />

 

[rogers_buck]

How do we know there isn't a requirement "The Aries 1 shall be overweight"?<br />

 

[radarredux]

> <i><font color="yellow">So much for all the panic here that Ares I was doomed because it was overweight.</font>/i><br /><br />I think a more accurate description of the problem is: Ares I was underpowered, or Orion was overweight.<br /><br />Sort of like Garfield: "I'm not overweight, I am under tall."</i>

 

[radarredux]

> <i><font color="yellow">If ARES I is really about developing components for heavy-lift, it should be honest about that and pursue a purely development path for ARES IV/V. There is no need for the Stick if NASA buys Soyuz and directly pursues HLV.</font>/i><br /><br />I do wonder what the timeline would be if NASA pursued the following strategy:<br /><br />(1) Kill development of the Ares I as a stand-alone launch vehicle and continue a slow, low cost development of the 5 segment SRB booster.<br /><br />(2) Focus the majority of R&D on the Ares IV core that could be used to launch Orion to LEO.<br /><br />(3) Augment the operable Ares IV core with the 5-segment boosters for Lunar missions.<br /><br />Could such a path accelerate time timeline to the Moon?</i>

 

[radarredux]

> <i><font color="yellow">The ARES I is only in the same class as current EELVs.</font>/i><br /><br />Slightly off topic question... I am aware of SRBs being used a lot for additional power for liquid fueled rockets, but I am not aware of SRBs being used as the primary launch vehicle to put payloads into orbit.<br /><br />How often have SRBs been used as a launch vehicle to put payloads into orbit?</i>

 

[steve82]

Check out Orbital Science's Minotaur and Taurus rockets. They're solid fuel ground launched vehicles that have been used to orbit satellites:<br /><br />http://www.orbital.com/SpaceLaunch/Minotaur/index.html

 

[cuddlyrocket]

"In terms of cost-per-flight or cost-per-astronaut, the Stick is going to be as expensive (or nearly) as the Shuttle."<br /><br />The stick will be way cheaper than the Shuttle. The people behind the Direct proposal, who have no reason to downplay the Stick's costs, put the annual fixed cost of the Ares 1 at $900m per annum and the variable cost at $120m per flight.<br /><br />The Shuttle 2007 budget was $4.06 billion.

 

[edkyle98]

"How often have SRBs been used as a launch vehicle to put payloads into orbit?"<br /><br />All-solid orbital launches have been relatively rare until now, but the trend is toward more use. I counted only 217 solid orbital launch attempts, all time, out of the more than 4,800 orbital attempts that have occurred during the space age. Five of last year's 66 orbital launch attempts were performed by multistage solid-fueled rockets. <br /><br />Vehicle Attempts(Failures)<br /><br />(A)SLV 7(5)<br />KT-1 2(2)<br />Conestoga 1(1)<br />Japan L-M 35(8)<br />Minuteman (Minotaur-1) 6(0) <br />MX (Athena/Taurus) 14(3)<br />Pegasus 37(5)<br />Scout 100(16)<br />Shavit 5(3)<br />Topol' (Start) 7(1)<br />VLS 2(2)<br /><br />Total 217(46)<br /><br />Retired Minuteman and MX stages will fly more often in coming years as Minotaur boosters. (There have been more than 850 Minuteman test flights, with a 97% success rate.) ATK is reportedly working on a new small solid-fueled space launcher. China and Russia will also fly converted solid ICBMs more often in coming years. <br /><br />Reference: http://www.geocities.com/launchreport/logdec.html<br /><br /> - Ed Kyle

 

[edkyle98]

"The stick will be way cheaper than the Shuttle. The people behind the Direct proposal, who have no reason to downplay the Stick's costs, put the annual fixed cost of the Ares 1 at $900m per annum and the variable cost at $120m per flight.<br /><br />The Shuttle 2007 budget was $4.06 billion."<br /><br />Careful here - you are comparing the cost of just a launch vehicle (Ares I) with an entire human spaceflight program (Shuttle). The crewed Orion "payload", its crew, and its mission is going to cost more than the launch vehicle. I've seen estimates that put the cost of an Ares I/Orion launch *and* mission at $0.7-1.0 billion. The annual budget for an Ares I/Orion program would probably be in the $3-4 billion range to handle four missions per year.<br /><br />Probably less than Shuttle, yes, but not *that* much less. :/<br /><br /> - Ed Kyle

 

[josh_simonson]

CEV+SM is supposed to cost about $300m/shot. The stick was pitched with operational expenses of about $855m/year +$112m/flight. So, a little over $1G/year for the stick and $1G/year for CEV. Then when Aries V comes online it's supposed to cost about $2G/year. The grand total of all that is a little over $4G, and being almost exactly the STS budget (workforce wages) is almost surely not a coincidence.<br /><br />Since NASA has 20 years experience with these components on a LV of the same class, I'd expect their operational expense projections to be reasonably accurate, although development may still hit $1G roadbumps.

 

[propforce]

<font color="yellow">How do we know there isn't a requirement "The Aries 1 shall be overweight"? </font><br /><br />Not a good requirement statement, you can not quantify "over" weight. <br /><br />Just as you can not quantify "ugly" "expensive", etc.<br /> <div class="Discussion_UserSignature"> </div>

 

[propforce]

<font color="yellow">Solid boosters have typically been restricted to small payload satellites, due to their using 'off the shelf' motors from past weapons programs. </font><br /><br />... and due to their lack of Isp which severly limit their payload capability. <div class="Discussion_UserSignature"> </div>

 

[propforce]

Josh,<br /><br />Why do you insist of using "G" for "Billion"? <br /><br />NASA is chartered with lots of things, however; an accurate operational expense projections is NOT on of its strong suit, neither is operational efficiency a high priority with NASA. <br /><br />Mission reliability, public educations, and support various NASA centers in several congressional districts are NASA priorities. <div class="Discussion_UserSignature"> </div>

 

[edkyle98]

""Solid boosters have typically been restricted to small payload satellites, due to their using 'off the shelf' motors from past weapons programs.""<br /><br />"... and due to their lack of Isp which severly limit their payload capability."<br /><br /><br />This is true for a complete launch vehicle. The low performance requires use of more stages, which somewhat offsets the simplicity advantage of a solid motor over a turbopump powered liquid engine (Minotaur-1 has four stages, while Falcon 1 only has two). It is less true for a first stage, since the performance advantage of a liquid engine, especially of a hydrocarbon liquid engine, is smaller in the atmosphere. This advantage can be offset by using a higher-thrust solid to produce a higher thrust-to-weight ratio, reducing gravity losses. <br /><br />Consider, for example, that the Delta II RS-27A main engine (the highest thrust existing U.S. hydrocarbon engine) has 254 s/301 s specific impulse sea-level/vacuum) while the recently-retired Titan 4 SRMU had 259 s/286 s specific impulse numbers. <br /><br />Staged-combustion RD-180 blows solids out of the water, of course. But if you live in a country that hasn't invested in high-thrust hydrocarbon liquid propulsion, then the only alternatives to RD-170/180 are big-throat solid motors<br /><br /> - Ed Kyle

 

[josh_simonson]

More to the point of SRBs, they have higher military value because they are compact and have a very short prep time prior to firing. That's the path the US chose for it's strategic weapon systems, and since LVs generally leverage military investments they have been used on LVs ever since. Shuttle was being developed at the same time as the peacekeeper, and undoubtedly development of SRB was leveraged by the peacekeeper work at thiokol.<br /><br />That's the first I've used the giga-G to represent billions, I did it because others above me in the thread did and I figured 'when in Rome...'.

 

[propforce]

<font color="yellow">This is true for a complete launch vehicle. The low performance requires use of more stages, which somewhat offsets the simplicity advantage of a solid motor over a turbopump powered liquid engine (Minotaur-1 has four stages, while Falcon 1 only has two). It is less true for a first stage, since the performance advantage of a liquid engine, especially of a hydrocarbon liquid engine, is smaller in the atmosphere. This advantage can be offset by using a higher-thrust solid to produce a higher thrust-to-weight ratio, reducing gravity losses. </font><br /><br />That is true even with the booster stage is a pure solid booster. The penalty is that a 2nd stage would have to pick up more delta Vee to compensate for the lack of efficiency of the SRBs. That's why most LVs still have liquid booster and only use SRBs as "after-burner".<br /> <div class="Discussion_UserSignature"> </div>

 

[j05h]

<i>> More to the point of SRBs, they have higher military value because they are compact and have a very short prep time prior to firing.... SRB was leveraged by the peacekeeper work at thiokol. </i><br /><br />There may be a development/materials connection. There is a point in developing space launch systems where the "artillery" metaphor must be dropped. I still think the solid-based launcher is just a bad idea for personell. Rough ride and some truly nasty failure modes. Solid fuel present break-up problems, even SS1's hybrid system coughed a chunk up. Solids are so much of a bad idea for crewed flight that I think no human-rated craft should use them - this also limits choices of pre-existing upper stages for propulsion (excluding LES, braking,etc). The SRB is not designed for lateral thrust, the more we learn about the ARES I the more it is a complete redesign. This is not what we were sold initially.<br /><br /><i>> That's the first I've used the giga-G to represent billions, I did it because others above me in the thread did and I figured 'when in Rome...'.</i><br /><br />That would be my fault. I prefer "G" as in giga, the same way we use "k" instead of "t" for Thousand abbreviated.<br /><br />(a different) Josh <div class="Discussion_UserSignature"> <div align="center"><em>We need a first generation of pioneers.</em><br /></div> </div>

 

[holmec]

I think your putting the launcher before the craft here.<br /><br />The point is that Orion is classed to go beyond earth orbit and the Shuttle Orbiter was not. It may not be a Walmart bargain but its not bad. <div class="Discussion_UserSignature"> <p> </p><p><font color="#0000ff"><em>"SCE to AUX" - John Aaron, curiosity pays off</em></font></p> </div>