I just wanted to jump in here, and say that I expect to have the plans and notes for the Jupiter Models ready to publish pretty soon.
Is there any updated preliminary drawings of the various pad elements? Also will the various press-lines and cable trays still exist on the Jupiter cores in the positions they do on the STS ET?
Quote from: DaveS on 01/14/2009 06:41 pmIs there any updated preliminary drawings of the various pad elements? Also will the various press-lines and cable trays still exist on the Jupiter cores in the positions they do on the STS ET?I was working on some of that imagery before the Rebuttal came along. I've postponed that work until after this new round of performance analysis determine which configuration we will be using. The change in J-232 EDS capacity will alter the infrastructure. And if we were to re-baseline to the J-231 option, that would change it more. I'm going to wait until these questions are fully determined.Ross.
Thanks for jumping in there Ross. Just trying to have an informative conversation, and no, I haven't been reading this forum prior to about a week ago, so I didn't have the time or energy to read through the 500 some odd pages in the first two threads in their entirety.
And thanks for all the great info Ross. You've been very helpful in a lot of questions I've had. I still like the idea of the big Ares V booster for future flexability, but you've made some really great arguments here for the pro's of DIRECT.
Again, I wonder if going with the Falcon 9 Heavy for the CLV, and then Ares V for the rest of the stack, and future missions of other things like telescopes, or new Space stations.If 90% of the money going into Ares 1 were then shuffled to Ares V, and the other 10% shuffled to SpaceX to help with Falcon 9 Heavy development, man-rating, and adaptation to carry Orion (which should be relatively easy).
Now you are back to the commonality of just 1 vehicle, the Ares V, which solves one of the big issues the DIRECT team has been mentioning, about two vehicals, and two manufacuring paths.Perhaps the Ares V could even have an Ares IV varient, same core and boosters, but fewer RS-68's on the end cap sorta like Jupiter.Save a little money for sub-max payloads.
Personally, try to design the Orion and SM so that either the F9H or the Delta 4H could carry it up, then you have some redundency and "safety factor" in how you get it up there.
I thought I heard that it is possible to engineer the fireball out of the engine, however, it is more for appearances, as the fireball poses no risk to the vehicle itself.
Great image! Would Philip mind if I posted this on the Direct facebook group?
Would a switch to the J-231 improve LOM/LOC numbers? I mean that is the big criticism against 232 right now. I'm guessing the details you are waiting on include more on this?
That illustration of the Direct launch with STS in the foreground is really great, but its made me wonder: will the bottom 2/3rd of the insulation on Direct get blackened like in the Delta4Heavy? Or would the pad minimize that H2 fireball? Might look a bit shocking to the uninitiated public as in the first D4H launch seen so well in Ben Cooper's pix:http://www.launchphotography.com/Delta_4-Heavy.html
Who is Charles U Farley?
Quote from: Ronsmytheiii on 01/15/2009 04:25 amWho is Charles U Farley?According to the Urban Dictionary it means:spoonerism of a societal taunt "F*** You Charley", meant to express contempt or defiance.Dare I ask why? No. Never mind. I don't want to know.Ross.
Greetings Fellow Optimists,I am a newbie to these proceedings, brought into the fold by the PM article, so please bear with me. I have no engineering expertise, but I do have 24 years in government service. I also possess a mixture of proud nostalgia and anticipation for what this country's space program has done and has the potential to accomplish. You can therefore imagine the blinding headaches I get when I read of NASA's bureaucratic mindset. In my profession, I have seen many absurd programs implemented simply because management decided it was the best course of action. Period. End of discussion. It's the mindset that will fix what ain't broke and can't seem to keep it simple. To the point, could someone please answer these questions: is Ares past the point of no return in NASA's playbook? If that's the case, what can we as ordinary citizens do to support the Jupiter option? Is there anyone we can write to regarding this issue? Hell, if a letter-writing campaign can pull Star Trek out of the trash bin ...
Greetings Fellow Optimists,I am a newbie to these proceedings, brought into the fold by the PM article, so please bear with me.
I have no engineering expertise, but I do have 24 years in government service. I also possess a mixture of proud nostalgia and anticipation for what this country's space program has done and has the potential to accomplish. You can therefore imagine the blinding headaches I get when I read of NASA's bureaucratic mindset. In my profession, I have seen many absurd programs implemented simply because management decided it was the best course of action. Period. End of discussion. It's the mindset that will fix what ain't broke and can't seem to keep it simple.
To the point, could someone please answer these questions: is Ares past the point of no return in NASA's playbook?
If that's the case, what can we as ordinary citizens do to support the Jupiter option? Is there anyone we can write to regarding this issue? Hell, if a letter-writing campaign can pull Star Trek out of the trash bin ...