Norm Hartnett - 23/1/2008 2:57 PMAnd to address your question, if it is not used for Mars there are still the NEOs, Mars' moons, and Venus.
Venus?! Might be a little warm for the crew...
One non-technical reason I don't like the Ares I/Ares V approach is that it allows Congress to cancel the heavy lift portion that's needed for beyond-ISS missions while still preserving some basic spaceflight capability. When was the last time NASA completed a program in its entirety with all planned enhancements? Just take a look at ISS! I think getting heavy lift launch vehicle capability up front is the only way to ensure it doesn't get cut when the inevitable delays and cost overruns occur.
savuporo - 23/1/2008 4:17 PMQuotejongoff - 23/1/2008 11:50 AMFor existing, very low launch rate vehicles (EELV, SDVs, etc), you might have a point, but I'd be careful with generalities like that.Considering Dnepr vs EELV launch costs per pound, the point just does not work.
jongoff - 23/1/2008 11:50 AMFor existing, very low launch rate vehicles (EELV, SDVs, etc), you might have a point, but I'd be careful with generalities like that.
Antares - 23/1/2008 1:46 PMIt's kinda funny that 2.5 years after ESAS, he's still having to sell the architecture. By now, one would think it could stand on its own merits.
landofgrey - 24/1/2008 1:59 AMQuoteAntares - 23/1/2008 1:46 PMIt's kinda funny that 2.5 years after ESAS, he's still having to sell the architecture. By now, one would think it could stand on its own merits.The speech was for the benefit of understanding for those who have questions, and I'm sure it was the last thing Griffin wanted to talk about... yet... again. Simply put, ESAS has already been sold to everyone who matters: Congress, industry and the majority of the public who care, which is why it is now essentially a matter of law. The opposition from a vocal minority of the public, scientists and engineers notwithstanding, the architecture has been "sold" and most people agree with the basic direction. I know that doesn't sit well with proponents of EELV-derived solutions or DIRECT, but some people also still don't accept that Ron Paul isn't going to get elected or realize they're in the 5% minority (backhanded analogy). Presonally, I just hope we don't get bit by the decisions that have been made.
landofgrey - 23/1/2008 8:59 PMSimply put, ESAS has already been sold to everyone who matters: Congress, industry and the majority of the public who care, which is why it is now essentially a matter of law.
edkyle99 - 23/1/2008 2:38 PMQuoteDanny Dot - 23/1/2008 3:21 PMQuoteChris Bergin - 23/1/2008 11:30 AMhttp://www.nasa.gov/pdf/208916main_Space_Transportation_Association_22_Jan_08.pdfHere's the part that will make many a coffee be spat over screens in Denver etc. snipThe Ares I lift requirement is 20.3 mT for the ISS mission and 23.3 mT for the lunar mission. EELV lift capacity for both the Delta IV and Atlas V are insufficient, so a new RL-10 powered upper stage would be required, similar to the J-2X based upper stage for Ares I. We considered using additional strap-on solid rocket boosters to increase EELV performance, but such clustering lowers overall reliability.shipWhat is the lift capability of Delta and Atlas heavy? I am certain Atlas Heavy can lift this much and it is already at CDR with a very low risk to first flight.Danny DegerMy recollection is that NASA's study showed that the EELVs couldn't lift the payload when restricted to the low-loft ascent profiles. They would also carry a lot of LAS mass, etc., that would limit them compared to a typical satellite in a shroud type payload. Together, these factors dramatically cut the EELV mass delivery capabilities for a CEV. - Ed Kyle
Danny Dot - 23/1/2008 3:21 PMQuoteChris Bergin - 23/1/2008 11:30 AMhttp://www.nasa.gov/pdf/208916main_Space_Transportation_Association_22_Jan_08.pdfHere's the part that will make many a coffee be spat over screens in Denver etc. snipThe Ares I lift requirement is 20.3 mT for the ISS mission and 23.3 mT for the lunar mission. EELV lift capacity for both the Delta IV and Atlas V are insufficient, so a new RL-10 powered upper stage would be required, similar to the J-2X based upper stage for Ares I. We considered using additional strap-on solid rocket boosters to increase EELV performance, but such clustering lowers overall reliability.shipWhat is the lift capability of Delta and Atlas heavy? I am certain Atlas Heavy can lift this much and it is already at CDR with a very low risk to first flight.Danny Deger
Chris Bergin - 23/1/2008 11:30 AMhttp://www.nasa.gov/pdf/208916main_Space_Transportation_Association_22_Jan_08.pdfHere's the part that will make many a coffee be spat over screens in Denver etc. snipThe Ares I lift requirement is 20.3 mT for the ISS mission and 23.3 mT for the lunar mission. EELV lift capacity for both the Delta IV and Atlas V are insufficient, so a new RL-10 powered upper stage would be required, similar to the J-2X based upper stage for Ares I. We considered using additional strap-on solid rocket boosters to increase EELV performance, but such clustering lowers overall reliability.ship
Oh, please. Do I have to write out the obvious disclaimer every time? The one that says "all other things being equal"? As in comparing launch vehicles built in the same country, using the same currency, the same labor laws, the same safety rules, the same environmental regulations, etc.? NASA isn't going to use Russian-built launch vehicles to fly to Mars, or the Moon, or where ever, unless national policy changes. If that happens, then we can sit down and compare Dnepr per pound versus Proton per pound, etc..
Tim S - 23/1/2008 2:39 PMWell said Mr Griffin.We're not talking about U-Haulers for cargo here. We're talking manned space flight. EELV folks on here need to stick to what they know.
landofgrey - 23/1/2008 5:59 PMQuoteAntares - 23/1/2008 1:46 PMIt's kinda funny that 2.5 years after ESAS, he's still having to sell the architecture. By now, one would think it could stand on its own merits.The speech was for the benefit of understanding for those who have questions, and I'm sure it was the last thing Griffin wanted to talk about... yet... again. Simply put, ESAS has already been sold to everyone who matters: Congress, industry and the majority of the public who care, which is why it is now essentially a matter of law. The opposition from a vocal minority of the public, scientists and engineers notwithstanding, the architecture has been "sold" and most people agree with the basic direction. I know that doesn't sit well with proponents of EELV-derived solutions or DIRECT, but some people also still don't accept that Ron Paul isn't going to get elected or realize they're in the 5% minority (backhanded analogy). Presonally, I just hope we don't get bit by the decisions that have been made.
A bigger launch vehicle is always going to cost less on a $/kg payload basis when it is compared to a smaller launch vehicle if the payload requirements are large enough or the program time frame is long enough, or both. Ares V outhauls Direct, and so will always beat it at that cost-comparison game when it comes to Mars missions that start in 2030, require a million pounds of payload in LEO for each mission, and are part of a Mars exploration program that continues forever.
kevin-rf - 23/1/2008 9:42 PMNoticed he said nothing about the five segment thrust oscillation issues
Chris Bergin - 23/1/2008 4:01 PMQuotelandofgrey - 24/1/2008 1:59 AMQuoteAntares - 23/1/2008 1:46 PMIt's kinda funny that 2.5 years after ESAS, he's still having to sell the architecture. By now, one would think it could stand on its own merits.The speech was for the benefit of understanding for those who have questions, and I'm sure it was the last thing Griffin wanted to talk about... yet... again. Simply put, ESAS has already been sold to everyone who matters: Congress, industry and the majority of the public who care, which is why it is now essentially a matter of law. The opposition from a vocal minority of the public, scientists and engineers notwithstanding, the architecture has been "sold" and most people agree with the basic direction. I know that doesn't sit well with proponents of EELV-derived solutions or DIRECT, but some people also still don't accept that Ron Paul isn't going to get elected or realize they're in the 5% minority (backhanded analogy). Presonally, I just hope we don't get bit by the decisions that have been made.Got to admit that's a great post.
CFE - 23/1/2008 5:11 PMOf course, the question must be asked why Orion weighs so much to begin with. In my reading of the ESAS report, I have yet to find any rationale why the capsule is so huge for such a minuscule crew.
Antares - 24/1/2008 12:45 AMQuoteTim S - 23/1/2008 2:39 PMWell said Mr Griffin.We're not talking about U-Haulers for cargo here. We're talking manned space flight. EELV folks on here need to stick to what they know.I hope you get up early and have Sen. Shelby on speed dial. Some morning in the not too distant future when the sun rises over the Atlantic, the dawn will be cast on a winged vehicle atop an EELV pointed at Space. Wisps of GOX will be venting from its haunches (no vent arm needed). Ice will be forming and falling away in the humid air. Turbopumps will spin and steam and maybe carbon dioxide will rush forth, without a hint of HCl or molten aluminum polluting the precious refuge.An hour or so later, there will be much rejoicing in Denver, Florida, LA AFB, and the south side of the Tennessee River in Northern Alabama. Those on the north side of the river will still be wondering why their square-tired Ferrari is still 5 years from launch and there's a Ford in space. That night, all those Congressmen who don't usually care about Space will look skyward and have their own Sputnik moment as the "cargo" orbits past and realize there's a chance America may still be able to sell burgers on the moon before we have to put up with free samples of bourbon chicken.We'll stick with what we know: fulfilling customer requirements, market-driven systems, true risk management, successful product development, cost-effective mission success.Please, go do Ares V. Just stop wasting time and money on another 50K-class launch vehicle when cheaper, adequate ones already exist.
meiza - 24/1/2008 8:23 AMI think four crew is justified by enabling two EVA pairs. If you have three, it's dangerous if one goes alone and thus you have to move as a group of three and then it's not that much more useful than just two since you can't spread out much. So either 2 or 4.
James Lowe1 - 24/1/2008 11:58 AMThread deleted back to before the arguments. Uh oh, too far back it seems