Tuesday, August 11, 2009

NASA Releases Ares I Vs. Delta IV Heavy Study

NASA could save $3 billion to $6 billion by dumping Ares I and flying Orion space capsules and American astronauts on an upgraded version of the United Launch Alliance Delta IV Heavy rocket, according to an independent assessment released by NASA today.

But the June 1 Aerospace Corp. analysis also said that course of action would lead to an increase of $1.1 to $3.5 billion, and perhaps more, to develop its Ares V heavy-lift launch vehicle -- the estimated cost of completing the development of five-segment solid rocket boosters and a second stage engine needed for both the Ares I and the Ares V rockets.

What's more, NASA estimates it would cost an additional $14.1 billion to $16.6 billion to finish development of the Orion crew exploration vehicle.

The report said NASA identified extra costs that would be associated with adapting Orion to fly on Delta IV Heavy rockets, revising mission design work and environmental assessements as well as planning for ground operations and other programmatic and workforce considerations.

The cost of maintaining the industrial capability to manufacture solid rocket boosters between the retirement of the shuttle fleet and the development of the Ares V rocket also was noted.

The Aerospace Corp. said it had not independently verified NASA's estimates for Orion cost increases or the underlying assumptions.

Done at NASA's request, the study says the development of the upgraded Delta IV Heavy rocket would take 5.5 to 7 years -- roughly the same amount of time NASA projects the completion of the Ares I rocket. NASA says the Ares I is expected to fly its first piloted mission in March 2015, although project officials acknowledge that target could slip by a few months.

Columbia accident investigators said NASA should give "overriding priority to crew safety, rather than trade safety against other performance criteria," when designing new rockets and spacecraft to replace its aging shuttle fleet.

But the report limited its scope to technical feasibility and the impacts on the existing Project Constellation, cost, schedule and national security space programs.

"Aerospace did not perform estimates of loss of mission and loss of crew probabilities" for the Delta IV Heavy options studied.

Previous NASA studies say the Ares I would be at least twice as safe.

Click HEREto download a copy of the study.

A summary of the study was presented to the Augustine Committee during the presidential panel's first public hearing on June 17.

The panel will hold its final hearing tomorrow in Washington, D.C. You can watch it live here in The Flame Trench from 1 p.m. to 5 p.m. Simply click the NASA TV box on the righthand side of the page to launch our NASA TV viewer, and be sure to refresh this page for periodic updates.

33 comments:

Anonymous said...

Delta IV is not man-rated, but the SRB basis - and J2X - for the Ares I is man-rated. Abandoning Ares I now would be crazy, and send waves of chaos throughout the space program.

Anonymous said...

As someone who works at KSC all I hear is Ares is a mess. It can't lift the payload originally required so they have just cut the payload and systems. Too little thrust and too much vibration. Time to stop throwing good money after bad.

Anonymous said...

They have sunk so much into Ares I, and as far as I know we still have an Ares I-X test flight sometime before the end of the year.

I believe the project was not evaluated as it should have been when it was started. Many other options should have been considered, and evaluated BEFORE any production began.

Now we have a capable Delta IV launcher, and we also have the Jupiter rockets of DIRECT Launcher, another cheaper, safer, and sooner alternative to Ares. We are at quite a crossroads now.

Regardless of what any study being done shows, NASA will not let Ares die. This much is obvious. Be it that there are too many involved with a personal attachment to the project, or they feel they need to prove something.

Maybe that's why Griffin told the Obama transition team what he did. You think a man who is so smart as he is, is going to bring attention to "his" space program the way he did.

Anonymous said...

SRB basis? What SRB basis? The only thing that the Ares I SRB has in common with the Shuttle SRB is the casings! The propellant grain, performance, pressures, nozzle, TVC, load paths, acoustics, avionics, recovery system, etc. are all different!!! And J2-X may be J-2 heritage, but let's face it... it's basically a new engine!

CLR4theApproach said...

Holy cow... lets just waste the 4 years and 5 to 6 Billion we already spent on Constellation... this is NOT the message we need the white house to hear.. this is not the message we need to see as employees living on the edge... what the heck is going on... can't anyone in NASA stick with a plan.. show some leadership, guidance.. maybe some stability.. for everyone's sake.. PLEASE

Anonymous said...

"
The Aerospace Corp. said it had not independently verified NASA's estimates for Orion cost increases or the underlying assumptions."

As in they just accepted whatever numbers they were handed...that's not "Independent" in the least.

BS.....More of the same 'not invented here' doctrine that NASA has been sticking to since the concept of man-rating EELV first came up.

HMMMmmm...start today and be ready to fly EELV in 5-6 years... or....keep going on a project that is mired in technical difficulties not to mention that the USAF says it is unsafe after 6 years plus in development......And maybe fly in 6 or 7 years.

Sounds like an easy one if your primary focus is Exploring Space rather than providing welfare gov't jobs for thousands.

Gaetano Marano said...

.

support NOW my “Money for Mars” proposal explained here:

http://www.ghostnasa.com/posts/047gotomars.html

.

if you agree with me just send a mail to the Augustine Commission before it end its job to support my proposal

hq-humanspaceflight@mail.nasa.gov

.

Gaetano Marano said...

.

the ISS/orbital Orion (that needs half the propellant) could be launched with a man-rated Ariane5 from Kourou, as I've suggested over THREE years ago in this article:

http://www.gaetanomarano.it/articles/010arianecev.html

a source from ESA said me that, man-rate the Ariane5, should cost around 1.6 billion euro (about $2 Bn)

however, I believe that the man-rating costs and the "price" of the rockets could be paid with the ESA budget in a "free rockets for free seats aboard the Orion" exchange

.

Neil Halelamien said...

> Done at NASA's request, the study says the development of the upgraded Delta IV Heavy rocket would take 5.5 to 7 years -- roughly the same amount of time NASA projects the completion of the Ares I rocket. NASA says the Ares I is expected to fly its first piloted mission in March 2015, although project officials acknowledge that target could slip by a few months.

Didn't Aerospace Corp. also perform a study for the Augustine Commission that showed that the 2015 piloted mission date for the Ares I was quite unlikely, with 2017-2019 being the likely completion date? So according to the two Aerospace Corp studies, going with the Delta IV would reduce the US manned spaceflight gap by 2-4 years compared to the Ares I.

Neil Halelamien said...

> NASA could save $3 billion to $6 billion by dumping Ares I and flying Orion space capsules and American astronauts on an upgraded version of the United Launch Alliance Delta IV Heavy rocket, according to an independent assessment released by NASA today.

From looking at graph on page 41 of the study, it looks like when the study was done Ares I had a projected total cost of ~$19 billion. In his presentation to the Augustine Committee, Ares project manager Steve Cook announced that the internal estimate of the cost of reaching Initial Operational Capability (IOC) had gone up to $35 billion. If you work out the math, that means the expected cost savings of the Delta IV over Ares I are more like ~$19 billion to $22 billion, more if you include the fact that most of the production and operations costs aren't incorporated in the IOC cost.

Anonymous said...

I know I am no engineer, but I can not see how an existing rocket - with flight history and at least some heritage can take the same time (5-7 years) to develop as an essentially brand new rocket with untested (5 segment SRB) flight hardware? Surely protecting a $1Bn++ satellite does not lack that many redundancies? I would love someone to enlighten me here....

Anonymous said...

Ares I is already dead the air force findings on the LAS having black zones due to Ares I's ridiculously high max Q was the last nail in the coffin of what was a very bad concept from the start.

It'll be replaced by Jupiter, the SD-HLV, or Delta.

Anonymous said...

Ares I should be abandoned as soon as possible. The crew launcher should also be used to launch cargo/satellites (like the Delta IV or Falcon 9 would), so you can add new features to the cargo version first and roll them in to the crew launcher when it has reached enough maturity. NASA should NOT develop its own launchers , but should buy services from commercial companies.

Anonymous said...

With all the money poured into Ares it makes no sense abandoning the project. Delta can be adapted, but why? That said, Constellation is fast-becoming a compromise itself. The Orion capsule, for example, was to use non-toxic propellants, launch 6 crewmembers (now just 4) and touchdown on land (now only splashdowns). So where does all this uncertainty leave NASA? As far from the Moon or Mars as it was after December 1972

Anonymous said...

It sounds like the 3-6 billion savings discussed in the opening line is washout out in other factors discussed in the rest of the article. Or is that bottom line savings even after factoring in the waste if Ares is dumped? If you need both a sedan (Ares I) and an SUV (Ares V) for various tasks such as safety and cargo, you don't go buy a crossover because it doesn't give you anything you originally needed. Stay with Ares.

Unknown said...

For every year of Ares-I development, the IOC of Ares-I has slipped a year. We are no closer to actually using this vehicle than we were when we started. In spite of what "Anonymous" said above, we'd be crazy NOT to abandon Ares-I; we loose nothing! The very reason Ares-V has grown so massive is because of the performance shortfalls of the Ares-I. If we dump the Ares-I now, then we can get on with a more reasonably sized, and less expensive heavy lifter. Continuing to fund the Ares-I is just throwing good money after bad.
Chuck

Anonymous said...

J2X does not exist, so how can it be man-rated? J2X is not the same as J2 or J2s

Rick Boozer said...

"Delta IV is not man-rated, but the SRB basis - and J2X - for the Ares I is man-rated."

This is what's crazy. Going ahead with Ares I when the Air Force says it will have both too much vibration during lift off and an exploding debris risk to escaping astronauts to be safe for a human crew. Mass keeps going up for the spacecraft and capabilities are continually being stripped from Orion to keep it light enough for Ares I to get it to orbit. Overall Ares I does not meet NASA's base man-rated standards. Given all these facts, Delta IV is a safer vehicle since it is already flying with a proven track record.

Let's get rid of the dangerous and overly expensive Ares I!

Anonymous said...

"Delta IV is a safer vehicle since it is already flying with a proven track record."
We are talking 9 flights total for the Delta IV, including 3 flights for a Delta IV Heavy with one partial failure. That partial failure if it happens while we are using the Delta for not only commercial launches but human launches could shut down America's access to space. That could prove to be too much of a risk, with the Russian's and Chinese planning more lunar explorations. We could lose our entire footprint in space. Also Ares I is much closer to completion now than you think, with a full scale solid rocket booster test in less than two weeks an d a full scale test in two months Ares I is closer to completion than most give it credit.

Anonymous said...

The technical issues associated with Ares I are not as bad as a lot of media reports have made it seem. Even the Augustine Commission themselves have stated this....

Anonymous said...

"Surely protecting a $1Bn++ satellite does not lack that many redundancies? "

I have worked both commercial and human rated systems, and there is a HUGE difference between the two. Man-rating a never man-rated program is a lot of money, and that is a fact.

Anonymous said...

Delta "failure if it happens while we are using the Delta for not only commercial launches but human launches could shut down America's access to space"

The same thing happens if Ares or Shuttle fails.

Delta is cheaper and faster than Ares. It says so right in the article you are reading right now. Not to mention the AIR FORCE implicitly says Delta is safer than Ares, because the AIR FORCE says Ares kills the crew when it blows up, but Delta will not.

Rick Boozer said...

"We are talking 9 flights total for the Delta IV, including 3 flights for a Delta IV Heavy with one partial failure."

Yes, it's easy to claim zero failures for Ares I, since it has never flown! How does that make it safer than Delta IV? To make matters worse, the upcoming Ares I-X test is just a dog and pony show to try to allay criticisms since it will only have four operating solid booster segments with the fifth being a dummy. The real Ares I would have five fully operating segments, a configuration that will not have been previously flown. Because of this fact alone your argument is bogus.

Anonymous said...

The 45th Space Wing report is wrong in so many ways. The Constellation team and Augustine Commission know this. When the report states the parachutes will deploy three seconds into the LAS flight they are wrong. The parachutes cannot deploy then the Launch Abort Motor is still burning. The parachutes deploy later after the capsule has reached its intended trajectory. The full scale pad abort test in New Mexico later this year will disprove that as well as the vibration issues will be disproven later this month with the first full scale five-segment booster test in Utah. Ares I is the future.

Anonymous said...

Rick,
Ares I-X does only have four fully functioning boosters, Ares I-Y will have five fully functioning boosters as well as the full scale ground test in two weeks. This was designed to be this way to test hundreds of data channels to allow Ares to be as safe and reliable as possible. The same thing would go for a Delta to be Human rated. It would need to have four development tests and three qualification tests as well as two flight tests. Same as the shuttle was in the 70's except now NASA looks to fly unmanned test flights to alleviate any issues. My arguement is not bogus Ares will carry Humans on board and as such will be tested to the highest caliber it can.

Anonymous said...

Some of us need to take a step back and look at the facts. If the Ares schedule is slipping, it is because the necessary funding has been reduced. This is not the first time NASA has been asked to "do a lot with a little." Provided NASA is funded sufficiently, Ares is the answer for America to be a leader in space.

rboozer - You're missing some facts related to the vibration during lift off and exploding debris risk.

Regarding vibration: four possible mitigation systems for vibration were presented in a Delta PDR NASA held specifically about this issue. Now mitigation solutions to thrust oscillation are so far along the issue has been downgraded to a normal Level 2 risk. After a few more tests when the models are more mature, all that remains to be done is select which mitigation option(s) will be implemented.

Regarding the exploding debris: The preliminary 45th Wing Air Force report that brought up this concern is inherently flawed. First, it used a Titan IV for comparison, which has two solid rocket motors alongside a liquid fuel tank. That is a drastically different configuration from the in-line Ares I configuration and would result in a very different debris field. Second, the Air Force models assumed the Launch Abort System (LAS) parachutes would open three seconds after flight termination, but nominal parachute deployment actually occurs 20-35 seconds after flight termination. While these flaws discredit the AF’s preliminary study, numerous trajectory studies are being performed by NASA and partners to account for every possible scenario for the Orion LAS.

The Ares I LAS has already conducted subsystem ground tests, and will conduct a full-scale test this year. Ares I also flies a low-trajectory flight profile that optimizes crew abort options. Does it not make more sense to continue down a well-thought-out path, using a “test before flight” method, rather than to start from scratch? Or do the Delta IV folks have a launch abort method we just haven’t heard about yet?

You all will remember that various options for replacing the Space Shuttle were recommended and reviewed over five years ago. All the necessary details were evaluated, and the Ares program was selected as the best option. The Ares I-X test flight this fall will demonstrate the program will be successful. While this is a flight TEST, and modifications may be deemed necessary, it will put a lot of misconceptions to rest.

Anonymous said...

People seem to jump on the “down with Ares” bandwagon before they really look at the facts. Even this article identifies that moving towards Delta IV would require a lot more money, time, and mission profile revamping. One argument that is always used for using Delta IV is the time to launch will be shorter. However, this article said,
“Done at NASA's request, the study says the development of the upgraded Delta IV Heavy rocket would take 5.5 to 7 years -- roughly the same amount of time NASA projects the completion of the Ares I rocket.”
The other argument that is made often is that using Delta IV would save money and be the most economical route. However, this article says,
“But the June 1 Aerospace Corp. analysis also said that course of action would lead to an increase of $1.1 to $3.5 billion, and perhaps more, to develop its Ares V heavy-lift launch vehicle”
NASA and industry partners are developing a new launch system. It takes time and money to develop a new system. Look how long it took to develop Apollo, how long it took to develop shuttle. There has been so much work already completed on Ares and good results are coming from the work. It would be a shame to abandon this work now.

Anonymous said...

"$14.1 billion to $16.6 billion to finish development of the Orion crew exploration vehicle if NASA switched to Delta IV Heavy rockets."

That sure doesn't sound like an attractive option.

John Sullivan said...

I am the Tampa Bay Area's Best Unpaid Space Expert, and some sentiments sent to Augustine have already been echoed in his rambling commentary. NASA should not be a jobs program. It should be a space program. Houston is the Mission Control Center when the Bridge should be in space and CDR should not have people linked through TDRS/Ku-band always second-guessing him or her. KSC now ranks among the worst - without even a close competitor - center for completly disrespecting the U.S. Taxpayer and all of this talk seems like USPS employees complaining their post office is closing because there is no more mail to deliver, and by the way private contractors like Fedex/DHL/UPS are doing a better job just like commercial contractors would in lifting people and payloads to space. Imagine the USPS saying they need to stay employed just because taxpayers have already paid all that money for those cute unique (expensive) delivery vehicles? For what it's worth, Dryden is the best, with Langley & Ames closely behind. I will have no sympathy for the NASA employees as they do everything in their power to drag out the Shuttle launches for as long as possible so that they'll still have jobs. Overhead weather was actually better on Monday - Scrub day than it was Friday - launch day. Humidity at sea level was much worse Friday. It's a game I'm really sick of seeing, and if two experienced pilots can't drive a 78-foot wide Shuttle through two clouds 19.9 miles apart then we're in trouble. Forget RTLS - it won't work, anyway.

Think about it. If you can get into space with tin cans filled with C4, then we should do it. Space ascent is guidance and thrust, and if we can use Atlas, Delta, Titan, or anything else that will be in the ocean within minutes to lift humans and payloads into space, then we should go the cheapskate route. Unlike the Shuttle, all of the subsequent proposals but for the idiodic Shuttle-C concept has the crew above falling foam and an escape system in place in the unlikely event there is a problem. The sooner we can get the 6 Shuttle launches out of the way, the more likely someone will keep funding the Station's on-orbit operations past 2016, and the more likely commercial companies can handle LEO and NASA can take care of everything beyond.

John Sullivan said...

As I've said before, Titan/Ares/Delta/Atlas - it doesn't matter which gets you there. What matters is lowest cost that functions. If I were in charge I'd go with a missile throttled down to keep it man-rated - please nothing as low as 3g's for the manned version. ARES I can't be a good option at the quoted cost - there's really nothing there that other launch platforms can't deliver cheaper, better, faster. But ARES V - the biggest, baddest heavy lift vehicle ever built in human history? That would be the choice I'd make for the unmanned heavy-payload option. I think a good mix and match would be the best option.

Anonymous said...

Ares I will stunt American space flight at an increased risk to astronauts.

It should be terminated and if NASA does not have the capacity or brains to do this, they should be terminated too.

Anonymous said...

Either way, it'll be a sad day for many people if Ares is canceled. I have an uncle and numerous friends working on Ares, and they'll be on the streets instantly. A lot of my state's engineers and science-related employees work at ATK, and it'll dry up instantly if Ares is canceled. Then we'll all be shelling out tax money toward their unemployment checks. Not good for anyone, but especially those who lose their jobs. There are plenty of issues and unknowns with Ares, to be sure. But I don't think revamping an existing system (Delta IV) to accommodate passengers is all that viable either. The cost will SURELY go way up from what they project if they take that route. There are always thousands of little things that become very important (and expensive) to revamp.

What a mess this all is. I say that it'll be ridiculously over budget no matter how we do it at this point. Ready-To-Launch dates mean little to me. I just hope my uncle doesn't lose his job. He has done some fine work on Ares.

Anonymous said...

well, now we have nothing. To me,, it is quite wrong for 1 guy to kill such a great part of our heritage. :(