clongton - 20/3/2008 9:22 PMAll this without asking Congress for any “additional” money.But even if Obama becomes President and follows thru on his statements about a delay (which is not cast in stone), if the Jupiter-120 replaces the Ares-I, it can wait out his presidency for 4 or 8 years. All that’s needed to kick it off again is authorization to build an upper stage because the Jupiter-120 is the foundation for “everything” going forward. If the Jupiter-120 gets the nod, the VSE is safe.
A_M_Swallow - 20/3/2008 9:29 PMQuoteclongton - 20/3/2008 9:22 PMAll this without asking Congress for any “additional” money.But even if Obama becomes President and follows thru on his statements about a delay (which is not cast in stone), if the Jupiter-120 replaces the Ares-I, it can wait out his presidency for 4 or 8 years. All that’s needed to kick it off again is authorization to build an upper stage because the Jupiter-120 is the foundation for “everything” going forward. If the Jupiter-120 gets the nod, the VSE is safe.If President Obama requires NASA has to play political games:Delaying the Ares-I by 5 years will handle his money saving promise.Fill the manned flight to the ISS gap with a new rocket based on shuttle parts called the Jupiter-120. This is twice the size of the EELV and COTS rockets.Work on the Moon rocket called the Jupiter-232 will not start until Obama's second term.The Jupiter-120 has an upper stage allowing bigger loads which will appear a few years after the lower stage.
clongton - 21/3/2008 2:50 AMQuoteA_M_Swallow - 20/3/2008 9:29 PMIf President Obama requires NASA has to play political games:{snip}Andrew;As soon as you put an upper stage on the Jupiter-120, it becomes a Jupiter-2xx.
A_M_Swallow - 20/3/2008 9:29 PMIf President Obama requires NASA has to play political games:{snip}
mojo - 20/3/2008 6:02 PMWhen will you reach the "point of no return" as the shuttle derived manufacturing systems that Direct is relying on are being canned?
TrueGrit - 20/3/2008 6:24 PMAnother thing before I forget... The 5-segment booster need not be abandoned. ATK and NASA were already studying a 5 segment booster for the Shuttle before the change in direction (see AIAA-2003-5127). These studies involved making the change a drop-in without any ET tank attachment changes. I see no reason the 5-segment booster couldn't have a low level activity preserved with the goal of on-ramping it later as a performacne enchancement.
A_M_Swallow - 20/3/2008 9:29 PMIf President Obama requires NASA has to play political games:Delaying the Ares-I by 5 years will handle his money saving promise.Fill the manned flight to the ISS gap with a new rocket based on shuttle parts called the Jupiter-120. This is twice the size of the EELV and COTS rockets.Work on the Moon rocket called the Jupiter-232 will not start until Obama's second term.The Jupiter-120 has an upper stage allowing bigger loads which will appear a few years after the lower stage.
SolarPowered - 20/3/2008 12:01 AMAnd what are the forecasts for a President McCain? (I'm hoping the U.S.A. doesn't actually hire a CEO with a blank resume.)
A_M_Swallow - 20/3/2008 10:14 PMA couple of things I left off the list.The Ares-I does not get officially cancelled until the J-120 flies
... and for political reasons Congress is forcing NASA to report large cuts. Killing a rocket programme should make some nice newspaper headlines.NASA can save money by discovering that it can use the larger J-232 for the J-22x LEO missions.
kraisee - 21/3/2008 1:30 AMQuoteSolarPowered - 20/3/2008 12:01 AMAnd what are the forecasts for a President McCain? (I'm hoping the U.S.A. doesn't actually hire a CEO with a blank resume.)From what I can see he talks the talk of supporting the VSE, but doesn't seem especially interested.My guess is that as long as NASA doesn't do something to embarrass his administration (late programs, massive cost overruns, accidents etc) and as long as the agency makes good progress on their plans, I don't think he'll try to cut their budget. But he isn't likely to support any budget increases either.I think he would support a more efficient use of the budget and a greater science return for the same monies. I think that DIRECT might look good to his science/NASA advisers.From what I can tell, I think he will pretty-much "leave well alone" and let NASA get on with whatever they're getting on with. I don't think he particularly cares one way or the other.Clinton IMHO will do something similar, although there could be a grievance with the VSE having been promoted by a Republican she clearly dislikes. Not sure if that would affect policy, but I wouldn't like to bet a $100bn program on it either way. A better solution than currently proposed "under a Republican" could probably win her over too.Ross.
kraisee - 21/3/2008 6:39 AMQuoteA_M_Swallow - 20/3/2008 10:14 PMA couple of things I left off the list.The Ares-I does not get officially cancelled until the J-120 fliesIt will be one or the other. We just don't have the money to develop both.
clongton - 21/3/2008 9:36 AMQuoteNorm Hartnett - 21/3/2008 11:52 AMI was deeply disappointed when the Direct team chose to go to the Jupiter nomenclature in Direct 2.0. I felt then that they were putting themselves on the outside looking in, rather than remaining part of the team. If they had continued to pitch Direct as Ares II (Jupiter 120) and Ares III (Jupiter 232) this would have greatly reduced the perception of changing horses in midstream. Norm;What you need to bear in mind is what we were trying to accomplish by doing that. At that time we still believed there was the possibility that Griffin would adopt the Direct architecture, if there was some obvious way that they could take ownership of it and not appear to have been upstaged. The clearest path to that was the naming of the vehicle. Griffin would be able to field what we now called the Jupiter-120 and rename it as the Ares-II, and the Jupiter-232 as the Ares-III. In fact that very specific offer was communicated directly to him, along with the offer that if he did that we would very quietly just fade away, leaving the entire thing in NASA's hands. We were all prepared to completely disappear, never to be heard from again. That way they could take ownership, not only of the architecture, but also of the transition from Ares-I to Ares-II, claiming that their initial hopes for the Ares-I weren't panning out, so in order to keep the VSE on track, they were advancing their design to a more powerful launch vehicle. We offered him the launcher, the architecture and the face-saving, with no strings attached.Unfortunately for everyone, it turned out he wasn't interested.But this is OT for this thread. It really should go over to the Direct thread.
Norm Hartnett - 21/3/2008 11:52 AMI was deeply disappointed when the Direct team chose to go to the Jupiter nomenclature in Direct 2.0. I felt then that they were putting themselves on the outside looking in, rather than remaining part of the team. If they had continued to pitch Direct as Ares II (Jupiter 120) and Ares III (Jupiter 232) this would have greatly reduced the perception of changing horses in midstream.
spacenut - 21/3/2008 12:33 PMMaybe I missed it somewhere, but what is the lift capacity to LEO for the J-232? And if you have it for the J-244?
spacenut - 21/3/2008 11:33 AMMaybe I missed it somewhere, but what is the lift capacity to LEO for the J-232? And if you have it for the J-244?