Quote from: William Barton on 01/22/2009 06:31 pmHave you heard any estimated costs for a space telescope that size? I keep thinking it might be $10bln, which seems like an awful lot of money to put on a single ride! The JWST is $3.5B, and it's 6.5m, infrared, segmented, and will be at L2. A visual scope, at 8.4m, non-segmented in LEO should be less, IMHO, even though it's larger. The Large Binocular Telescope cost $120M, and it has two scopes with two of those 8.4m monolithic mirrors.
Have you heard any estimated costs for a space telescope that size? I keep thinking it might be $10bln, which seems like an awful lot of money to put on a single ride!
I don't know if a J-232 could launch 2 scopes of that size in-line because of the length. Even with an f2 primary, each scope would be more than 17 meters long.
Both groups are talking about only 40-50mT for an 8-10m diameter optical telescope as an upgrade to Hubble. That sort of mass could probably be lifted on the J-120, let alone the J-232.They couldn't care less that Ares-V has almost three times that mass capability or that Jupiter-232 has over twice that. As long as it can lift up to 50mT, their only interest is getting that wide diameter PLF. And they just can't get it via the EELV's, Space-X or Ares-I.Ross.
The JWST is $3.5B, and it's 6.5m, infrared, segmented, and will be at L2. A visual scope, at 8.4m, non-segmented in LEO should be less, IMHO, even though it's larger. The Large Binocular Telescope cost $120M, and it has two scopes with two of those 8.4m monolithic mirrors.
Quote from: Lobo on 01/22/2009 03:53 pmIt's just a point to be considered, not the definitive point to hang the whole argument either way on.Just for the record, we've been speaking with a team at JPL and another at MIT about space telescopes.Both groups are talking about only 40-50mT for an 8-10m diameter optical telescope as an upgrade to Hubble. That sort of mass could probably be lifted on the J-120, let alone the J-232.They couldn't care less that Ares-V has almost three times that mass capability or that Jupiter-232 has over twice that. As long as it can lift up to 50mT, their only interest is getting that wide diameter PLF. And they just can't get it via the EELV's, Space-X or Ares-I.Ross.
It's just a point to be considered, not the definitive point to hang the whole argument either way on.
What is the maximum payload length for a J-23X?
Hello,This might be a fresh voice here (as I just registered).When I heard for the first time about Ares rockets (especially Ares-V), I thought 'cool, they will use some parts from the shuttle program', but then I found out that it's not like that... That NASA has to redesign almost everything.It keeps me wonder, in history of space flight we can clearly see two ways of doing 'the stuff'.One of them - to create a sucessful design, use it and then abandon it in favour of something different, built from scratch (Saturn V - the most obvious example).The other one - to create a sucessful design of a rocket, and then use it for years, decades even, with only minor changes and upgrades to the original, but still using the most parts (and facilities) unchanged. The one with a motto 'If it's good, don't change it'. (Two good examples from Russia - R-7 derivatives with Soyuz being one of them and Proton as other).I see it this way, and I can tell that, DIRECT will use more parts from shuttle program, and I believe that there will be an easy move from Space Shuttle to DIRECT, therefore it's better.But I also have a question.Was there any tests for Jupiter with four Shuttle SRBs attached?I.e. in a cross configuraton, (or just any configuration, maybe Energia like)?Would it give an additional capacity to match Ares-V ?
But I also have a question.Was there any tests for Jupiter with four Shuttle SRBs attached?I.e. in a cross configuraton, (or just any configuration, maybe Energia like)?Would it give an additional capacity to match Ares-V ?
Obviously a large monolithic mirror has a greater chance of operational success because if just one of the hex's don't deploy and align -perfectly-
As another note, roughly speaking, how much percent cost of the J232 is the J120 expected to be? (omitting a second stage, just assume heavy lifting to LEO...so I guess that's really be a J230??)
Seems like the J120 is a J232/0 with one less cryo engine on it. Is there any other expenses? How do you get twice the lifting mass with the same SRB thrust and 33% more cryo thrust?
Are the tanks larger in the J232? The core wall thickness? Other costs?
Otherwise seems like the price of the J120 would be the same as the J232/0, less one RS-68 engine, which would be relatively nominal given the price of the rest of the launcher.Just wondering...
Thank you for detailed explanation.AFAIK crawlers are in use since Saturn-V missions.What is the maximum weight they can carry?Also what's the maximum weight supported by the launchpad?
This is 12.0m (40ft) dia x 45.6m (150ft) long, with a 27.6m (90ft) long barrel section and would mass somewhere around 18.5mT.
This is 12.0m (40ft) dia x 45.6m (150ft) long, with a 27.6m (90ft) long barrel section and would mass somewhere around 18.5mT. Given that the PLF is jettisoned about 250-300 seconds into the launch, I estimate that would translate to something like 6mT lower performance to LEO than the baseline 10x10m PLF.The same payload could also be used on Jupiter-120 too. I would estimate it would still have over 30mT of lift capacity flying that, so there may be some potential uses.Ross.