Even NASA seems to realize that the end is near for Ares I.
For more than a week now, engineers at the Marshall Space Flight Center in Huntsville, Ala., including some working on Ares I, have been pulled from their current duties to study creation of a smaller version of the Ares V that could carry both crew and heavy equipment.
NASA confirms that it is looking at different versions of the Ares V, though a spokeswoman played down the significance of the review.
“This is nothing new, and as a part of these ongoing … studies the program continues to look at a wide variety of options on Ares V as is standard practice in formulation,” said NASA spokeswoman Ashley Edwards in a statement.
But NASA insiders and contractors familiar with the work say that the work is far from “standard practice” and could herald the demise of the Ares I.
“They are looking at a whole new launch architecture,” said one NASA contractor familiar with the study. “Although it’s still too early to pronounce Ares I dead, it is safe to assume that members of the committees have doubts about it.”
Gee, you think?
So…
Separating cargo and crew isn’t that important, after all?
It was always a dumb notion.
What is sad and hilarious is this bit:
“The downsized version of the Ares V would use the same upper-stage engine as Ares I, the liquid-fueled J2X, and could even use two five-segment solid rockets developed for Ares I as boosters. The main power would come from several RS-68 liquid-fuel engines, like the ones now used on the commercial Delta IV rocket.”
Can we all say ‘Direct v2.0’?
Ares 1 was always a stupid idea, when they could have used an Heavy EELV to do the same job and get economies of scale. I never got why they canceled OSP (yeah the name sucked, OSV would have been better). Oh yeah, they canceled OSP because Mike Griffin wanted to push his own solution and play Werner von Braun.
I don’t see how “downsizing” Ares 5 helps if they are going to use the same propulsion hardware.
PS: The stick may get reinvented elsewhere. I have seen studies by the Italians for about a decade proposing a rocket extension to Vega using a P230 solid rocket as a first stage, a P80 solid rocket as a second stage, and Vinci LOX/LH2 expander cycle engine powering a third stage. Of course, Soyuz in Guyana may kill off any prospects of that happening.
Given just a casual understanding of the issues involved, I would place my bets on the Ares I and Ares V both being scrapped. Then the HLV concept (aka son of Shuttle-C) replacing the Ares V and the Orion being placed on a crewed version of the HLV or a Heavy EELV.
At this point in the game it seems to make too much sense not to simply recycle as much of the shuttle program as possible and plan future missions around the reduced lift capability of the HLV. If a particular mission needs more than what the HLV can provide, simply launch two HLVs and mate in orbit.
Also, the shuttle program can then be continued post 2010 if needed/desired as the infrastructure to launch both shuttle and HLV can be more easily maintained than any derivative of Ares.
Ares V has already effectively been scrapped — it’s disappeared from the out-year budget plans. Ares 1 is unlikely to survive the summer.
The problem of “Shuttle-C” is that SSMEs are not so cheap that you can simply throw them away with each flight.
I still think using RS-68 is a good idea. Even if it needs a couple of upgrades at least the work can be reused by other EELV users. I also think “Shuttle-C” should not be designed for crew, even if it eventually gets used for that.
My prediction, what I’ve been saying all along, is that we’ll see Orion on EELV. Perhaps they’ll toss some bucks for long term development of DIRECT.
My prediction, what I’ve been saying all along, is that we’ll see Orion on EELV. Perhaps they’ll toss some bucks for long term development of DIRECT.
Long term slower paced development of DIRECT is not viable because of layoffs and the loss of infrastructure. Once the Michoud tooling is scrapped and the workers laid off, re-constituting that capability shall be considerably more expensive, later on.
If Shuttle C cannot carry Orion then we are looking at two Shuttle C and one EELV per lunar mission. High incremental costs per mission therefore we won’t go that route, IMHO.
To save jobs, going all in on DIRECT and extending Orbiter until 2012 minimizes the gap in LC-39 employment, perhaps blended with an ISS only version of Orion carried by EELV to minimize the gap in human launch capability.
Today, I’d predict the two most likely scenarios are EELV only and DIRECT although I cannot predict which will be favored. That said, EELV only will quickly become ISS only, IMHO, for political reasons.
The problem of “Shuttle-C” is that SSMEs are not so cheap that you can simply throw them away with each flight.
I still think using RS-68 is a good idea. Even if it needs a couple of upgrades at least the work can be reused by other EELV users.
Trouble is, the upgrade that RS-68 really needs to work with Ares V (or Direct, or Not Shuttle-C) is regenerative cooling. That upgrade will not be cheap and it will produce little tangible benefit to Delta customers. So the expense will have to be borne entirely by NASA. While that may not, by itself, make RS-68 uncompetitive with expendable SSMEs, it evens the balance enough that smaller factors could tip the balance.
To save jobs, going all in on DIRECT and extending Orbiter until 2012 minimizes the gap in LC-39 employment, perhaps blended with an ISS only version of Orion carried by EELV to minimize the gap in human launch capability.
By definition, if you’re extending the shuttle and man-rating an EELV, you aren’t “all in” on DIRECT.
IMO, a shuttle extension to 2012 combined with EELV man rating will not leave sufficient funding to develop DIRECT until 2012, by which time it will be too late, for the reasons you’ve already given.
By definition, if you’re extending the shuttle and man-rating an EELV, you aren’t “all in” on DIRECT.
DIRECT 3.0 does call for human rating Delta IVH as soon as possible.
Whether J-130 or DIVH is the first to carry Orion to orbit is irrelevant to Team Direct.
Extending Orbiter in the context of J-130 is less burdensome than with a transition to another vehicle because of the extensive overlap with identical components and keeping the workforce sharp by flying Orbiters could be useful rather than having them sit on the hands waiting for the J-130 to be ready for a test flight.
One possibility would be to fly a J-130 uncrewed test vehicle before the last orbiter flight.
The problem of “Shuttle-C” is that SSMEs are not so cheap that you can simply throw them away with each flight.
Has the “Shuttle-C” ever included options whereby the SSME’s can be returned to Earth for refurbishment? It seems a big carbon-carbon heat shield similar to what is on the nose of the shuttle and big parachutes might do the job — particularly if they could be recovered on land. On missions where maximum lift capability is needed, the extra weight of the recovery system can be eliminated and engines already near the end of their serviceable life used and discarded.
IMHO the main factor behind NASA’s decision to build Ares 1 rather than using an EELV for Orion was maintaining control of the entire human spaceflight capability. Control meaning complete control of design and operations of all aspects of the Constellation by the Astronaut Office and Mission Operations Directorate. Politics and job losses and hubris by some people were big factors but control is the hidden agenda that all other factors had to be aligned with. If Orion is proposed to go on an EELV watch for the death matches to begin over the decision process and approval authority for launch commit criteria, ascent flight rules and procedures, and waivers to human-rating requirements. Additional death match, maybe the main event: Which control center (EELV launch control or Houston Control) monitors what and controls what during ascent, particularly abort calls? Can the EELV option costs and schedule survive the control death matches?
Trouble is, the upgrade that RS-68 really needs to work with Ares V (or Direct, or Not Shuttle-C) is regenerative cooling. That upgrade will not be cheap and it will produce little tangible benefit to Delta customers. So the expense will have to be borne entirely by NASA. While that may not, by itself, make RS-68 uncompetitive with expendable SSMEs, it evens the balance enough that smaller factors could tip the balance.
I gather ULA is already working a bit on development and that the regenerative nozzle yields a boost in ISP. That means more payload which will have tangible benefit to ULA and future Delta customers. While RS-68 development may not suit the interests of NASA and hence, may not warrant sole funding by NASA, it looks a lot more promising to the space industry as a whole than expendable SSMEs.
Has the “Shuttle-C” ever included options whereby the SSME’s can be returned to Earth for refurbishment?
Some side-mounted SDLV concepts have. “Shuttle-C”, as the term is properly understood to apply to a particular family of side-mount SDLVs, has not.
These concepts have never survived the first cut, because the development cost of the “boat tail” to return them has always overwhelmed the savings from reusability, due to low flight rate.
DIRECT 3.0 does call for human rating Delta IVH as soon as possible.
Whether J-130 or DIVH is the first to carry Orion to orbit is irrelevant to Team Direct.
That’s because they don’t understand that the budget will force that to be an either-or choice. I guarantee you it’d be relevant to them if they understood that. Once D-IVH is flying manned (and if development starts at the same time as J-130, D-IVH will be ready first, period), it will be a convenient “off-ramp” from the lunar program, resulting in cancellation of Jupiter.
Sure, they believe otherwise. Sure, they state Direct can coexist with manned EELVs. I’ve read their reports and I flat out don’t believe their budget numbers. Unless you’ve got better arguments than they themselves have presented, do not bother trying to convince me otherwise.
Extending Orbiter in the context of J-130 is less burdensome than with a transition to another vehicle because of the extensive overlap with identical components and keeping the workforce sharp by flying Orbiters could be useful rather than having them sit on the hands waiting for the J-130 to be ready for a test flight.
On the other hand, you have the cost of operating the Orbiters conflicting with the cost of developing J-130 *and* man-rating D-IVH. Sure, no problem if you believe their budget numbers… but I don’t need to repeat myself on that.
One possibility would be to fly a J-130 uncrewed test vehicle before the last orbiter flight.
Not unless you’re talking extending shuttle to 2014, maybe late 2013 at the outside. No way the J-130 flight software will be ready before that. (It should go without saying I don’t believe their schedule numbers, either.)
Godzilla, I agree with you. The plan for the Shuttle-Derived Heavy Lift Launch Vehicle (which I prefer to call the NTSC, standing for “Not The Shuttle C”), is to only use SSME left over from the STS for the block 1 NTSC, and develop a cheaper non-reusable SSME for the block 2 NTSC. Substituting two RS-68 for the three SSME is a good idea.
Nemo, you said, “Trouble is, the upgrade that RS-68 really needs to work with Ares V (or Direct, or Not Shuttle-C) is regenerative cooling. That upgrade will not be cheap and it will produce little tangible benefit to Delta customers. So the expense will have to be borne entirely by NASA.”
I’m afraid I must disagree. If the issue is heating the environment for RS-68 with the NTSC is much more benign than with the latest incarnation Ares V. If the issue is performance the slight reduction of RS-68 vacuum ISP compared to SSME is liable to only reduce the payload by less than 10%, which is a trade off well worth the lower price. NTSC will not have close to the performance of Ares V in any case so modification of the lunar architecture is necessary no mater what core engine is used.
Which brings me to Bill White, who said, “If Shuttle C cannot carry Orion then we are looking at two Shuttle C and one EELV per lunar mission. High incremental costs per mission therefore we won’t go that route, IMHO.”
If you think that is what would be necessary for a lunar sortie mission similar to the ESAS plan, that seems grossly over mass budget. I think a cheaper and more elegant sortie would use two EELV launches and one NTSC launch. This might have cheaper costs per mission, as well as tremendously reduced development costs when compared to ESAS.
RS-68 still doesn’t make sense for “NTSC” since much of the advantage of NTSC is that you don’t have to redesign the aft thrust structure. But you do have to redesign it if you change the engines. If you’re in for that penny, you might as well go in for the pound of inline SDLV due to the performance and operational cost advantages.
Nemo said, “RS-68 still doesn’t make sense for “NTSC” since much of the advantage of NTSC is that you don’t have to redesign the aft thrust structure.”
Actually most of the cost advantage of NTSC is due to continued use of elements which don’t have to change at all, such as the SRB, ET, launch pads, etc. It’s the other parts, including the core engine area which get redesigned.
Even though the NTSC block 1 has the SSME in common with the STS, there is still plenty of differences between the structure of a STS orbiter and a NTSC side-pod. Unlike the STS orbiter, there are no severable propellant lines between the NTSC side-pod and the ET. There is also no OMS engines or propellant tanks on an NTSC side-pod, as that job is performed by an upper-stage (most typically the EDS).
The work needed for NTSC to accommodate the RS-68 is bound to be much less than developing a ‘less expensive’ non-reusable SSME. And even if those costs were similar, a two RS-68 engined NTSC would be cheaper, simpler and more reliable. The RS-68 were designed for cheap production and already have flight history.