My understanding of the conclusions which were in the Aerospace report (and note that I have not seen the actual document, merely spoken to people who have) is that they determined that the current RS-68 powered Delta-IV Heavy could lift the current Orion with nice comfortable margins and flying a blackzone-safe trajectory. However it would apparently take the RS-68A engines, due in 2012, to be able to lift a heavier Orion including such things as the ~1400lb of Land Landing hardware.I don't have the precise payload performance figures to hand, but I'm pretty sure that the Commission members will have access to this document.Ross.
zap, please edit your post or I will ask the moderators to remove it.We want to take the high ground here and I'm asking all our supporters to come with us on that high road and keep all of their comments civil, please.Ross.
Serious question: what part(s) of the post?
Ross, please do not allow an interview like this to happen again. No offense, but the Direct seems to get an egg in its face:http://www.spacevidcast.com/2009/04/28/jupiter-direct/
Quote from: Ronsmytheiii on 06/04/2009 06:38 pmRoss, please do not allow an interview like this to happen again. No offense, but the Direct seems to get an egg in its face:http://www.spacevidcast.com/2009/04/28/jupiter-direct/I never knew anything about it until two minutes ago. I'm listening to it right now for the first time. Doesn't seem so bad. Wish they had contacted me for an interview as I could have provided more comprehensive answers.Who is "Jeph"?Ross.
Politically this should be an easy sell since it’s a win-win for Obama.1. It gets us back to the Moon sooner and at considerable savings over Ares I / V.
2. It saves a lot of jobs that will be laid off under Ares I / V.
3. It gives him a chance to outstage Bush and take credit for saving the space program from a Bush boondoggle. This point alone should convince Obama.
Quote from: marsavian on 06/04/2009 04:55 pmHawes just has to confirm they can build a J-130 from the current Shuttle stack within 3 years. That raises a very interesting point...Should we 'pack' our dates and make them a "no brainer"?I'm concerned with the possibility of some factions pushing the "their schedule is unreasonable" card, even though *we* are totally confident. Problem is that mud always tends to stick... ...So perhaps we should get even more conservative specifically for this presentation -- just to head that accusation off at the gate?It would certainly be better to say "5 years" and then have Hawes come back with "yeah its doable in 4 actually" instead of saying "3 years" and Hawes coming back and saying "nope, your too optimistic, its going to take longer, more like 4".Same result from Hawes could produce two completely different reactions, all because of our claims going in...Thoughts?Ross.
Hawes just has to confirm they can build a J-130 from the current Shuttle stack within 3 years.
We've got about 9 months schedule slippage included already.What I'm just thinking about, is adding something like an extra 24 months of margin to our 36 month schedule -- a slight case of over-bombing -- in order to simply kill-off any "complaints" before they ever have a chance to raise their ugly heads.Ross.
Quote from: Bill White on 06/04/2009 05:36 pm2019? Quote from: marsavian on 06/04/2009 05:28 pmQuote from: kraisee on 06/04/2009 05:21 pmheads.implement. Let Ares speak for itself or not, as an outside/underground concept DIRECT has to be ultra-credible and professional in its own right regardless of what EELV/Ares do or not do.
2019? Quote from: marsavian on 06/04/2009 05:28 pmQuote from: kraisee on 06/04/2009 05:21 pmheads.implement.
Quote from: kraisee on 06/04/2009 05:21 pmheads.implement.
heads.
Quote from: kraisee on 06/04/2009 05:16 pmQuote from: marsavian on 06/04/2009 04:55 pmHawes just has to confirm they can build a J-130 from the current Shuttle stack within 3 years. That raises a very interesting point...Should we 'pack' our dates and make them a "no brainer"?I'm concerned with the possibility of some factions pushing the "their schedule is unreasonable" card, even though *we* are totally confident. Problem is that mud always tends to stick... ...So perhaps we should get even more conservative specifically for this presentation -- just to head that accusation off at the gate?It would certainly be better to say "5 years" and then have Hawes come back with "yeah its doable in 4 actually" instead of saying "3 years" and Hawes coming back and saying "nope, your too optimistic, its going to take longer, more like 4".Same result from Hawes could produce two completely different reactions, all because of our claims going in...Thoughts?Ross.You also have other contenders out there. If you pad the schedule too much, it could do the reverse and give the upper hand to your opponent (not likely, based on ALL that Direct has going for it). There is always a balancing act, and I think it's balanced very well. Maybe adding 2-3 months, but nothing more than that (imo).
Quote from: robertross on 06/04/2009 08:32 pmQuote from: kraisee on 06/04/2009 05:16 pmQuote from: marsavian on 06/04/2009 04:55 pmHawes just has to confirm they can build a J-130 from the current Shuttle stack within 3 years. That raises a very interesting point...Should we 'pack' our dates and make them a "no brainer"?I'm concerned with the possibility of some factions pushing the "their schedule is unreasonable" card, even though *we* are totally confident. Problem is that mud always tends to stick... ...So perhaps we should get even more conservative specifically for this presentation -- just to head that accusation off at the gate?It would certainly be better to say "5 years" and then have Hawes come back with "yeah its doable in 4 actually" instead of saying "3 years" and Hawes coming back and saying "nope, your too optimistic, its going to take longer, more like 4".Same result from Hawes could produce two completely different reactions, all because of our claims going in...Thoughts?Ross.You also have other contenders out there. If you pad the schedule too much, it could do the reverse and give the upper hand to your opponent (not likely, based on ALL that Direct has going for it). There is always a balancing act, and I think it's balanced very well. Maybe adding 2-3 months, but nothing more than that (imo).We have seen with Ares I which was supposed to be a simple and soon concept how quickly delays can mount up to unforeseen problems. They should take the Von Braun approach and seriously err on the side of margin caution. 3 years to me for a new rocket, even with existing reconfigured parts, sounds like a wind in your sails job, it could be done but everything would have to go more or less to plan. Just say it took 5 for some reason, on a 3 year schedule that's a 66% overrun, on a 4 year schedule that's a 25% overrun. Which would lead to less recriminations ?
Politically this should be an easy sell since it’s a win-win for Obama.1. It gets us back to the Moon sooner and at considerable savings over Ares I / V.2. It saves a lot of jobs that will be laid off under Ares I / V.3. It gives him a chance to out stage Bush and take credit for saving the space program from a Bush boondoggle. This point alone should convince Obama.
Quote from: ChuckC on 06/04/2009 06:52 pmPolitically this should be an easy sell since it’s a win-win for Obama.1. It gets us back to the Moon sooner and at considerable savings over Ares I / V.2. It saves a lot of jobs that will be laid off under Ares I / V.3. It gives him a chance to out stage Bush and take credit for saving the space program from a Bush boondoggle. This point alone should convince Obama. It should, but it's hard to say if it will.1) Obama hasn't shown that he really cares much about the space program, and in fact, candidate Obama said a few discouraging things.With any luck, this changes and he does the right things, but it's hard to be overly optimistic.2) Like Zap said, his left-wing liberal base aren't exactly the people who are invested and big supporters of the space program. He can earn a lot for grace with them by putting as much money as possibly into social engineering, "green" programs, education, unions, etc. The Democrat bread and butter areas.3) While Obama seems to take an unprecidented stance at trying to berate his predecessor, likely to divert attention away from his own controversial spending and social engineering policies, he doesn't need NASA to do that. The media pretty much let him do it ad nausium without an ounce of scruteny.Although Zap seems to wonder off into a rant about Bush, despite his failure to follow up on the VSE, the VSE itself only exists because of Bush, and in fairness, Bush took the most interest in the Space program since probably LBJ. He didn't follow up on it and let it head a wrong direction with Ares (and a pox on him for that), but at least he did try to get something new going after the Columbia accident. Obama or Clinton would have probably moved to let manned space exploration wither on the vine and die as it's in danger of now.And for the record, Obama was in the Senate for 4 years, two of those with a large Democrat majority in Congress, so he and his party had as much a hand in many of the "messes" we have now as the Bush Administration does.He was "handed" very little he and the democrats didn't already have their fingers in prior to January 20th.Both sides have screwed the pootch on a lot of things, but lets be fair about it.