Three primary reasons:[....]2) Ares-I was intended to develop many of the technologies that would later filter into Ares-V -- the Mars vehicle he really wanted.[...]There are other reasons, but those are the real heavy-hitters that really drove the plan.
So what was the driving force to develop Ares I in the first place. Why not just put Orion on an EELV or a Jupiter 130?
Given all of the effort placed into Ares I, could a 4 or 5 segment reusable SRB make for a cost effective, partially reusable first stage for a medium lift vehicle.
How about a 5-seg SRB from ATK with an ACES-71 tanker from ULA. What kind of residual propellant to LEO could be achieved with that?
Assuming that ACES-71 could also fly on SLS and ACES-41 on Atlas and Delta for carrying crew and cargo/satellites, could Stick be an economical solution for low-value propellant launches at high flight rates? Or would Atlas 55x be the more economical booster for propellant tankers?
Would ATK be willing to abandon SLS in favor of a depot architecture if they would be providing a Stick for every propellant launch? ATK reloading Sticks at high production rates and ULA cranking out ACES at high production rates. Seems like a good compromise all around, right?
One thing that escapes me is why did they choose to use the J-2X on Ares I when the LCPE probably would have worked better?http://www.space.com/businesstechnology/technology/trw_rocketengine_000926.html
Quote from: Patchouli on 11/19/2010 02:15 amOne thing that escapes me is why did they choose to use the J-2X on Ares I when the LCPE probably would have worked better?http://www.space.com/businesstechnology/technology/trw_rocketengine_000926.htmlBecause it was neither Shuttle or Saturn derived http://smartdata.usbid.com/datasheets/usbid/2001/2001-q1/pintleenginepaperaiaafinal.pdf
Short answer: 'Yes' (three characters)Long answer: 'Why?' (four characters)
Sure, they could try to make a cargo version of Ares-I, but nobody would ever buy flights on it, given those costs.