Quote from: kraisee on 06/02/2009 11:42 pmThat's a 'difficult' proposition, to say the least, but is not completely unprecedented. Here is an image showing Gemini 12 lifting off from LC-19 at the same time as an Atlas Agena lifts off from LC-14 a few miles away. This was done specifically to enable a docking between the two spacecraft in LEO.That's probably a composite. The Gemini was launched more or less on the Agena's first pass over the launch site.
That's a 'difficult' proposition, to say the least, but is not completely unprecedented. Here is an image showing Gemini 12 lifting off from LC-19 at the same time as an Atlas Agena lifts off from LC-14 a few miles away. This was done specifically to enable a docking between the two spacecraft in LEO.
This sort of thing *has* been done before.Ross.
Quote from: gladiator1332 on 06/03/2009 12:56 amMy biggest worry is that the review panel does not go right to the source for information with regards to Direct. If they rely on numbers and data put out by NASA, then I fear it will not be a true Direct review. Already their are rumors that Hawes has already tried to block any non-Contractors from providing official testimony information to the panel. From what I have read on here, Hawes will also provide data and analysis for the panel. I don't see him painting a pretty picture for Direct.Either we cross our fingers and hope the panel sees through the bull, or hopefully the Team gets their shot to present to the panel so they can hear it straight. If they were looking for data RIGHT NOW (for example) where would (they) look?
My biggest worry is that the review panel does not go right to the source for information with regards to Direct. If they rely on numbers and data put out by NASA, then I fear it will not be a true Direct review. Already their are rumors that Hawes has already tried to block any non-Contractors from providing official testimony information to the panel. From what I have read on here, Hawes will also provide data and analysis for the panel. I don't see him painting a pretty picture for Direct.Either we cross our fingers and hope the panel sees through the bull, or hopefully the Team gets their shot to present to the panel so they can hear it straight.
I know the DIRECT team works incredibly hard, but for whatever reason they seem cursed to release the next great version(or data) a week or two behind when it was really needed.
Wasn't someone from DIRECT supposed to be on one of the "Space" TV shows tonight? Or do I have the wrong day?Anyone rember which show? Any comments from someone that watched it?
Thank you Ross for your very thorough response. Is there an equivilant forum someplace for the Ares program I wonder?
Quote from: TrueBlueWitt on 06/03/2009 02:25 amWasn't someone from DIRECT supposed to be on one of the "Space" TV shows tonight? Or do I have the wrong day?Anyone rember which show? Any comments from someone that watched it?Ross should be on right now. Started at 10:00 pm Eastern
A good story, told well, will ALWAYS sell, always.
May I ask here what the stance of the Direct team is on the (potential) use of EELVs (D4 and A5) in NASA's human space exploration efforts? In a short paragraph.Thank you.
Quote from: kraisee on 05/22/2009 03:35 amOne of the best 'alternative' mission profiles which we have been able to confirm so far is that of using the EDS to perform the LOI as well as the TLI.Because the lander doesn't have to perform the LOI, it results in a lander which is considerably smaller and lighter than the current CxP design. This solves almost all of the Altair's height/stability issues and might even allow the thing to fit inside an 8.4m PLF again too. At this size and mass the LSAM & CEV will *easily* fit on a J-130, thus improving both costs and safety for each mission. Also by having multiple engines on an RL-10-powered EDS you get high Isp and a great deal of engine-out capability for the LOI as well, which is nice.With this profile we're seeing about 10% extra payload mass to the Lunar surface as well -- and that's the real point.Heh. So my old joke about how "real lunar transfer vehicles deliver their payload all the way to lunar orbit, not just pansying out at TLI" actually bears up to physical reality?~Jon
One of the best 'alternative' mission profiles which we have been able to confirm so far is that of using the EDS to perform the LOI as well as the TLI.Because the lander doesn't have to perform the LOI, it results in a lander which is considerably smaller and lighter than the current CxP design. This solves almost all of the Altair's height/stability issues and might even allow the thing to fit inside an 8.4m PLF again too. At this size and mass the LSAM & CEV will *easily* fit on a J-130, thus improving both costs and safety for each mission. Also by having multiple engines on an RL-10-powered EDS you get high Isp and a great deal of engine-out capability for the LOI as well, which is nice.With this profile we're seeing about 10% extra payload mass to the Lunar surface as well -- and that's the real point.