Quote from: kraisee on 03/19/2010 03:23 pmNews Flash: CxP has NOT been canceled yet.Nor has Ares -I - many think they will force a restart. All or nothing is still being fought for as a outcome - even with 50B future funding impossible!Sorry - screw Cx if it means Ares I. Careful when you deal with the devil.
News Flash: CxP has NOT been canceled yet.
Regarding Ross's statement: I've said the exact same thing before on this and other site's forums and have been told, at best; "Don't be silly" and at worst: had my posts removed altogether. I'm glad someone else is finally saying it...
...Oh Ares V is as shuttle derived as DIRECT is.The V uses essentially an ET, the engines are SSME's or the 68...the solids are either 5 or 5.5 segment and are in terms of the cost to put them together like the current ones (or the ones DIRECT) is suppose to use. And on the V they really would not have the same problems as on the 1. (ie under performing first stage). They would have similar issues with the J2X however...but thats a second stage issue. Thats different from DIRECT how?Part of the "whats new" is to try and delete the things that are labor intensive in the shuttle stack (like teh avionics).Otherwise there is no real difference...both have the same "once you build them you cannot afford to fly them" issues.SDV's have been the Ahab on Moby Dick of the shuttle world since I was in college...They all suffer from the same problems as the stack with the shuttle...the large standing army.Robert
1. Oh Ares V is as shuttle derived as DIRECT Jupiter is. 2. The V uses essentially an ET, the engines are SSME's <snip> That's different from DIRECT how?
...It includes lunar exploration...propellant depots...
Ben the Space Britnot bad...in my view where this is going politically is just where Augustine wanted (or actually was told) it needed to go.Federal policy in the US is changed in two ways 1) Presidential fiat or 2) Presidential desires enabled by commissions which are primed with the "results" wanted.Augustine was commissioned to do the latter. The space industries in The Republic, absent ATK which is stuck like tar to the shuttle...has figured out that there is no growth in the shuttle or its derivative systems...ie there is nothing that is ever going to happen to those systems that is not at the whim of national civilian space policy IE those systems are never going to be used for true commercial aps...they are just to expensive.Where the "Move" is, is to get systems which have commercial applications AND which can be used for exploration as national will warrants. That is the Falcon/Delta/Atlas series of vehicles.At some point if exploration by humans starts again in human spaceflight, it is going to occur because the systems above (or some other commercial launch system) has become "so cheap" that it can be morphed into being used for exploration. And they only way that happens as in any "vehicle" is to enable use.If people would go and understand what was driving the AC on heavy lift...they would understand why no SDV is going to see the launch pad.Robert
Quote from: clongton on 03/20/2010 11:24 am...It includes lunar exploration...propellant depots...Now this is what I want to know more about, and haven't explored the DIRECT site enough to find this discussion. This is outlined in greater detail on your website?Backing up to the OP.I think it is almost time for Direct 4.0. Should you guys get the go-ahead, after all the sausage making is done, you will need to revise your proposal to reflect how the architecture will be divided up amongst the various private entities involved.
On the other hand, you can utilize those exact same government resources (which are going to be spent anyway) more efficiently, and much of the same hardware, to create a brand-new evolved capability aimed at doing much, much more. That new system does not require half the maintenance (so you can also afford to do other things with the money saved), the new system can be used twice as often, and the new systems each use produces 3 to 4 times the performance results (Jupiter/Orion).
ARES V and Jupiter...both use SSME's (or the 68 or some non reusable version of the SSME for the Jupiter that has not been developed), the ET and solids...they both use the shuttle workforce, infrastructure and The AC found not a lot of difference in cost.
What about the idea supported by bolden to develop a new american rp1-lox or TAN engine? Would it be possible to give ULA or better yet, SPACEX a contract to integrate this new engine (post development) with an uprated version of their LV (for spacex and uprated f9h or f9, ula atlas or delta)?
My idea: If spacex proves to be relialbe, use them as the primary EELV provider instead of Atlas/ACES. Spacex already has plans for a much more powerful f9 and f9h (not the current design for f9h using raptor). The only question is how many year before those lvs are online? Perhaps another solution would be:
Quote from: Borderline on 03/20/2010 02:50 pmARES V and Jupiter...both use SSME's (or the 68 or some non reusable version of the SSME for the Jupiter that has not been developed), the ET and solids...they both use the shuttle workforce, infrastructure and The AC found not a lot of difference in cost.Wrong. Ares-V uses a 10m-diameter core that looks like the SSET when illustrated but actually requires new tooling and R&D from scratch. The Jupiter CCB would use the 8.4m tooling already at MAF. That is a major development schedule and cost advantage for the Jupiter (and the SD-HLLV Sidemount) over all versions of the Ares-V except the 8.4m-diameter 'Ares-V-Classic' that apparently won the Bolden HLV Study.AFAIK, the switch from RS-68A to SSME/RS-25e was never actually baselined for Ares-V, although most people who knew their rocket engines felt it would be necessary as the budget wouldn't support the development of RS-68B with the regenerative nozzle. It should also be noted that the Jupiter doesn't need RS-25e. It can use current SSME Block-IIa; the 'cheaper' argument for the purpose-desgined expendable version isn't absolutely proven yet when development costs are factored in.It is interesting to note that only at the very end, in the Bolden HLV Study, was NASA willing to accept 8.4m diamater over 10m diameter. They still wanted a stretched tank and a five-engine core, though. Nonetheless, accepting 8.4m was somewhat against the trend as all the other options were based on a 10m tank (either hydrolox or kerolox).I am beginning to see why posters elsewhere on this site wonder if you really know as much about this subject as you make out.However, we should drop this conversation as it is OT.Quote from: FinalFrontier on 03/20/2010 03:07 pmWhat about the idea supported by bolden to develop a new american rp1-lox or TAN engine? Would it be possible to give ULA or better yet, SPACEX a contract to integrate this new engine (post development) with an uprated version of their LV (for spacex and uprated f9h or f9, ula atlas or delta)? I suspect that all the 'new RP-1' engine will turn out to be will be production of a crew-rated RS-84 or TR-107. That is likely to appear on both Falcon-9 Block-III and on the Atlas-V Phase-2 as the core engine. The SpaceX version has already got the working name 'Merlin-2' although it is just a concept at the moment. I don't think SpaceX have even got far enough on Merlin-2 to call it a 'paper engine'.As for TAN, I'm not familiar enough with it to judge how quickly it could appear or where best it would be applied. Given what I know of it, it would be best utilised on something similar to the Delta-IV with RP-1 and LOX 'drop tanks' with the TAN itself that drop away as a unit for recovery and recycling, leaving the hydrolox core to continue its ascent. The result would be basically a Delta-IVH+2 with drop tanks in the place of SRMsQuoteMy idea: If spacex proves to be relialbe, use them as the primary EELV provider instead of Atlas/ACES. Spacex already has plans for a much more powerful f9 and f9h (not the current design for f9h using raptor). The only question is how many year before those lvs are online? Perhaps another solution would be:EELV/ACES would be available years before F9H/Raptor; Falcon-9 would also have more years added to demonstrate reliability. My idea is designed for a quick start to keep attention focussed on the program rather than allowing it to turn into background noise the way SSP did.
@ Borderline: Wrong again. Back on topic:For Direct 4.0 question for clongton:1. What about using VASIMIR as the eds/ second stage for lunar missions in the future? This way you would not need JUS (assumes a powerful scaled up VASIMIR for IOC no earlier than 2020.) 2. What about this: Since ULA has indicated they are moving towards a "common upper stage that will boost preformance of both atlas and delta and can be used on both, thus saving money for the company" I am assuming thats an ACES. So why not, instead of having NASA build JUS, simply purchase ACES stages from ULA when you need them?