I can't understand why LEO prop depots keep coming up. It's like someone trying to sell gasoline filling station franchises in 1707; it puts the cart several gigaparsecs before the horse.
Could a 2012 extension be a workable compromise?
And as to Andy's point, I'm also very uncomfortable with the alledged Lori Garver comments. It mirrors the Griffin comments about extension back in 2008, which we now know were utterly false.
Quote from: Andy USA on 03/05/2010 02:38 amWhy would Lori Garver go on the record to say shuttle can't be extended, when we know that's not true. That's troubling to me.Some people stretch the truth when they start losing an argument they are heavily invested in. Considering her position it is definitely troubling.
Why would Lori Garver go on the record to say shuttle can't be extended, when we know that's not true. That's troubling to me.
Quote from: simonbp on 03/05/2010 03:45 amI can't understand why LEO prop depots keep coming up. It's like someone trying to sell gasoline filling station franchises in 1707; it puts the cart several gigaparsecs before the horse.Could you explain this comment? Are you claiming it would be 200 years before orbital propellant depots are useful?
Quote from: yg1968 on 03/04/2010 09:46 pmQuote from: Ben the Space Brit on 03/04/2010 08:01 pmQuote from: clb22 on 03/04/2010 07:57 pmIt does not work like this:Build a "one size fits it all" expensive BEO vehicle and a "one size fits it all" S-HLV for the next 30-40 years of exploration. You do realise that is not what is being proposed here, don't you?Hey clb, I'm a bit confused, which J-xxx version did you mean when you said "One size fits all S-HLV"??
Quote from: Ben the Space Brit on 03/04/2010 08:01 pmQuote from: clb22 on 03/04/2010 07:57 pmIt does not work like this:Build a "one size fits it all" expensive BEO vehicle and a "one size fits it all" S-HLV for the next 30-40 years of exploration. You do realise that is not what is being proposed here, don't you?
Quote from: clb22 on 03/04/2010 07:57 pmIt does not work like this:Build a "one size fits it all" expensive BEO vehicle and a "one size fits it all" S-HLV for the next 30-40 years of exploration. You do realise that is not what is being proposed here, don't you?
It does not work like this:Build a "one size fits it all" expensive BEO vehicle and a "one size fits it all" S-HLV for the next 30-40 years of exploration.
Quote from: clb22 on 03/04/2010 07:48 pmP.S. ISS can be operated without the Shuttle. People seem to forget we already did that once. And since the days of 2003-2005, 2 new cargo vehicles have come online and 2 additional will come online likely next year. With STS-135 we could even wait for the first CRS vehicle to have its IOC until 2012 without a problem.That's funny...So the ISS is the same size as it was before, and nothing has been running since? I seem to recall a SARJ failure and a radiator delamination. Now we have a solar array mast issue and a swivel problem.You're right...no problem waiting for 2012. (rolls eyes)
P.S. ISS can be operated without the Shuttle. People seem to forget we already did that once. And since the days of 2003-2005, 2 new cargo vehicles have come online and 2 additional will come online likely next year. With STS-135 we could even wait for the first CRS vehicle to have its IOC until 2012 without a problem.
Quote from: neilh on 03/05/2010 04:17 amQuote from: simonbp on 03/05/2010 03:45 amI can't understand why LEO prop depots keep coming up. It's like someone trying to sell gasoline filling station franchises in 1707; it puts the cart several gigaparsecs before the horse.Could you explain this comment? Are you claiming it would be 200 years before orbital propellant depots are useful?Yeah, I'd be amused to see Simon's explanation too. Once you've figured out how to transfer cryo propellants on orbit (and store/handle them), it would be pretty easy to modify existing stages to allow refueling. There are missions that could be enabled within the next 5 years using only demo depots, not even the full-scale thing.~Jon
Orion IS proposed to be the one size fits it all spacecraft for 30 years right now
Quote from: clb22 on 03/05/2010 06:41 amOrion IS proposed to be the one size fits it all spacecraft for 30 years right nowI don't believe that's correct - Orion is intended as a BEO spacecraft.However, if it's available it can provide support for ISS in the short term. This provides valuable testing with easy aborts and an on-orbit "safe haven" (per post-Columbia Shuttle safety rules) before it is committed to missions where aborts are not possible (trans-Lunar, trans-Mars, etc).Martin
Any generic Super-HLV (yes S-HLV does not stand for Shuttle derived HLV...). But apparently some other posters seem to forget the realities right now. Orion IS proposed to be the one size fits it all spacecraft for 30 years right now and Ares V IS also proposed to be the exact same thing. People love to forget current realities and just replace them with their favorite paper rockets. Doesn't work. So yes, I was absolutely correct above talking about spiral development vs. Cx and the comment that Cx doesn't propose exactly what I was saying about "one size fits it all" is incorrect.
So, in conclusion: "One Size Fits All S-HLV" - Definately no. "One Size Fits All Spacecraft" - Sort-of yes, and, to the degree it is true, not a bad thing.
Ben, the question was "spiral development" vs. current proposals. Spiral development means just that, you do one spiral after the other. A S-HLV right now isn't a spiral, it is a jump to the very end.
Same thing for Orion, it's not just a LEO vehicle, it's a jump to the end.
There is a reason why spiral development was proposed, the reason is sustainability and costs. You start with little and build on that. Any incarnation of a S-HLV (bet it a DIRECT vehicle or Ares V etc.) would not be spiral development, regardless of whether you build your upper stage in parallel or in sequence. And sorry, the same applies to Orion.
Quote from: MP99 on 03/05/2010 07:16 amQuote from: clb22 on 03/05/2010 06:41 amOrion IS proposed to be the one size fits it all spacecraft for 30 years right nowI don't believe that's correct - Orion is intended as a BEO spacecraft.However, if it's available it can provide support for ISS in the short term. This provides valuable testing with easy aborts and an on-orbit "safe haven" (per post-Columbia Shuttle safety rules) before it is committed to missions where aborts are not possible (trans-Lunar, trans-Mars, etc).MartinOrion IS a "one size fits it all" spacecraft. It was and (at the moment) still is planned to be used for a. ISS flights b. lunar flights c. NEO flights d. Martian flights etc. There are a few modifications to Orion depending on the missions, but it is NOT the spiral development type of development that was originally envisioned in 2004 which I was talking about above which led to my "one size fits it all" comment.
Orion is not designed for ISS supply.
What differences are required of Orion between later Lunar / Mars / NEO missions?
Quote from: MP99 on 03/05/2010 08:06 amOrion is not designed for ISS supply.Until not that long ago Orion was supposed to do BOTH crew and cargo flights to the ISS (until 2008). QuoteWhat differences are required of Orion between later Lunar / Mars / NEO missions?The point is, why do we need the same spacecraft doing ISS flights, lunar flights, Mars flights etc.? Why not start with LEO flights and build on that?
Quote from: clb22 on 03/05/2010 09:30 amQuote from: MP99 on 03/05/2010 08:06 amOrion is not designed for ISS supply.Until not that long ago Orion was supposed to do BOTH crew and cargo flights to the ISS (until 2008). QuoteWhat differences are required of Orion between later Lunar / Mars / NEO missions?The point is, why do we need the same spacecraft doing ISS flights, lunar flights, Mars flights etc.? Why not start with LEO flights and build on that? Confused.Block II is the exploration version.Block I is designed to prove various sub-systems in LEO first.Martin
Quote from: MP99 on 03/05/2010 09:55 amQuote from: clb22 on 03/05/2010 09:30 amQuote from: MP99 on 03/05/2010 08:06 amOrion is not designed for ISS supply.Until not that long ago Orion was supposed to do BOTH crew and cargo flights to the ISS (until 2008). QuoteWhat differences are required of Orion between later Lunar / Mars / NEO missions?The point is, why do we need the same spacecraft doing ISS flights, lunar flights, Mars flights etc.? Why not start with LEO flights and build on that? Confused.Block II is the exploration version.Block I is designed to prove various sub-systems in LEO first.MartinBlock I + II isn't what spiral develop is. Block I + II Orions are the same spacecrafts, only with some slight modifications. Same heatshield, same parachute systems, same everything. It's one big development effort instead of two sequential efforts. Spiral development is about setting a time period (usually 3-4 years) for an effort and getting things done in that time period, then use them and go for the next time period for the next effort.
Block I + II isn't what spiral develop is. Block I + II Orions are the same spacecrafts, only with some slight modifications. Same heatshield, same parachute systems, same everything. It's one big development effort instead of two sequential efforts. Spiral development is about setting a time period (usually 3-4 years) for an effort and getting things done in that time period, then use them and go for the next time period for the next effort.
Quote from: Bill White on 03/05/2010 01:42 amAlso, unless there is Congressional buy-in, it doesn't matter whether the plan will work, or not. Not that getting Congressional buy-in is a guarantee of success either (or we wouldn't be having this discussion). I'm starting to wonder if the union of "can get congressional buy-in", "can get the budgets necessary", and "will actually work in practice" is actually a null set.~Jon
Also, unless there is Congressional buy-in, it doesn't matter whether the plan will work, or not.