Another theoretical question: how much Jupiter-120\232 can lift if it will use SSME?
How much could the Direct Core with three RS-68 engines lift without the solids? Can it do the same as the Delta IV heavy with 3 engines? Would it need a second stage to complete the trip to orbit?
Quote from: Eerie on 01/18/2009 03:27 pmAlso, there is no commercial market in space that needs a depot, what are you talking about?Anyway, we are off-topic.First, "in general" it is not off topic because it is part of the DIRECT architecture. See the AIAA paper.Second, I said "create" the market. The benefits of a depot are indisputable, but the initial development and deployment/testing is cost prohibitive without a NASA contract to make it possible. Once operational however, there are several nations that will line up to take advantage of it because they cannot launch big spacecraft now because of the mass penalty of lifting all the mission propellant with the spacecraft. A single-launch Jupiter-232 mission that stopped at the depot before TLI for the mission propellant could easily triple the size of the mission hardware sent thru TLI to the moon. India, for example, could certainly send a really sophisticated lander/orbiter to Mars if it could fill its tanks in orbit before departing. Similar to you stopping at a gas station before heading out across country in your car. There will be lots of nations and corporations that will take advantage of the new availability of the "gas station" in orbit, and lots of commercial companies competing to deliver the propellant to the depot.The DIRECT architecture isn't just the Jupiter Launch Vehicles. It is an entire approach to getting as many nations as possible out into the Solar System. It's about "enabling" mankind to take that step.
Also, there is no commercial market in space that needs a depot, what are you talking about?Anyway, we are off-topic.
Quote from: clongton on 01/18/2009 03:58 pmQuote from: Eerie on 01/18/2009 03:27 pmAlso, there is no commercial market in space that needs a depot, what are you talking about?Anyway, we are off-topic.First, "in general" it is not off topic because it is part of the DIRECT architecture. See the AIAA paper.Second, I said "create" the market. The benefits of a depot are indisputable, but the initial development and deployment/testing is cost prohibitive without a NASA contract to make it possible. Once operational however, there are several nations that will line up to take advantage of it because they cannot launch big spacecraft now because of the mass penalty of lifting all the mission propellant with the spacecraft. A single-launch Jupiter-232 mission that stopped at the depot before TLI for the mission propellant could easily triple the size of the mission hardware sent thru TLI to the moon. India, for example, could certainly send a really sophisticated lander/orbiter to Mars if it could fill its tanks in orbit before departing. Similar to you stopping at a gas station before heading out across country in your car. There will be lots of nations and corporations that will take advantage of the new availability of the "gas station" in orbit, and lots of commercial companies competing to deliver the propellant to the depot.The DIRECT architecture isn't just the Jupiter Launch Vehicles. It is an entire approach to getting as many nations as possible out into the Solar System. It's about "enabling" mankind to take that step.Why are you able to use propellant depots with Jupiter but not Ares? Jupiter would be under the same law prohibiting it for commercial use.
You are missing the point.1. With Ares, there will never be a propellant depot. Ares costs too much to allow the funding to deploy one.
Well here it is, my penultimate version of the J-232:
If the answers come up jelly-side-down for DIRECT, is it safe to assume that cries of bias, incorrect figures, or incompetence would follow?
Quote from: mars.is.wet on 01/18/2009 04:26 amIf the answers come up jelly-side-down for DIRECT, is it safe to assume that cries of bias, incorrect figures, or incompetence would follow?Point blank: Even without Griffin at the reins, folk like Doug Cooke, Jeff Hanley and Steve Cook are still fully-paid-up members of Griffin's inner-circle. If they have *any* way of influencing such a review it can not and will not be unbiased. Period....Only if there is an Independent Review would all of the rival teams be able to accept the results -- even grudgingly.Ross.
MSFC Engineering proper is independent of the Ares and Constellation Project. Let us have a crack at it and let NESC, GAO and IG keep them out of our knickers while we do our jobs. (Existing management hasn't dared to enlist us in that level of trade because they fear what will probably happen in that scenario.)
Quote from: Jim on 01/16/2009 05:59 pmQuote from: Will on 01/16/2009 05:49 pmAnd why would they stop doing that just because they chose to build Direct?Because it isn't working and LM is the ET expertAnd the one man who insisted it be done that way will no longer be there.
Quote from: Will on 01/16/2009 05:49 pmAnd why would they stop doing that just because they chose to build Direct?Because it isn't working and LM is the ET expert
And why would they stop doing that just because they chose to build Direct?
Quote from: mars.is.wet on 01/18/2009 04:26 amIf the answers come up jelly-side-down for DIRECT, is it safe to assume that cries of bias, incorrect figures, or incompetence would follow?Point blank: Even without Griffin at the reins, folk like Doug Cooke, Jeff Hanley and Steve Cook are still fully-paid-up members of Griffin's inner-circle. If they have *any* way of influencing such a review it can not and will not be unbiased. Period.Ross.
Quote from: Eerie on 01/18/2009 03:11 pmClongton, I think that refueling PD by Ares-V will be cheaper than by 20mt LVs. Ares-V is how many Ariane-5`s? Seven?If Ares-V costs $10 billion to develop and there are 100 flights (unlikely!) that's $100 million additional cost per flight.Surely that makes it more expensive?cheers, Martin
Clongton, I think that refueling PD by Ares-V will be cheaper than by 20mt LVs. Ares-V is how many Ariane-5`s? Seven?
Quote from: kraisee on 01/18/2009 11:41 pmQuote from: mars.is.wet on 01/18/2009 04:26 amIf the answers come up jelly-side-down for DIRECT, is it safe to assume that cries of bias, incorrect figures, or incompetence would follow?Point blank: Even without Griffin at the reins, folk like Doug Cooke, Jeff Hanley and Steve Cook are still fully-paid-up members of Griffin's inner-circle. If they have *any* way of influencing such a review it can not and will not be unbiased. Period.Ross.And yet the Direct team repeatedly argues that the engineering judgement and experience of Lockheed and other contractors is superior to that of NASA, and should trump their conclusions. But why should we expect a disinterested and unbiased opinon from the very companies that would benefit from a particular decision?
Why are you able to use propellant depots with Jupiter but not Ares? Jupiter would be under the same law prohibiting it for commercial use.
And yet the Direct team repeatedly argues that the engineering judgement and experience of Lockheed and other contractors is superior to that of NASA, and should trump their conclusions. But why should we expect a disinterested and unbiased opinon from the very companies that would benefit from a particular decision?