Milestones?The SSME-based Jupiter-130 would allow the Orion to fly in 2012, a few months before that election.The SSME/RL-10-based Jupiter-246 would enable a Cargo-only Altair to deliver 20,000kg to the Lunar surface in Q1 2016 and a Crew to follow-up around 6-9 months later -- again, before that election.The SSME/RL-10-based Jupiter-246 would allow a full-scale precursor mission to an NEO in 2017.The SSME/RL-10-based Jupiter-246 would allow the complete Lunar Outpost to be landed and made fully operational within 36 months -- by 2020.ISS can also continue to be maintained and upgraded so it can continue to operate through to at least the mid-2020's. Unlike CxP's current Ares plans, DIRECT does not require the added budget for ISS in order to successfully accomplish the Lunar Program.In addition to that, with double the available budget for the Science Mission Directorate, the following missions could all be fully funded by 2020: Mars Science Laboratory, James Webb Space Telescope, Hubble-II, Jupiter Icy Moons Orbiter, Mars Sample Return (small), Mars Sample Return (large) -- and lots & lots of Lunar surface science too.And NASA could also afford to develop a Cryogenic Propellant Depot and high-performance in-space Nuclear Propulsion technologies as well.All of that fits within the current "budget box" if we change away from Ares-I/Ares-V and move to the Jupiter-130/246 baseline instead.Ross.
I think we're about to announce a baseline change to SSME as our baseline engine though.
Quote from: Mark S on 03/27/2009 07:22 pmHm, very suspicious. What with the recent rumors of a successful NASA Administrator pick.... I wonder... Could this so-called 'drinks and dinner' date in Florida really be.... a SECRET ANNOUNCEMENT party?!??Sorry to carry the pin for your balloon there, but, errr, no.I think we're about to announce a baseline change to SSME as our baseline engine though.But that won't be secret if/when we have all voted on the change.Ross.
Hm, very suspicious. What with the recent rumors of a successful NASA Administrator pick.... I wonder... Could this so-called 'drinks and dinner' date in Florida really be.... a SECRET ANNOUNCEMENT party?!??
Will Orion be ready by 2012?
Quote from: kraisee on 03/27/2009 09:00 pmI think we're about to announce a baseline change to SSME as our baseline engine though.I thought that part of the pitch for Direct was the man rating of the RS-68 so that we got a Man Rated EELV for "free". Will moving to the SSME effect the support of Direct the ULA?
Would SSME Jupiter be v3.0?
Remove all those costs and you could afford to spend a lot more on Orion instead.
We were always told Orion won't be ready before Ares-I.
Quote from: kraisee on 03/28/2009 02:18 amRemove all those costs and you could afford to spend a lot more on Orion instead.Would that help though? In software development there is the famous Brooks 'law', which states that adding man-power to a project that is already late makes it even more late. I can see how not having Ares-I throw problems at them would make the Orion team go faster. Other than that, is there much that can be done? Especially if it's true that flight software development is one of the long poles.
Software development will be the long pole. There is only so much that can be done to accelerate that. But the rest of the spacecraft is screaming for only two things:1. "Ares- STOP CHANGING ME AND LET ME GET ON WITH IT!"2. More money.
A question for the DIRECT folks.NASA's Constellation organization and the launch vehicle development group in particular appear to be highly dysfunctional. Based on the latest news, in the three and a half years since the ESAS was released, IOC for Ares/Orion has slipped six years.Do the cost and schedule models you use for DIRECT have any corrections applied to account for the demonstrated difficulty Constellation and MSFC have performing up to industry standard expectations?
Tell me if I have got it wrong for Direct:J-232 uses RS68 and J2. needs money for development for J2.J-246 uses SSME and RL10. No development of new engines.Do you have LOC\LOM number for new J-246?Is the Direct team not leading themselves open if they switch to the J-246, like NASA that they keep on refining their plans? All good, PM know that Planning is good, and there will be refinement as you know more but at some point you have to implement. Is the Direct team basically saying that the Constellation team really needs to revaluate the whole program due to the wrong assumptions that they made in the ESAS study. That would take a strong leader at NASA to say, we may have made a mistake in the ESAS study.