*could* it have worked, absolutely. The cost would have been incredibly high, the time to develop long, but it would have worked, not well. And then, once finished, shelved to never be launched due to the laws governing NASA requiring them to launch on commercial vehicles when one is available which can fulfill the need, and the Ares I was only viable because it could lift 4 metric tons more than the EELV's, but with the upgrades the EELV's could lift the same *if not more* than Ares I, eliminating that argument.
Lobo,The reason why it is so expensive is because it is made so… Launch Provider: “How much will it cost”?ATK: “Well, how much do you have”?Robert P.S. Better ask Ed Kyle, I believe he was a fan and perhaps can make an informed case…I still say you can use them to launch Prop Depots...
Quote from: Rocket Science on 08/12/2011 10:53 pmLobo,The reason why it is so expensive is because it is made so… Launch Provider: “How much will it cost”?ATK: “Well, how much do you have”?Robert P.S. Better ask Ed Kyle, I believe he was a fan and perhaps can make an informed case…I still say you can use them to launch Prop Depots...If that's the case, then would an EELV as the crew lifter been any different?Launch Provider: "How much will it cost?ULA: "How much do you have?"Back in 2005 or whenever the PoR took shape, ULA was the only game in town for American LV providers.
I think in the end it would have been cheaper and quicker to develop "Stumpy" than Ares I. The two side-by-side SRB would have evened out the thrust oscillation problem, and the upper stage could have been lit on the ground, thus allowing use of SSME.
That’s why someone like SpaceX, with their “disruptive technology model” is good for the industry. Did you notice how all of a sudden… mysteriously the “old space” firms were offering reduced prices…Robert
Quote from: Rocket Science on 08/12/2011 11:19 pmThat’s why someone like SpaceX, with their “disruptive technology model” is good for the industry. Did you notice how all of a sudden… mysteriously the “old space” firms were offering reduced prices…RobertWho is reducing prices?
The USA proposal had nothing to do with Spacex and it wasn't "reducing" prices, it was eliminating NASA oversight.ATK/Liberty is not a case of reducing prices
Quote from: beb on 08/12/2011 09:29 pmI think in the end it would have been cheaper and quicker to develop "Stumpy" than Ares I. The two side-by-side SRB would have evened out the thrust oscillation problem, and the upper stage could have been lit on the ground, thus allowing use of SSME. Stumpy was not "real" design. It was "developed" by ground ops people.It has no redeeming value. EELVs could do the job, since there is no re.ation to Ares V
Quote from: Jim on 08/12/2011 11:37 pmQuote from: beb on 08/12/2011 09:29 pmI think in the end it would have been cheaper and quicker to develop "Stumpy" than Ares I. The two side-by-side SRB would have evened out the thrust oscillation problem, and the upper stage could have been lit on the ground, thus allowing use of SSME. Stumpy was not "real" design. It was "developed" by ground ops people.It has no redeeming value. EELVs could do the job, since there is no re.ation to Ares VThat depended on the particulars of the Ares V. The stumpy design, upon studying it, would have mirrored one of the EDS configurations which were developed for Ares V. Switch out the EDS interstage with the original shuttle interstage, and you now have relation, in fact you'd have a lot more relation than you did with Ares I and Ares V.