Ares I passes design review

[thomasantony]

More than 1,100 reviewers examined the launch vehicle to ensure plans will meet NASA's requirements for a fully integrated spacecraft.
By K.C. Jones
InformationWeek
September 11, 2008 01:25 PM
NASA's next-generation rocket has passed preliminary design reviews and is on track to carry the Orion crew exploration vehicle and its astronauts into space in 2015. The Ares I rocket will power Orion, its crew of up to six astronauts, and small cargo payloads to the International Space Station. It will also be used for missions to explore the moon.

More Hardware Insights

NASA said the design review marks the first such milestone in 35 years for a U.S. rocket that will carry astronauts into space.
More than 1,100 reviewers from seven NASA field centers and industry partners examined the Ares I launch vehicle design to ensure plans will meet NASA's requirements for the fully integrated vehicle.
"This is a critical step for development of the Ares I rocket," Rick Gilbrech, associate administrator of the Exploration Systems Mission Directorate in Washington, said in a statement Wednesday. "Completing the preliminary design review of the integrated vehicle demonstrates our engineering design and development are on sound footing, and the Ares I design work is taking us another step closer to building America's next mode of space transportation."
Workers will continue to assess each element of the vehicle to ensure safety and reliability for detailed designing. The first such assessment is scheduled for this week, when workers examine the J-2X engine.
"This will be one of the safest, most affordable and highest performing rocket engines ever built, and testing is critical as we begin preparation for future flights," Steve Cook, manager of the Ares I rocket, said.
Cook stressed the importance of risk assessment.
"For example, we identified thrust oscillation -- vibration in the first stage -- as a risk," he said. "In response to this issue, we formed an engineering team. The team conducted detailed analyses and reviewed previous test data, and then recommended options to correct the problem."


http://www.informationweek.com/news/hardware/supercomputers/showArticle.jhtml?articleID=210601110

Hmm .. they seem to be moving along.

 

[Urwumpe]

Only the PDR, that is not really an important achievement, as many important details can still be replaced by "Something magical happens here" in this step. More important is the Critical Design Review, CDR, which is basically testing "Can we build this and will it fulfill the mission?".

The Preliminary design review is the final quality insurance step of the Phase B (Preliminary definition) and is based only on design justification and interface definition. Phase B allows (according to my aerospace project management notes):

• The selection of technical solutions for the system concept selected in Phase A,
• acquiring a precise and coherent definition (performance levels, costs, schedules) at every level.
• at system level, during the phase B, the System Requirements Review (SRR) to be conducted,
• Initial identification of 'Make or Buy' alternatives after the SRR, at a time when the customer is elaborating the product Tree and writing the products specifications,
• confirming the feasibility of the recommended solution, as well as defining the operating conditions (technical and economic).

As you can see, the Phase B is still far away from a working launch vehicle, but at least they now have defined what it should do, how it should behave and what interfaces it offers. As well as saying it is a feasible solution.

All this means in reality, is only that DIRECT is no now longer an option (as the selected technical solution from Phase A is now considered the path to go), unless the project gets a hard restart.

And it is even more important to note, that Phase B should have been over a long time ago - Phase C (Detailed definition) is the phase that takes the longest time as the actual technical problems are addressed there.

 

[ryan]

I wonder if the Ares I makes the same kind of reverberation as the Saturn V, maybe not because the both respectively smaller than each other, i still think its a bad thing using solid rocket boosters, if something happens they cant shutdown, the Saturn V could abort just about anytime the shuttle only has around 2 minutes with it, these boosters are burning for longer, i just dont like SRB, to ballistic.

 

[Moonwalker]

I wonder if the Ares I makes the same kind of reverberation as the Saturn V, maybe not because the both respectively smaller than each other, i still think its a bad thing using solid rocket boosters, if something happens they cant shutdown, the Saturn V could abort just about anytime the shuttle only has around 2 minutes with it, these boosters are burning for longer, i just dont like SRB, to ballistic.

There are major differences between Ares and the Shuttle concerning safety. The Shuttle has no launch escape system like Apollo had and Orion will have. The STS design didn't really allow one. Also, the thermal protection system of the Shuttle isn't protected at all during launch and ascent. Orion will have a launch escape system and its thermal protection system will be protected during early ascent. I guess that Ares/Orion will be more safe than STS.

But STS proved that SRB's are rather reliable for manned launches. You don't need to shut them down because you lift off anyway once they ignite.

 

[JamesG]

I wonder if the Ares I makes the same kind of reverberation as the Saturn V, maybe not because the both respectively smaller than each other,

I came across a post on another board (that I can't recall where at the moment) that depected the Aries equiped with a large shock damper that looked for all the world like a giant coil over shock obsorber from a car. Donno if it was accurately part of the design or just a bit of anti-Aries propaganda, but there you go...

i still think its a bad thing using solid rocket boosters... i just dont like SRB, to ballistic.

But they have no moving parts, cheaper, and are much more reliable (statistically speaking).

 

[RocketMan_Len]

But they have no moving parts, cheaper, and are much more reliable (statistically speaking).

(And who cares if they spew toxins in their exhausts...? )

 

[Moonwalker]

(And who cares if they spew toxins in their exhausts...? )

I think it even is not really measurable, if we take all the global volcanic activities into account

 

[RocketMan_Len]

I think it even is not really measurable, if we take all the global volcanic activities into account

Granted. But volcanoes don't normally have hundreds of spectators within a mile of the event... who WILLINGLY expose themselves to clouds of chlorine byproducts, aluminum oxide, various acidic compounds...

 

[JamesG]

Just keep them upwind.

 

[MajorTom]

...the Aries equiped with a large shock damper that looked for all the world like a giant coil over shock obsorber from a car. Donno if it was accurately part of the design or just a bit of anti-Aries...

This raises an interesting side-issue for me, that of the name of this launch vehicle. I've met people all over the USA who call it "Aries" (the Ram) and not "Ares" (the god of war).

So how is one supposed to pronounce "Ares?" Is it:

- Air - ease?
- Air - ace?
- Arr - ease?
- Arr - ace?
- other?

MT

 

[JamesG]

You say poh-ty-toe and I say po-tat-to....

 

[tblaxland]

So how is one supposed to pronounce "Ares?"

According to the IPA codes for it on Wikipedia, it should be:

Arr - ease

(using your notation).

 

[MajorTom]

According to the IPA codes for it on Wikipedia, it should be:

Arr - ease

(using your notation).

Thank you for interpreting that for me!

 

[garyw]

All this means in reality, is only that DIRECT is no now longer an option (as the selected technical solution from Phase A is now considered the path to go), unless the project gets a hard restart.

Ares is by far from a done deal. This PDR isn't the full and final PDR as that's been delayed until next year. With mass issues, money issues, performance issues and thrust oscilliation issues all being flagged as Red (Major problem, may cause significant delays) Ares has a long way to go.

http://www.nasaspaceflight.com/content/?cid=5515
http://www.nasaspaceflight.com/content/?cid=5394

 

[Urwumpe]

Ares is by far from a done deal. This PDR isn't the full and final PDR as that's been delayed until next year. With mass issues, money issues, performance issues and thrust oscilliation issues all being flagged as Red (Major problem, may cause significant delays) Ares has a long way to go.

Oh, I did not notice that it is a preliminay preliminary design review. :lol:

Even worse. :dry:


-----Posted Added-----

Granted. But volcanoes don't normally have hundreds of spectators within a mile of the event... who WILLINGLY expose themselves to clouds of chlorine byproducts, aluminum oxide, various acidic compounds...

Are you sure?

 

[Belisarius]

Ares is by far from a done deal. This PDR isn't the full and final PDR as that's been delayed until next year. With mass issues, money issues, performance issues and thrust oscilliation issues all being flagged as Red (Major problem, may cause significant delays) Ares has a long way to go.

However, it does seem to be the case that DIRECT is dead and buried, no matter what happens to Constellation (or Consternation, as GB calls it).

 

[garyw]

However, it does seem to be the case that DIRECT is dead and buried, no matter what happens to Constellation (or Consternation, as GB calls it).

Maybe not although any engineers that raise the option of DIRECT or other variants (such as Orion on an EELV) seem to be getting told to shut up.

 

[Moonwalker]

Granted. But volcanoes don't normally have hundreds of spectators within a mile of the event... who WILLINGLY expose themselves to clouds of chlorine byproducts, aluminum oxide, various acidic compounds...

Okay, almost beaten

But at least there are a few adventurous people who get that close to a volcano/magma which certainly would be deadly when you would get that close to a rocket launch

 

[RocketMan_Len]

But at least there are a few adventurous people who get that close to a volcano/magma which certainly would be deadly when you would get that close to a rocket launch

And those are people who KNOW the risks, and willingly accept them in light of the prospect of new understanding...

The spectators at a Shuttle launch, for the most part, have NO idea what they're being exposed to.

 

[JamesG]

Well since they are miles from and usually upwind of the launch, they are probably exposed to more hazardous materials on the way to and from the Cape...