Evaluation of Alternative Vehicles

[winkhome]

http://blogs.orlandosentinel.com/new...t-capable.html

and for good measure

http://www.orlandosentinel.com/news/...,2722764.story

[Rick]

I admire their enthusiasm in this lost cause. I am not trying to hurt or insult anyone, but it ain't gonna happen.

[Me2]

I admire their enthusiasm in this lost cause. I am not trying to hurt or insult anyone, but it ain't gonna happen.

Obviously you are talking about Ares.


The vehicles shown here were presented by the shuttle program and separately by Boeing.

These have better backing than Direct but also it gives some credibility to Direct's assertion that Ares isn't the way to go. It also give some credibility to Direct itself

[Rick]

Obviously you are talking about Ares.


The vehicles shown here were presented by the shuttle program and separately by Boeing.

These have better backing than Direct but also it gives some credibility to Directs assertion that Ares isn't the way to go. It also give some credibility to Direct itself

No, I wasn't talking about Ares Jim. You should know better than that.

Directs credibility will become much more prevalent if anyone who has taken part in the engineering process has the guts to expose themselves for the good of the idea.

That won't happen, hence my original statement.

[spacefan]

The fact Shannon had NASA's permission to present a competing system to the panel shows it is possible to to disent from the party line as long as it is done in a professional and civilised manner.

I quite like this new iteration of shuttle C the performance is decent and it can service a lunar mission. Should constellation get the boot (hopefully not) seems a rational choice as a stopgap.

Why were Boeing helping to present it, do boeing brass have wind of something?

[Rick]

[QUOTE=spacefan;9937]I quite like this new iteration of shuttle C the performance is decent and it can service a lunar mission. Should constellation get the boot (hopefully not) seems a rational choice as a stopgap.QUOTE]

I do to, but it would be scaled down, as this vehicle could not boost the current lunar lander configuration.

[Me2]

.

Why were Boeing helping to present it, do boeing brass have wind of something?

Boeing presented their "SDLV" options and EELV's options

[Me2]

I do to, but it would be scaled down, as this vehicle could not boost the current lunar lander configuration.

And what is so magical about current configuration? That is another ESAS issue. They didn't do a sensitivity analysis on landed lunar weight vs LV architecture costs. This is another thing Direct has been harping on. There is nothing special about the current lander requirements that couldn't be adjusted to suit a better and cheaper LV.

[spacefan]

http://www.orlandosentinel.com/news/...,1857977.story

Reading the above it seems constelation may be in some dificulty. Clearly the contractors are positioning themselves in the event the current architecture is cancelled.

http://www.mcclatchydc.com/homepage/story/71521.html

It is interesting to note above that Bolden is down playing any mars mission in the forseeable future. This weakens the case for the current proposals the whole point of Ares V is that it can do the moon and also service mars missions. If Mars is off the agenda then NASA could really make do with less capable but cheaper rockets.

[Rick]

And what is so magical about current configuration? That is another ESAS issue. They didn't do a sensitivity analysis on landed lunar weight vs LV architecture costs. This is another thing Direct has been harping on. There is nothing special about the current lander requirements that couldn't be adjusted to suit a better and cheaper LV.

I never said it was magical, nor did I endorse it. I am just relayed what the configuration is at the moment, and a side mounted vehicle can't support the current state of Altair.

It doesn't matter to me what Direct is harping on, they harp on everything related to Ares.

[Me2]

It doesn't matter to me what Direct is harping on, they harp on everything related to Ares.

There are more than just Direct harping on it.

[Rick]

Who, other than companies who have a vested interest in Ares being scrapped?

[Me2]

Many experts

[J.McDonald]

Rick, do you eally think the commission would have been put together if there was not some danger of Ares being scrapped?

[Rick]

Many experts

Such as?

[Rick]

Rick, do you eally think the commission would have been put together if there was not some danger of Ares being scrapped?

John, I don't think I ever indicated what you are saying here. I think it was a necessary step, but also think that Ares will be Constellations launch vehicle(s) in the future.

[Me2]

John, I don't think I ever indicated what you are saying here. I think it was a necessary step, but also think that Ares will be Constellations launch vehicle(s) in the future.

Pick the appropriate response:

Yep, keep drinking that koolade.

or

Yep, keep you head in the sand.



Ares is brain dead, just the body doesn't know it.

[J.McDonald]

It is quite clear now that Ares will not put men on the moon before the mid 2020s. Shannon's side-mount concept is a 'plan B' approach to try to rectify this situation, inline 'Direct' approaches do the same thing but remain closer to the current plan.
There are three paths on the road now: stay the course, and watch the HLR be delayed closer to 2030; hope for more money to try and accelerate schedule; change the vehicles and mission design.

I doubt the commission will recommend a HLR date of 2025+ (and even that would be optimistic). They may indeed recommend more money, but do Congress and the public really have the stomach for it? I doubt it. So to me, it is pretty obvious that the third option is what the commission is looking at.

[Rick]

I disagree. But are you surprised? I think SOME in congress will have a fit if the current course is changed.

There may well be a change in vehicle to an EELV. Direct doesn't have a chance in my opinion. And my opinion is more than just opinion.

Please don't ask me what it is, as I can't divulge intellectual, limited information.

[J.McDonald]

So, if not option three, which option will they present? I would hazard a guess that you would suggest rubberstamping of current plans but with a request for more money?
What would you see as the likelihood of this extra money being available?