Ares and Constellation to get reviewed

"Jeff Findley" wrote in message
...

"Pat Flannery" wrote in message
dakotatelephone...
http://blogs.orlandosentinel.com/new...new-study.html


It's about time.


Amen.




--
Greg Moore
Ask me about lily, an RPI based CMC.

"Greg D. Moore (Strider)" wrote in message
m...
"Jeff Findley" wrote in message
...

"Pat Flannery" wrote in message
dakotatelephone...
http://blogs.orlandosentinel.com/new...new-study.html


It's about time.


Amen.


The death of the Vision has been obvious since the start. When the goal
is CORRUPT a poor ending is almost certain and easy to predict.
The repubs have made it a habit to allow industry to design legislation
that suits themselves. Such as having oil industry execs design our
energy bills, polluters designing clear air legislation etc etc.

Lockheed et all designed the Vision to suit their bottom line, not ours, and
of course it's garbage for us and gravy for them. This simple fact, that
it benefits the boardroom and not the taxpayers is why it has so little support
and is doomed to die on the vine.....at best. With typical being a wasteful
debacle.

I say fix Orion, kill the Ares heavy and the stick, and use EELV's for now, and
.....continue if not dramatically increase the military space plane program.
Let SSTO's, low cost to orbit come from the military race with the Chinese.
Then have NASA figure out what to do with low cost to orbit when it comes.
Something that benefits the most people possible, not the least possible
with the Vision. So it has the most support possible, not the least.

That's why I like Space Solar Power, it requires low cost to orbit first, while
having the potential to benefit and inspire.....literally....

everyone on the planet



IMHO.







--
Greg Moore
Ask me about lily, an RPI based CMC.

Jeff Findley wrote:
"Pat Flannery" wrote in message
dakotatelephone...

http://blogs.orlandosentinel.com/new...new-study.html



It's about time.


"What do you mean Griffin used the SRB because 'That's what the Magic 8
Ball told him to do'? Are you saying decisions at NASA are made by using
a Magic 8 Ball?"
"Signs point to yes."
"Could you go into more detail on this?"
"Better not tell you now." :-)

Pat

On Wed, 06 May 2009 04:16:05 -0500, Pat Flannery
wrote:

http://blogs.orlandosentinel.com/new...new-study.html


The problem with Ares is that it is about 50% NASA bungling and 50%
Congressional meddling (behind the scenes insistence on laying off as
few Shuttle workers as possible.)

Nothing will change with this study. It will come out and say "EELV is
better." or "Jupiter is better", and Congress will say "we'll take
that under advisement, now go build Ares."

Sigh.

Brian

So? Your point, please. Seems a lot of the anti-Ares I stuff going around is
from folks upset that their "preferred" rocket (EELV-whether Atlas or Delta,
or whatever) didn't get picked. Remember that Congress will have a lot to
say, given as how Ares I (and Ares V, when it starts the acquisition and
test process) has work spread around the country. Kinda like the F-22, or
any other defense program: once started, very, very difficult to kill.
"Pat Flannery" wrote in message
dakotatelephone...

http://blogs.orlandosentinel.com/new.../05/is-ares-i-
adequate-obama-administration-or-order-a-new-study.html

Pat

"Matt Wiser" wrote in message
...
So? Your point, please. Seems a lot of the anti-Ares I stuff going around
is
from folks upset that their "preferred" rocket (EELV-whether Atlas or
Delta,
or whatever) didn't get picked. Remember that Congress will have a lot to
say, given as how Ares I (and Ares V, when it starts the acquisition and
test process) has work spread around the country.

So do all the other 'rockets'. Delta IV (my preferred LV for Orion -
already in production; 100% success rate [none have gone BOOM! at least];
lower vibration; under-utilised work force just twiddling their thumbs),
parts of which are built in Decatur and also in California.

The only things that would be needed to use the D-IV Heavy for Orion would
be new launch towers at LC-39 - oh wait a minute; so does Ares 1 (not in
production; HIGH vibration problem; less than successful heritage; higher
pollution [both atmospheric and noise] etc).

My problem is _your_ tax dollars (remember, I'm not American) being wasted
on a vehicle which is simply not needed. And we all pay for that in the
long run - even non-Americans - with higher communications costs (fewer
D-IVH being launched, leading to higher costs for that vehicle; with little
or no possibility of Ares 1 being used for commercial launches); less access
to space and so on.

Alan Erskine wrote:
Delta IV (my preferred LV for Orion -
already in production; 100% success rate [none have gone BOOM! at least];


Which certainly beats Delta III. :-)
Yeah, but I'd agree Delta IV is he way to go, particularly since it has
the inherent ability to be scaled up to things that make even Delta IV
Heavy look small via the use of the identical propulsion/propellant
modules (an idea that Chelomei would certainly have approved of:
http://www.astronautix.com/lvs/ur700.htm ) ...Atlas V doesn't have that
modular approach to its design without using solid strap-ons.
God knows what the ultimate derivation of Delta IV would be like.
A lengthened or fattened core stage to double its propellant capacity
with six standard modules around it.
At liftoff, the core stage and four of the six strap-ons fire.
Then the four strap-ons separate, leaving the core and two now-ignited
strap-ons to ascend till burn-out of all three.
Then the upper stage ignites...this being another standard Delta IV module.
We've never run into the ability of using LH2/LOX in a whole rocket
before; in fact, back when I was a kid they were predicting that no
LH2/LOX rocket would ever get off the pad under its own power without
some sort of non-cryogenic aid.

Pat

"Pat Flannery" wrote in message
dakotatelephone...
Atlas V doesn't have that modular approach to its design without using
solid strap-ons.

Not quite true. The Atlas V can be scaled up - remember, the engine is half
of the Energia strap-on - that would make a bitch of a launch vehicle if the
first stage were treated the same way as the CBC.

God knows what the ultimate derivation of Delta IV would be like.
A lengthened or fattened core stage to double its propellant capacity with
six standard modules around it.

I've seen a Boeing graphic for Delta IVmods over 100 tonnes LEO. It would
be as close to the current D-IV as the current Delta II is to the Thor
(different engines; larger diameter stages; and even 'slush' LH2), but even
the existing components are scalable.

Alan Erskine wrote:
Not quite true. The Atlas V can be scaled up - remember, the engine is half
of the Energia strap-on - that would make a bitch of a launch vehicle if the
first stage were treated the same way as the CBC.


Still not as easy as the Delta IV approach though.


God knows what the ultimate derivation of Delta IV would be like.
A lengthened or fattened core stage to double its propellant capacity with
six standard modules around it.


I've seen a Boeing graphic for Delta IVmods over 100 tonnes LEO. It would
be as close to the current D-IV as the current Delta II is to the Thor
(different engines; larger diameter stages; and even 'slush' LH2), but even
the existing components are scalable.


I'd still go the unmodified Delta IV modules if you could get away with
it though; mind you it might end up like the first of iteration of Nova
as far as base width to height goes: http://www.astronautix.com/lvs/nova.htm

Pat

...Here's the big elephant in the room nobody at NASA wants to admit
is the the sole reason for going with Ares is to retain the Shuttle
infrastructure without retaining the Shuttle.

� � � � � � � � � � � � � � � �OM

just a payoff to existing suppliers without care for costs and
anything else for that matter