On Apr 10, 8:53 pm, "Alan Erskine" <alan.ersk...@bigpond.com> wrote:
charliexmur...@yahoo.com> wrote in message


news:4b63165b-523c-408f-95fe-eb7394abb59e@c65g2000hsa.googlegroups.com...

On Apr 10, 11:31 am, "Alan Erskine" <alan.ersk...@bigpond.com> wrote:
So, where'd you get your information?

CxP

What's that?

Constellation Program

Alan Erskine wrote:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Orion_2

Surely, they'll be more accurate (parachute guidance?) than even the Gemini
vehicles, which would allow a landing at Cape Canaveral.  There are also
rumours that the land-landing system will be removed if the weight keeps
creeping up; if this is the case, then surely a waterborne landing near Cape
Canaveral is more practical.

Don't forget the service module. Its debris footprint will be short of
the crew module landing zone, and NASA wants to keep that debris
footprint offshore. Hence, a west coast landing for the crew module, if
NASA sticks to land touchdown.

"Alan Erskine" <alan.erskine@bigpond.com> wrote in message
news:i15Lj.7714$n8.2388@news-server.bigpond.net.au...
"Jeff Findley" <jeff.findley@ugs.nojunk.com> wrote in message
news:3ed5e$47fcc34e$927a2cda$13031@FUSE.NET...
Reusability is a bit up in the air. With Orion's problems (many of which
are caused by Ares I's performance problems), I'm guessing that
reusability
is one of the many things they'll drop from the design.
If they just used the Delta IV Heavy like I told 'em....

NASA thinks it has a mandate to keep as many shuttle workers employed as
possible. This includes workers at ATK currently making/refurbishing
shuttle RSRM's and workers at Michoud who are currently building shuttle
ET's. To say nothing of the infrastructure at KSC like the VAB, pads,
crawlers, and etc.

Jeff Findley wrote:
NASA thinks it has a mandate to keep as many shuttle workers employed as
possible. This includes workers at ATK currently making/refurbishing
shuttle RSRM's and workers at Michoud who are currently building shuttle
ET's. To say nothing of the infrastructure at KSC like the VAB, pads,
crawlers, and etc.

Gee, I wonder where NASA could have possibly gotten the idea they have a
"mandate" to do that...?

http://thomas.loc.gov/cgi-bin/query/z?c109:s.1281.enr:

S.1281
National Aeronautics and Space Administration Authorization Act of 2005
(Enrolled as Agreed to or Passed by Both House and Senate)

SEC. 502. TRANSITION.

(a) In General- The Administrator shall, to the fullest extent
possible consistent with a successful development program, use the
personnel, capabilities, assets, and infrastructure of the Space Shuttle
program in developing the Crew Exploration Vehicle, Crew Launch Vehicle,
and a heavy-lift launch vehicle.

I'm still hoping the Ares I program dies a horrible death. At the very
least, ATK's large, segmented solids ought not to have anything to do with
a
manned launch vehicle.

I'm all for Delta IV Heavy - it's already been tested; it's due for its
second mission this year (a couple of weeks - an NRO payload)

This is rather explicit, to the point of dictating Orion, Ares I, and Ares
V. This appears to be nothing more than an endorsement of Griffin's chosen
architecture. The House and Senate certainly didn't chose this
architecture, it's the one recommended to them by the current NASA
Administrator.

"Jeff Findley" <jeff.findley@ugs.nojunk.com> wrote in message
news:d174b$4804e40a$927a2cda$16767@FUSE.NET...

I'm still hoping the Ares I program dies a horrible death. At the very
least, ATK's large, segmented solids ought not to have anything to do
with
a
manned launch vehicle.

It's gunna be a rough ride into orbit if they do use Ares 1.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ares_I#Development_problems and
http://www.chron.com/disp/story.mpl/front/5467711.html talk about the
vibration problem. I still think it's Pogo - just a different source of
the
same problem - instead of propellant lines, it's the actual rocket - a
much
more difficult problem to solve.

I'm all for Delta IV Heavy - it's already been tested; it's due for its
second mission this year (a couple of weeks - an NRO payload) and its
performance is quite well known (problems have been solved). That then
leads to the Delta V concept replacing Ares V.

Jeff Findley wrote:

This is rather explicit, to the point of dictating Orion, Ares I, and
Ares V. This appears to be nothing more than an endorsement of Griffin's
chosen architecture. The House and Senate certainly didn't chose this
architecture, it's the one recommended to them by the current NASA
Administrator.

And they took that recommendation and codified it into law, thus making it
a mandate for Griffin.

This is rather explicit, to the point of dictating Orion, Ares I, and
Ares V. This appears to be nothing more than an endorsement of Griffin's
chosen architecture. The House and Senate certainly didn't chose this
architecture, it's the one recommended to them by the current NASA
Administrator.

And they took that recommendation and codified it into law, thus making it
a mandate for Griffin.

Griffin could go back to them and say, Ares I just isn't working out, how
about Ares II (the Direct LV with two four segment SRB's and two liquid
fueled engines under an ET diameter liquid stage)?

On Wed, 16 Apr 2008 10:27:50 -0400, "Jeff Findley"
jeff.findley@ugs.nojunk.com> wrote:

He doesn't have to ask Congress to do that. It is well within what
Congress mandated. Griffin could go the Direct route tomorrow, if he
wanted to. Some contracts would have to be tweaked (Ares I US become
Direct Stage II, etc.) and the ATK lobby would be screaming louder
than Boeing's fans are about the KC-45 loss, but...

Brian

EELV's would not preserve as many shuttle jobs as Ares or Direct.

Direct seems to be a much more sensible approach to reusing shuttle
hardware than Ares I and V.

"Brian Thorn" <bthorn64@suddenlink.net> wrote in message
news:gsuc04515pgtsa6q8pi5g32vq9j5s1d3i2@4ax.com...
He doesn't have to ask Congress to do that. It is well within what
Congress mandated. Griffin could go the Direct route tomorrow, if he
wanted to. Some contracts would have to be tweaked (Ares I US become
Direct Stage II, etc.) and the ATK lobby would be screaming louder
than Boeing's fans are about the KC-45 loss, but...

I would think, under the terms of the legislation (says something about
using as much STS equipment as possible), that NASA could simply say it's
not possible to use the SRB's due to the configuration. Then, either the
config changes, or the SRB is dropped from Ares 1 and Orion becomes a
Delta
IV Heavy payload.

Unfortunately, this is politically difficult (may be impossible) to do
since EELV's would not preserve as many shuttle jobs as Ares or Direct.
Direct seems to be a much more sensible approach to reusing shuttle
hardware than Ares I and V.

The Jupiter family of launch vehicles is similar to the Saturn INT-21.
The only Saturn INT-21 launched was used to launch Skylab. Essentially
that version is a Saturn V, minus the upper stage. Other Saturn INT-21
variants are made by deleting engines from the S-IC and S-II stages. This
creates a "family" of launch vehicles that are essentially identical,
except for number of engines on the stages.

http://www.astronautix.com/lvs/satint21.htm

There is also a great PDF on the web which contains the results of a study
of Saturn derived launch vehicles.

There's another reason for getting rid of Ares 1 and Ares V - pollution. If
(when?) the dems win the presidential race, they might use any means
possible to cancel both Ares 1 and V (I've also heard of an Ares IV, but
it's not such a great deal). The SRB's aren't anywhere near as
'environmentally friendly' as an LV that uses LO2/LH2 and even LO2/RP1;
that's another selling point in favour of the Delta/RS-68 combination (Delta
IV Heavy for the ISS resupply and the RS-68 for my Delta V idea to replace
Ares V).