National Aeronautics and Space Administration

Constellation Launch Vehicles Overview
Part 1

July 29, 2009

Current Development for Future Exploration Capabilities
Deep Space Robotics
Commercial and Civil Low Earth Orbit (LEO) Asteroids and Near-Earth Objects

Mars Surface, Phobos, Deimos

International Space Station and Other LEO Destinations/Servicing Lunar Orbit, Lunar Surface (Global)

National Aeronautics and Space Administration


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


National Aeronautics and Space Administration

Ares Launch Vehicles

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 (postMission Concept Review (MCR)) for lunar capability
National Aeronautics and Space Administration


Building on 50 Years of Proven Experience
– Launch Vehicle Comparisons –
400 ft


Altair Earth Departure Stage (1 J-2X LOX/LH2 engine)

Overall Vehicle Height

300 ft

Lunar Lander S-IVB (One J-2 Liquid Oxygen/Liquid Hydrogen (LOX/LH2) engine) S-II (Five J-2 LOX/ LH2 engines) Orion

200 ft

Upper Stage (One J-2X LOX/LH2 engine) Core Stage (Six RS-68 LOX/LH2 engines)

100 ft

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

Two 4-Segment Reusable Solid Rocket Boosters (RSRBs)

One 5-Segment RSRB
Two 5.5-Segment RSRBs

Saturn V: 1967–1972
Height Gross Liftoff Mass (GLOM)

Space Shuttle: 1981–Present

Ares I: First Flight 2015

Ares V: First Flight 2018

360.0 ft 6,500.0K lbm 44.9 mT Trans-Lunar Injection (TLI) 118.8 mT to LEO

184.2 ft 4,500.0K lbm 25.0 mT to LEO

325.0 ft 2,057.3K lbm 24.9 mT to LEO

381.1 ft 8,167.1K lbm 71.1 mT to TLI with Ares I 62.8 mT to TLI ~161.0 mT to LEO

Payload Capability
DAC 2 TR7 LV 51.00.48

National Aeronautics and Space Administration

Why Ares I for Crew Launch
♦ Same J-2X upper stage engine ♦ Significant Solid Rocket Motor commonality ♦ MAF production capacity ♦ Minimize unique elements – lower lifecycle 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

“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

Why Ares V for Cargo Launch
♦ 7x lift capacity, much larger 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*

Ares V-class launcher is a “gamechanger” in expanding U.S. capabilities in space science and human space exploration

The U.S. is in a unique position to develop and operate such a system

♦ Legacy production capability from Saturn, Shuttle, Delta IV programs • MAF, RS-68 main engines, Solid Rocket Motors, J-2 upper stage engine ♦ Legacy launch infrastructure from 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


Ares Architecture Enables Architectures Under Evaluation

Lunar base (Constellation light) D Lunar global E Moons to Mars (DRM-5)

Mars First (Mars light) Flexible Destinations

Note: TLI to LEO scale comparison is approximate

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

Near Earth Objects (~2020)
A B Lunar Surface (2 Launches Req‟d for Crew)



Mars Moons

Lagrange Only

Circum Lunar

Ares I

Saturn V

Ares I & V

0 0

10 50


30 100


50 150

60 200


80 250



TLI - t

300 LEO equiv - t

Single Launch Equivalent Gross Capability
National Aeronautics and Space Administration

Increasing Distance from Earth

National Aeronautics and Space Administration

Overview of Ares I Launch Vehicle

Ares I Acquisition Model

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

Orion Crew Exploration Vehicle Upper Stage NASA Design/Boeing Production ($1.16B)

Upper Stage Engine Pratt and Whitney Rocketdyne ($1.28B)

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


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 Center Stennis Space Center

Ames Research Center

Johnson Space Center

Michoud Assembly Facility


National Aeronautics and Space Administration


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


Earning Value – Rigorous Implementation of EVM

Vehicle Integration
Cost Variance Schedule Variance –4.2% –7.7%;

First Stage
0.2% 0.0%

Upper Stage
–1.4% –4.7%

Upper Stage Engine



0.96 0.92

1.00 1.00

0.99 0.95

0.98 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 Governmentmanaged project

National Aeronautics and Space Administration


Ensuring Quality, Safety, and Teamwork
Ares Projects Team Norms
HAVE FUN Once in a career opportunity! We are running a marathon, not a sprint – not in 24/7 emergency mode all the time.

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, straightforward mission: “go build the rocket”

INTEGRITY IS EXPECTED Look each other straight in the eye, tell the truth, full disclosure. TEAMWORK IS ESSENTIAL „Our‟ instead of „my‟. „We‟ instead of „I‟. „Us‟ rather than „me‟… ‟we‟re all important‟ 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. Don‟t wait on someone else to initiate BELIEVE THE BEST ABOUT EACH OTHER (ASSUME NO MALICIOUS INTENT) CONSTRUCTIVE CONFLICT LEADING TO DECISIONS (CLOSURE) AND ONCE MADE DON‟T CARRY IT PERSONALLY IF IT DID NOT GO YOUR WAY WE WILL HOLD EACH OTHER ACCOUNTABLE AND MEET OUR COMMITMENTS Our ultimate commitment is a safe, reliable, affordable delivery of Orion to orbit FAILURE IS ACCEPTABLE DURING DEVELOPMENT We are willing to take calculated risks to further our knowledge EARLY IDENTIFICATION AND HIGHLIGHT OF ISSUES

Leadership Challenges
• Retooling “overseers” into “producers” • Ensuring a sense of “confident humility” • Instilling ownership and accountability • Managing workload • Integration among Ares elements and other Constellation projects • Getting every team member to think as a “systems engineer” • Focus on lean thinking

National Aeronautics and Space Administration


National Aeronautics and Space Administration

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

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


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


Establishing crew safety goals - the value of an escape system
1 in 1,000,000 .95 .97 .98 .987 .99 .995 Current ELV Performance

Ariane Saturn Delta Atlas

Crew Safety per Launch

1 in 100,000

® ® ® ®

1 in 10,000 .95 .9 1 in 1,000 Target from crew memo .8 .7 Apollo Forecast



Crew Escape Reliability

1 in 100

.95 .9 .8 .7

Shuttle with 80% escape Shuttle with 50% escape Shuttle with current escape

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


Ares I Risk-Informed Design
(Exploration Systems Architecture Study)

Heritage-based analysis of design potential
(System Requirements Review)

Continuing analyses and modeling using flight data for application to future flights and missions

Physics of failure sensitivities and understanding of major risk drivers
(System Definition Review)

Design specific scenarios with bounding physical modeling
(Preliminary Design Review)

DCR/Flight PDR
(Design Certification Review)

Focused analysis with detailed design data
(Critical Design Review)

From: Ares CSR
National Aeronautics and Space Administration


First Order Look at Configurations
Shuttle Shuttle Derived Side Mount (SSME)
Hold-down & Separation
Strap-Ons Upper Stage & Engine

Add LAS Add Upper Stage


Core Engine & Stage

Ares-V Crewed

Adapt SRB Program riskAero acoustic loads Aerodynamics (length) Aero Start SSME

Increasing Performance
EELV 3.2*
*does not meet performance requirements

Program riskNew Engine Thrust Oscillation New Propellant

EELV 4.1-100%

EELV 4.1-75%


Program riskNew Engine New Propellant Man Rated Certification

Add multiple RL10 On Upper Stage Man Rated Certification
Program riskThrust Imbalance Loss of Control
National Aeronautics and Space Administration

Add Engine Out

Program riskVehicle Software impact Engine Out Testing

Program riskNew Engine

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
“Top Down” LOC/Abort Effectiveness Calculation Orion & LAS Design/Vulner ability Ares GN&C Goldsim Dynamic Risk Simulation Model (Monte Carlo)
10 8 6 4 2 0 0 -2 -4 20 40 60 80 Failure Time 100 120

Element PRAs LOM Calculation VI PRA LOC Environments
Quantification of Scenarios & Branches (Mapping to Scenarios)

Ascent Risk Assessment Cut Sets

Failure Scenario Characteristics (Reliability Data + Trigger Info)

For each trigger set, integrated analysis determines impact to Loss of Crew
Failure Mode Effects Analysis

Scenario Diagramming (Trigger & Timing Assignment) Timing Abort Conditions & Triggers Common Failure Scenarios & Near-Field Consequences (LOM Environments)

Functional Fault Analysis Element Design Hazard Analysis

Candidate Trigger Set

From: Ares CSR

“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


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


Increase Risk Factor Over Ares I
5 4 3 2 1 0

Ares I Baseline

Ares I

Ares V

Shuttle C

EELV 3.2*

EELV 4.1 100%

EELV 4.1 75%


National Aeronautics and Space Administration


National Aeronautics and Space Administration

Ares I Elements

Ares I First Stage

Tumble Motors (from Shuttle) C-Spring isolators

New 150 ft diameter parachutes

Asbestos free insulation/liner

Same propellant as Shuttle (PBAN)optimized for Ares application

Modern electronics

Same cases and joints as Shuttle

Same aft skirt and thrust vector control as Shuttle

Booster Deceleration Motors (from Shuttle)

Wide throat nozzle

DAC 2 TR 7 National Aeronautics and Space Administration


First Stage Accomplishments

Ares I-X Forward Skirt Extension Separation Test Promontory, UT

Ares I-X Motor En Route to KSC Corinne, UT

Main Parachute Drop Test Yuma Proving Ground, AZ
National Aeronautics and Space Administration

Ares I-X Forward Assembly Transfer to VAB Kennedy Space Center, FL

First Stage Accomplishments



Built-up Thrust Vector Control/Discrete Interface Module Cincinnati, OH

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

DM-1 Igniter Test Promontory, UT
National Aeronautics and Space Administration

DM-1 Installation into Test Stand Promontory, UT

First Stage Accomplishments

DM-1 in T-97 Test Stand Promontory, UT
National Aeronautics and Space Administration


National Aeronautics and Space Administration

Ares I Elements

Ares I Upper Stage

Propellant Load: 308K lbm Total Mass: 355K lbm Dry Mass: 36K lbm Dry Mass (Interstage): 10K lbm Length: 84 ft Diameter: 18 ft LOX Tank Pressure: 50 psig LH2 Tank Pressure: 42 psig

Instrument Unit (Modern Electronics) Helium Pressurization Bottles

LH2 Tank LOX Tank

AI-Li Orthogrid Tank Structure

Feed Systems
Ullage Settling Motors Common Bulkhead

Composite Interstage

Common Bulkhead

DAC 2 TR 7

Roll Control System

Thrust Vector Control

National Aeronautics and Space Administration

Upper Stage Avionics

The Upper Stage Avionics will provide:
• Guidance, navigation, and control (GN&C) • Command and data handling • Preflight checkout

Instrument Unit Avionics

Interstage Avionics Thrust Cone Avionics

Avionics Mass: 2,425 lbm Electrical Power: 5,145 Watts
National Aeronautics and Space Administration

Aft Skirt Avionics


Upper Stage Accomplishments

Manufacturing Development Centers Marshall Space Flight Center, AL

First Manufacturing Demonstration Article Gore-Gore Weld Marshall Space Flight Center, AL

First Friction Stir Weld of ET Dome Gore Panels Marshall Space Flight Center, AL
National Aeronautics and Space Administration

Development of the Ares Vertical Milling Machine Chicago, IL

Upper Stage Accomplishments

Common Bulkhead Seal Weld Process Development Marshall Space Flight Center, AL

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

Delivery of FSW Tooling with Weld Head Michoud Assembly Facility, LA
National Aeronautics and Space Administration

Al-Li Panel Structural Buckling Testing Marshall Space Flight Center, AL

Upper Stage Accomplishments

Ullage Settling Motor System (USMS) Heavy Weight Motor Hot-Fire Test Marshall Space Flight Center, AL

Ares I Roll Control Engine Test Sacramento, CA

Reaction Control System (ReCS) Development Test Article Delivery Marshall Space Flight Center, AL
National Aeronautics and Space Administration

Thrust Vector Control (TVC) 2-Axis Test Rig Glenn Research Center, OH

National Aeronautics and Space Administration

Ares I Elements

Upper Stage Engine Used on Ares I and Ares V
Turbomachinery • Based on J-2S MK-29 design • Beefed up to meet J-2X performance • Altered to meet current NASA design standards Gas Generator • Scaled from RS-68 design Engine Controller • RS-68-based design and software architecture Flexible Inlet Ducts (Scissors Ducts) • Based on J-2 & J-2S ducts • Altered to meet current NASA design standards

Open-Loop Pneumatic Control • Similar to J-2 & J-2S design Valves • Ball-sector (XRS-2200 and RS-68)

Regeneratively Cooled Nozzle Section • Based on long history of RS-27 success
Turbine Exhaust Gas Manifold • Performance and cooling of Nozzle extension

HIP-bonded MCC • Based on RS-68 demonstrated technology

Mass: 5,396 lbm
Thrust: 294K lbm (vac) Isp: 448 sec (vac) Height: 15.4 ft Diameter: 10 ft
National Aeronautics and Space Administration

Metallic Nozzle Extension • Spin-formed, Chemically milled


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
National Aeronautics and Space Administration

Nozzle Turbine Exhaust Manifold Base Ring Forging

Upper Stage Engine Accomplishments

J-2X Powerpack 1A Testing Stennis Space Center, MS

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

Powerpack 1A Disassembly Canoga Park, CA
National Aeronautics and Space Administration

E3 Subscale Diffuser Test Stennis Space Center, MS

Upper Stage Engine Accomplishments

J-2X Workhorse Gas Generator Manufacturing Canoga Park, CA

Workhorse Gas Generator Test Marshall Space Flight Center, AL

Test Stand A-3 Construction Stennis Space Center, MS
National Aeronautics and Space Administration

J-2X Valve Actuator Design Buffalo, NY

National Aeronautics and Space Administration

Constellation Launch Vehicles Overview
Part 2

Part 2 Agenda
Progress on Key Ares I Risks Ares I-X Overview and Update Ares V Overview Summary

National Aeronautics and Space Administration


National Aeronautics and Space Administration

Progress on Ares Risks

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


First Stage Thrust Oscillation (TO)
If system were rigid Response

Actual flexible system tunes with forcing function

Graphical Reference Only (Not to Scale)
4.0 3.5



TO “Football” ~12 Hz

3.0 Acceleration (g‟s)

0.16 g‟s


Liftoff <10 Hz Staging

1.5 1.0
Max Q 3-100 Hz

0 0

Abort Scenarios

Manual Control







MET (sec)

Pressure Oscillation
psi time

Pressure Oscillation
psi time

100,000 lb

100,000 lb

Four basic ways to attack problem:  Reduce forcing function  Detune system response away from forcing function frequency  Actively create an opposing forcing function  Passively absorb forcing function
 Mitigation Options  Baseline Design

National Aeronautics and Space Administration

First Stage Thrust Oscillation
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

Crew testing Requirements for crew seat responses Design updates to the ISS Orion configuration Design/analysis/model verification of Loads Analysis 4 Finite Element Models 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

Structural mode

Thrust forcing function


Comparison of Mitigation Options
Working Baseline
Dual-Plane Isolation

Risk Mitigation Options
Propellant Damper Single-Plane Isolation

Active RMAs plus Single-Plane Isolation

National Aeronautics and Space Administration


Tower Lift-Off Clearance
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

An active steering solution has been developed that reduces launch drift and meets tower re-contact requirements with no performance 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

Current 3-sigma drift curve

May 2008, 3-sigma drift curve

SM/US Umbilical

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 of the active steering solution
National Aeronautics and Space Administration

Launch Mount (actual mount not shown)

(drift curves not exact, for illustration only)

Separation System Pyro-Shock
The first stage–upper stage separation approach used a linear shaped charge (LSC) device with a pyrotechnic load 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/
Ring Forging with 30-gr/ft LSC and 0.18″ Groove

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 avionics components are within acceptable limits
National Aeronautics and Space Administration

Compression Ring Linear Shaped Charge

Splice Plates

Stage separation wind tunnel test Arnold Air Force Base, TN

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

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


Initial Capability (ISS Mission) Injected June 2009
Ares and Orion for ISS Ascent Target (130 km/70 nmi) Ares I1 & Orion for ISS Ascent Target (130 km/70 nmi) with Orion 44Crew Estimates with Orion Crew Estimates
25,000 24,000 23,000 22,000
Mass (kg)
Ares Gross Performance Ares Net Performance
3σ Performance Knockdowns Net w/ T&O & pending A-106

21,000 20,000 19,000 18,000
Orion Predicted Mass

ARES 1 Project Margin =1926 kg (9.5%)
20,312 kg (CA1000-PO)

Level II (Program) Reserve
Predicted w/ T&O

19,296 kg (CA4164-PO)

Project Margin 974 kg (8.4%)
606-G 4 crew members *ESTIMATE*

Current MGA = 1481 kg (12.7%)

16,000 15,000
Oct 08 Nov 08

Orion Basic Mass
Dec 08 Jan 09 Feb 09 Mar 09 Apr 09 May 09 Jun 09 Jul 09 Aug 09 Orion PDR Sep 09

Color of arrow indicates current status: Green is compliant; Yellow is acceptable but at risk; Red is noncompliant Direction of arrow indicates trend from last data point: Up is improved; Right is unchanged; Down is worsened
National Aeronautics and Space Administration

Ares I Total Margin 22.5% 21.1%

Orion Total Margin


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


National Aeronautics and Space Administration

Ares I-X Overview

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
P2) Perform in-flight separation/staging ~130,000 feet ~150,000 feet Vehicle Height: Weight at Ignition: Max. Acceleration: Max. Speed: 327 feet 1.8 M-lbm 2.5 g Mach 4.8

P5) Characterize integrated vehicle roll torque

P4) Demonstrate first stage entry dynamics and post staging sequencing of events (e.g. employ booster tumble motors and deploy parachutes)

P1) Demonstrate controllability

Flight Test Profile
National Aeronautics and Space Administration

P3) Demonstrate assembly and recovery of an Ares I similar first stage

Upper Stage/ Crew Module/ Launch Abort System Simulator free fall into ocean First Stage recovery


Ares I-X Status
First Stage: Motor from Space Shuttle inventory delivered to Kennedy Space Center (KSC) in 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 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). INU in test 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 Launch scheduled for October 31, 2009
National Aeronautics and Space Administration

First Stage center motor segment mated with its aft motor segment

Orion Simulator

RoCS with USS segments in the background

Avionics Module

Aft motor segment with aft skirt

Superstack I in the VAB

National Aeronautics and Space Administration

Ares V Overview

Ares V Elements
Current Point-of-Departure
Altair Lunar Lander
Gross Liftoff Mass: 8,167.1K lbm Performance to TLI: 157K lbm Integrated Stack Length: 381.1 ft

Payload Adapter
Loiter J-2X Skirt Payload Shroud Interstage Solid Rocket Boosters • Two recoverable 5.5-segment PBAN-fueled, steel-case boosters (derived from current Ares I first stage) • Option for new design

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/LH2 engines (expendable) • 33 ft diameter stage • Composite structures • Al-Li tanks
National Aeronautics and Space Administration

Six RS-68B Engines


Ares I and Ares V Commonality
Upper Stage-Derived Vehicle Systems

Builds Up Flight Reliability on the Smaller Vehicle Earlier Lowers Life Cycle Cost

J-2X Upper Stage Engine

Elements from Shuttle

First Stage (5-Segment RSRB)

U.S. Air Force RS-68B from Delta IV RS-68

Elements from Ares I

Ares I

Range: full stage to case/nozzle/booster systems

Ares V

National Aeronautics and Space Administration


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


Architecture Flexibility Enables New Science Applications
Mars C3 = 9 km2/s2 9 mos
Ares V with Centaur Ares V Ares I with Centaur Deltas IV-H

Large Payload Volume and Lift Capability

Payload (t)

Ceres C3 = 40 km2/s2 1.3 yrs

At 5.7 mT, the Cassini spacecraft is the largest interplanetary probe and required a C3 of 20 km2/s2 and several planetary flyby „gravity assist‟ manuevers. Ares V can support about 40 mT for this same C3. Jupiter C3 = 80 km2/s2 2.7 yrs Saturn C3 = 106 km2/s2 Uranus 6.1 yrs Neptune C3 = 127 km2/s2 C3 = 136 km2/s2 15.8 yrs 30.6 yrs

Cassini spacecraft ~ to scale for comparison

Ares V will have the largest payload volume capability of any existing launch system

C3 Energy (km2/sec2)
“It is very clear from the outset that the availability of the Ares V changes 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”
National Aeronautics and Space Administration

Current Capability

Ares V Enabled Capability
(>10x Collection Area)

8-9 m

16+ m

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

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

Crew Capability (45–51 t)

Single Launch Capability (55–63 t)

(71 t with Ares I)
National Aeronautics and Space Administration

Common First Stage with Ares I (68 t with Ares I)

Advanced Solid First Stage (75 t with Ares I)

National Aeronautics and Space Administration



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


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


Ares Online Outreach

National Aeronautics and Space Administration


Sign up to vote on this title
UsefulNot useful