nasa ares i & v launch vehicle - july 2009 status report

8/14/2019 NASA Ares I & V Launch Vehicle - July 2009 Status Report

1/66

www.nasa.gov

Constellation

Launch VehiclesOverview

Part 1

July 29, 2009

National Aeronautics and Space Administration


2/66


3/66

Part 1 Agenda

Ares Overview

Ares Family

Legacy Launch Systems

Ares I/V Commonality

Benefits of the Ares Approach

Top-level Breakout of the Ares I VehicleState-by-state National Team

Ares I Schedule

Earned Value Management

Quality, Safety, Teamwork

The Ares I Safety Story

Ares I Element Overviews

7764.3National Aeronautics and Space Administration


4/66

www.nasa.gov

Ares

LaunchVehicles



5/66

Ares Family of Launch Vehicles

Shuttle-derived launch vehicle family for LEO and beyond missions

Common boosters, upper stage engines, manufacturing, subsystemtechnologies, and ground facilities

Investment in Ares I (~one year post-Preliminary Design Review (PDR))for Initial Capability reduces funding required and risk on Ares V (post-

Mission Concept Review (MCR)) for lunar capabilityNational Aeronautics and Space Administration 7764.5


6/66

Saturn V: 19671972 Space Shuttle: 1981Present Ares I: First Flight 2015 Ares V: First Flight 2018

Height 360.0 ft 184.2 ft 325.0 ft 381.1 ft

Gross LiftoffMass (GLOM)

6,500.0K lbm 4,500.0K lbm 2,057.3K lbm 8,167.1K lbm

PayloadCapability

44.9 mT Trans-Lunar

Injection (TLI)

118.8 mT to LEO

25.0 mT to LEO 24.9 mT to LEO

71.1 mT to TLI with Ares I

62.8 mT to TLI

~161.0 mT to LEO

Building on 50 Years of Proven Experience Launch Vehicle Comparisons


OverallVehicleHeight

400 ft

300 ft

200 ft

100 ft

0

Earth DepartureStage (1 J-2XLOX/LH2 engine)

Core Stage(Six RS-68LOX/LH2engines)

Crew

LunarLander

Altair

One 5-SegmentRSRB

Two 5.5-SegmentRSRBs

OrionS-IVB(One J-2 LiquidOxygen/LiquidHydrogen(LOX/LH2)

engine)S-II(Five J-2 LOX/LH2 engines)

S-IC(Five F-1 LOX/RP-1 engines)

Upper Stage(One J-2XLOX/LH2 engine)

Two 4-SegmentReusable SolidRocket Boosters(RSRBs)

DAC 2 TR7

LV 51.00.48

7764.6


7/66

Why Ares I for Crew Launch


Top-down designindicates high Ares I+V designsynergy possible

Same J-2X upper stage engine Significant Solid Rocket

Motor commonality MAF production capacity Minimize unique elements lower life-

cycle cost

Bottoms-up design indicates

expectation of a highlyreliable/safe vehicle

Heritage from Shuttle RSRM combinedwith continued post-flight recovery andinspection

Heritage from Saturn J-2 human-ratedupper-stage engine

Probabilistic risk assessment indicates atleast twice as safe as any other assessedapproach

Serves as risk-reduction forexploration

Provides test of Orion on cost effectivevehicle

Crew ascent Long duration in-space tests Stepping stone to largest rocket

ever developed First new human launch system in

3 decades Shuttle transition / industrial base

First Stage and J-2X performance,flight behavior

Dependable U.S. human access to space

7764.7


8/66

Why Ares V for Cargo Launch

*National Research Council, Launching Science: Science Opportunities Provided by NASAs Constellation System, 2008


Ares V-class launcher is a game-changerin expanding U.S.capabilities in space science andhuman space exploration

7x lift capacity, much largerpayload volume compared to any

existing system Many launches of existing vehicles

prohibitive from a mission risk posture

Ares V is enablingfor diverseadvanced missions

Human Moon, Mars, asteroid missions* Large aperture space telescopes in

remote orbits*

Flagship outer planet missions*

The U.S. is in a unique position

to develop and operate sucha system

Legacy production capability fromSaturn, Shuttle, Delta IV programs

MAF, RS-68 main engines, Solid RocketMotors, J-2 upper stage engine

Legacy launch infrastructure fromSaturn, Shuttle programs

Vehicle Assembly Building, pads,crawlers, mobile launch platforms, etc.

If this national capability is lost, it maynever be recovered

7764.8


9/66

Ares Architecture Enables ArchitecturesUnder Evaluation

TLI - t

0 50 100 LEO equiv - t150 200 250 300

LagrangeOnly

Mars Moons

Near Earth Objects(~2020)

Lunar Surface (2 LaunchesReqd for Crew)

CircumLunar

A B

C D

E

Lunar base (Constellation light)

Lunar global

Moons to Mars (DRM-5)

A

B

C

D

E

Mars First (Mars light)

Flexible Destinations

Mars Launch Assembly (Single Launch Eq ~750t-1250t+)

Single Launch Equivalent Gross Capability

0 10 20 30 40 50 60 70 80 90 100

E

IncreasingDistancefromE

arth

Note: TLI to LEO scale comparison is approximate

National Aeronautics and Space Administration 7764.9

AresI

SaturnV

AresI&V


10/66

www.nasa.gov

Overview of

Ares I LaunchVehicle



11/66

Ares I Acquisition Model


Overall Integration

NASA-ledMulti-generational programLessons learned from DoD: robust internalsystems engineering, tightly managedrequirementsNASA becomes smart buyer downstream

Marries best of NASA and industry skills

Upper StageNASA Design/Boeing Production($1.16B) First Stage

ATK Launch Systems ($1.98B)

Upper Stage EnginePratt and Whitney Rocketdyne ($1.28B)

Orion CrewExploration

Vehicle

Instrument Unit

NASA Design/Boeing Production ($0.83B)

DAC 2 TR 7

7764.11


12/66

4,000 Ares Team Members Nationwide324 Organizations in 38 States

AmesResearch

Center

JohnsonSpace Center

Kennedy SpaceCenter

LangleyResearch

Center

Glenn ResearchCenter

Stennis Space Center

MichoudAssembly Facility

Marshall SpaceFlight Center

ATK SpaceSystems

Pratt &Whitney

Rocketdyne

Boeing

NASAHQ

JPL



13/66

Ares I Schedule


To date, the Ares I project has completed a total of 204 design reviews, ranging from

components up through subsystems, elements, and the integrated Ares launch vehicle.7764.13


14/66


15/66

HAVE FUNOnce in a career opportunity! We are running a marathon, not a sprint

not in 24/7 emergency mode all the time.

RESPECT OUR FAMILIES AND OURSELVES HEALTHY BALANCEBETWEEN WORK AND FAMILY IS ESSENTIAL

INTEGRITY IS EXPECTEDLook each other straight in the eye, tell the truth, full disclosure.

TEAMWORK IS ESSENTIALOur instead of my. We instead of I. Us rather than me

were all important

INTEGRATION AMONG THE PROJECT AND WITH PARTNERORGANIZATIONS (E.G., ENGINEERING, S&MA, OTHER CENTERS,

PROGRAM/PROJECTS) IS ESSENTIALCommunicate, communicate, communicate with each other.

Dont wait on someone else to initiate

BELIEVE THE BEST ABOUT EACH OTHER(ASSUME NO MALICIOUS INTENT)

CONSTRUCTIVE CONFLICT LEADING TO DECISIONS (CLOSURE) ANDONCE MADE DONT CARRY IT PERSONALLY IF IT DID NOT GO YOUR WAY

WE WILL HOLD EACH OTHER ACCOUNTABLE ANDMEET OUR COMMITMENTS

Our ultimate commitment is a safe, reliable, affordable delivery of Orion to orbit

FAILURE IS ACCEPTABLE DURING DEVELOPMENTWe are willing to take calculated risks to further our knowledge

EARLY IDENTIFICATION AND HIGHLIGHT OF ISSUES

Ensuring Quality, Safety, and Teamwork

People Integration Walking the talk leaders modeling/

living values Encouraging openness and diversity of

people, ideas

Communicate, communicate, communicate!

Measuring management performance

Motivation through a simple, straightforwardmission: go build the rocket

Leadership Challenges Retooling overseers into producers

Ensuring a sense of confident humility

Instilling ownership and accountability

Managing workload

Integration among Ares elements and otherConstellation projects

Getting every team member to think as asystems engineer

Focus on lean thinking


Ares Projects Team Norms


16/66

www.nasa.gov

The Path to aSafer Crew Launch Vehicle:

The Ares I Story



17/66

Premise of New CLV Design

The design of the system [that replaces the current Space Shuttle] should giveoverriding priority

to crew safety, rather than trade safety against other performance criteria, such as low cost

and reusability, or against advanced space operation capabilities other than crew transfer.

Columbia Accident Investigation Team Report, Section 9.3, page 211

The Astronaut Office recommends that the next human-rated launch system add abort or

escape systems to a booster with ascent reliability at least as high as the Space Shuttles,

yielding a predictedprobability of 0.999 or better for crew survival[1 in 1000 LOC] during

ascent. The system should be designed to achieve or exceed its reliability requirement with

95% confidence*.

Astronaut Office Position on Future Launch System Safety, Memo from CB Chief, Astronaut

Office to CA Director, Flight Crew Operations, May 4, 2004

*Interpreted to mean 95% certainty



18/66

Historical context

Architectural trades, in quest of a safer launcher, date back to Challenger before ESAS

The progression of safety driven analyses, since Challenger, led to the development of the single

stick booster concept, and the combination of heritage-reliability, performance and cost mandatedthe solid booster option from ESAS



19/66

Premise

1 in 10

1 in 100

1 in 1,000

1 in 10,000

1 in 100,000

1 in 1,000,000

1 in 1 1 in 10 1 in 100 1 in 1,000 1 in 10,000

Failure Frequency per Launch

Crew

SafetyperLaunch

.95 .97 .98 .99 .995

.7

.8

.9.95

.7

.9

.95

Current ELV Performance

Shuttle with current escape

Ariane

Soyuz

Delta

Saturn

Atlas

.987

Apollo Forecast

Crew EscapeReliability

Shuttle with 80% escape

Shuttle with 50% escape

.8Target from crew memo

Establishing crew safety goals - the value of an escape system

1 in 20 1 in 33 1 in 200



20/66

Ares I Risk-Informed Design

ESAS

SRR

SDR

PDR

CDR

Heritage-basedanalysis ofdesign potential

Physics of failure sensitivitiesand understanding of major risk drivers

Design specific scenarioswith bounding physical modeling

Focused analysiswith detailed design data

DCR/Flight

Continuing analyses and modelingusing flight data for application tofuture flights and missions

(Exploration Systems

Architecture Study)

(System Requirements Review)

(System Definition Review)

(Preliminary Design Review)

(Critical Design Review)

(Design

Certification

Review)

From: Ares CSR



21/66

First Order Look at Configurations

ShuttleShuttle Derived

Side Mount (SSME)

EELV 3.2**does not meet performance requirements

EELV 4.1-100% EELV 4.1-75%

Ares-I ESAS Ares-I RSRM VAdd LASAdd Upper Stage

Adapt SRB

Ares-V Crewed

Add Engine Out

EELV- J-2X

Program risk-Aero acoustic loadsAerodynamics (length)Aero Start SSME

Program risk-New EngineThrust OscillationNew Propellant

Program risk-New EngineNew Propellant

Man RatedCertification

Program risk-

New Engine

Program risk-

Thrust ImbalanceLoss of Control

Add multiple RL10On Upper StageMan Rated Certification

Program risk-

Vehicle Software impactEngine Out Testing

Increasing Performance

Hold-down & Separation

Strap-Ons

Upper Stage & Engine

Core Engine & Stage



22/66

Failure Environments

Ares CSR detailed physics of failure models estimate the probability of successful crewescape (abort effectiveness, AE) for each failure environment, each configuration

This study uses results of the detailed model to apply a relativeAE factor to each failureenvironment bin (mildest environment = best abort effectiveness gets 100% factor)

Timing

Quantification ofScenarios & Branches

(Mappingto Scenarios)

LOMCalculation

HazardAnalysis

ElementDesign

Functional

FaultAnalysis

Cut

Sets

Element PRAs

VI PRA

LOC/AbortEffectivenessCalculation LOC

Environments

CandidateTrigger Set

AbortConditions& Triggers

-4-20246810

0 20 40 60 80 100 1 20

Failure Time

Bottoms Up

Top Down

Ascent RiskAssessment

For each trigger set,

integrated analysis

determines impact to

Loss of Crew

From: Ares CSR

Orion & LASDesign/Vulner

ability

FailureMode

EffectsAnalysis

Common FailureScenarios & Near-Field

Consequences(LOM Environments)

ScenarioDiagramming

(Trigger & TimingAssignment)

Failure ScenarioCharacteristics

(Reliability Data +Trigger Info)


Ares GN&C

Goldsim DynamicRisk Simulation

Model(Monte Carlo)


23/66


24/66


25/66

www.nasa.gov

Ares IElements



26/66

Ares I First Stage

DAC 2 TR 7

Modern electronics

Same propellantas Shuttle (PBAN)-

optimized forAres application

Wide throat nozzle

Same cases andjoints as Shuttle

New 150 ft diameter parachutes

Same aft skirt and thrust vectorcontrol as Shuttle

Tumble Motors(from Shuttle)

Booster DecelerationMotors (from Shuttle)

C-Spring isolators


Asbestos free insulation/liner

7764.26


27/66

First Stage Accomplishments


Ares I-X Forward Skirt Extension Separation TestPromontory, UT

Main Parachute Drop Test

Yuma Proving Ground, AZ

Ares I-X Motor En Route to KSCCorinne, UT

Ares I-X Forward Assembly Transfer to VAB

Kennedy Space Center, FL

7764.27


28/66



Thrust Oscillation Flexure Design (A) and Testing (B)San Luis Obispo, CA

DM-1 Igniter Test

Promontory, UT

Built-up Thrust Vector Control/Discrete InterfaceModule

Cincinnati, OH

DM-1 Installation into Test Stand

Promontory, UT

7764.28

(B)(A)


29/66



DM-1 in T-97 Test StandPromontory, UT

7764.29


30/66

www.nasa.gov

Ares IElements



31/66

Ares I Upper Stage

DAC 2 TR 7

AI-Li Orthogrid Tank Structure

Feed Systems

Common Bulkhead

LOX Tank

LH2 Tank

Instrument Unit (Modern Electronics)

CompositeInterstage

Thrust Vector Control

HeliumPressurizationBottles

Roll Control System

Ullage Settling Motors


Propellant Load: 308K lbm

Total Mass: 355K lbmDry Mass: 36K lbmDry Mass (Interstage): 10K lbmLength: 84 ftDiameter: 18 ftLOX Tank Pressure: 50 psigLH2 Tank Pressure: 42 psig

Common Bulkhead

7764.31


32/66

Upper Stage Avionics


Avionics Mass: 2,425 lbm

Electrical Power: 5,145 Watts

The Upper Stage Avionics will provide: Guidance, navigation, and control (GN&C)

Command and data handling

Preflight checkout

InstrumentUnit Avionics

Aft SkirtAvionics

InterstageAvionics

Thrust

ConeAvionics

7764.32


33/66

Upper Stage Accomplishments

First Friction Stir Weld of ET Dome Gore Panels

Marshall Space Flight Center, AL


First Manufacturing Demonstration Article Gore-Gore WeldMarshall Space Flight Center, AL

Manufacturing Development CentersMarshall Space Flight Center, AL

Development of the Ares Vertical Milling Machine

Chicago, IL

7764.33

U S A li h


34/66

Upper Stage Accomplishments


Delivery of FSW Tooling with Weld Head

Michoud Assembly Facility, LA

Common Bulkhead Seal Weld Process DevelopmentMarshall Space Flight Center, AL

Aluminum-Lithium (Al-Li) 2295 Y-Ring DeliveryMarshall Space Flight Center, AL

Al-Li Panel Structural Buckling Testing

Marshall Space Flight Center, AL

7764.34


35/66


36/66

Upper Stage Engine


37/66

Flexible Inlet Ducts (Scissors Ducts) Based on J-2 & J-2S ducts

Altered to meet current NASAdesign standards

Turbomachinery Based on J-2S MK-29 design

Beefed up to meet J-2X performance Altered to meet current NASA design

standards

Regeneratively Cooled Nozzle Section Based on long history of RS-27 success

HIP-bonded MCC Based on RS-68

demonstrated technology

Metallic Nozzle Extension Spin-formed, Chemically milled

Gas Generator Scaled from RS-68 design

Engine Controller

RS-68-based design andsoftware architecture

Upper Stage EngineUsed on Ares I and Ares V

Mass: 5,396 lbm

Thrust: 294K lbm (vac)

Isp: 448 sec (vac)

Height: 15.4 ft

Diameter: 10 ft

Open-Loop Pneumatic Control Similar to J-2 & J-2S design

Valves Ball-sector (XRS-2200 and RS-68)

Turbine Exhaust Gas Manifold Performance and cooling of

Nozzle extension


Upper Stage Engine


38/66

Upper Stage EngineTesting/Production Status


Fuel Turbopump Volute Casting

Fuel Turbopump Nozzle

Nozzle Turbine Exhaust ManifoldBase Ring Forging

Main Combustion Chamber Spun Liner

Main Combustion Chamber

Forward Manifold Casting

Work Horse Gas Generator Testing

U St E i A li h t


39/66

Upper Stage Engine Accomplishments

J-2X Powerpack Removal from A-1 Test StandStennis Space Center, MS

J-2X Powerpack 1A TestingStennis Space Center, MS

E3 Subscale Diffuser Test

Stennis Space Center, MS


Powerpack 1A Disassembly

Canoga Park, CA7764.39

U St E i A li h t


40/66

Upper Stage Engine Accomplishments


Workhorse Gas Generator TestMarshall Space Flight Center, AL

J-2X Valve Actuator DesignBuffalo, NY

Test Stand A-3 Construction

Stennis Space Center, MS

J-2X Workhorse Gas Generator ManufacturingCanoga Park, CA

7764.40


41/66

www.nasa.gov

Constellation

Launch VehiclesOverview

Part 2


Part 2 Agenda


42/66

Part 2 Agenda

Progress on Key Ares I Risks

Ares I-X Overview and Update

Ares V Overview

Summary



43/66


44/66


45/66

First Stage Thrust Oscillation


46/66

First Stage Thrust Oscillation

Status:June Program Review was completed with decision to baseline and implement

Dual Plane (DP) Isolation Baseline design established as a DP isolation system with the first plane between first stage

and upper stage with a reference stiffness of 8M lb/in and an upper plane between US andOrion, on the US side of the interface with a reference stiffness of 1.2M lb/in

The crew testing yielded in a requirement recommendation of 0.21 gs root mean square over a

5-second period and not to exceed 0.7 gs PEAK at 99.865% ( in order to maintain Crewsituational awareness)

The performance analysis shows that DP isolators are very close to meeting this requirementwith 93.8% for Lunar and 98.1% for International Space Station (ISS) cases

Orion will provide the design changes necessary to achieve 99.865% Upper Stage will begin design efforts to include the second plane isolator and coordinate

interface design requirements with Orion

Integrating project level risks into single program level risks

Mitigation:Crew testing

Requirements for crew seat responsesDesign updates to the ISS Orion configuration

Design/analysis/model verification of Loads Analysis 4 FiniteElement Models

TO forcing function verification

Update Monte Carlo analysis for crew seat response

Quantify TO mitigation baseline design margin required to cover

structural uncertaintyNational Aeronautics and Space Administration

Thrust forcingfunctionStructural

mode

Response

7764.46

Comparison of Mitigation Options


47/66

Comparison of Mitigation Options


Propellant Damper

Single-Plane Isolation

Dual-Plane Isolation Active RMAs plus

Single-Plane Isolation

Risk Mitigation OptionsWorking Baseline

7764.47

Tower Lift-Off Clearance


48/66

Tower Lift-Off Clearance

Background:First stage thrust misalignment and launch site windsresult in launch vehicle drift and potential tower and/or

launch mount re-contactLaunch drift can result in tower damage due to plumeimpingement and can increase refurbishment cost andschedule between flightsApollo Saturn V had similar issues and usedactive steering

Mitigation:An active steering solution has been developed that reduces launchdrift and meets tower re-contact requirements with no performanceimpact (Saturn V approach)The Mobile Launcher launch mount design has been modified toincrease liftoff clearancesPlanned forward work to further mitigate this risk includes:

Pursue southerly wind placarding to increase tower clearance and reduce the

probability of plume damage to the tower The Ground Operations team is evaluating thermal protection (e.g., water deluge)

and tower equipment hardening options to reduce plume damage as necessary

Status:Recent analysis refinements include specific updates to the nozzleconfiguration, flight control algorithm call rate, and thrustmisalignment model. The analysis update confirmed the effectiveness

of the active steering solutionNational Aeronautics and Space Administration

(drift curves not exact,for illustration only)

North

May 2008,3-sigmadrift curve

Current 3-sigmadrift curve

SM/USUmbilical

Launch Mount(actual mountnot shown)

7764.48

Separation System Pyro-Shock


49/66

Separation System Pyro-Shock

Background:

The first stageupper stage separation approach used alinear shaped charge (LSC) device with a pyrotechnic loadof 55-grains/ft.

Shock levels were conservatively predicted using 75grains/ft, yielding very high pyro-shock levels, especially atnearby components.

Shock panel testing showed that the 55-grains/ft shocklevels were too high for the nearby avionics to toleratewithout significant design and mass impacts

Mitigation:

The NASA Design Team, Boeing, and EnsignBickford developed and traded several optionsfor reducing the shock load. Two candidateapproaches were traded: a 30-grains/ft frangiblejoint and a 30-grains/ft LSC

The frangible joint was selected because itgenerates the lowest shock levels and wasjudged to be a lower overall risk for the upperstage design

Further panel testing is planned to verify theshock levels at the avionics. It is expected thatthis testing will show that the shock levels at the

avionics components are within acceptable limitsNational Aeronautics and Space Administration

Ring Forging with30-gr/ft LSC and

0.18 Groove

SplicePlates

External Debris Shield/Compression Ring

Linear Shaped Charge

Stage separation wind tunnel testArnold Air Force Base, TN

7764.49


50/66

Upper Stage Vibroacoustics (contd)


51/66

Upper Stage Vibroacoustics (cont d)

Mitigation:

Several options are available to mitigate the

high vibration, including:

Moving components to an area with less stressingenvironments

Developing systems to absorb transmitted energyand isolate components from the environment.The figures illustrate the concept of using a groupof wire rope isolators to reduce vibration loads onthe panelized components. Early testing has showna 5060% reduction in transmitted energy.This activity is underway and additional testsare planned

Combining components into panels or manifolds tochange the structural response. As componentsare combined, detailed analysis will be conducted

to determine the effectiveness and the resultingstructural loads on the connecting and theprimary structures

Hardening the components to withstand thevibration levels or develop the isolation system


Initial Capability (ISS Mission) Injected


52/66

June 2009


Color of arrow indicates current status: Green is compliant;Yellow is acceptable but at risk; Red is noncompliantDirection of arrow indicates trend from last data point: Up isimproved; Right is unchanged; Down is worsened

Status/Trend*

Ares I Total Margin

Orion Total Margin

22.5%

21.1%

Ares 1 & Orion for ISS Ascent Target (130 km/70 nmi)

with Orion 4 Crew Estimates

15,000

16,000

17,000

18,000

19,000

20,000

21,000

22,000

23,000

24,000

25,000

Oct 08 Nov 08 Dec 08 Jan 09 Feb 09 Mar 09 Apr 09 May 09 Jun 09 Jul 09 Aug 09

Orion PDR

Sep 09

Mass(

kg)

3 Performance Knockdowns

ARES 1 Project Ma rgin =1926 kg (9.5%)

606-G 4 crew members

*ESTIMATE*

A-106

Orion Predicted Mass

Ares Net Performance

Ares Gross Performance

Current MGA = 1481 kg (12.7%)

19,296 kg (CA4164-PO)

20,312 kg (CA1000-PO)

Net w/ T&O & pending

Predicted w/ T&O

Level II (Program) Reserve

Orion Basic

Project Ma rgin 974 kg (8.4%)

Ares I and Orion for ISS Ascent Target (130 km/70 nmi)with Orion 4 Crew Estimates

Progress on Key Risks


53/66

Progress on Key Risks

The current top Ares I systems risks analyzed and being

actively mitigated are :

First Stage Thrust Oscillation Plan in place, baseline selected and beingimplemented

Mobile Launch Platform Lift-off Clearance -- Re-Contact resolvedmitigating plume tower interaction

Separation System Pyro-shock Mitigation in place with selection ofseparation system

Upper Stage Vibroacoustics Using total vehicle approach to refineenvironments and develop component solutions

Ares I Payload Mass PerformanceMeeting requirements and holding

adequate mass margins. Mass is continually monitored as a topperformance metric.

The program expects to retire these while identifying newchallenges as the program proceeds to CDR



54/66

www.nasa.gov

Ares I-XOverview



55/66


56/66


57/66

www.nasa.gov

Ares VOverview


Ares V ElementsC t P i t f D t


58/66

Current Point-of-Departure

Altair LunarLander

InterstageSolid Rocket Boosters Two recoverable 5.5-segment

PBAN-fueled, steel-caseboosters (derived from currentAres I first stage)

Option for new design

J-2XPayloadShroud

SixRS-68BEngines

LoiterSkirt

Earth Departure Stage (EDS) One Saturn-derived J-2X LOX/LH2

engine (expendable) 33 ft diameter stage Aluminum-Lithium (Al-Li) tanks Composite structures, instrument unit,

and interstage Primary Ares V avionics system Core Stage

Six Delta IV-derived RS-68B LOX/LH2engines (expendable)

33 ft diameter stage Composite structures

Al-Li tanks

Gross Liftoff Mass: 8,167.1K lbmPerformance to TLI: 157K lbmIntegrated Stack Length: 381.1 ft

PayloadAdapter



59/66

Ares V Status


60/66

es Status

NASA has begun preliminary concept work on vehicle. Over 1,700 alternativesinvestigated since ESAS

Focused on design of EDS, payload shroud, core stage, and RS-68 corestage engines

Recent point of departure update following the Lunar CapabilityConcept Review

Adds additional performance margin using an additional RS-68

Adds half segment on the first stage boosters

Shroud size dictated by eventual size of Altair lunar lander

Also investigating alternate uses for Ares V not related to humanspace exploration

Astronomy applications (e.g., large aperture telescopes)

Deep space missions

DoD applications

Other applications


Architecture FlexibilityEnables New Science Applications


61/66

Enables New Science Applications

C3 Energy (km2/sec2)

Payload(t)

At 5.7 mT, the Cassini spacecraft isthe largest interplanetary probe and

required a C3 of 20 km2/s2and severalplanetary flyby gravity assist

manuevers. Ares V can support about 40mT for this same C3.

Ares V with Centaur

Ares V

Ares I with Centaur

Deltas IV-H

MarsC3 = 9 km2/s2

9 mos

CeresC3 = 40 km2/s2

1.3 yrs

JupiterC3 = 80 km2/s2

2.7 yrs SaturnC3 = 106 km2/s2

6.1 yrs UranusC3 = 127 km2/s2

15.8 yrs

NeptuneC3 = 136 km2/s2

30.6 yrs

Ares V will have the largestpayload volume capability of any

existing launch system

It is very clear from the outset that the availability of the Ares V changesthe paradigm of what can be done in planetary science.

Workshop on Ares V Solar System Science

Exciting new science may be enabled by the increased capability of Ares

V. The larger launch mass, large volume, and increased C3 capability areonly now being recognized by the science community.

National Academy of Sciences Science Opportunities by NASAs

Constellation Program

Cassinispacecraft~ to scale

for comparison

Large Payload Volume andLift Capability


8-9 m 16+ m

(>10x Collection Area)

CurrentCapability

Ares V EnabledCapability

7764.61

Range of Architecture Options EnabledA F E l (P l d t TLI)


62/66

A Few Examples (Payload to TLI)


Baseline

(71 t with Ares I)

Common FirstStage with Ares I

(68 t with Ares I)

Crew

Capability(4551 t)

Crew Capabilityusing Ares I UpperStage with Ares V

Core(35 t)

Single LaunchCapability(5563 t)

Advanced SolidFirst Stage

(75 t with Ares I)7764.62


63/66

Advancing Technology:Partnerships with Industry and Researchers


64/66

Partnerships with Industry and Researchers

Working with commercial, non aerospace industries(e.g., shipbuilding) to further mature/spinoff friction stirwelding technology

Innovative approach to dampening in-flight vibrationsusing on-board liquid oxygen

Fabrication of large (10 m diameter) composites forAres V Shroud, Earth Departure Stage (EDS), and CoreStages to save weight

Working with industry to identify innovative autoclave or out of

autoclave approaches including assembly of smaller composites

Development of asbestos-free insulation for Aressolids to reduce environmental impact and increaseworker safety

Material may also be used in protective equipment for firefighters


Summary


65/66

Selection of the Ares architecture was made after systematic evaluation of hundreds of competingconcepts and represents the lowest cost, highest safety/reliability, and lowest risk solution tomeeting Constellations requirements

Ares is built on a foundation of proven technologies, capabilities, and infrastructure

The Ares I team has met all key milestones since Project inception, including four major primecontract awards and a successful Preliminary Design Review

Unanimous PDR Board and independent Standing Review Board (SRB), agreement that Ares I is ready to proceedto CDR

Progress includes release of over 1,800 Ares I design drawings

Ares V project is well underway

Draft Phase I Request for Proposal released November 2008; Industry proposals under review

Ares V will be considered a national asset with unprecedented performance and payload volumethat can enable or enhance a range of future missions

Current architecture delivers ~60% more mass to TLI than Saturn V and ~35% more mass to LEO than Saturn V

External assessments continue to validate the architectures

National Advisory Council: The NAC is confident that the current plan is viable and represents a well-consideredapproach . . . October 2008

Government Accountability Office: NASA has taken steps toward making sound investment decisions for Ares I.

November 2007

Standing Review Board: The SRB believes that the Project is managing and executing the vehicle development

appropriately, including visibility of the individual risk items.

National Research Committee: The unprecedented mass and volume capabilities of NASAs planned Ares V cargo

launch vehicle enable entire new mission concepts.

y


Ares I and V development is the fastest and most prudent path to closing the humanspaceflight gap while enabling exploration of the Moon and beyond

Ares Online Outreach


66/66

http://www.youtube.com/AresTV

http://www.facebook.com/NASA.Ares

http://streaming.msfc.nasa.gov/podcast/ares/ARES.xml

http://streaming.msfc.nasa.gov/podcast/ares/ARES_SD.xml

http://twitter.com/NASA_Ares

http://www.teachertube.com/videoList.php?pg=videonew&cid=38

http://www.thefutureschannel.com/dockets/space/ares/

http://www.nasa.gov/ares

nasa ares i & v launch vehicle - july 2009 status report

Documents