Search results

Could well be true, but certainly the effect of the SRBs altered DIRECT's plan, and NASA apparently studied reverting to SSMEs as well. Couple links - http://www.nasaspaceflight.com/2008/12/ssme-ares-v-undergoes-evaluation-potential-switch/...

Aren't they the engines that they recently discovered would get destroyed due to the heat from the SRBs if used in a Shuttle type stack? Hence why Nasa is looking into making them regeneratively cooled for Ares V (yet more cost and time to develop). I can't remember the reasoning behind Ares V...

Could probably fit 8 in this little contraption - http://www.lockheedmartin.com/data/assets/ssc/Orion/Toolkit/asteroidScene2_toolkit.gif

John Shannon said, in his presentation of Sidemount, that it's actually more economical to produce expendable SSMEs. In case anyone didn't see the presentation but wants to and doesn't know where to find it - U.S. Human Space Flight Committee-Washington, DC Part 7 on Vimeo - all other meetings...

I'm in agreement with you there. Sidemount is better than nothing, and is sustainable. The irony is that the Inline vs Sidemount SDLV argument has been done a few times before by NASA itself, and the results have each time come out in favour of Inline. Fingers crossed that will be the case again...

I am by no means anything even approaching close to an expert. Yet still I recognise that there is no logical argument to proceed with Ares I. And there are plenty of logical arguments to kill it. You don't have to be a rocket scientist to look at the basic facts surrounding Ares I, its costs...

Ever heard of mass producing? Having one production line where you reel off the same thing say 100 times, is a lot cheaper than having two production lines where you produce two different things about 50 times each. The benefit of having excess payload on one of launcher with Orion means a) you...

If Ares V can't fit everything on one rocket, necessitating a completely new one purely for crew, that should demonstrate that it would be far more sensible to build one midsize launcher, launch it twice, stick Orion on one of them, and save tons on the development and maintainance of two...

The $7bn a year figure refers to both Ares rockets, I and V. Ares I on its looks around $2bn a year (if you want to get an idea for yourself, you can find the powerpoint with the charts at http://www.nasa.gov/offices/hsf/related_documents/index.html, scroll down to the bottom of "meeting...

Exactly, after Apollo gets cut, you've gone backwards! It was designed to get humans to the Moon as quickly as possible. Much money was spent on achieving this. That is never going to be maintained. The response was to try make access into space itself affordable, resulting in the Shuttle. We...

Still can't for the life of me work out why you'd want to persevere with the Ares rockets. Calling for huge budgets is all well and good (I realise you weren't saying it'll happen, I'm just being pragmatic), but completely unsustainable. The program will get cut. Dr Ride's presentation showed...

Yes. The panel will be presenting the option of the current Constellation program with the current budget as a reference point, to demonstrate what will end up happening with the current budget. I think the timeframe was something like Orion on Ares I in 2016 or after (with no ISS to go to...)...

I did catch a fair bit of the meeting, Doug. You covered everything pretty well I think. Ares I is pretty much agreed as pointless. The only way it doesn't bust the budget is if ISS is killed in 2016, and since the rocket itself can't launch manned Orion till around the same period (at...

It would be a huge decision indeed. Doesn't mean it would be the wrong one though. I'll dig out the post or article you're talking about later and have a look more closely. A brand new system, yes. Because that's what this system is, absolutely brand new, not the "Shuttle Derived" one that it...

The panel. The commission. What do you think it's for? Rumours (and admittedly they are mere rumours), that a lot of workers were brought off Ares I recently and moved over to Ares V. Great, I respect his opinion. I'd like to see more of his reasoning behind the claim, however. Amazingly far...

Ares I-X? I have heard that mentioned, wasn't sure whether it was actually on the drawing board officially or not though. Would probably be a good idea.

Since there's some discussion over the Ares rockets in another thread, I thought that instead of doing Kyle the disservice of cluttering his thread up with tangential debates, it may as well come into an appropriately headed topic. Is Ares I dead? If not, should it be killed, immediately? Is...

You seem to think that the commission are actually deciding on the next course of action, from hereon out. They aren't. They aren't recommending any one option to Obama. They aren't dictating which option he'll choose. And, he isn't going to pick Ares solely because "we've flown a testflight"...

Even though, in a delightfully ironic twist, it actually was, or at least something very close to it. Many times. I'm sorry Kyle, I can't help it!

Apologies Kyle, I do tend to like tangents. Update away!