Quote from: sandrot on 01/07/2009 04:14 pmI believe that he has been taken out of context in his support of EELV's. His thought is that they are fine for launching a LEO spacecraft, but not for a lunar capable spacecraft. Furthermore the mandate to preserve Shuttle infrastructure weighs in.You are taking it out of context. There wasn't a VSE when he said it. There is no difference in launching a LEO only spacecraft or lunar capable spacecraft to LEO (Which Ares I only does)
I believe that he has been taken out of context in his support of EELV's. His thought is that they are fine for launching a LEO spacecraft, but not for a lunar capable spacecraft. Furthermore the mandate to preserve Shuttle infrastructure weighs in.
Quote from: Jim on 01/07/2009 06:57 pmQuote from: sandrot on 01/07/2009 04:14 pmI believe that he has been taken out of context in his support of EELV's. His thought is that they are fine for launching a LEO spacecraft, but not for a lunar capable spacecraft. Furthermore the mandate to preserve Shuttle infrastructure weighs in.You are taking it out of context. There wasn't a VSE when he said it. There is no difference in launching a LEO only spacecraft or lunar capable spacecraft to LEO (Which Ares I only does)I'm pretty sure that the OSP payload requirements were much less than the CEV payload requirements. - Ed Kyle
I don't know where one goes to buy a commercial lunar mission....
But Griffin *did* buy commercial, well beyond previous NASA experience. COTS and now CRS. Billions worth. Contracts for launch vehicles and spacecraft not designed by NASA, let in support of NASA's human space efforts in a way that hasn't previously happened. Are those billions blown, in your opinion?
Quote from: edkyle99 on 01/07/2009 08:31 pmQuote from: Jim on 01/07/2009 06:57 pmQuote from: sandrot on 01/07/2009 04:14 pmI believe that he has been taken out of context in his support of EELV's. His thought is that they are fine for launching a LEO spacecraft, but not for a lunar capable spacecraft. Furthermore the mandate to preserve Shuttle infrastructure weighs in.You are taking it out of context. There wasn't a VSE when he said it. There is no difference in launching a LEO only spacecraft or lunar capable spacecraft to LEO (Which Ares I only does)I'm pretty sure that the OSP payload requirements were much less than the CEV payload requirements. - Ed KyleThe point is that from the launch vehicles perspective, it only cares about the total mass it's trying to lift to a particular altitude. Not if it's going anywhere else. The "requirements" and functions of the CEV or OSP have little to do with that.
I'm pretty sure that the OSP payload requirements were much less than the CEV payload requirements.
Quote from: OV-106 on 01/07/2009 08:40 pmQuote from: edkyle99 on 01/07/2009 08:31 pmQuote from: Jim on 01/07/2009 06:57 pmQuote from: sandrot on 01/07/2009 04:14 pmI believe that he has been taken out of context in his support of EELV's. His thought is that they are fine for launching a LEO spacecraft, but not for a lunar capable spacecraft. Furthermore the mandate to preserve Shuttle infrastructure weighs in.You are taking it out of context. There wasn't a VSE when he said it. There is no difference in launching a LEO only spacecraft or lunar capable spacecraft to LEO (Which Ares I only does)I'm pretty sure that the OSP payload requirements were much less than the CEV payload requirements. - Ed KyleThe point is that from the launch vehicles perspective, it only cares about the total mass it's trying to lift to a particular altitude. Not if it's going anywhere else. The "requirements" and functions of the CEV or OSP have little to do with that. Yes, everything is exactly the same - except that the lunar mission CEV spacecraft weighs twice as much as the OSP ISS spacecraft, which means twice as much launch vehicle, twice as much money, etc. - Ed Kyle
Yes, everything is exactly the same - except that the lunar mission CEV spacecraft weighs twice as much as the OSP ISS spacecraft, which means twice as much launch vehicle, twice as much money, etc.
Quote from: edkyle99 on 01/07/2009 08:31 pmI'm pretty sure that the OSP payload requirements were much less than the CEV payload requirements.And both Delta-IVH and Atlas-VH have more payload capacity than Ares-I.
This is not correct. At least the Delta IV Heavy part is not correct. Not at the moment. Perhaps it will after 2011, after RS-68A enters service, if RS-68A ever meets its specs, but I haven't seen enough details to know this for certain.
But this "Delta IV Heavy can carry more than Ares I" statement that keeps getting repeated on these forums is simply wrong. You have to compare apples with apples. You have to contemplate what it takes to haul not only Orion but its heavy LAS and spacecraft adapters as well. You have to model for the non-lofted trajectory, etc.
Jon and Ed are both bringing valid points, but what do we know today that we didn't know in 2005? There have been points of departure, in the Ares I history so far, and I believe Mike Griffin when he says that you cannot continuously look back.
I would also add that ULA proved that the "blackzones" do not exist and are not the show stopper they were made out to be.
1) Recall that the Congressional language in support of Shuttle Derived was AFTER ESAS was published. I recall that as my second darkest day at NASA, first being 2/1/03.2) After stealing some server time plagiarizing, we get Delta IV Heavy with RS-68A as 53,700lb to Ares 1 -30x100 51.6 orbit, black zones designed out, but no margin. Assumed an 18,000lb LAS and 1400lb spacecraft adapter. Probably just shy of 58,000lb to the same lunar rdz orbit.
Since both Atlas V and Delta IV have a RL-10/Centaur US, I also believe in 2005 this was not perceived as the way to go. Would NASA like a man-rated Centaur US?