Congrats to Frank Morring on a great scoop that builds the case against abandoning Ares I
Hyperbola was aware of the argument that US Air Force Expendable Evolvable Launch Vehicles (EELV) could not deliver a vehicle in time for the 2015 target date but did not know if the latest Aerospace Corporation report would confirm that
In this article I referred to a 2005 report Aerospace Corp produced on human rating EELVs. Never published because of its highly technical and commercially sensitive content Hyperbola was aware that its conclusion was not as positive as some EELV proponents would have liked
Despite claims in the blogosphere of rigged analysis and inaccurate upper stage mass figures in the Exploration Systems Architecture Study report the claim that launch vehicles designed for satellites could "easily" be converted for crew capsules never rang true
Even if it was there are a range of conditions that count against EELVs and the biggest political factor is the timetable, that key date of 2015
A counter argument to the latest Aero Corp report could be that Ares I with all its problems will end up taking just as long and just as expensive
That may well come true but it does appear that the independent technical assessment for now won't support it
Another political argument could be that without Ares you can have a much reduced launch infrastructure footprint but that is not going to be supported by the likes of Floridian Senator Bill Nelson whose constituents are already facing the end of Space Shuttle
Many will no doubt be surprised at the focus on Delta IV by the new Aero Corp report. I was surprised at how harsh the assessment for Atlas V was in it. If this is the reality it may explain why talks between Lockheed and Robert Bigelow have never gone beyond just that
At the end of the day even with an Augustine US human spaceflight plans review committee that has up to 120-days (instead of the original 70-odd, whatever happened to that decision by August timing?) to come up with recommendations it is still going to be reliant on the technical assessments already done and as Frank Morring's article shows that information is not looking pretty for EELVs
In Hyperbola's humble opinion NASA should be looking at a smaller Orion (and now Constellation progamme manager Jeff Hanley is talking a four crew version) that is not lunar capable and can be launched by a four segment first stage and J-2X powered upper stage
That way the oscillation problem goes away and the work on J-2X is not wasted. Sources tell Hyperbola that the calculation that a five segment first stage was easier to do than a expendable SSME was a terrible misjudgement and led to the problems Ares I has today
Listening to acting administrator Christopher Scolese in the Congressional hearings in April it became clear that the Moon is growing distant as a goal and that a straightforward low Earth orbit crew and cargo transportation and international docking capability is a likely outcome when the next decade ends
Today's EELVs will not help send Americans to the Moon but the stage is being set for an international Moonship that might enable a more commercially orientated lunar future
on June 16, 2009 9:59 AM | Reply
----
this study ordered by NASA clearly demonstrates that (despite ALL NASA claims, so far) NASA wasn't (and still isn't) so "sure" that the Ares-1 can work and fly...
----
that actually IS what I've said from 2006, here:
----
http://www.gaetanomarano.it/articles/011srb5.html
----
and from 2007 in this article:
----
http://www.ghostnasa.com/posts/012arescantfly.html
----
also, I've already suggested an Ares-1 version with four RL-10 (as 2nd stage engines) over TWO years ago in this article:
----
http://www.gaetanomarano.it/articles/023newAres.html
----
the only BIG difference between the proposed "SuperDeltaIV" and MY rocket-concept is that, the latter, adopts a standard SRB (as 1st stage motor) since it already IS man-rated and cheap
----
however, despite I think that the Ares-1 can't fly, I did not believe that a man-rated Delta IV Heavy could be safer than Ares-1 without a DEEP redesign of this rocket
----
on June 16, 2009 11:37 AM | Reply
Why can't Delta IV be ready for 2015? That's 6 years away! The LV already exists. Will it really take more than 6 years to manrate and modify the launch pad?
on June 16, 2009 12:59 PM | Reply
"Sources tell Hyperbola that the calculation that a five segment first stage was easier to do than a expendable SSME was a terrible misjudgement and led to the problems Ares I has today."
true, the 5/5.5-segments SRB always was/is/will be the #1 problem of Ares-1, Ares-5, ESAS, Constellation, manned launches GAP, etc. as I've said in last 3-4 years on my website gaetanomarano.it and on my blog ghostNASA.com (plus hundreds posts and comments on several space forums and blogs!) with articles like these:
http://www.ghostnasa.com/posts/018srb5nonsense.html
http://www.ghostnasa.com/posts/023deadweight.html
http://www.ghostnasa.com/posts/026ares1a.html
.
on June 16, 2009 5:37 PM | Reply
In response to this article, Clark Lindsey of RLVNews.com says:
"It's also clear, however, that Ares "can't do 2015" either. And there would certainly be a huge delay if a major re-design is made such as changing to a smaller Orion and a 4 segment booster."
on June 16, 2009 5:54 PM | Reply
Not necessarily. What is meant by major re-design? I should have used the word lighter but the outer moldline doesn't have to change. An ISS only Orion can have a much smaller service module, its life support is simpler, it could be berthed instead of docked making "the last mile" simpler, the heat shield can be reduced in size, there are a variety of systems that become simpler because you are not going to the higher radiation environment that is the Moon for seven months.
on June 16, 2009 9:08 PM | Reply
> In Hyperbola's humble opinion NASA
> should be looking at a smaller Orion
Not the best option if your goal is 1 system for lunar, Mars, & space station but unfortunately, probably the only option after next year's mortgage bailouts.
on June 17, 2009 2:35 AM | Reply
The irony is if Ares 1 is ever funded to completion & succeeds, everyone else is going to copy it just like they did with the space shuttle. Arianne VI will be an inline 5 segment solid rocket with vibration dampers. Once France endorses it, all questions disappear.
on June 18, 2009 2:56 AM | Reply
I'm sorry, but it doesn't take that long to "man-rate" an existing operational vehicle such as DELTA IV Heavy. Or for that matter the currently concept-stage Atlas V Heavy. Actually the latter should be easier in tha regard, since it is a conventional propellant booster; best for 1st stages.
Since we're going back to standard boosters why not re-train Astronauts to handle 4-5G as well. Last time I checked, Fighter Pilots were still using 'G' suits.
BTW What were the criticisms of Atlas V by the Aerospace Corp report? Articles on the report I've seen actually concentrate on the DELTA V capability and merely mention the Atlas V cost as being half that of the former. Plus the V has a 2-tonne advantage over The STICK whereas the IV has a similar number in deficit...
Mind you NASA claims BILLIONS would have to be spent on both EELVs to match its Standards. A likely story!
As to your own proposal Rob, I think you're being prescient on NASA(covert)thinking. Reduce Orion's tasks to ISS missions and a 4-segment SRB + cryo-upper stage will do the trick - at a pinch! If as I'm convinced will happen and '10 onward funding is being curtailed.
on June 18, 2009 11:01 AM | Reply
Why would a 4-segment Ares I 1st stage solve the solid-rocket oscillation problem? I thought the Ares I problem originated in the use of a single solid rocket, since paired solids as in the STS tend to damp out movement from solid chugging.
But shrinking the Orion capsule is a good idea, with benefits that would ripple through the entire lunar mission architecture, let alone the simple ISS mission.
The commission seems skeptical of claims a HR Delta IV would take so long to develop. Not that it matters terribly. U.S. manned access to ISS will likely come from the Falcon 9 before Ares I or Delta IV are ready for the job.
For the longer term lunar mission, I think the most sensible plan is using Delta IV for the Orion launch vehicle and a side mount shuttle derived heavy lift cargo vehicle.
on June 18, 2009 1:37 PM | Reply
The Moon and Mars bit will just become an aspiration. Scolese said it all in the Congressional hearing when he said that returning to the Moon would probably not mean a lunar outpost and a sort of beyond LEO capability would be the end result. No need for a lunar capable Orion then.
on June 18, 2009 1:43 PM | Reply
If I remember correctly the length of the solid stage is what determines the frequency of the oscillation and its that frequency that causes the problems. I've yet to get up to speed on the committee's first meeting yesterday as I have been working at the Paris air show for the last five days and have been asleep for most of today (its 1330h here). I'll post something soon enough.
on June 19, 2009 12:45 AM | Reply
Hello, Robbie.
How can I get on the ATK payroll as well?
Seriously, though - glad to see that you corrected yourself a tad by acknowledging that the Orion 'mold-line' will not change due to the reduction from 6 to 4 crew. You continue to claim that the life-support and service module and even the heat shield can be reduced.
Even to the extent that the 5-segment SRB can be switched to 4 segments! Nonsense!
The mass-saving for 2 crew is about 400Kg.
Also such a switch - while it MAY eliminate the longitudinal oscillation - will not solve the stage recontact problem nor probably the side-skip problem.
But can anyone see the forest for the trees?
There is absolutely NO requirement for a 4 person vehicle (for the US). A US spacecraft is needed for crew-rotation and crew-rescue otherwise it is useless.
Also, is anyone aware of the leaking hydrogen issue with RS-68?
Check it out. Big obstacle to man-rating the Delta IV.
Also the reason given for excluding the Atlas V (apart from Boeing's prejudice!) was the difficulty of certifying a foreign engine (the FL manufactory is not in operation).
However Russia themselves have selected the same engine for their own 'Orionski'! Are they wrong?
on June 19, 2009 2:30 PM | Reply
The Russian's haven't selected the RD-180 or the RD-170, which it is based on. The Samara Space Center will develop the rocket for Advanced Crew Vehicle, which you call Orionski. No one knows exactly what the rocket will be but there have been rumous of a Rus-M rocket that does use the RD-180 for its first stage but the reality is that no official details have been given.
I don't quite understand why you tackle the RS-68 engine, the RS-68A is the USAF version being developed and the RS-68B is the NASA version for the Ares V. But very little work has been done on the RS-68B, only setting out requirements. That's what Pratt and Whitney Rocketdyne told me in April.
Two crew saving of only 400kg? I think you're fogetting that a 2015 Orion at this point is not going to go to the Moon. Just look at the FY2010 budget, Altair doesn't appear and Ares V gets a paltry $25 million every year. Forget Ares V and the RS-68B.
Side-skip problem? Are you talking about the translation during lift off? Stage recontact is clearly an issue and we'll see what solution they come up with.
As for four or six crew. With a four man Orion and three person Soyuz you have the six crew covered. But I'd certainly like to hear a justification from Jeff Hanley about the choice of four crew.