Quote from: kraisee on 06/16/2008 08:30 pmNASA:1. Large NASA payloads purchased as commercial launch services. NASA could still go to the moon on a Jupiter - even if they aren't building the rockets themselves any more.{snip}1. If there is a commercial Jupiter, there is no NASA lunar program. They are mutually exclusive.
NASA:1. Large NASA payloads purchased as commercial launch services. NASA could still go to the moon on a Jupiter - even if they aren't building the rockets themselves any more.{snip}
Quote from: Jim on 06/16/2008 08:47 pmQuote from: kraisee on 06/16/2008 08:30 pmNASA:1. Large NASA payloads purchased as commercial launch services. NASA could still go to the moon on a Jupiter - even if they aren't building the rockets themselves any more.{snip}1. If there is a commercial Jupiter, there is no NASA lunar program. They are mutually exclusive. Public Relations definition of NASA lunar mission.NASA LSAMNASA astronautsNASA lunar outpostNASA sign on padNASA press releaseNASA money.That sounds like a NASA lunar mission.
A commercial Jupiter could be very useful to the satellite business since com sats are getting bigger and heavier.Don't believe me just compare the average sat from 15 years ago to one today and then one from 30 years ago you'll see a trend and they're getting huge.
If anything Com sats will get smaller; as Jim said, there is no commercial market for Direct...If Direct is ever accepted, it will be as a new iteration of Ares (probably as "Ares II" and "Ares IV" or somesuch). The purpose of Ares, in both current and any future Direct iteration, is launch Constellation missions, and not much else. Besides, I can't realistically imagine a flight rate much higher than STS, meaning all that capacity is need for lunar flights...Simon
wrong again as usual. The point is if NASA isn't funding Ares I & V or Direct, then NASA isn't funding lunar missions.
Quote from: renclod on 06/17/2008 10:39 pmDual J-2X (or dual J-2??? for that matter) EDS is problematic.Quoting from 20080018610_2008018440.pdf @ ntrs :QuoteFor the EDS reignition, the J–2X will shiftto a secondary mode mixture ratio of 4.5 and attain roughly241,000 lbf (1072 kN—82 percent) thrust to accommodateload limits on the Orion/Altair lunar lander docking system.With the proposed dual engine EDS, and if the load limit issue stands, "Direct" would be forced to explore a bizzare single engine TLI / dual engine launch...... or the unthinkable beefing of up the docking system.
Dual J-2X (or dual J-2??? for that matter) EDS is problematic.Quoting from 20080018610_2008018440.pdf @ ntrs :QuoteFor the EDS reignition, the J–2X will shiftto a secondary mode mixture ratio of 4.5 and attain roughly241,000 lbf (1072 kN—82 percent) thrust to accommodateload limits on the Orion/Altair lunar lander docking system.With the proposed dual engine EDS, and if the load limit issue stands, "Direct" would be forced to explore a bizzare single engine TLI / dual engine launch...
For the EDS reignition, the J–2X will shiftto a secondary mode mixture ratio of 4.5 and attain roughly241,000 lbf (1072 kN—82 percent) thrust to accommodateload limits on the Orion/Altair lunar lander docking system.
1/ replace the LIDS with CBM !
Beefing up the docking system ... hmm... I wonder why those square heads @ NASA didn't thought about such a simple solution.
Quote from: renclod on 06/18/2008 08:41 am1/ replace the LIDS with CBM ! CBM is a berthing mechanism, not a docking port.
Also in Direct docking would only take place after TLI, so no worries for the docking system.
Quote from: renclod on 06/18/2008 08:41 amBeefing up the docking system ... hmm... I wonder why those square heads @ NASA didn't thought about such a simple solution. Yeah, I mean, why wouldn't those "square heads" want to add mass to a capsule from which they already had to strip multiple redundant safety systems (which weighed more than a beefed up docking system would) and mission capabilities because the Ares I rocket on which they intended to launch it couldn't even lift the original design? I just don't get it either.
Quote from: A_M_Swallow on 06/18/2008 02:22 amQuote from: Jim on 06/16/2008 08:47 pmQuote from: kraisee on 06/16/2008 08:30 pmNASA:1. Large NASA payloads purchased as commercial launch services. NASA could still go to the moon on a Jupiter - even if they aren't building the rockets themselves any more.{snip}1. If there is a commercial Jupiter, there is no NASA lunar program. They are mutually exclusive. Public Relations definition of NASA lunar mission.NASA LSAMNASA astronautsNASA lunar outpostNASA sign on padNASA press releaseNASA money.That sounds like a NASA lunar mission.wrong again as usual. The point is if NASA isn't funding Ares I & V or Direct, then NASA isn't funding lunar missions.
Quote from: Jim on 06/18/2008 03:55 amQuote from: A_M_Swallow on 06/18/2008 02:22 amQuote from: Jim on 06/16/2008 08:47 pmQuote from: kraisee on 06/16/2008 08:30 pmNASA:1. Large NASA payloads purchased as commercial launch services. NASA could still go to the moon on a Jupiter - even if they aren't building the rockets themselves any more.{snip}1. If there is a commercial Jupiter, there is no NASA lunar program. They are mutually exclusive. Public Relations definition of NASA lunar mission.NASA LSAMNASA astronautsNASA lunar outpostNASA sign on padNASA press releaseNASA money.That sounds like a NASA lunar mission.wrong again as usual. The point is if NASA isn't funding Ares I & V or Direct, then NASA isn't funding lunar missions.I disagree with that completely. NASA has never built a thing on its own - it has always contracted out the construction of its launch vehicles. The only difference between a lunar mission using the Saturn V and a lunar mission using a commercial launch vehicle is the contract that defines the relationship between the LV builder and the end user (NASA). The piece of paper defining the ownership of the LV would be the only difference between a "traditional" lunar mission and one utilizing a COTS launch vehicle, and the public would never know (or care) about the difference. NASA astronauts walking around a NASA moon base is all they would see, and if that could be done more efficiently through the use of COST LVs, then that would be all the better.I, as a tax payer, would love to see NASA get out of the LV business altogether. I absolutely feel COTS is the way to go, and that NASA should be a purchaser of vehicle services rather than a builder of vehicles. If NASA were to commit to X lunar missions per year for the next 30 years using a COTS LV provider, I imagine a way could be found to make a profit. And every flight would be a NASA flight.
What about APAS-89? Then docking with Shenzhou and modified Soyuz/ATV would be quite easy or is LIDS as easy to implement for other nations as is APAS?