Regarding the naming convention, I would like to add the following suggestion - We have the JUPITER core stageadd to it the Jupiter Upper Stage - JUSso you get JUPITER with JUS (pronounced "JUICE")JUPITER with JUS and yes, we already had this, some times the obvious gets missed
There is a difference between what is used in presenting and selling it to NASA et al, and what will be best for official designations. The Ares-III and IV designations better from a public relations stand point, since sounds more like an upgrade than a big change.
Quote from: Mark S on 06/05/2009 10:07 pmQuote from: cixelsyD on 06/05/2009 09:46 pmPerhaps they should separate naming the upper and core stages.I like this idea. What we need is a catchy and appropriate name for the Jupiter Upper Stage. Then we can call the two configurations Jupiter and Jupiter/"Insert catchy name here".It should be something from Roman mythology, or something related to the planet. Maybe after one of Jupiter's moons (Io, Ganymede, Callisto), or one of Jupiter's children (Minerva (goddess of wisdom!)).Mark S.That's actually not a bad idea. Check this out:The Jupiter Upper Stage, which doesn't have a name, is really a big Centaur. The name "Centaur" is already well known as an "Upper Stage", not a rocket, so we could have "Jupiter" and "Jupiter/Centaur". ULA already uses "Atlas" and "Atlas/Centaur" and everybody understands the difference without referring, in everyday talk, to Atlas-441, 552, etc. What do you think?Just musing a little here.Edit: Centaur is an Atlas stage and DHDCUS is the equivalent Delta Upper Stage. Both companies collaborated to combine the best of each concept and created the ACUS "Advanced Cryogenic Upper Stage". How about Jupiter and Jupiter/ACUS? In either case, there's no doubt that you are talking about a single rocket, with or without an upper stage. The specific designations could be reserved for the technical discussions.
Quote from: cixelsyD on 06/05/2009 09:46 pmPerhaps they should separate naming the upper and core stages.I like this idea. What we need is a catchy and appropriate name for the Jupiter Upper Stage. Then we can call the two configurations Jupiter and Jupiter/"Insert catchy name here".It should be something from Roman mythology, or something related to the planet. Maybe after one of Jupiter's moons (Io, Ganymede, Callisto), or one of Jupiter's children (Minerva (goddess of wisdom!)).Mark S.
Perhaps they should separate naming the upper and core stages.
By the way, did you know that Caesar Augustus built a temple dedicated to Jupiter, the Temple of Juppiter Tonans, because he was almost struck by lightning? Tonans means "thundering" in Latin. Augustus/Jupiter, Augustine/Jupiter, hmm. Coincidence? Maybe...
Quote from: clongton on 06/05/2009 10:29 pmThat's actually not a bad idea. Check this out:The Jupiter Upper Stage, which doesn't have a name, is really a big Centaur. The name "Centaur" is already well known as an "Upper Stage", not a rocket, so we could have "Jupiter" and "Jupiter/Centaur". ULA already uses "Atlas" and "Atlas/Centaur" and everybody understands the difference without referring, in everyday talk, to Atlas-441, 552, etc. What do you think?Just musing a little here.Edit: Centaur is an Atlas stage and DHDCUS is the equivalent Delta Upper Stage. Both companies collaborated to combine the best of each concept and created the ACUS "Advanced Cryogenic Upper Stage". How about Jupiter and Jupiter/ACUS? In either case, there's no doubt that you are talking about a single rocket, with or without an upper stage. The specific designations could be reserved for the technical discussions.Interesting, although I still like "Jupiter-I" and "Jupiter-II"
That's actually not a bad idea. Check this out:The Jupiter Upper Stage, which doesn't have a name, is really a big Centaur. The name "Centaur" is already well known as an "Upper Stage", not a rocket, so we could have "Jupiter" and "Jupiter/Centaur". ULA already uses "Atlas" and "Atlas/Centaur" and everybody understands the difference without referring, in everyday talk, to Atlas-441, 552, etc. What do you think?Just musing a little here.Edit: Centaur is an Atlas stage and DHDCUS is the equivalent Delta Upper Stage. Both companies collaborated to combine the best of each concept and created the ACUS "Advanced Cryogenic Upper Stage". How about Jupiter and Jupiter/ACUS? In either case, there's no doubt that you are talking about a single rocket, with or without an upper stage. The specific designations could be reserved for the technical discussions.
so you get JUPITER with JUS (pronounced "JUICE")JUPITER with JUS
Forgive me if this was already posted, but the panel now has a site where the public can ask questions and provide comments:http://www.nasa.gov/offices/hsf/home/index.htmlBut as Ross already warned before, play nice. You can also email them documents directly.
... J246 would be Jupiter Plus ( upperstage and 4th engine added)
How about just "Jupiter" and "Jupiter Heavy"?
Here's my two cents to the Committee:"I ask the Committee to fairly hear the many ideas and alternatives to the current Ares I/V vehicles currently being pursued by NASA. One of the most viable alternatives is called Direct 3.0. The individuals working on this launch vehicle system are comprised of many technical and engineering people, some of whom are inside NASA and other aerospace firms. I believe your study of alternatives will be lacking without seeking a presentation from the people behind Direct 3.0. Thank you."I hope it helps!
The current Jupiter naming convention is more akin to the Atlas-V numbering designations such as 401, 421 or 552. It represents a single vehicle (Atlas-V / Jupiter) which is flown in different configurations (552 / 246).So the precedence exists in the industry for what we are already doing.The question, is whether the panel members are likely to be confused by such things. I personally think they're all going to be pretty familiar with the whole world of configurations, acronyms and other such naming conventions used throughout this business. I don't think any of them are likely to be confused by things like this.I don't see a real reason to change anything at this late stage. Although, referring to the vehicles as "Jupiter" and "Jupiter with an Upper Stage" speaks of common sense to me.Ross.
We've given this same basic (continually evolving) presentation a number of times now, to political figures, the TT, a variety of industry groups, more than a couple of advocacy groups and a plethora of conferences over the last three years.The only real difference this time, is we only have 30 minutes to make our initial case, including a Q&A session. That's going to be *really* tight. All our previous presentations have been at least an hour.This will have to be simple and straight-forward facts and details -- end of story. The difficult bit is selecting the most salient details and trimming the rest to fit in such tight timing confines.Ross.