This is a shedule I came up with so please see if it is doable.Forget the unemployment and bickering , what does it take to get therewith the plan as it is. It could be Jupiter , It could be new.see attached shedule.
Quote from: FinalFrontier on 04/30/2010 09:56 pmIts very unlikely that fy 2011 will pass and if it does it will last one year and thats it, next year Congress wil tear into it an ethier change it completly or defund it. More likely it won't pass at all this year. Prepare for an ares ressurection .By the time FY 2012 budget is going through Congress the Falcon 9 and possibly the Taurus II will have flown. The Ares I can then be described as the fifth rocket.
Its very unlikely that fy 2011 will pass and if it does it will last one year and thats it, next year Congress wil tear into it an ethier change it completly or defund it. More likely it won't pass at all this year. Prepare for an ares ressurection .
I said Block I. That's the LEO version. The MMOD, radiation, and thermal environments are exactly the same for this version as for the CRV version, it performs the exact same sequence of maneuvers, and unless I've misunderstood the planned mission sequence for Orion on Ares I to ISS, it has to remain docked at the station for similarly long periods of time.
The only difference I can see is that the life support system for the CRV version doesn't have to operate during the multi-day phasing orbit approach to the station. But considering how far advanced the design is already, would you really save much by nerfing the life support system?
Quote from: space nut on 05/01/2010 09:25 pmThis is a shedule I came up with so please see if it is doable.Forget the unemployment and bickering , what does it take to get therewith the plan as it is. It could be Jupiter , It could be new.see attached shedule.What's Mars Pheobus?
...Based on this I would say that the probability of NASA starting FY11 under a Continuing Resolution at FY10 levels, with the statutory prohibition against Constellation termination in place, approaches unity.
...Jupiter offers lower cost-to-LEO than any existing launch system, for chemical. It also gets the investment in launch systems out of the way to enable investment in nuclear...
...There is *intense* bipartisan anger directed at the president over this space bill. Danderman's assertions on this website about the opposition being "fragmented" are pure FUD...
Quote from: 93143 on 04/30/2010 05:58 pmI said Block I. That's the LEO version. The MMOD, radiation, and thermal environments are exactly the same for this version as for the CRV version, it performs the exact same sequence of maneuvers, and unless I've misunderstood the planned mission sequence for Orion on Ares I to ISS, it has to remain docked at the station for similarly long periods of time.Yes, I know you did, but, and I might be wrong here, so forgive me if I am, but the plan for the LEO Orion was to strip to 4 seats, short fuel the lunar SM and only deliver & swap out crews on ISS. I didn’t think that 6 month stays at the ISS were envisioned. If that last is true, then my comments still obtain. If the stay was supposed to be 6 months, then some of my comments need to be modified slightly, but the majority of my comments are still relevant.
Hmm: http://pdf.aiaa.org/getfile.cfm?urlX=6%3A7I%276D%26X%5BR%5B%2ES%40GOP4S%5EQ%3AO%225J%40%22%5FP%20%20%0A&urla=%25%2ARD%26%220%20%20%0A&urlb=%21%2A%20%20%20%0A&urlc=%21%2A0%20%20%0A&urld=%28%2A%22H%25%22%40%2AEUQX%20%0A&urle=%27%282D%27%23P%3EDW%40%20%20%0A
I didn’t think that 6 month stays at the ISS were envisioned.
I maintain that it wouldn’t be just the life support system, The SM, at least would be significantly changed and if the stay on station is changed to 5+ years, then a LOT of systems will be very different to satisfy the needs of such a long dormancy period. W.r.t. the SM, as I said, the thrust, propellant, power and expendables needs would decrease drastically. The ship would probably go to batteries (no solar cells), It could probably get by with a small cluster of solids to perform re-entry burn (like Mercury & Gemini), all the life support could likely be contained inside the capsule, power & health monitoring systems would have to be capable of integration with the ISS systems, etc.
Hmm: really interesting link
Quote from: Ronsmytheiii on 05/02/2010 11:22 pmHmm: http://pdf.aiaa.org/getfile.cfm?urlX=6%3A7I%276D%26X%5BR%5B%2ES%40GOP4S%5EQ%3AO%225J%40%22%5FP%20%20%0A&urla=%25%2ARD%26%220%20%20%0A&urlb=%21%2A%20%20%20%0A&urlc=%21%2A0%20%20%0A&urld=%28%2A%22H%25%22%40%2AEUQX%20%0A&urle=%27%282D%27%23P%3EDW%40%20%20%0AAnyone else notice anything... familiar?
Quote from: Downix on 05/02/2010 11:42 pmQuote from: Ronsmytheiii on 05/02/2010 11:22 pmHmm: http://pdf.aiaa.org/getfile.cfm?urlX=6%3A7I%276D%26X%5BR%5B%2ES%40GOP4S%5EQ%3AO%225J%40%22%5FP%20%20%0A&urla=%25%2ARD%26%220%20%20%0A&urlb=%21%2A%20%20%20%0A&urlc=%21%2A0%20%20%0A&urld=%28%2A%22H%25%22%40%2AEUQX%20%0A&urle=%27%282D%27%23P%3EDW%40%20%20%0AAnyone else notice anything... familiar?Elements of DIRECT are all through the Inline configurations........ this is interesting. However, seems like some of the earlier configs as well are in here, note that rs 68 is included, also a ET core stage with no srb, with core ssme or rs68 (we know that doesn't work right?)
Quote from: FinalFrontier on 05/03/2010 04:49 amQuote from: Downix on 05/02/2010 11:42 pmQuote from: Ronsmytheiii on 05/02/2010 11:22 pmHmm: http://pdf.aiaa.org/getfile.cfm?urlX=6%3A7I%276D%26X%5BR%5B%2ES%40GOP4S%5EQ%3AO%225J%40%22%5FP%20%20%0A&urla=%25%2ARD%26%220%20%20%0A&urlb=%21%2A%20%20%20%0A&urlc=%21%2A0%20%20%0A&urld=%28%2A%22H%25%22%40%2AEUQX%20%0A&urle=%27%282D%27%23P%3EDW%40%20%20%0AAnyone else notice anything... familiar?Elements of DIRECT are all through the Inline configurations........ this is interesting. However, seems like some of the earlier configs as well are in here, note that rs 68 is included, also a ET core stage with no srb, with core ssme or rs68 (we know that doesn't work right?) No, Boeing only proposed the RS-68 variant. The crew-only core-only version (without SRBs) could not use the SSME, it would not generate enough thrust.Mark S.
Closing note: Boeing's radial fuel depot is an interesting concept, as is their linkage of it with an HLV's lifting capability. The use of a single modified ACES upper stage always had the feel of an experimental prototype. The monster that Boeing proposes is a serious bit of infrastructure.
D. Boeing Multi-Launch Dual-Fluid Depot Concept The Boeing propellant depot architecture, shown below in Fig. 11, would include two independent depots in LEO, a reusable propellant carrier and a low-cost launch vehicle, such as the SpaceX Falcon 9. Each depot would consist of a central truss and six tank modules derived from the Delta IV Heavy upper stage. Each depot would be sized to provide sufficient propellant to fill the ESAS Reference Architecture LSAM DM and to replenish the EDS propellant used during ascent37.The truss and empty tank modules would be launched individually on Falcon 9 launch vehicles. Each tank module has a capacity of 25mT. Propellant would be delivered to the depot by reusable propellant carriers with a capacity of 9.4mT each. Propellant carriers would be berthed to the propellant transfer port on the depot truss. A robotic arm removes and releases the propellant carrier following propellant transfer. Propellant carriers would be able to be used a maximum of 10 times before being replaced. A reusable transfer stage is included in the growth plans for the Boeing Depot Architecture.A multiple-tank configuration depot with central truss was selected based on Boeing’s trade study of 13 different concepts.38 Atlas V and Delta IV upper stages were considered as depot tank modules. The Delta IV Heavy upper stage configuration was chosen because the depot capacity requirement could be met with six tank sets instead of the eight required if the stock Atlas V Centaur upper stage were used. Propulsion and avionics system modifications along with additional thermal protection and micrometeoroid and orbital debris shielding were defined and mass properties estimated.The depot modules would incorporate Orbital Express autonomous capabilities for rendezvous and proximity operations.. The truss would include two robotic arms to berth depot storage tanks, propellant carriers and EDS to appropriate locations.Propellant depot capacity was defined by the LSAM DM propellant capacity and the EDS propellant used during ascent. LSAM DM propellant mass, as studied by the NASA ESAS team, varied between 25 and 30mT39. Boeing estimated LSAM DM propellant mass to be 25mT based on the ESAS CaLV Case 2 mass allocation40. The EDS contained 490,744 lbm (222.6mT) at lift-off and 219,443 lbm (99.5mT) remained upon reaching LEO. Therefore, a LEO propellant depot would have to provide a minimum of 147mT to the EDS and LSAM DM.
Table 2. A Comparison of Four Near-Term Depot Concepts<snip>Multi-Launch Modular DepotAdvantages• Large depot capacity, 150mT LO2/LH2 and larger• Integral robotic arm makes berthing of visiting vehicles much easier• Capable of zero boil-off operations or at least very low boil-off.• Could be combined with the dualfluid design above to yield very large propellant depots, >450 mT LO2/LH2 capability• Depot and propellant launch not in mission critical pathDisadvantages• Requires multiple launches• Requires orbital assembly (albeit mostly autonomous)• Large station has substantial stationkeeping requirements