Jim - 2/1/2007 11:43 AMAres IV doesn't mean dropping Ares I, it means dropping Ares V. Ares I is still needed for ISS.
RedSky - 2/1/2007 12:46 PMQuoteJim - 2/1/2007 11:43 AMAres IV doesn't mean dropping Ares I, it means dropping Ares V. Ares I is still needed for ISS.But isn't that ridiculous, then, to spend so much to develop Ares I... along with the new transporters, etc, etc... just for a handful of launches to the ISS? So that means it will go into manned operation in 2014... and obsolete in 2016! If that's the case, strip the CEV down to a Block 0.5 ISS version and make the 4 ISS launches on an EELV and save a bunch of Billions. If the actual Lunar missions won't use Ares I, then it shouldn't be built with its huge budget and schedule hit for the few ISS launches planned.
Mark Max Q - 2/1/2007 11:30 AMThis is the stretched limo version of Stumpy, and it's obvious that DIRECT has gotten to the very top of NASA, as they are not taking it serious. Sure, the name has changed, but this is one in the eye of the everything is fine with Ares I people.
josh_simonson - 2/1/2007 2:08 PMWhy can't the core stage be ready by 2014? All the parts already exist except the 10m tank. That should be cheaper and safer (schedule wise) than the 5 seg SRB. It only took about 5 years for Delta IV to go from proposal to flight using the same engine. The long pole in the tent would probably still be the J-2X. Talk is now that J-2S turbopumps may be used on the initial CLV flights (called J-2X-D - for De-rated?) because the J-2X won't be done in time.
Marsman - 2/1/2007 1:08 PMIf NASA was halfway intelligent, they would halt work on Ares I except for the US and consider the options (Ares IV, DIRECT, Stumpy, ect.). The US can still be used for Ares IV, the Ares I people won't go up in arms, and it gives them time to consider Direct, and make an educated, non-rushed decision (unlike ESAS)...
Marsman - 2/1/2007 9:08 PMIf NASA was halfway intelligent, they would halt work on Ares I except for the US and consider the options (Ares IV, DIRECT, Stumpy, ect.). The US can still be used for Ares IV, the Ares I people won't go up in arms, and it gives them time to consider Direct, and make an educated, non-rushed decision (unlike ESAS)...
Norm Hartnett - 2/1/2007 8:43 PMI consider it a hopeful sign that NASA is spending some money in reevaluating their options. With all due respect to the folks that worked on ESAS their first recommended LV was unflyable and NASA should have stopped as soon as they realized that and re ran the ESAS again.
simonbp - 2/1/2007 8:32 PMUnflyable? Underperforming with current mass margins is what they keep telling us...
simonbp - 2/1/2007 9:32 PMGoing with a vehicle like this kinda take the lessons of safety from the CAIB, sets them on fire, and pretends that they never existed. The reason why the stick was chosen in the first place was because it promised to be 2-3 times less likely to kill astronauts than an EELV or inline SDLV. There have been many proposals for slightly cheaper and/or better performing alternatives, but I have yet to see one that can claim to be inherently safer. Only one than can will gain any traction as an alternative to the baseline...Simon
Generic Username - 2/1/2007 9:59 PMQuotesimonbp - 2/1/2007 8:32 PMUnflyable? Underperforming with current mass margins is what they keep telling us...Lofting 58,400 lbs is what I'm hearing now.