Optimizing Ares I for Crew Taxis

[gladiator1332]

In the new plan, Ares I is used to develop the 5 seg booster for the eventual HLV. However, as Direct has shown, an HLV can utilize 4 seg boosters and an 8.4m core in a two launch architecture. Therefore the 5 seg booster is only kept alive because of sunk costs.

So if NASA were to toss the 5 seg booster out the window, is it possible to create a LEO-optimized Ares I that would utilize the 4 seg booster, as originally planned. BEO Orion would be too heavy as I understand, but could 4 seg Ares I be used to launch an Orion-Lite Crew Taxi or Dragon? The BEO Orion would only be used on the HLV.

A 4 seg Ares I with a J-2X upperstage would be more expensive than EELV and Falcon, but if we are going to build it, we might as well use it.

[neilh]

A 4 seg Ares I with a J-2X upperstage would be more expensive than EELV and Falcon, but if we are going to build it, we might as well use it.

Why?

[gladiator1332]

A 4 seg Ares I with a J-2X upperstage would be more expensive than EELV and Falcon, but if we are going to build it, we might as well use it.

Why?

If congress has its heart set on Ares I and it does in fact get completed, I think it will be very unlikely that NASA spends funds to manrate the EELVs.

I am not an Ares I fan, but I find it wasteful to develop the thing to be used as a bridge to an HLV and then to simply toss it away. It is a flat out waste. If you build it, use it!

[neilh]

A 4 seg Ares I with a J-2X upperstage would be more expensive than EELV and Falcon, but if we are going to build it, we might as well use it.

Why?

If congress has its heart set on Ares I and it does in fact get completed, I think it will be very unlikely that NASA spends funds to manrate the EELVs.

I am not an Ares I fan, but I find it wasteful to develop the thing to be used as a bridge to an HLV and then to simply toss it away. It is a flat out waste. If you build it, use it!

If NASA doesn't man-rate the Ares I vehicles though, it doesn't have to worry about things like mitigating thrust oscillation, ensuring the LES parachute can escape a cloud of flaming solid propellant debris, the nonexistent track record for the launch vehicle, etc. It could potentially be much more cost-effective (at least as cost-effective as Ares I gets, anyways) to launch the Ares I "tests" without worrying about doing all the things which would be necessary to man-rate them.

Be sure you're not succumbing to a sunk cost fallacy here. Even if we assume that Ares I test vehicles are going to be built no matter what, that doesn't necessarily mean that the cost-benefit of man-rating and actually launching crew on them (even if it's with a smaller crew taxi) will be better than the cost-benefit of man-rating and launching crew on EELVs.

[Downix]

A 4 seg Ares I with a J-2X upperstage would be more expensive than EELV and Falcon, but if we are going to build it, we might as well use it.

Why?

Here, fixed Ares I.

Single SSME, two 4-seg SRB, AIUS.

If congress has its heart set on Ares I and it does in fact get completed, I think it will be very unlikely that NASA spends funds to manrate the EELVs.

I am not an Ares I fan, but I find it wasteful to develop the thing to be used as a bridge to an HLV and then to simply toss it away. It is a flat out waste. If you build it, use it!

[Patchouli]

I could see a cut down Ares I US being used on Falcon 9-H or Atlas Heavy.
 It would work a lot better then it would on the Delta since these rockets esp F9 stage at a much lower altitude.

It probably would put either vehicle in the low HLV class.