{snip}I know Ross was mentioning earlier that with Ares 1, Orion would have to do a SM burn to get it to the ISS. Didn't know if that's the case with the J120.
All spacecraft need to use their engines to dock. This is similar to using first gear to pack a car. One of the problems with Ares I is the Orion SM also has to use its engine to get to LEO.
[...]Which makes for more silliness.... an actual Ares-1 third stage!... ....what?... what do you mean it's baselined for 2018?...
Quote from: zapkitty on 01/20/2009 05:25 am[...]Which makes for more silliness.... an actual Ares-1 third stage!... ....what?... what do you mean it's baselined for 2018?... Delta v provided by Orion for orbit insertion is not so different from delta v provided by OMS during shuttle orbit insertion. Get your facts, no 3rd stage...
Quote from: sandrot on 01/20/2009 05:51 amQuote from: zapkitty on 01/20/2009 05:25 am[...]Which makes for more silliness.... an actual Ares-1 third stage!... ....what?... what do you mean it's baselined for 2018?... Delta v provided by Orion for orbit insertion is not so different from delta v provided by OMS during shuttle orbit insertion. Get your facts, no 3rd stage...And the OMS is a 3rd stage of the shuttle. Get your facts straight
Well, I did a little bit of modeling, assuming we want to fuel the Jupiter EDS with 248,000 pounds of fuel, assumeing that the Falcon 9H, Atlas 5H are now available, that the Soyuz Fregat launches from French Guina, and that the Delta II is still in service, that you could fuel the things with1 Atlas V Heavy1 Atlas V 5511 Delta IV HEAVY2 Delta 2 7920H1 Airane v1 Soyuz FregatAt a launch cost of about 1.26 Billion dollars at current launch prices. With a 15% profit, it would run you about 1.5 Billion bucks to send the fuel up.Just my thoughts.
Shuttle OMS burn for orbital insertion is voluntary. Shuttle SSME with ET attached is capable of placing Shuttle into a stable orbit. STS chooses not to do that to enable a simple atmospheric disposal of the ET, but it doesn't have to.
Quote from: clongton on 01/20/2009 11:27 amShuttle OMS burn for orbital insertion is voluntary. Shuttle SSME with ET attached is capable of placing Shuttle into a stable orbit. STS chooses not to do that to enable a simple atmospheric disposal of the ET, but it doesn't have to.Incorrect. That would require an SSME restart at apogee (nominal OMS-2 position) and the current SSME is incapable of in-flight restart.There is nothing "voluntary" about OMS-2, unless you like AOA aborts.
I said a stable orbit, not a useful orbit.
Insert itself and the spacecraft directly into a circular orbit of the correct altitude and inclination.
Quote from: clongton on 01/20/2009 02:09 pmI said a stable orbit, not a useful orbit.You also said this:QuoteInsert itself and the spacecraft directly into a circular orbit of the correct altitude and inclination.How is that accomplished with J-120?