Jim - 9/8/2007 2:22 PMEELV's wouldn't use LC-39. The D-IV pad is up and running and has vehicle on it
wannamoonbase - 9/8/2007 2:47 PMsnip2) What upper stage engine would a Delta 4 CEV launch vehicle use, RL-10 or J-2X?
vt_hokie - 9/8/2007 2:53 PMQuotegladiator1332 - 9/8/2007 2:43 PMKinda how there are contracted out versions of the F-16 flying and built by other countries. There's a Japanese variant, but I think it's different enough that it has its own designation. But I digress...
gladiator1332 - 9/8/2007 2:43 PMKinda how there are contracted out versions of the F-16 flying and built by other countries.
pad rat - 9/8/2007 3:50 PMThe pads represent roughly $300M apiece.
gladiator1332 - 9/8/2007 3:14 PMQuotevt_hokie - 9/8/2007 2:53 PMQuotegladiator1332 - 9/8/2007 2:43 PMKinda how there are contracted out versions of the F-16 flying and built by other countries. There's a Japanese variant, but I think it's different enough that it has its own designation. But I digress...Yeah it is made by Mitsubishi. It has two seats and I believe there is a strong difference in the canopy. I think the Israeli's have their own version too.
bad_astra - 9/8/2007 4:22 PMQuotepad rat - 9/8/2007 3:50 PMThe pads represent roughly $300M apiece.In perspective, though, that's less then the cost of Ares 1-X.
bad_astra - 9/8/2007 10:07 PMThere is no problem. NASA could scrap Ares I, decide to go with EELV for ISS and start working on Ares V today, if they wanted to and it's hard to imagine even Utah congressmen objecting. But when you have so many egos involved who have the audacity to think only they know the way to do things and everyone else is clearly out to do destroy the VSE, then you get a bunker mentality that will not be open to new idea.
EE Scott - 9/8/2007 10:05 PM I would probably be a little skeptical of the development time of 3 years, but 48 months would be OK as well..
quark - 9/8/2007 8:37 PMSo what's wrong with this picture?
quark - 9/8/2007 8:37 PMAtlas V Heavy ... 28mT DIRECTLY to 220nm circular at 28.5 deg.In contrast to a $8B development cost for a launcher that can deliver only 23 mT to sub-leo.
bad_astra - 9/8/2007 5:22 PMQuotepad rat - 9/8/2007 3:50 PMThe pads represent roughly $300M apiece.In perspective, though, that's less then the cost of Ares 1-X.
edkyle99 - 9/8/2007 11:15 PMAccording to the ESAS report, a "stock" Atlas V Heavy would only be able to do 26.3 metric tons (tonnes) to the Orion ascent trajectory.
Jim - 9/8/2007 10:24 PMQuoteEE Scott - 9/8/2007 10:05 PM I would probably be a little skeptical of the development time of 3 years, but 48 months would be OK as well..It went to CDR. No design is needed. Just procurement and built of GSE
vanilla - 10/8/2007 3:58 AMNothing technical, and once Horowitz and Griffin leave, nothing political.
kraisee - 10/8/2007 4:12 AMQuoteedkyle99 - 9/8/2007 11:15 PMAccording to the ESAS report, a "stock" Atlas V Heavy would only be able to do 26.3 metric tons (tonnes) to the Orion ascent trajectory. ESAS Atlas V Heavy performance was actually 30mT to 60x160nm, 28.5deg, and 27mT to 60x220nm, 51.6deg. Higher by 4mT and 3mT respectively than the 5-seg/J-2S+ CLV option.Ross.
CuddlyRocket - 10/8/2007 7:13 AM The new administrator will get the same political messages.