Could the JUS on the J-246 that is used to launch the CEV and LSAM be fully fueled instead of partially fueled? Or would that make it too heavy? If possible, how much fuel would be left over once the JUS+CEV+LSAM reaches LEO? Any leftovers could be transferred to the EDS, which should be about half empty after making it to orbit.
Quote from: Mark S on 07/23/2009 04:14 amCould the JUS on the J-246 that is used to launch the CEV and LSAM be fully fueled instead of partially fueled? Or would that make it too heavy? If possible, how much fuel would be left over once the JUS+CEV+LSAM reaches LEO? Any leftovers could be transferred to the EDS, which should be about half empty after making it to orbit.Why would you transfer propellant from the EDS the stack is already riding? Wouldn't it be better to do it the other way around, and eliminate one undocking and one docking maneuver? Tanking Mode, anyone?
Quote from: 93143 on 07/23/2009 06:05 pmQuote from: Mark S on 07/23/2009 04:14 amCould the JUS on the J-246 that is used to launch the CEV and LSAM be fully fueled instead of partially fueled? Or would that make it too heavy? If possible, how much fuel would be left over once the JUS+CEV+LSAM reaches LEO? Any leftovers could be transferred to the EDS, which should be about half empty after making it to orbit.Why would you transfer propellant from the EDS the stack is already riding? Wouldn't it be better to do it the other way around, and eliminate one undocking and one docking maneuver? Tanking Mode, anyone?Good point! If PT is allowable now, then it would eliminate the need to undock and transfer to the other JUS/EDS. There goes NASA's "docking blackzone" argument...Mark S.
Could you do a J-246 launch with Orion and Altair.. put just enough fuel in EDS to reach orbit. Then refuel the EDS from a tank launched on a J-130? That would eliminate the Altair to EDS docking.. although adding PT step(through an "inter-tank" located attachment point?)Does the mass math work out here?
Disclaimer: IANARS
A really stupid thought, but what if Jupiter and the Shuttle infrastructure were rejected, and dismantled, right down to the last nut and bolt... what would it cost to rebuild it all, by private enterprise, and what time frame are we talking about... ok that is stupid thought #1#2... if Jupiter were funded, and we needed a tanker mode launch vehicle, what are the restrictions on farming it out to private enterprise, to build on their dime, and we buy the vehicles as needed... meanwhile they are in R&D mode for going to Propellent Depots in 4-5 years, independent of NASA... just throwing out the idea, that perhaps while Congress may not fund these through NASA, what about PI funding it's own research and development NOW, to support the NASA initiatives that Jupiter would bring about... modify: PI = Private Industry/Enterprise
Quote from: cro-magnon gramps on 07/23/2009 07:01 pmA really stupid thought, but what if Jupiter and the Shuttle infrastructure were rejected, and dismantled, right down to the last nut and bolt... what would it cost to rebuild it all, by private enterprise, and what time frame are we talking about... ok that is stupid thought #1#2... if Jupiter were funded, and we needed a tanker mode launch vehicle, what are the restrictions on farming it out to private enterprise, to build on their dime, and we buy the vehicles as needed... meanwhile they are in R&D mode for going to Propellent Depots in 4-5 years, independent of NASA... just throwing out the idea, that perhaps while Congress may not fund these through NASA, what about PI funding it's own research and development NOW, to support the NASA initiatives that Jupiter would bring about... modify: PI = Private Industry/Enterprise Corporations these days can't see past the next quarter's earnings, much less plan massive multiyear multibillion $$ programs. Only billionaire visionaries like Elon Musk can drive a company to take those kinds of risks, and there aren't too many like him.I like DIRECT's plan to buy propellant launches from private industry for depot filling duty. It stimulates the private sector, and gets NASA a much needed capability. It also stimulates competition by creating a new commodity market, LOX to LEO.Otherwise, I think you can forget private space ventures, other than the (relatively) safe and stodgy satellite launch business.Mark S.
Thought-for-the-day - if NASA are desperate enough to start suggesting PT schemes, does this mean many of the people on the ground still genuinely believe that DIRECT does break the laws of physics, perhaps just in this "docking" issue if nothing else? If Ares is gone, and "DIRECT doesn't work", do they actually believe they're fighting against EELV / evolved EELV instead of DIRECT?cheers, Martin
if Jupiter were funded, and we needed a tanker mode launch vehicle, what are the restrictions on farming it out to private enterprise, to build on their dime, and we buy the vehicles as needed... bring about...
Quote from: MP99 on 07/23/2009 07:35 pmThought-for-the-day - if NASA are desperate enough to start suggesting PT schemes, does this mean many of the people on the ground still genuinely believe that DIRECT does break the laws of physics, perhaps just in this "docking" issue if nothing else? If Ares is gone, and "DIRECT doesn't work", do they actually believe they're fighting against EELV / evolved EELV instead of DIRECT?cheers, MartinSigh. It's really irritating how they *really* HAMMERED us for suggesting PT in our 2007 AIAA paper and now they are putting the idea out there themselves in a totally desperate attempt to find an "anything but DIRECT" solution to the corner they have painted themselves into. The sad part is that we told them over 2 years ago they were painting themselves into a corner but they brushed us off like so much pollen on a spring day. Sad, very sad.
Quote from: cro-magnon gramps on 07/23/2009 07:01 pmif Jupiter were funded, and we needed a tanker mode launch vehicle, what are the restrictions on farming it out to private enterprise, to build on their dime, and we buy the vehicles as needed... bring about... I think that is where Chuck's chicken and egg argument comes in. Who goes first?
Quote from: clongton on 07/23/2009 07:44 pmQuote from: MP99 on 07/23/2009 07:35 pmThought-for-the-day - if NASA are desperate enough to start suggesting PT schemes, does this mean many of the people on the ground still genuinely believe that DIRECT does break the laws of physics, perhaps just in this "docking" issue if nothing else? If Ares is gone, and "DIRECT doesn't work", do they actually believe they're fighting against EELV / evolved EELV instead of DIRECT?cheers, MartinSigh. It's really irritating how they *really* HAMMERED us for suggesting PT in our 2007 AIAA paper and now they are putting the idea out there themselves in a totally desperate attempt to find an "anything but DIRECT" solution to the corner they have painted themselves into. The sad part is that we told them over 2 years ago they were painting themselves into a corner but they brushed us off like so much pollen on a spring day. Sad, very sad.A wild "what-if"...Who is the one guy in middle/upper management (other than Gen. Bolden) who has the authority to suggest work on Jupiter begin, and who was part of whomever it was who 'brushed off" the overture? What if the team wrote this guy a polite letter, explaining to him that the team told them about this two years ago, and that he had the power to stop NASA from being a total laughingstock, to reinvigorate the workforce, and to put the entire agency on the fast track to re-establishing the VSE in a cost-effective, safe, sustainable manner, if only you recommend work begin immediately on Jupiter? It's gut check time now, and we would rather you come out as a hero, instead of going down with the sinking ship...What if?
Quote from: clongton on 07/23/2009 07:44 pmQuote from: MP99 on 07/23/2009 07:35 pmThought-for-the-day - if NASA are desperate enough to start suggesting PT schemes, . . .Sigh. It's really irritating how they *really* HAMMERED us for suggesting PT in our 2007 AIAA paper . . .What if the team wrote this guy a polite letter, . . .
Quote from: MP99 on 07/23/2009 07:35 pmThought-for-the-day - if NASA are desperate enough to start suggesting PT schemes, . . .Sigh. It's really irritating how they *really* HAMMERED us for suggesting PT in our 2007 AIAA paper . . .
Thought-for-the-day - if NASA are desperate enough to start suggesting PT schemes, . . .
A really stupid thought, but what if Jupiter and the Shuttle infrastructure were rejected, and dismantled, right down to the last nut and bolt... what would it cost to rebuild it all, by private enterprise, and what time frame are we talking about...
http://www.space.com/missionlaunches/090722-ares1-rocket.htmlAres 1-X looks like it got pushed back another 2 months. With any luck, NASA will shift gears before it launches, and they can recycle it back into an SRB for a Jupiter flight.
