New Engine Configuration for Ares V

[kyle_baron]

<p>http://www.nasaspaceflight.com/content/?cid=5481</p><p>&nbsp;</p><p>Let's see now, take a simple design and make it more complicated.&nbsp; I don't see this as viable.&nbsp; With the "new super crawlers" and Mobile Launch Platform, A Qty-4, 4 segment SRB, with 4 RS-68's in the core, looks better than the 2- 5.5&nbsp;segment SRB's with&nbsp;6 RS-68's in and outside of the core.&nbsp;</p> <div class="Discussion_UserSignature"> <p><font size="4"><strong></strong></font></p> </div>

 

[Zipi]

<p>Why not to add one RS-68 to the top of the Ares 5 and put a reverse gear on it? Surely they can make a gearbox with reverse gear. <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" /></p><p>&nbsp;</p><p>&nbsp;</p><p><font size="1">Sorry, this was simply too fun in my mind not to share with public. Childish&nbsp;and/or stupid but at least I have said it. <img src="http://sitelife.space.com/ver1.0/content/scripts/tinymce/plugins/emotions/images/smiley-smile.gif" border="0" alt="Smile" title="Smile" /></font></p> <div class="Discussion_UserSignature"> </div>

 

[DrRocket]

<p><BR/>Replying to:<BR/><DIV CLASS='Discussion_PostQuote'>Why not to add one RS-68 to the top of the Ares 5 and put a reverse gear on it? Surely they can make a gearbox with reverse gear. &nbsp;&nbsp;Sorry, this was simply too fun in my mind not to share with public. Childish&nbsp;and/or stupid but at least I have said it. <br />Posted by Zipi</DIV></p><p>Surprisingly, while your suggestion in jest is not practical for the RS-68 or the SRBs, it is roughly what is being done for the launch abort system&nbsp; on Ares 1,&nbsp; Of course the motors involved are much smaller than those that provide the main propulsion.&nbsp; <br /></p> <div class="Discussion_UserSignature"> </div>

 

[kyle_baron]

<p><BR/>Replying to:<BR/><DIV CLASS='Discussion_PostQuote'>http://www.nasaspaceflight.com/content/?cid=5481Let's see now, take a simple design and make it more complicated.&nbsp; I don't see this as viable.&nbsp; With the "new super crawlers" and Mobile Launch Platform, A Qty-4, 4 segment SRB, with 4 RS-68's in the core, looks better than the 2- 5.5&nbsp;segment SRB's with&nbsp;6 RS-68's in and outside of the core.&nbsp; <br />Posted by kyle_baron</DIV></p><p>&nbsp;</p><p>So......Who likes the new engine configuration?&nbsp; Who doesn't?&nbsp; And why?&nbsp; I for one don't like it, because it violates the KISS Principle.&nbsp; And 2nd, it's not a very elegant design, with 4 (of the 6) R-68 engines "outside" of the core.<br /></p> <div class="Discussion_UserSignature"> <p><font size="4"><strong></strong></font></p> </div>

 

[SpaceKiwi]

<p><BR/>Replying to:<BR/><DIV CLASS='Discussion_PostQuote'><font color="#3366ff">So......Who likes the new engine configuration?&nbsp; Who doesn't?&nbsp; And why?<br /></font><strong>Posted by kyle_baron</strong></DIV></p><p>&nbsp;</p><p>I dunno, I'm definitely no expert, but it's hard to escape the feeling that they're going to end up spending twice as much to get something half as good as a 'clean sheet' approach might have tendered.&nbsp; All of the component parts from the STS that were supposed to save the design big bucks by not having to be reinvented, have all been significantly reinvented anyway.</p><p>Perhaps if you had half a dozen man-rated vehicles in your stable, you could afford to try and make this 'silk purse' fly.&nbsp; I'm just increasingly of the opinion that the millstone around their necks at the moment is this belief that they are saving themselves time, money and grief by trying to adapt Shuttle parts to the task.</p><p>&nbsp;</p><p>SK&nbsp; <img src="http://sitelife.space.com/ver1.0/Content/images/store/12/14/4c7d4669-8188-45e0-9e3f-d8a3d5c7ef65.Medium.gif" alt="" /></p> <div class="Discussion_UserSignature"> <p><em><font size="2" color="#ff0000">Who is this superhero?  Henry, the mild-mannered janitor ... could be!</font></em></p><p><em><font size="2">-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------</font></em></p><p><font size="5">Bring Back The Black!</font></p> </div>

 

[kyle_baron]

<p><BR/>Replying to:<BR/><DIV CLASS='Discussion_PostQuote'>&nbsp;I dunno, I'm definitely no expert, but it's hard to escape the feeling that they're going to end up spending twice as much to get something half as good as a 'clean sheet' approach might have tendered.&nbsp;&nbsp; <br />Posted by SpaceKiwi</DIV></p><p>&nbsp;</p><p>They're spending twice as much money in the short run, to save in the long run.&nbsp; Reusability of the SRB is the only savings.&nbsp; So why not use more SRB's in the design?&nbsp; And get more payload capacity, to boot.&nbsp; Like the 4-4 segmented SRB's that I stated previously.<br /></p> <div class="Discussion_UserSignature"> <p><font size="4"><strong></strong></font></p> </div>

 

[DrRocket]

<p><BR/>Replying to:<BR/><DIV CLASS='Discussion_PostQuote'>&nbsp;They're spending twice as much money in the short run, to save in the long run.&nbsp; Reusability of the SRB is the only savings.&nbsp; So why not use more SRB's in the design?&nbsp; And get more payload capacity, to boot.&nbsp; Like the 4-4 segmented SRB's that I stated previously. <br />Posted by kyle_baron</DIV></p><p>Second guessing the study at this point in time is a bit silly.&nbsp; The Ares V design is in a study period.&nbsp; It will not even have and SRR (System Requirements Review) until 2010.&nbsp; That is when a set of detailed specifications would be authenticated.&nbsp; Phase A design studies don't start until 2009.</p><p>Until there is some maturity in the study this amateur carping is utterly useless.&nbsp; To understand what the designers are considering you need a lot more information than just what booster motors are in the package.&nbsp; You need the capability to fly the trajectory and see the effect of thrust over time and mass over time&nbsp;combined with aerodynamic drag and gravity loss.</p><p><br /><br />&nbsp;</p> <div class="Discussion_UserSignature"> </div>

 

[kyle_baron]

<p><BR/>Replying to:<BR/><DIV CLASS='Discussion_PostQuote'>Second guessing the study at this point in time is a bit silly.&nbsp; The Ares V design is in a study period.&nbsp; It will not even have and SRR (System Requirements Review) until 2010.&nbsp; That is when a set of detailed specifications would be authenticated.&nbsp; Phase A design studies don't start until 2009.Until there is some maturity in the study this amateur carping is utterly useless.</DIV></p><p>So what.&nbsp; A study period narrows the choices down.&nbsp; Payload capacity is the main problem for Ares V.&nbsp; The rocket is now being designed around that criteria.&nbsp; Being able to lift the Altair lander with all it's supplies, is the goal.</p><p>&nbsp;Replying to:<BR/><DIV CLASS='Discussion_PostQuote'> To understand what the designers are considering you need a lot more information than just what booster motors are in the package.&nbsp; You need the capability to fly the trajectory and see the effect of thrust over time and mass over time&nbsp;combined with aerodynamic drag and gravity loss.&nbsp; <br />Posted by DrRocket</DIV></p><p>So, why can't that be done on a computer simulation?&nbsp; The data on the rocket motors, amount of propellent, mass of the vehicle are all known with in a few percentage points.&nbsp; The specifics can be done later, as you stated.&nbsp; If they can predict the weather (with reasonable accuracy) for 5-7 days in the future, with the thousands of variables, why can't Nasa do a decent rocket simulation?<br /></p> <div class="Discussion_UserSignature"> <p><font size="4"><strong></strong></font></p> </div>

 

[Cygnus_2112]

<p><BR/>Replying to:<BR/><DIV CLASS='Discussion_PostQuote'> why can't Nasa do a decent rocket simulation? <br /> Posted by kyle_baron</DIV></p><p>&nbsp;</p><p>Rocket simulations are easy.&nbsp; Design simulations are hard and that applies to everyone.&nbsp;</p><p>Rocket simulations are only based on the inputs for the mass of the system and performance of the engines.</p><p>&nbsp;The hard part is figuring how much a system and parts are going to weigh based a few drawings.&nbsp; True mass properties are not known until much later in the design process.&nbsp; That is the hard part, predicting weighs and adding sufficent margins.&nbsp; </p>

 

[Cygnus_2112]

<p><BR/>Replying to:<BR/><DIV CLASS='Discussion_PostQuote'>&nbsp;They're spending twice as much money in the short run, to save in the long run.&nbsp; Reusability of the SRB is the only savings.&nbsp; So why not use more SRB's in the design?&nbsp; And get more payload capacity, to boot.&nbsp; Like the 4-4 segmented SRB's that I stated previously. <br /> Posted by kyle_baron</DIV></p><p>&nbsp;More Rs-68s are easier to add than SRB's </p>

 

[tanstaafl76]

<p>It seems like every time they make the baseline or alternative more complex, it just makes DIRECT v2.0 look that much better.</p> <div class="Discussion_UserSignature"> </div>

 

[DrRocket]

<p><BR/>Replying to:<BR/><DIV CLASS='Discussion_PostQuote'>So what.&nbsp; A study period narrows the choices down.&nbsp; Payload capacity is the main problem for Ares V.&nbsp; The rocket is now being designed around that criteria.&nbsp; Being able to lift the Altair lander with all it's supplies, is the goal.&nbsp;So, why can't that be done on a computer simulation?&nbsp; The data on the rocket motors, amount of propellent, mass of the vehicle are all known with in a few percentage points.&nbsp; The specifics can be done later, as you stated.&nbsp; If they can predict the weather (with reasonable accuracy) for 5-7 days in the future, with the thousands of variables, why can't Nasa do a decent rocket simulation? <br />Posted by kyle_baron</DIV></p><p>They do use computer simulations, that is part of the point.&nbsp; The simulations require software and computing power that NASA and/or the professionals working for their contractors have, but that you don't.&nbsp; Moreover, even if one has access to the necessary professional models, the simulations are done iteritavely and require refinement in design details to be accurate.&nbsp; Knowing mass of the vehicle, Isp, theoretical drag, etc.&nbsp;within a few percentage points is not good enough.&nbsp; This is the difference between how the professionals operate and how amateurs make big mistakes.&nbsp; The Ares vehicles cannot afford Space-X style fiascos.&nbsp; Reliance on simple computer models for aerodynamics, with no wind tunnel data,&nbsp;is one reason for the failure of the first flight of the Pegasus XL.&nbsp; Computer models need some real data to be accurate.&nbsp; You can't do it all with nothing but software.&nbsp; You need very sophisticated models, real data from hardware, and a good deal of education and experience to put it all together.&nbsp; Amateurs lack all of the above.&nbsp; The pros can still make mistakes even with heavy-duty computing capability and with a lot of additional data.</p><p>The design effort is not one big simulation.&nbsp; It is an enterprise that requires many disciplines, each with its own concerns and models&nbsp;plus a lot of&nbsp;communication and feedback among those disciplines.&nbsp; It requires some compromises among the disciplines so that all requirements are identified and met.&nbsp; </p><p>This kind of design work takes time.&nbsp; Demanding final answers right now, like some little kid, simply demonstrates ignorance of what is involved in the design effort.&nbsp; </p><p>And I don't know where you are, but I can assure&nbsp;you 5-7 day weather forecasts around here are not always that good.&nbsp;The local weatherman is on the tube as I type this, and he doesn't really know what is going to happen in a couple of hours.&nbsp; People who rely solely on long-range weather forecasts in the nearby mountains or desert to determine the conditions for which they must be prepared tend to die.&nbsp; One death and a couple of near misses in the last three days.&nbsp; We demand better sense from rocket designers.</p> <div class="Discussion_UserSignature"> </div>

 

[kyle_baron]

<p><BR/>Replying to:<BR/><DIV CLASS='Discussion_PostQuote'>They do use computer simulations, that is part of the point.&nbsp; The simulations require software and computing power that NASA and/or the professionals working for their contractors have, but that you don't.&nbsp; Moreover, even if one has access to the necessary professional models, the simulations are done iteritavely and require refinement in design details to be accurate.&nbsp; Knowing mass of the vehicle, Isp, theoretical drag, etc.&nbsp;within a few percentage points is not good enough.&nbsp; This is the difference between how the professionals operate and how amateurs make big mistakes.&nbsp; The Ares vehicles cannot afford Space-X style fiascos.&nbsp; Reliance on simple computer models for aerodynamics, with no wind tunnel data,&nbsp;is one reason for the failure of the first flight of the Pegasus XL.&nbsp; Computer models need some real data to be accurate.&nbsp; You can't do it all with nothing but software.&nbsp; You need very sophisticated models, real data from hardware, and a good deal of education and experience to put it all together.&nbsp; Amateurs lack all of the above.&nbsp; The pros can still make mistakes even with heavy-duty computing capability and with a lot of additional data.The design effort is not one big simulation.&nbsp; It is an enterprise that requires many disciplines, each with its own concerns and models&nbsp;plus a lot of&nbsp;communication and feedback among those disciplines.&nbsp; It requires some compromises among the disciplines so that all requirements are identified and met.&nbsp; This kind of design work takes time.&nbsp; Demanding final answers right now, like some little kid, simply demonstrates ignorance of what is involved in the design effort.&nbsp; And I don't know where you are, but I can assure&nbsp;you 5-7 day weather forecasts around here are not always that good.&nbsp;The local weatherman is on the tube as I type this, and he doesn't really know what is going to happen in a couple of hours.&nbsp; People who rely solely on long-range weather forecasts in the nearby mountains or desert to determine the conditions for which they must be prepared tend to die.&nbsp; One death and a couple of near misses in the last three days.&nbsp; We demand better sense from rocket designers. <br />Posted by DrRocket</DIV></p><p>&nbsp;</p><p>Alright, all good points, but as an amateur arm-chair rocket scientist (and there are a lot of us) there are two approaches to design this rocket.&nbsp; Nasa has taken the baseline simplistic approach, and added features, and they still come up short&nbsp;in performance for&nbsp;payload, to the moon.&nbsp; An alternative approach would be to start with an over performing rocket (like the 4-4seg. SRB's with 4 RS-68 engines in the core) and whittling down any unnecessary features (or mass).&nbsp; Off-loading propellent in the 2nd stage comes to mind.&nbsp; An analogy would be similar to a &nbsp;sculptor, that begins with a large rock, and finishes with a much smaller masterpiece.<br /></p> <div class="Discussion_UserSignature"> <p><font size="4"><strong></strong></font></p> </div>

 

[DrRocket]

<p><BR/>Replying to:<BR/><DIV CLASS='Discussion_PostQuote'>&nbsp;... An analogy would be similar to a &nbsp;sculptor, that begins with a large rock, and finishes with a much smaller masterpiece. <br />Posted by kyle_baron</DIV></p><p>It is still a rock. <br /></p> <div class="Discussion_UserSignature"> </div>

 

[kyle_baron]

<p><BR/>Replying to:<BR/><DIV CLASS='Discussion_PostQuote'>It is still a rock. <br />Posted by DrRocket</DIV></p><p>LOL!&nbsp; That is a very profound and astute observation!&nbsp; And I thought you didn't have a sence of humor.&nbsp; <img src="http://sitelife.space.com/ver1.0/content/scripts/tinymce/plugins/emotions/images/smiley-laughing.gif" border="0" alt="Laughing" title="Laughing" /><br /></p> <div class="Discussion_UserSignature"> <p><font size="4"><strong></strong></font></p> </div>

 

[Cygnus_2112]

<p><BR/>Replying to:<BR/><DIV CLASS='Discussion_PostQuote'>&nbsp;Alright, all good points, but as an amateur arm-chair rocket scientist (and there are a lot of us) there are two approaches to design this rocket.&nbsp; Nasa has taken the baseline simplistic approach, and added features, and they still come up short&nbsp;in performance for&nbsp;payload, to the moon.&nbsp; An alternative approach would be to start with an over performing rocket (like the 4-4seg. SRB's with 4 RS-68 engines in the core) and whittling down any unnecessary features (or mass).&nbsp; Off-loading propellent in the 2nd stage comes to mind.&nbsp; An analogy would be similar to a &nbsp;sculptor, that begins with a large rock, and finishes with a much smaller masterpiece. <br /> Posted by kyle_baron</DIV></p><p>&nbsp;</p><p>Because it is cheaper to do iterative design cycles than to build a vehicle&nbsp; that is too big.&nbsp;&nbsp; 4-4seg. SRB's busts the bank right away.</p><p>Offload propellant is not a viable option.</p><p>1.&nbsp; Launch vehicles are designed to fly with full tanks</p><p>2.&nbsp; The vehicle is over sized and therefore too expensive&nbsp;</p>

 

[shuttle_guy]

<p><BR/>Replying to:<BR/><DIV CLASS='Discussion_PostQuote'>http://www.nasaspaceflight.com/content/?cid=5481Let's see now, take a simple design and make it more complicated.&nbsp; I don't see this as viable.&nbsp; With the "new super crawlers" and Mobile Launch Platform, A Qty-4, 4 segment SRB, with 4 RS-68's in the core, looks better than the 2- 5.5&nbsp;segment SRB's with&nbsp;6 RS-68's in and outside of the core.&nbsp; <br />Posted by kyle_baron</DIV></p><p>As several of us&nbsp;have been told you.... adding 4 SRBs to the first stage core is not a viable option. Give it a rest !!</p> <div class="Discussion_UserSignature"> </div>

 

[trailrider]

<p><BR/>Replying to:<BR/><DIV CLASS='Discussion_PostQuote'>As several of us&nbsp;have been told you.... adding 4 SRBs to the first stage core is not a viable option. Give it a rest !! <br />Posted by shuttle_guy</DIV></p><p>S-G -</p><p>Not doubting your word one bit on the 4 SRB setup.&nbsp; BUT...the more we hear about the configuration changes that are currently being studied, the more Ares V+ sounds like an elephant...which, as you all know is a mouse built to government specs...by a committee!</p><p>Going from 4-segment or 5 or 5.5 segment SRB's negates a LOT of the experience gained from Shuttle, especially if they change from PBAN to HTPB propellant.&nbsp; You still have to re-qual the whole SRB.</p><p>Adding the sixth RS-68, and the plume impingement problems that generates, plus fairing drag, etc., etc., starts a snowball effect that is getting us well away from the "commonality" advantages with Shuttle infrastructure, AGE, etc.</p><p>I don't know if the Jupiter 120/232 would be a better setup, but the Ares V sure doesn't!</p><p>FYI of the readers... I designed my first liquid rocket (non-flight weight, aniline/RFNA) engine as a teenager, in the late 1950's, successfully static testing it at a major university in 1960, and spent the next 29 years in the aerospace/defense industry involved with both solid and liquid boosters.&nbsp; I left the business INvoluntarily due to chronological deficiency (too old, by their standards), along with 3500 others of the same company and facility!</p><p>Frankly, I don't care a hoot WHAT boosters we use...just get Americans back to the moon...BEFORE we have to apply for a Chinese, Russian, Indian or Japanese visa!&nbsp; Maybe we should look at Wiley E. Coyote's ACME slingshot! </p><p>Ad Luna! Ad Ares! Ad Astra!</p>

 

[samkent]

Why not shrink Orion/Ares by one crew member? Smaller size less weight. Do we need 4 men on the Moon?

 

[kyle_baron]

<p><BR/>Replying to:<BR/><DIV CLASS='Discussion_PostQuote'>As several of us&nbsp;have been told you.... adding 4 SRBs to the first stage core is not a viable option. Give it a rest !! <br />Posted by shuttle_guy</DIV></p><p>I'll concede, when I'm convinced that it's not viable.&nbsp; At this time, I'm not convinced.&nbsp; The problem is, Nasa is using 1960's - 1970's structures and updating them, when in fact, they all have to be rebuilt, to meet Ares V's requirements.&nbsp; I don't see this as a physics problem, but as a budget problem.&nbsp; Correct me if I'm wrong, but for Ares Max (6.5 seg. SRB's + 7 RS-68 engines):</p><p>1.&nbsp; The Crawlerway will have to be rebuilt.</p><p>2.&nbsp; New super crawlers will have to be purchased.</p><p>3.&nbsp; A new launch pad will most likely have to be built.</p><p>4.&nbsp; A larger or wider&nbsp;Vehicle Assembly Building will be needed.&nbsp; I stuck this last one in, for the 4 seg. 4 SRB option.</p><p>Did I miss anything?</p> <div class="Discussion_UserSignature"> <p><font size="4"><strong></strong></font></p> </div>

 

[tanstaafl76]

<p>It seems like Ares V complexity is spiraling out of control.&nbsp; New SRB development, new RS-68 development for increased output, new ground facilities.&nbsp; Is there any indication that NASA would consider something like Direct v2.0 if the costs become unmanageable or if the new Presidential administration alters the funding structure?</p><p>&nbsp;</p> <div class="Discussion_UserSignature"> </div>

 

[kyle_baron]

<p><BR/>Replying to:<BR/><DIV CLASS='Discussion_PostQuote'>It seems like Ares V complexity is spiraling out of control.&nbsp; New SRB development, new RS-68 development for increased output, new ground facilities.&nbsp; Is there any indication that NASA would consider something like Direct v2.0 if the costs become unmanageable?&nbsp; <br />Posted by tanstaafl76</DIV></p><p>Sure, but don't hold your breath.&nbsp; A similar topic came up on NasaSpaceflight.com in their Forum section.&nbsp; The consensus was IIRC, that 2013 was the latest date to switch over to another program, to replace Ares V.<br /></p> <div class="Discussion_UserSignature"> <p><font size="4"><strong></strong></font></p> </div>

 

[Bytor_YYZ]

<p><BR/>Replying to:<BR/><DIV CLASS='Discussion_PostQuote'>I'll concede, when I'm convinced that it's not viable.&nbsp; At this time, I'm not convinced.&nbsp; The problem is, Nasa is using 1960's - 1970's structures and updating them, when in fact, they all have to be rebuilt, to meet Ares V's requirements.&nbsp; I don't see this as a physics problem, but as a budget problem.&nbsp; Correct me if I'm wrong, but for Ares Max (6.5 seg. SRB's + 7 RS-68 engines):1.&nbsp; The Crawlerway will have to be rebuilt.2.&nbsp; New super crawlers will have to be purchased.3.&nbsp; A new launch pad will most likely have to be built.4.&nbsp; A larger or wider&nbsp;Vehicle Assembly Building will be needed.&nbsp; I stuck this last one in, for the 4 seg. 4 SRB option.Did I miss anything? <br /> Posted by kyle_baron</DIV></p><p>&nbsp;</p><p>1.&nbsp; Incorrect, a new one doesn't have to be built</p><p>3. &nbsp; Incorrect, a new ones don't have to be built</p><p>4.&nbsp; very, incorrect.</p><p>&nbsp;Ares V has to use most of the existing infrastructure.&nbsp; That is the major design factor.&nbsp; There can't be new 1, 3 or 4, because it will be too costly.&nbsp; The only new things are MLP, crawlers and the vehicle itself </p>

 

[tanstaafl76]

<p>&nbsp;</p><p>Aren't the current launch pads starting to crumble just from shuttle launches?&nbsp; Are they really going to be able to withstand the huge thrust of an Ares V without being rebuilt?</p><p>&nbsp;</p> <div class="Discussion_UserSignature"> </div>

 

[kyle_baron]

<p><BR/>Replying to:<BR/><DIV CLASS='Discussion_PostQuote'>&nbsp;Replying to:</p><div class="Discussion_PostQuote">I'll concede, when I'm convinced that it's not viable.&nbsp; At this time, I'm not convinced.&nbsp; The problem is, Nasa is using 1960's - 1970's structures and updating them, when in fact, they all have to be rebuilt, to meet Ares V's requirements.&nbsp; I don't see this as a physics problem, but as a budget problem.&nbsp; Correct me if I'm wrong, but for Ares Max (6.5 seg. SRB's + 7 RS-68 engines):1.&nbsp; The Crawlerway will have to be rebuilt.2.&nbsp; New super crawlers will have to be purchased.3.&nbsp; A new launch pad will most likely have to be built.4.&nbsp; A larger or wider&nbsp;Vehicle Assembly Building will be needed.&nbsp; I stuck this last one in, for the 4 seg. 4 SRB option.Did I miss anything? <br />Posted by kyle_baron</div><p>&nbsp;</p><p>&nbsp;</p><p>1.&nbsp; Incorrect, a new one doesn't have to be built</p><p>3. &nbsp; Incorrect, a new ones don't have to be built</p><p>4.&nbsp; very, incorrect.</p><p>&nbsp;Ares V has to use most of the existing infrastructure.&nbsp; That is the major design factor.&nbsp; There can't be new 1, 3 or 4, because it will be too costly.&nbsp; The only new things are MLP, crawlers and the vehicle itself </p><p>&nbsp;</p><p>&nbsp;There can't be new 1, 3 or 4, because it will be too costly.&nbsp; The only new things are MLP, crawlers and the vehicle itself <br />Posted by Bytor_YYZ</DIV></p><p>&nbsp;</p><p>You are correct for the current Ares V, which comes up short in payload performance to the moon (by 8 metric tons, IIRC).&nbsp; However, Ares Max (also known as the bigger Ares V in the article) will be needed to make up this shortfall and will need the new structures 1,3,4:</p><p>http://www.geocities.com/launchreport/ares5.html</p><p class="MsoNormal" align="left"><font face="Arial" size="2">The bigger Ares V would require the rebuilding of the existing Launch Complex 39 crawlerway.&nbsp; All-new crawler transporters and mobile launch platforms would also be needed.&nbsp; A new launch pad might even be necessary.&nbsp; &nbsp; </font></p><p class="MsoNormal" align="left"><font face="Arial" size="2">The Ares V design will continue to evolve until "Phase A" design definition work begins in 2009.&nbsp; A Systems Requirements Review (SRR) for Ares V and Altair is expected in 2010.&nbsp; Actual work on the big rocket would not begin until after Shuttle's retirement in 2010.&nbsp;</font><br /></p> <div class="Discussion_UserSignature"> <p><font size="4"><strong></strong></font></p> </div>