NASA responds to Ares I thrust-oscillation issue

[holmec]

<blockquote><font class="small">In reply to:</font><hr /><p>Then there will be the inevitable lawsuits from ATK for contract cancellations. Then there will be the questions of how this affects development of Ares V (which currently plans to use the 5-segment boosters of Ares I).<p><hr /></p></p></blockquote><br /><br />Isn't the short answer to that that Ares V is unaffected? <div class="Discussion_UserSignature"> <p> </p><p><font color="#0000ff"><em>"SCE to AUX" - John Aaron, curiosity pays off</em></font></p> </div>

 

[holmec]

<blockquote><font class="small">In reply to:</font><hr /><p>Ares I is a mediocre solution looking for a problem. Delta, Atlas, eventually Falcon are the way to go. If Atlas was good enough for John Glenn, it should be good enough for Dr. Griffin.<p><hr /></p></p></blockquote><br /><br />Well, it found its problem. Delta IV first stage, modified of course may be a possible solution to replace first stage of Ares I. <div class="Discussion_UserSignature"> <p> </p><p><font color="#0000ff"><em>"SCE to AUX" - John Aaron, curiosity pays off</em></font></p> </div>

 

[windnwar]

You simply swap out Ares 1 with the Delta IV heavy, and add the additional health monitoring needed for manned launches. They already have upgrades planned for the RS-68 that were needed for Ares V in order to make up for additional payload Ares V would have to carry since Ares 1 couldn't. However even without upgrades, Delta IV heavy already beats Ares 1 by about 4 metric tons, with the upgrades, the gap will only increase. And Delta IV is already flying. If they did that, they could focus on building the Ares V instead.<br /><br />As it stands now, we are simply screwed. <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>

 

[holmec]

<blockquote><font class="small">In reply to:</font><hr /><p>As it stands now, we are simply screwed.<p><hr /></p></p></blockquote><br /><br />Assuming the position so quickly? <div class="Discussion_UserSignature"> <p> </p><p><font color="#0000ff"><em>"SCE to AUX" - John Aaron, curiosity pays off</em></font></p> </div>

 

[holmec]

<blockquote><font class="small">In reply to:</font><hr /><p>Added mass in the form of some sort of damper that will further reduce the already inadequate Ares I performance, I would imagine!<p><hr /></p></p></blockquote><br /><br />Besides dampening, I am expecting one of the NASA team to come up with a redesign of the SRB so that it will burn smother. <br /><br />Somehow I recall when STS was young that I heard that the SRBs were strictly designed to strap on to the center tank in STS and not to fly solo.<br /><br />So this may be and evolutionary process of the new SRB's...to get them to burn smoothly.<br /><br />Dampening may require a casing redesign of the SRB's. (course I am speculating in all this). <div class="Discussion_UserSignature"> <p> </p><p><font color="#0000ff"><em>"SCE to AUX" - John Aaron, curiosity pays off</em></font></p> </div>

 

[rfoshaug]

J05H wrote:<br /><blockquote><font class="small">In reply to:</font><hr /><p>Ares I is a mediocre solution looking for a problem. Delta, Atlas, eventually Falcon are the way to go. If Atlas was good enough for John Glenn, it should be good enough for Dr. Griffin.<p><hr /></p></p></blockquote><br /><br />Falcon? Falcon??? You mean Falcon 9 heavy? That thing with the 27 engines? I mean, people call Ares I an "abomination". What will 27 engines do to the Loss-of-vehicle/loss-of-crew numbers? And besides, SpaceX still has to perform a single successful launch of the small and simple Falcon I. Two attempts and counting. Should NASA really commit their lunar program to Falcon 9?<br /><br /><br />What happens when the Russians decide to increase the price of RD-180 engines? Or decide that their own national priorities require all the engines they can produce so that they terminate the deal with Atlas? And would it be politically wise to construct Project Constellation so that this new program, filled with national pride and prestige, relies on Russian engines to reach orbit?<br /><br />Delta sounds like the best option if a commercially available ELV is to be chosen. Still, just placing the Orion on top of it is not as simple as one would think. There has to be lots of time-consuming and expensive analysis of vibrations, loads, aerodynamics, abort scenarios etc. The launch trajectory of the Delta IV Heavy would have to be lowered to allow aborts in certain portions of the flight. Boeing says this is possible, just as Horowitz and ATK said Ares I would be possible. That is, it IS possible, but not simle or cheap to do, and maybe not the best option.<br /><br />Also, what would the modifications to Atlas or Delta launch pads be if they were to be manned? Ares I also requires modifications to launch complex 39, but think about all the infrastructure already in place there that would have to be built at the Atlas or Delta pads. Unless of course you modify launch complex 39 for EELV's, which would p <div class="Discussion_UserSignature"> <p><font color="#ff9900">----------------------------------</font></p><p><font color="#ff9900">My minds have many opinions</font></p> </div>

 

[no_way]

<blockquote><font class="small">In reply to:</font><hr /><p>What will 27 engines do to the Loss-of-vehicle/loss-of-crew numbers? <p><hr /></p></p></blockquote><br />Possibly improve it, depends on the details. Saturn V had five first stage engines, the fact that saved the day in number of occassions. Depending on how you count them, Soyuz launcher has 4 engines, or 16. It definitely has 16 combustion chambers, which share turbomachinery.<br /><br />Number of engines is not a direct correlation with reliability. <br /><br /><blockquote><font class="small">In reply to:</font><hr /><p>Should NASA really commit their lunar program to Falcon 9? <p><hr /></p></p></blockquote><br />No, and nobody in their right mind is asking for it. What they should commit to is using commercial launch market for their launches.<br />The market has existed for a good number of years, and is practically guaranteed to continue.

 

[gunsandrockets]

<Falcon? Falcon??? You mean Falcon 9 heavy? That thing with the 27 engines? I mean, people call Ares I an "abomination". What will 27 engines do to the Loss-of-vehicle/loss-of-crew numbers?><br /><br />Because the 5 segment SRB and J-2X will effectively be brand new hardware with almost no flight experience when the first manned Orion is launched, I bet the 27 engined 'abomination' of the Falcon 9 Heavy will look pretty good in comparison. By 2014 dozens of Merlin 1 engines will have flight experience. Practice makes perfect, just look at the record of the Soyuz which has 20 thrust chambers. <br /><br /><br />< And besides, SpaceX still has to perform a single successful launch of the small and simple Falcon I. Two attempts and counting. Should NASA really commit their lunar program to Falcon 9? /><br /><br />The proof one way or another will come soon enough. For SpaceX to meet critical COTS deadlines the Falcon 9 has to fly sooner than any date ever proposed for the Ares I. In fact according to contracted timelines for both vehicles the Falcon 9 should be operational for years before the first manned flight of the Ares I. And all that despite the fact that the Falcon 9 is developing for 1/10 the cost of Ares I. <br /><br /><br /><br /><br /><br /><br /><br /><br /> <br /><br /><br /><br />

 

[frodo1008]

You make some very good points. However, your option number 4 has already been accomplished by Rocketdyne when it was associated with Boeing. That new engine is the RS68, which has already been proven in the Delta IV, both the regular versions and now the Heavy. <br /><br />As has been already pointed out by many on this thread the 665K thrust RS68 in a batch of only three such engines fully powers the first stage of the Delta IV Heavy, which can place some 4 metric tons more into LEO than the terribly problem plagued Ares I design (which has yet to even fly), giving the Delta IV Heavy at least a decades head start!!!<br /><br />And there are two relatively simple and inexpensive methods of increasing this to a Delta IV Super Heavy. One is to symmetrically add more Common Booster Cores to the three already used for the currently successful Delta IV Heavy. Knowing how proactive such a company as Boeing (and LM for that matter also) are it seems to me that they must have already worked out much of the paper engineering behind doing this. By the way, we already have designed, built and flown an eight engined vehicle that was one of the most successful rockets in history, that was the Saturn 1B with eight H-1 Rocketdyne liquid engines on the first stage. So a multiple liquid engined rocket built by the US has indeed flown very, very well!<br /><br />The other option to a Delta IV Heavy is to increase the thrust of the RS68 engines. After I retired from Rocketdyne I still had contacts there among friends. I was then told that much of the engineering to take the 665K thrust RS68 engine up to a 1.0 million pound thrust engine has also already been done. I can't believe that such an engine could not be built fully tested and available for much over $1.0 billion (and quite probably far less). And ATK wanted some $3.0 billion to upgrade to a 5 segment solid! And now it would seem that is going to go much higher in cost!!<br /><br />This Ares 1 thing just seems to be gett

 

[j05h]

<i>> Falcon? Falcon??? You mean Falcon 9 heavy? That thing with the 27 engines? </i><br /><br />Yes, Falcon, but you are confused on model numbers. I'm talking about the basic Falcon 9 with 9 engines, about 10t to orbit, carrying the Dragon capsule. F9H will be 3 X Falcon 9 cores strapped together. If F9/Dragon succeeds, it will make a fine LEO taxi. SpaceX has talked about making the Dragon heatshield planetary-return capable and attaching a larger service module for Lunar missions, but with few details on that (docking in orbit or launched on F9H? etc). Falcon 9 and Falcon 9 Heavy are designed to have single-engine out mission completion, so those 9/27 engines can suffer one full failure without LoM. <br /><br />http://spacex.com/dragon.php<br /><br />SpaceX has gone from 0 to Mach 12 in just a few years - they are experiencing development pains and performing admirably. <br /><br /><i>> What happens when the Russians decide to increase the price of RD-180 engines? Or decide that their own national priorities require all the engines they can produce so that they terminate the deal with Atlas?</i><br /><br />In this regard, Delta IV is a better choice, but Atlas has many strong points. Energomash, the Russian manufacturer of the RD180 and other engines, is under contract to produce engines, plus (someday) Pratt and Whitney are supposed to open a US production line. If the Kremlin made it harder to get the engines, then fall back on Delta. These sorts of issues are why I advocate "payload neutral" rockets and common payload-adapter rings (which EELV has) - if one rocket is unavailable, switch to the next type. US space efforts should not be hamstrung by foreign components, but should not ignore globalization. In this regard Atlas/Delta are a smashing success.<br /><br /><i>> Delta sounds like the best option if a commercially available ELV is to be chosen. Still, just placing the Orion on top of it is not as simp</i> <div class="Discussion_UserSignature"> <div align="center"><em>We need a first generation of pioneers.</em><br /></div> </div>

 

[no_way]

Thats why i dont bother posting long arguments, J0SH does all that and better than i could ever be arsed to.<br />Listen to the man who talks sense !

 

[wubblie]

When Columbus wanted to sail for the new world, he did not develop a new, giant ship, but instead used 3 already existing smaller ships. This is why he was successful. <br />During the Westward Expansion, the settlers did not wait for the government to develop a few giant wagons, but instead used thousands of commercially available Conestoga wagons- some carrying supplies, some people- each having a role. This is why they were successful. <br />This happens in nature as well. Ducks, when confronted with a migration too long for one duck to successfully complete, did not evolve into giant "condor ducks", but instead developed a system where groups would organize and assist one another (a synergetic system). This is why ducks successfully migrate farther than birds 10 times their size. <br />All of this relates to our expansion and migration out into space. Nature, and the free market system (in which the same principles apply) have solved similar problems many times. NASA should take notice of this.

 

[frodo1008]

Good! Most of us here seem to have come to the same conclusion. Regardless of the length of our posts I think that JO5H has summed it up very well in this sentence!<br /><br /><font color="yellow"> So, why not deploy Orion on Delta IV as soon as possible while pursuing EELV/Ariane/Proton/Falcon launch options? Let the market do the walking (up the Well). </font><br /><br />It is indeed sad to think, but if NASA soes not see this, then I am afraid they will be made to see it by the next president and congress (if they are allowed to continue at all, and that is the problem)!<br /><br />I wonder if anyone at NASA (excluding such sense able people as shuttle_guy) ever even listens to these threads and posts on such a site as this??

 

[frodo1008]

Very interesting thinking! I really think your analogies are very pertinent to NASA, and its needs. Good post!!

 

[j05h]

Thanks No_Way! Even if the current issue gets fixed, both these rockets (I & V) have extremely large hurdles before launching. Compare to EELVs that fly now.<br /><br />The root issue is we need more businesses and agencies building more and different payloads for all sorts of reasons. The "least common denominator" seems to be existing rockets in the 8-25t range, what used to be called "medium lift" and making those rockets fly often.<br /><br />Josh <div class="Discussion_UserSignature"> <div align="center"><em>We need a first generation of pioneers.</em><br /></div> </div>

 

[samkent]

I see a lot of short sightedness here. Now I’m not a fan of going back to the Moon. But I am in favor of men in space. It seems that too many people on here are overlooking the main reason that the shuttle has failed to live up to its original hype. <br /><br />It’s too damn complicated!<br /><br />Look at all of the launch delays. Turbo pumps – Fuel switches, on and on.<br />Ares will have a much simpler construction. And in the end that is what will bring the cost down. We have already been building two SRBs for each shuttle launch.<br />These design challenges are just a normal part of any new system. Who cares if the Soyuz is a silky smooth ride? The idea is to get up there on the cheap not holding a martini. After a couple of years do you really think a Delta will be cheaper than an Ares?<br />Plus putting your hopes in Falcon is like waiting for that $100 laptop to hit the stores. If it does come to fruition, it will disappoint you with it’s ability. Plus it’s the same old cereal in a different box. And after you add all of the redundant systems required for a ‘man rating’ what makes you think it will cost less or have a better on time launch rating?<br />Come on look forward a bit farther than yesterday. Sure Delta has been a very reliable launch vehicle but it still has all the same parts that have delayed us in the past.<br />Ares may start out on the weak side as far as lifting ability but have you forgotten the upgrades the shuttle main engine have gone through? What is the current thrust settings they use after SRB separation? 104% or more?<br /><br />Ares will shed more weight.<br />Ares thrust will go up.<br />Ares will burn smoother.<br /><br />You remind me of the old days.<br /><br />Why bother with that greasy engine thing.<br />Horses are cheaper! Horses are reliable! Horses can pull more weight!<br /><br />I say Ares will be more reliable than the shuttle could have hoped to be. At a fraction of the cost of Delta. I can see an inventory of Ares at the

 

[frodo1008]

Interesting points, but the same point that you make for the LSRB Ares I holds even more for the Delta IV Heavy. It can only get better. The difference is that the Delta IV is ALREADY flying and establishing a safe reliability record! <br /><br />The same also applies to more launches for ANY vehicle (yes, it would also apply to the Ares I). More launches equals more vehicles equals a come down in the cost per launch of each vehicle. The problem with the Ares I is not only that it has more and more developmental problems, but that it starts out as an at least $10 billion cost in such development. Originally, this was going to be far cheaper as NASA was going to be able to use existing shuttle components. But that is no longer the case! <br /><br />IF developing a new large solid rocket motor (and even continuing to build such a motor) was as cheap and simple as you seem to think it is, why was ATK asking for NASA to give it at least (and now with even more problems quite possibly even far more money is needed) $3 billion just to go from a four segment LSRB to a five segment LSRB? If it really was so very simple then it should not have cost any more than about $1 billion at most!<br /><br />It is also interesting to me at least that NO other major space power in the world is developing such a large rocket powered by solid rocket motors. Could all these other people be wrong, and ONLY NASA be right?<br /><br />I am a very patriotic person, but even considering that patriotism, I can not believe that everybody else (including ALL our other alt.space people) is wrong!<br /><br />The only one that is very different is Burt Rutan. And his idea for a first stage is to fly up to a far higher launch position on conventional aircraft, thus avoiding the use of a large rocket powered first stage entirely! And none of us here has any amount of experience that could possibly state that he is wrong or right in his methods, but I am more than willing to see him try!!

 

[j05h]

<i>> shuttle has failed to live up to its original hype.<br />It’s too damn complicated! ...<br />Ares will have a much simpler construction. And in the end that is what will bring the cost down.... <br />These design challenges are just a normal part of any new system.</i><br /><br />No, Ares I issues are because of a top-down, political-backscratching decision to lock in a favored contractor's old-tech product. Except it doesn't work, so they keep tooling it. Total change in grain, new fuel formula, extra segment, yes/no on reusable. These are nothing like the growing pains of EELV. On top of this, EELV exists and flies right now.<br /><br /><i>> Who cares if the Soyuz is a silky smooth ride? The idea is to get up there on the cheap not holding a martini. After a couple of years do you really think a Delta will be cheaper than an Ares? </i><br /><br />I care that Soyuz has a smooth ride, because theoretically I can buy a ride up. Shuttle, Ares will not be commercially available, plain, simple fact. "Cost" for Ares I and V is an entire chunk of NASA's budget. Delta or Atlas are available to NASA at a "price", on the market, because the Air Force already helped them develop the rockets. <br /><br />Instead of denigrating me or SpaceX, why not post the numbers for development of Ares I and Orion, plus Ares V, plus projected operational costs? Delta for instance is roughly $250M/flight - which is 40 flights to LEO for the roughly $10G Ares I will require just for development. It started as a $3G 'upgrade' and is quickly heading into Big Dig territory. <br /><br /><i>> after you add all of the redundant systems required for a ‘man rating’ what makes you think it will cost less or have a better on time launch rating?<br />Come on look forward a bit farther than yesterday. Sure Delta has been a very reliable launch vehicle but it still has all the same parts that have delayed us in the past. </i><br /><br />Expected additions to EELV rockets to launch crew starts as a few <div class="Discussion_UserSignature"> <div align="center"><em>We need a first generation of pioneers.</em><br /></div> </div>

 

[wubblie]

"Look at all of the launch delays. Turbo pumps – Fuel switches, on and on.<br />Ares will have a much simpler construction."<br /><br />The Ares 1 upper stage will be cryogenic liquid fuel. It will be subject to these same issues.

 

[thereiwas]

"...RS68 is the only new liquid US rocket engine developed since the SSME"<br /><br />And the Merlin. <img src="/images/icons/smile.gif" /> Note that the Falcon rocket bodies also use friction-stir welding.

 

[samkent]

If you throw the development cost out of the window for a minute and just consider the production and operation costs. <br />The construction time frame to competition as well as the overall cost for a SRB is significantly lower than a Delta. There far fewer things inside to go wrong. Why do you think they went with them for the shuttle extra booster instead of a liquid booster?<br />The solid booster has the potential to lower the cost to orbit far more than the Delta. <br />The cost of a Delta will never go down even if we triple production. Unless you consider outsourcing to China. That will never happen for a myriad of reasons. Material costs will never drop enough to affect costs. Aerospace workers will never lower their wages to lower costs. Only a solid booster has that potential. <br />Just look at all of the added infrastructure required for liquid boosters that solids do not need.<br />We have to get past the idea that these super engineered engines are better. They may have greater thrust but can they match the production rate or production cost of a solid?<br /><br />Is the helicopter ever going to be cheaper than the fixed wing? No<br /><br />The finest piston engine could never match the reliability of a turbo fan jet.<br /><br />The RS68 and Merlin may be the newest engines but if I had to bet my retirement fund on which would light up on time in 100 launches, I’ll chose the solid.<br /><br />The Challenger crew died when the tanks for the liquids were ruptured.<br />You have to wonder if they were on top of a solid, would the crew have been lost. Or would the launch escape tower been fired and only the mission lost.<br /><br />We have to get past this “It’s too hard to make something new – Let’s just use what we have†mentality. In the long run simple will always be better.<br />Out of all of the shuttle launches, how many were ‘unexpectedly’ postponed due to a last minute problem with the solids?<br />

 

[frodo1008]

The Merlin is indeed quite an achievement for a pure private venture. However, it has only (at least the Falcon I version) about one tenth the thrust of a single RS68. The engine also suffers in comparison to the RS68 in that it uses RP-1 fuel instead of Hydrogen, and this has to limit its ISP to a lower value.<br /><br />However, I would like to wish Elon Musk all the success in the world in his endeavors, I just don't expect miracles as some of his more enthusiastic admirers do!<br /><br />

 

[frodo1008]

What is going on with the upload of space.com? Or is it just me?

 

[frodo1008]

If these really large solids were so cheap and wonderful swhy does NOBODY else in the entire space launching world want to use them??<br /><br />EVERYBODY else uses these horrible and so very complicated liquid engines. Why is everybody else so very stupid?<br /><br />The ENTIRE EELV development program for the Delta IV and the Atlas V cost the Air Force about $2 billion. That was for the ENTIRE system, including the development of the RS68 engines. ATK is asking for over $3 billion just to go from a four segment to a five segment motor! IF it was indeed so simple then why the high development costs?<br /><br />Heck, we could quite probably bring back the very powerful and far more reliable F1 for far less than this!!<br /><br />There were even plans to develop a liquid aerospike engine back in the 1970's that would develop over 6 million pounds of thrust! <br /><br />The only reason that solids are used on the shuttle is it was thought at the time (incorrectly as it has turned out) that they would be cheaper, and NASA either had to go cheap at the time, or go out of business. We now know that a fully returnable liquid booster turn around would have been both cheaper to develop and even far cheaper to use on the shuttle.<br /><br />Even such a supporter as Griffin was disgusted with the cost that ATK demanded for its five segment motor development. Do you really think in an era of government belt tightening that these kinds of development costs are going to be supported by congress?<br /><br />Pardon most of the rest of us, if we so stupid people have doubts!<br /><br />

 

[wubblie]

"I can see an inventory of Ares at the cape just waiting for a payload. "<br /><br />Yeah, ATK is going to produce more SRB's than NASA can handle out of the kindness of their heart. <br />NASA has a set amount to spend. They have to use ATK for political reasons. ATK knows this. It is in ATK's best interest to produce as few SRB's as they can get away with, for as high price as possible. This maximizes their profit margin. Simple economics. ATK's goal is to take the lion share of NASA's Ares budget, and produce as few SRB's as they can. <br />And until NASA opens up lifting services to true competitive bidding, it will remain this way.