"David Spain" wrote in message
...
"Jeff Findley" writes:

"Greg D. Moore (Strider)" wrote in
message
What about us pro-science liberals who are glad to see Ares get the ax?

I think this is the right move.

Absolutely.

That said, rumor is that a shuttle derived HLV will emerge from the ashes
of
this announcement and Orion will continue (without the lunar program).
NASA
Spaceflight.com has a story along those lines on its front page today.

Jeff

I agree with this also. Although rather than Orion, I'd prefer to see the
development of a truly cost effective small shuttle (no payload bay)
mounted
in line on an EELV, that could land nearly anywhere. Water landing
capsules
are not going to be cheap to recover even if they can be reused.

I don't see any advantage in a small shuttle. Orion originally had a
requirement to land on land, but that was dropped. Parachutes and air bags
(or similar) have the advantage that you can land essentially anywhere
that's relatively flat and relatively free of obstacles. Primary landing
sites are essentialy the same as winged vehicles, like Edwards Air Force
Base. But, in an emergency, you could land anywhere in the Great Planes in
the US. The Great Planes are very large, very flat, and mostly farmland.
Plus, you don't have to worry about your craft sinking after splashdown.

Now that Ares I is dead and lunar missions are dead as well, this
requirement could be added back in a "commercial" version of Orion. Don't
think for one minute that the Orion contractors won't propose a "commercial"
version of Orion. They've got to find some way to keep that gravy train
going.

Use a man-rated (whatever that means) Dragon as a phase one crew delivery
system until the mini-shuttle is ready.

Or a "commercial" Orion.

Even after mini-shuttle is available there may be still good reasons to
keep
using Dragon capsules, esp. as one-way delivery vehicles.

I was never a Constellation fan. I never saw how the program would sustain
itself w/o a Cold War imperative beyond a single administration. Even with
a Cold War imperative, Apollo couldn't do it. It would appear that history
is repeating itself.

With the return-to-the-moon distraction gone, we can now really for once
focus on the infrastructure rather than the destination. In effect I don't
see this as an ending at all, but truly a beginning.

I really do hope they focus on infrastructure, like LEO refueling depots.
Depots mean you can launch missions which would not fit (fully loaded with
fuel) on an existing launch vehicle. You could even modify upper stages of
launch vehicles with refueling capabilities so that a dedicated "EDS" like
stage wouldn't be needed at all.

Jeff
--
"Take heart amid the deepening gloom
that your dog is finally getting enough cheese" - Deteriorata - National
Lampoon