National Aeronautics and Space Administration

Constellation
Launch Vehicles
Overview
Part 1

July 29, 2009

www.nasa.gov
 Current Development for
Future Exploration Capabilities
Deep Space
Asteroids and
Robotics
Near-Earth Objects

Commercial
and Civil Low
Earth Orbit (LEO) Mars Surface,
Phobos, Deimos

International Space Station and Other LEO

Destinations/Servicing

Lunar Orbit,
Lunar Surface (Global)

National Aeronautics and Space Administration 7764.2

 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 Vehicle
• State-by-state National Team
• Ares I Schedule
• Earned Value Management
• Quality, Safety, Teamwork

The Ares I Safety Story

Ares I Element Overviews

National Aeronautics and Space Administration 7764.3

National Aeronautics and Space Administration

Ares
Launch
Vehicles

www.nasa.gov
 Ares Family of Launch Vehicles

Shuttle-derived launch vehicle family for LEO and beyond missions

Common boosters, upper stage engines, manufacturing, subsystem
technologies, 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 capability
National Aeronautics and Space Administration 7764.5
 Building on 50 Years of Proven Experience
– Launch Vehicle Comparisons –

400 ft

Crew Altair
Lunar
300 ft Lander
Overall Vehicle Height

Earth Departure
Orion Stage (1 J-2X
S-IVB LOX/LH2 engine)
(One J-2 Liquid
Oxygen/Liquid
Hydrogen Upper Stage
(LOX/LH2) (One J-2X
200 ft
engine) LOX/LH2 engine)
S-II
(Five J-2 LOX/ Core Stage
LH2 engines) (Six RS-68
Two 4-Segment LOX/LH2
Reusable Solid engines)
100 ft Rocket Boosters
One 5-Segment
(RSRBs)
S-IC RSRB
(Five F-1 LOX/
RP-1 engines) Two 5.5-Segment
RSRBs
0

Saturn V: 1967–1972 Space Shuttle: 1981–Present Ares I: First Flight 2015 Ares V: First Flight 2018
Height 360.0 ft 184.2 ft 325.0 ft 381.1 ft
Gross Liftoff
Mass (GLOM)
6,500.0K lbm 4,500.0K lbm 2,057.3K lbm 8,167.1K lbm

44.9 mT Trans-Lunar 71.1 mT to TLI with Ares I

Payload
Capability
Injection (TLI) 25.0 mT to LEO 24.9 mT to LEO 62.8 mT to TLI
118.8 mT to LEO ~161.0 mT to LEO
DAC 2 TR7
LV 51.00.48
National Aeronautics and Space Administration 7764.6
 Why Ares I for Crew Launch
“Top-down” design
indicates high Ares I+V design
synergy possible
“Bottoms-up” design indicates
expectation of a highly
reliable/safe vehicle
Serves as risk-reduction for
exploration
National Aeronautics and Space Administration
♦ Same J-2X upper stage engine
♦ Significant Solid Rocket
Motor commonality
♦ MAF production capacity
♦ Minimize unique elements – lower life-
cycle cost
♦ Heritage from Shuttle RSRM combined
with continued post-flight recovery and
inspection
♦ Heritage from Saturn J-2 human-rated
upper-stage engine
♦ Probabilistic risk assessment indicates at
least twice as safe as any other assessed
approach
♦ Provides test of Orion on cost effective
vehicle
• 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
 Why Ares V for Cargo Launch

♦ 7x lift capacity, much larger

Ares V-class launcher is a “game-
changer” in expanding U.S.
capabilities in space science and
human space exploration
payload volume compared to any
existing system
• Many launches of existing vehicles
prohibitive from a mission risk posture
♦ Ares V is enabling for diverse
advanced missions
• Human Moon, Mars, asteroid missions*
• Large aperture space telescopes in
remote orbits*
• “Flagship” outer planet missions*

♦ Legacy production capability from

Saturn, Shuttle, Delta IV programs
• MAF, RS-68 main engines, Solid Rocket
Motors, J-2 upper stage engine
The U.S. is in a unique position
to develop and operate such ♦ Legacy launch infrastructure from
a system Saturn, Shuttle programs
• Vehicle Assembly Building, pads,
crawlers, mobile launch platforms, etc.

♦ If this national capability is lost, it may

never be recovered

*National Research Council, “Launching Science: Science Opportunities Provided by NASA‟s Constellation System”, 2008

National Aeronautics and Space Administration 7764.8

 Ares Architecture Enables Architectures
Under Evaluation
A Lunar base (Constellation light) D Mars First (Mars light)
B Lunar global E Flexible Destinations
Note: TLI to LEO scale comparison is approximate
C Moons to Mars (DRM-5)

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

C E D Mars Moons

Near Earth Objects

Increasing Distance from Earth

(~2020)

A B
Lunar Surface (2 Launches
Req‟d for Crew)
Lagrange
Only

E
Circum
Lunar

Ares I & V
Saturn V
Ares I

0 10 20 30 40 50 60 70 80 90 100 TLI - t

0 50 100 150 200 250 300 LEO equiv - t

Single Launch Equivalent Gross Capability
National Aeronautics and Space Administration 7764.9
National Aeronautics and Space Administration

Overview of
Ares I Launch
Vehicle

www.nasa.gov
 Ares I Acquisition Model

Instrument Unit
NASA Design/
Boeing Production ($0.83B)

Orion Crew
Exploration Upper Stage Engine
Vehicle Pratt and Whitney Rocketdyne ($1.28B)

Upper Stage
NASA Design/Boeing Production
($1.16B) First Stage
ATK Launch Systems ($1.98B)

Overall Integration
NASA-led
Multi-generational program
Lessons learned from DoD: robust internal
systems engineering, tightly managed
requirements
NASA becomes “smart buyer” downstream
Marries best of NASA and industry skills

DAC 2 TR 7
National Aeronautics and Space Administration 7764.11
 4,000 Ares Team Members Nationwide
324 Organizations in 38 States
ATK Space
Systems

Glenn Research
Center

NASA
HQ
JPL
Marshall Space
Flight Center Langley
Research
Center

Pratt &
Whitney
Rocketdyne

Kennedy Space
Michoud Center
Johnson Assembly Facility
Ames Stennis Space Center
Space Center Boeing
Research
Center

National Aeronautics and Space Administration 7645.12

 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.
National Aeronautics and Space Administration 7764.13
 Earning Value –
Rigorous Implementation of EVM

Vehicle Integration First Stage Upper Stage Upper Stage Engine

Cost Variance –4.2% 0.2% –1.4% 2.0%

Schedule 0.0%
–7.7%; –4.7% -1.7%
Variance

CPI
0.96 1.00 0.99 0.98
Cum
SPI Cum 0.92 1.00 0.95 1.00

Project has implemented a practice of Earned Value Management

(EVM) to monitor deviations from cost and schedule baselines early
enough to make corrections

Awarded the NASA EVM Award of Excellence in June 2009 for the
progress made in implementing earned value on a Government-
managed project

National Aeronautics and Space Administration 7764.14

 Ensuring Quality, Safety, and Teamwork
Ares Projects Team Norms
People Integration
HAVE FUN
Once in a career opportunity! We are running a marathon, not a sprint – • Walking the talk – leaders modeling/
not in 24/7 emergency mode all the time. living values
RESPECT OUR FAMILIES AND OURSELVES – HEALTHY BALANCE • Encouraging openness and diversity of
BETWEEN WORK AND FAMILY IS ESSENTIAL
people, ideas
INTEGRITY IS EXPECTED
Look each other straight in the eye, tell the truth, full disclosure. • Communicate, communicate, communicate!
TEAMWORK IS ESSENTIAL
• Measuring management performance
„Our‟ instead of „my‟. „We‟ instead of „I‟. „Us‟ rather than „me‟…
‟we‟re all important‟
• Motivation through a simple, straightforward
mission: “go build the rocket”
INTEGRATION AMONG THE PROJECT AND WITH PARTNER
ORGANIZATIONS (E.G., ENGINEERING, S&MA, OTHER CENTERS,
PROGRAM/PROJECTS) IS ESSENTIAL
Communicate, communicate, communicate with each other. Leadership Challenges
Don‟t wait on someone else to initiate
• Retooling “overseers” into “producers”
BELIEVE THE BEST ABOUT EACH OTHER
(ASSUME NO MALICIOUS INTENT) • Ensuring a sense of “confident humility”
CONSTRUCTIVE CONFLICT LEADING TO DECISIONS (CLOSURE) AND
• Instilling ownership and accountability
ONCE MADE DON‟T CARRY IT PERSONALLY IF IT DID NOT GO YOUR WAY
• Managing workload
WE WILL HOLD EACH OTHER ACCOUNTABLE AND • Integration among Ares elements and other
MEET OUR COMMITMENTS
Our ultimate commitment is a safe, reliable, affordable delivery of Orion to orbit Constellation projects
FAILURE IS ACCEPTABLE DURING DEVELOPMENT • Getting every team member to think as a
We are willing to take calculated risks to further our knowledge
“systems engineer”
EARLY IDENTIFICATION AND HIGHLIGHT OF ISSUES • Focus on lean thinking

National Aeronautics and Space Administration 7764.15

National Aeronautics and Space Administration

The Path to a
Safer Crew Launch Vehicle:
The Ares I Story

www.nasa.gov
 Premise of New CLV Design

“The design of the system [that replaces the current Space Shuttle] should give overriding 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 Shuttle‟s,
yielding a predicted probability 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

National Aeronautics and Space Administration 7764.17

 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 mandated
the solid booster option from ESAS

National Aeronautics and Space Administration 7764.18

 Premise

Establishing crew safety goals - the value of an escape system

.95 .97 .98 .987 .99 .995
1 in 1,000,000
Current ELV Performance

Saturn
Ariane

Soyuz
Atlas
Delta
Crew Safety per Launch

1 in 100,000 ® ® ® ® ®

1 in 10,000

.95
Crew Escape
.9
Target from crew memo Apollo Forecast Reliability
1 in 1,000 .8
.7

1 in 100 Shuttle with 80% escape

.95
Shuttle with 50% escape
.9
Shuttle with current escape
.8
.7
1 in 10
1 in 1 1 in 10 1 in 20 1 in 33 1 in 100 1 in 200 1 in 1,000 1 in 10,000

Failure Frequency per Launch

National Aeronautics and Space Administration 7764.19

 Ares I Risk-Informed Design
Continuing analyses and modeling
(Exploration Systems using flight data for application to
Architecture Study)
future flights and missions
ESAS
Heritage-based
analysis of
design potential

(System Requirements Review)

SRR
Physics of failure sensitivities
and understanding of major risk drivers

(System Definition Review)

SDR

Design specific scenarios

with bounding physical modeling DCR/Flight
(Preliminary Design Review)
(Design
PDR Certification
Review)

Focused analysis
with detailed design data
(Critical Design Review)
From: Ares CSR CDR
National Aeronautics and Space Administration 7764.20
 First Order Look at Configurations
Shuttle Derived
Shuttle
Side Mount (SSME) Hold-down & Separation
Strap-Ons
Upper Stage & Engine
Core Engine & Stage
Ares-I ESAS Ares-I RSRM V
Add LAS
Add Upper Stage

Ares-V Crewed

Adapt SRB

Program risk-
Program risk-
Aero acoustic loads
New Engine
Increasing Performance Aerodynamics (length)
Thrust Oscillation
Aero Start SSME
New Propellant
Program risk-
EELV 3.2* New Engine
EELV 4.1-100% EELV 4.1-75% EELV- J-2X New Propellant
*does not meet performance requirements
Man Rated
Certification

Add multiple RL10

On Upper Stage Add Engine Out
Man Rated Certification

Program risk- Program risk- Program risk-

Thrust Imbalance Vehicle Software impact New Engine
Loss of Control Engine Out Testing
National Aeronautics and Space Administration 7764.21
 Failure Environments
♦ Ares CSR detailed „physics of failure‟ models estimate the probability of successful crew
escape (abort effectiveness, AE) for each failure environment, each configuration
Element PRAs
“Top Down”
LOM
LOC/Abort Orion & LAS Calculation
Effectiveness Design/Vulner
VI PRA
Calculation ability LOC
Ares GN&C Environments
10
8
6
Ascent Risk
4

Goldsim Dynamic
2
0
-20
-4
20 40 60 80 100 120 Quantification of Assessment
Failure Time

Risk Simulation Scenarios & Branches Cut

Model (Mapping to Scenarios) Sets
(Monte Carlo) Failure Scenario
Characteristics
(Reliability Data + Scenario
Trigger Info) Diagramming
(Trigger & Timing
For each trigger set,
Assignment)
integrated analysis
determines impact to Functional Timing
Loss of Crew Fault
Analysis
Abort Common Failure
Element Candidate Scenarios & Near-Field
Failure Conditions
Design Trigger Set Consequences
Mode & Triggers
Effects (LOM Environments)
From: Ares CSR Hazard
Analysis
Analysis “Bottoms Up”

♦ This study uses results of the detailed model to apply a relative AE factor to each failure
environment bin (mildest environment = best abort effectiveness gets 100% factor)
National Aeronautics and Space Administration 7764.22
 Relative Results of an
Independent Assessment
Relative error bars are smaller than absolute values
• Errors on building blocks shared between different configurations
• Errors on common assumptions made in the modeling of all stages
Relative error bars confirm the mature Ares I is the safest of all options with high confidence

LOM, LOC Relative Error Bars (compared to Ares I)

Ratio of vehicle probability of failure to Ares I‟s probability
6
Increase Risk Factor Over Ares

LOM LOC
5

1 Ares I Baseline
I

0
Ares I Ares V Shuttle C EELV 3.2* EELV 4.1 EELV 4.1 EELV J2X
100% 75%

National Aeronautics and Space Administration 7764.24

National Aeronautics and Space Administration

Ares I
Elements

www.nasa.gov
 Ares I First Stage

Tumble Motors
(from Shuttle)

C-Spring isolators New 150 ft diameter parachutes

Same propellant
Asbestos free insulation/liner as Shuttle (PBAN)-
optimized for
Ares application Modern electronics

Same cases and

joints as Shuttle

Same aft skirt and thrust vector Wide throat nozzle

control as Shuttle Booster Deceleration
Motors (from Shuttle)

DAC 2 TR 7
National Aeronautics and Space Administration 7764.26
 First Stage Accomplishments

Ares I-X Forward Skirt Extension Separation Test Ares I-X Motor En Route to KSC
Promontory, UT Corinne, UT

Main Parachute Drop Test Ares I-X Forward Assembly Transfer to VAB
Yuma Proving Ground, AZ Kennedy Space Center, FL

National Aeronautics and Space Administration 7764.27

 First Stage Accomplishments

(A) (B)

Built-up Thrust Vector Control/Discrete Interface Thrust Oscillation Flexure Design (A) and Testing (B)
Module San Luis Obispo, CA
Cincinnati, OH

DM-1 Igniter Test DM-1 Installation into Test Stand

Promontory, UT Promontory, UT

National Aeronautics and Space Administration 7764.28

 First Stage Accomplishments

DM-1 in T-97 Test Stand

Promontory, UT

National Aeronautics and Space Administration 7764.29

National Aeronautics and Space Administration

Ares I
Elements

www.nasa.gov
 Ares I Upper Stage

Propellant Load: 308K lbm

Total Mass: 355K lbm
Dry Mass: 36K lbm
Dry Mass (Interstage): 10K lbm
Instrument Unit (Modern Electronics)
Length: 84 ft Helium
Diameter: 18 ft Pressurization
LOX Tank Pressure: 50 psig Bottles
LH2 Tank Pressure: 42 psig

LH2 Tank AI-Li Orthogrid Tank Structure

LOX Tank

Feed Systems
Ullage Settling Motors
Common Bulkhead
Composite
Interstage Common Bulkhead

Roll Control System Thrust Vector Control

DAC 2 TR 7
National Aeronautics and Space Administration 7764.31
 Upper Stage Avionics

The Upper Stage Avionics will provide:

• Guidance, navigation, and control (GN&C)
• Command and data handling
• Preflight checkout

Interstage
Avionics
Instrument
Unit Avionics
Thrust
Cone
Avionics

Aft Skirt
Avionics Mass: 2,425 lbm Avionics
Electrical Power: 5,145 Watts

National Aeronautics and Space Administration 7764.32

 Upper Stage Accomplishments

Manufacturing Development Centers First Manufacturing Demonstration Article Gore-Gore Weld

Marshall Space Flight Center, AL Marshall Space Flight Center, AL

First Friction Stir Weld of ET Dome Gore Panels Development of the Ares Vertical Milling Machine
Marshall Space Flight Center, AL Chicago, IL

National Aeronautics and Space Administration 7764.33

 Upper Stage Accomplishments

Common Bulkhead Seal Weld Process Development Aluminum-Lithium (Al-Li) 2295 Y-Ring Delivery
Marshall Space Flight Center, AL Marshall Space Flight Center, AL

Delivery of FSW Tooling with Weld Head Al-Li Panel Structural Buckling Testing
Michoud Assembly Facility, LA Marshall Space Flight Center, AL

National Aeronautics and Space Administration 7764.34

 Upper Stage Accomplishments

Ullage Settling Motor System (USMS) Ares I Roll Control Engine Test
Heavy Weight Motor Hot-Fire Test Sacramento, CA
Marshall Space Flight Center, AL

Reaction Control System (ReCS) Development Test Thrust Vector Control (TVC) 2-Axis Test Rig
Article Delivery Glenn Research Center, OH
Marshall Space Flight Center, AL
National Aeronautics and Space Administration 7764.35
National Aeronautics and Space Administration

Ares I
Elements

www.nasa.gov
 Upper Stage Engine
Used on Ares I and Ares V

Turbomachinery Flexible Inlet Ducts (Scissors Ducts)

• Based on J-2S MK-29 design • Based on J-2 & J-2S ducts
• Beefed up to meet J-2X performance • Altered to meet current NASA
• Altered to meet current NASA design design standards
standards

Gas Generator Open-Loop Pneumatic Control

• Scaled from RS-68 design • Similar to J-2 & J-2S design
Valves
Engine Controller • Ball-sector (XRS-2200 and RS-68)
• RS-68-based design and
software architecture

HIP-bonded MCC
Regeneratively Cooled Nozzle Section
• Based on RS-68
• Based on long history of RS-27 success
demonstrated technology
Turbine Exhaust Gas Manifold
• Performance and cooling of
Nozzle extension

Mass: 5,396 lbm

Thrust: 294K lbm (vac) Metallic Nozzle Extension
Isp: 448 sec (vac) • Spin-formed, Chemically milled
Height: 15.4 ft
Diameter: 10 ft

National Aeronautics and Space Administration 7764.37

 Upper Stage Engine
Testing/Production Status

Fuel Turbopump Nozzle

Work Horse Gas Generator Testing

Fuel Turbopump Volute Casting

Main Combustion Chamber Spun Liner

Main Combustion Chamber

Forward Manifold Casting Nozzle Turbine Exhaust Manifold
Base Ring Forging
National Aeronautics and Space Administration 7645.38
 Upper Stage Engine Accomplishments

J-2X Powerpack 1A Testing J-2X Powerpack Removal from A-1 Test Stand
Stennis Space Center, MS Stennis Space Center, MS

Powerpack 1A Disassembly E3 Subscale Diffuser Test

Canoga Park, CA Stennis Space Center, MS

National Aeronautics and Space Administration 7764.39

 Upper Stage Engine Accomplishments

J-2X Workhorse Gas Generator Manufacturing Workhorse Gas Generator Test

Canoga Park, CA Marshall Space Flight Center, AL

Test Stand A-3 Construction J-2X Valve Actuator Design

Stennis Space Center, MS Buffalo, NY

National Aeronautics and Space Administration 7764.40

National Aeronautics and Space Administration

Constellation
Launch Vehicles
Overview
Part 2

www.nasa.gov
 Part 2 Agenda

Progress on Key Ares I Risks

Ares I-X Overview and Update

Ares V Overview

Summary

National Aeronautics and Space Administration 7764.42

National Aeronautics and Space Administration

Progress on
Ares Risks

www.nasa.gov
 Progress on Key Risks

Ares uses a thorough active approach to identifying and

mitigating technical issues and risks
• Applying appropriate resources in order to manage and retire risks and
issues as they arise

The current top Ares I systems risks analyzed and being

actively mitigated are :

• First Stage Thrust Oscillation

• Mobile Launch Platform Lift-off Clearance
• Separation System Pyro-shock
• Upper Stage Vibroacoustics
• Ares I Payload Mass Performance

The program expects to retire these while identifying new

challenges as the program proceeds to CDR

National Aeronautics and Space Administration 7764.44

 First Stage Thrust Oscillation (TO)
Background: Graphical
If system Actual flexible system tunes Reference Only
with forcing function (Not to Scale)
were rigid

4.0
psi
Response g's Response TO “Football”
~12 Hz
3.5
time time

3.0

0.16 g‟s Liftoff

Acceleration (g‟s)
2.5 <10 Hz
Staging

2.0

1.5 Max Q
3-100 Hz
1.0

0.5 Abort
Scenarios Manual Control
0
0 50 100 150 200 250 300

MET (sec)

Four basic ways to attack problem:

Pressure Oscillation Pressure Oscillation  Reduce forcing function
psi psi

 Detune system response away from

time time
forcing function frequency
 Actively create an opposing
100,000 lb 100,000 lb forcing function
 Passively absorb forcing function

 Mitigation Options  Baseline Design

National Aeronautics and Space Administration 7764.45
 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 and
Orion, 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 g‟s root mean square over a
5-second period and not to exceed 0.7 g‟s PEAK at 99.865% ( in order to maintain Crew
situational awareness)
• The performance analysis shows that DP isolators are very close to meeting this requirement
with 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
Response

Mitigation:
Crew testing
Requirements for crew seat responses
Design updates to the ISS Orion configuration
Thrust forcing
Design/analysis/model verification of Loads Analysis 4 Finite Structural function
Element Models mode

TO forcing function verification

Update Monte Carlo analysis for crew seat response
Quantify TO mitigation baseline design margin required to cover
structural uncertainty
National Aeronautics and Space Administration 7764.46
 Comparison of Mitigation Options
Working Baseline Risk Mitigation Options

Dual-Plane Isolation Propellant Damper Active RMAs plus

Single-Plane Isolation Single-Plane Isolation

National Aeronautics and Space Administration 7764.47

 Tower Lift-Off Clearance

Background:
First stage thrust misalignment and launch site winds
result in launch vehicle drift and potential tower and/or
launch mount re-contact
Launch drift can result in tower damage due to plume
impingement and can increase refurbishment cost and
schedule between flights
Apollo Saturn V had similar issues and used
active steering
Current 3-sigma May 2008,
drift curve 3-sigma
Mitigation: drift curve

An active steering solution has been developed that reduces launch

drift and meets tower re-contact requirements with no performance SM/US
Umbilical
impact (Saturn V approach)
The Mobile Launcher launch mount design has been modified to
increase liftoff clearances
Planned 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
Launch Mount
(actual mount
Status: not shown)

Recent analysis refinements include specific updates to the nozzle

configuration, flight control algorithm call rate, and thrust
misalignment model. The analysis update confirmed the effectiveness North
of the active steering solution (drift curves not exact,
for illustration only)
National Aeronautics and Space Administration 7764.48
 Separation System Pyro-Shock

Background:
Ring Forging with
The first stage–upper stage separation approach used a 30-gr/ft LSC and
linear shaped charge (LSC) device with a pyrotechnic load 0.18″ Groove
of 55-grains/ft.
Shock levels were conservatively predicted using 75
grains/ft, yielding very high pyro-shock levels, especially at
nearby components.
Shock panel testing showed that the 55-grains/ft shock
levels were too high for the nearby avionics to tolerate
without significant design and mass impacts External Debris Shield/
Compression Ring
Mitigation: Linear Shaped Charge Splice
Plates
The NASA Design Team, Boeing, and Ensign
Bickford developed and traded several options
for reducing the shock load. Two candidate
approaches were traded: a 30-grains/ft frangible
joint and a 30-grains/ft LSC
The frangible joint was selected because it
generates the lowest shock levels and was
judged to be a lower overall risk for the upper
stage design
Further panel testing is planned to verify the
shock levels at the avionics. It is expected that
this testing will show that the shock levels at the Stage separation wind tunnel test
Arnold Air Force Base, TN
avionics components are within acceptable limits
National Aeronautics and Space Administration 7764.49
 Upper Stage Vibroacoustics

Background:
Ares I has a high dynamic pressure trajectory resulting in significant induced
vibroacoustic environments. This results in design challenges that may result
in additional component development and / or qualification.

Mitigation:
A layered mitigation strategy has been developed to mitigate the redesign risk
to the Program, including:
• Confirm vibroacoustic environments are accurate and appropriate, given the Ares I trajectory
and configuration based on the latest trajectory, wind tunnel data, and latest configuration. This
activity is underway but not yet complete
• Investigate possible global solutions for
affected subsystems and components.
This activity includes removing external
protuberances, if possible, and is complete
unless an unforeseen opportunity is found
• Design components and subsystems to
survive the environment. To date, four
components are being assessed in detail
RCS thrusters, RCS propellant tank,
interstage avionics, and aft skirt avionics
Rigid buffet model testing in transonic dynamic tunnel
Langley Research Center, VA

National Aeronautics and Space Administration 7764.50

 Upper Stage Vibroacoustics (cont‟d)

Mitigation:
Several options are available to mitigate the
high vibration, including:
• Moving components to an area with less stressing
environments
• Developing systems to absorb transmitted energy
and isolate components from the environment.
The figures illustrate the concept of using a group
of wire rope isolators to reduce vibration loads on
the panelized components. Early testing has shown
a 50–60% reduction in transmitted energy.
This activity is underway and additional tests
are planned
• Combining components into panels or manifolds to
change the structural response. As components
are combined, detailed analysis will be conducted
to determine the effectiveness and the resulting
structural loads on the connecting and the
primary structures
• Hardening the components to withstand the
vibration levels or develop the isolation system

National Aeronautics and Space Administration 7764.51

 Initial Capability (ISS Mission) Injected
June 2009
AresI1and
Ares & Orion
Orionfor
for ISS
ISS Ascent Target(130
Ascent Target (130km/70
km/70nmi)
nmi)
with
with Orion
Orion44Crew
CrewEstimates
Estimates

25,000

24,000
Ares Gross Performance
23,000 Ares Net Performance
3σ Performance Knockdowns
22,000 Net w/ T&O & pending
A-106
ARES 1 Project Margin =1926 kg (9.5%)
21,000
Mass (kg)

20,312 kg (CA1000-PO)
20,000
Level II (Program) Reserve
19,296 kg (CA4164-PO)
19,000 Predicted w/ T&O
Project Margin 974 kg (8.4%)
18,000 606-G 4 crew members
Orion Predicted Mass *ESTIMATE*
17,000
Current MGA = 1481 kg (12.7%)
16,000 Orion Basic
Mass
15,000
Oct 08 Nov 08 Dec 08 Jan 09 Feb 09 Mar 09 Apr 09 May 09 Jun 09 Jul 09 Aug 09 Sep 09
Orion PDR

Status/Trend*
Color of arrow indicates current status: Green is compliant;
Yellow is acceptable but at risk; Red is noncompliant Ares I Total Margin 22.5%
Direction of arrow indicates trend from last data point: Up is
improved; Right is unchanged; Down is worsened Orion Total Margin 21.1%

National Aeronautics and Space Administration 7764.52

 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 being
implemented
• Mobile Launch Platform Lift-off Clearance -- Re-Contact resolved
mitigating plume tower interaction
• Separation System Pyro-shock – Mitigation in place with selection of
separation system
• Upper Stage Vibroacoustics – Using total vehicle approach to refine
environments and develop component solutions
• Ares I Payload Mass Performance –Meeting requirements and holding
adequate mass margins. Mass is continually monitored as a top
performance metric.

The program expects to retire these while identifying new

challenges as the program proceeds to CDR
National Aeronautics and Space Administration 7764.53
National Aeronautics and Space Administration

Ares I-X
Overview

www.nasa.gov
 Ares I-X Flight Test Overview

Ares I-X is a Constellation Program developmental flight test for the

Ares I project
• There are five primary flight test objectives – P1 through P5
• Ares I-X is an un-crewed suborbital test
Vehicle Height: 327 feet
P2) Perform in-flight ~150,000 feet
Weight at Ignition: 1.8 M-lbm
separation/staging Max. Acceleration: 2.5 g
~130,000 feet Max. Speed: Mach 4.8

P4) Demonstrate first

stage entry dynamics and
post staging sequencing
of events (e.g. employ
P5) Characterize integrated
booster tumble motors
vehicle roll torque
and deploy parachutes)

Upper Stage/
P1) Demonstrate controllability Crew Module/
Launch Abort System
Simulator
free fall into ocean
First Stage recovery
Flight Test Profile P3) Demonstrate assembly
and recovery of an Ares I similar first stage
National Aeronautics and Space Administration 7764.55
 Ares I-X Status
First Stage center
First Stage: Motor from Space Shuttle inventory motor segment
mated with its aft
delivered to Kennedy Space Center (KSC) in motor segment
March 2009. Aft skirt and forward structures
completed in May 2009. Turned over to
System/Ground Operations in June 2009
Upper Stage Simulator (USS): Hardware
completed and delivered to KSC in
November 2008 Orion Simulator
Roll Control System (RoCS): Modules A and B
delivered to KSC April 2009. Installed in the
USS interstage
Avionics: Sensor, harnesses, airborne avionics
boxes, and support ground subsystems delivered
to KSC except for inertial navigation unit (INU). RoCS with USS
segments in the
INU in test background Avionics Module

Crew Module/Launch Abort System Simulator:

Hardware completed and delivered to KSC in
January 2009
Ground Operations: Operational Readiness
Reviews November 2008 – August 2009. Stacking
of full vehicle in the KSC Vehicle Assembly
Building (VAB) started in July 2009
Ground Systems: Launch Pad modification to be
complete August 2009
Aft motor segment Superstack I in
Launch scheduled for October 31, 2009 with aft skirt the VAB

National Aeronautics and Space Administration 7764.56

National Aeronautics and Space Administration

Ares V
Overview

www.nasa.gov
 Ares V Elements
Current Point-of-Departure

Gross Liftoff Mass: 8,167.1K lbm

Altair Lunar Performance to TLI: 157K lbm
Lander Integrated Stack Length: 381.1 ft
Payload
Adapter
Loiter
J-2X Skirt
Payload
Shroud Solid Rocket Boosters
Interstage
• Two recoverable 5.5-segment
PBAN-fueled, steel-case
boosters (derived from current
Earth Departure Stage (EDS) Ares I first stage)
• One Saturn-derived J-2X LOX/LH2 • Option for new design
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
• Six Delta IV-derived RS-68B LOX/LH2 RS-68B
engines (expendable) Engines
• 33 ft diameter stage
• Composite structures
• Al-Li tanks
National Aeronautics and Space Administration 7764.58
 Ares I and Ares V Commonality

Upper Stage-Derived Builds Up Flight

Vehicle Systems Reliability on the Smaller
Vehicle Earlier
Lowers Life Cycle Cost

J-2X Upper Stage Engine

Elements from
U.S. Air Force RS-68B
Shuttle
First Stage from Delta IV RS-68
(5-Segment
RSRB)

Elements from
Ares I
Ares I Range: full stage to Ares V
case/nozzle/booster
systems

National Aeronautics and Space Administration 7764.59

 Ares V Status

NASA has begun preliminary concept work on vehicle. Over 1,700 alternatives
investigated since ESAS
Focused on design of EDS, payload shroud, core stage, and RS-68 core
stage engines
Recent point of departure update following the Lunar Capability
Concept 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 human
space exploration
• Astronomy applications (e.g., large aperture telescopes)
• Deep space missions
• DoD applications
• Other applications

National Aeronautics and Space Administration 7764.60

 Architecture Flexibility
Enables New Science Applications
Mars Ares V with Centaur
C3 = 9 km2/s2
9 mos
Ares V Large Payload Volume and
Ares I with Centaur
Deltas IV-H Lift Capability
At 5.7 mT, the Cassini spacecraft is
Ceres the largest interplanetary probe and
C3 = 40 km2/s2 required a C3 of 20 km2/s2 and several
1.3 yrs
planetary flyby „gravity assist‟
Payload (t)

manuevers. Ares V can support about 40

mT for this same C3.
Cassini
Jupiter spacecraft
C3 = 80 km2/s2
2.7 yrs ~ to scale
Saturn
C3 = 106 km2/s2 for comparison
6.1 yrs Uranus
Neptune
C3 = 127 km2/s2
C3 = 136 km2/s2
15.8 yrs
30.6 yrs

Ares V will have the largest

payload volume capability of any
existing launch system

C3 Energy (km2/sec2) Current Ares V Enabled

Capability Capability
“It is very clear from the outset that the availability of the Ares V changes (>10x Collection Area)
the 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 are
only now being recognized by the science community.”
– National Academy of Science‟s “Science Opportunities by NASA‟s
Constellation Program” 8-9 m 16+ m

National Aeronautics and Space Administration 7764.61

 Range of Architecture Options Enabled
A Few Examples (Payload to TLI)

Crew Capability
using Ares I Upper
Stage with Ares V Crew
Core Capability
(35 t) (45–51 t)

Single Launch
Capability
(55–63 t)

Common First Advanced Solid

Baseline Stage with Ares I First Stage
(71 t with Ares I) (68 t with Ares I) (75 t with Ares I)
National Aeronautics and Space Administration 7764.62
National Aeronautics and Space Administration

Summary

www.nasa.gov
7764.63
 Advancing Technology:
Partnerships with Industry and Researchers

Working with commercial, non aerospace industries

(e.g., shipbuilding) to further mature/spinoff friction stir
welding technology

Innovative approach to dampening in-flight vibrations

using on-board liquid oxygen

Fabrication of large (10 m diameter) composites for

Ares V Shroud, Earth Departure Stage (EDS), and Core
Stages 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 Ares

solids to reduce environmental impact and increase
worker safety
• Material may also be used in protective equipment for firefighters

National Aeronautics and Space Administration 7764.64

 Summary

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

Selection of the Ares architecture was made after systematic evaluation of hundreds of competing
concepts and represents the lowest cost, highest safety/reliability, and lowest risk solution to
meeting Constellation‟s 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 prime
contract awards and a successful Preliminary Design Review
• Unanimous PDR Board and independent Standing Review Board (SRB), agreement that Ares I is ready to proceed
to 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 volume
that 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-considered
approach . . .” – 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 NASA‟s planned Ares V cargo
launch vehicle enable entire new mission concepts.”
National Aeronautics and Space Administration 7764.65
 Ares Online Outreach

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

http://twitter.com/NASA_Ares

http://www.youtube.com/AresTV

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

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

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

http://www.nasa.gov/ares

National Aeronautics and Space Administration 7764.66