It would seem to me that the lunar surface would be a good test bed for manned habitation of Mars. That is part of the VSE.<br /><br />You can test ISRU and systems there before they ever see Mars. <br /><br />The Moon in many ways is a more hostile environment than Mars so if it can work there it should work on Mars.
- Status
<i><font color="yellow">It couldn't work, so it diodn't matter who is prez </font>/i><br /><br />A full scale SSTO VentureStar wouldn't work. X-33, however, could have flown, perhaps with metal tanks.</i>
<blockquote><font class="small">In reply to:</font><hr /><p>A full scale SSTO VentureStar wouldn't work<p><hr /></p></p></blockquote><br />By no means i am a proponent of SSTOs and especially flawed programs to get to them, but you cant make statements like these either.<br /><br />First, at what point of time it would not work ? AFAIK, VentureStar was just a concept, not a detailed design. So, its performance characteristics, the materials used, the payload numbers and so on, were not set in stone, far from it. <br />That was the reason for building the X-33: get some factual data, flight characteristics, performance and so on to DESIGN VentureStar later on. You could certainly design and build a SSTO right now, with nonexistant payload, and no ability to get back from orbit. With endless amounts of money, testing and persistence, you could also eventually bring it back in one piece. And after throwing more mountains of money after it, employing better lighter weight materials, reiterating engine designs and boosting performance, you could get it to launch a kilogram of two.<br /><br />What i am saying is, with enough money, you could build it. As time passes by, you get better materials to improve your mass fraction, and possibly lower operational costs. Currently, and at the time when VentureStar was planned, it would be horrendously uneconomical to pursue this path and it would probably never pay off. However, time moves on, and somewhere along the line the prospect becomes economical, if it wont be superceded by some other developments meanwhile ( i.e. space elevator )<br />
> <i><font color="yellow">You can test ISRU and systems there before they ever see Mars.</font>/i><br /><br />The Moon and Mars have a very different resource distributions, so I don't think there is a lot of ISRU that can be mapped from the Moon to Mars.<br /><br />Still, there is a lot that can be learned from the Moon effort (as well as ISS) that can help Mars. Increased closed-loop environmental system performance. Better oxygen generation (do you want to go to Mars with the ISS oxygen generator?). Better tasting water generation (I've read the Russian water tastes much better than the US water). How to wire a power system. And so on.</i>
> <i><font color="yellow">It couldn't work, so it diodn't matter who is prez</font>/i><br /><br />Since when has issues such as "can it work" been a factor in green lighting funding. <img src="/images/icons/tongue.gif" /></i>
> <i><font color="yellow">I agree with that too. Or put another way, Orion is not suitable for EELV's.</font>/i><br /><br />Are we talking the EELVs that are flying today, or are we talking about any of the family of larger EELVs that are on the drawing board?<br /><br />It seems that a major design decision behind the EELVs was to have a common approach that could cover a wide range of performance scales in order to support a wide range of missions. What is so particularly unique about Orion that takes it beyond any of the potential missions?</i>
<i>> I thought OSP was just for Earth Orbit and not for moon or mars while the Orion is. That makes a big difference.</i><br /><br />OSP was designed to relieve STS of crew-exchange duty and provide a US lifeboat for ISS (this is after cancellation of X-38/ACRV). There was talk of additional capabilities (interplanetary heatshield, more robust SM, maybe refuelling?) as well, but that would have been gravy after making the basic system work. OSP was eminently do-able, and we are several steps backwards from where it, at a modest investment, would have placed us. <br /><br />Orion seems to be following a slightly different development path than you elucidate above. Block 1 will have an appropiate heatshield for LEO, not lunar, return. The link below has the Block 2 lunar CEV about 150kg heavier than Block 1. Block 1 has a crew of 3, Block 2 has 4, it isn't just a single craft. Dragon by SpaceX (which by all evidence will fly before CEV) seats a base of 7 and weighs 8 tons total, with plans to evolve to interplanetary access. Maybe the better question is Ares I in economic trouble? The competition is not just SpaceX, either. Lockheed and Bigelow may field a capsule, plus the other new.space efforts. <br /><br />http://www.spaceref.com/news/viewsr.html?pid=19067<br />http://www.astronautix.com/craft/dragon.htm<br /><br />Josh <div class="Discussion_UserSignature"> <div align="center"><em>We need a first generation of pioneers.</em><br /></div> </div>
I agree with Orion and EELV's not being compatible.<br /><br /><blockquote><font class="small">In reply to:</font><hr /><p>Are we talking the EELVs that are flying today, or are we talking about any of the family of larger EELVs that are on the drawing board? <p><hr /></p></p></blockquote><br /><br />That sounds interesting. Got any links to larger EELV's on the drawing board?? <div class="Discussion_UserSignature"> <p> </p><p><font color="#0000ff"><em>"SCE to AUX" - John Aaron, curiosity pays off</em></font></p> </div>
Yes, yes, thanks for info....I'm tired of rehashing that era, a little. <br /><br />I was just trying to make a non bullish point. That OSP and Orion are two different animals. (I know they are not animals but machines).<br /> <div class="Discussion_UserSignature"> <p> </p><p><font color="#0000ff"><em>"SCE to AUX" - John Aaron, curiosity pays off</em></font></p> </div>
Evolved Atlas, could fly sooner than Ares I. Biggest improvements are huge new first stages:<br /><br />http://www.google.com/search?q=evolved+atlas&ie=utf-8&oe=utf-8&aq=t&rls=org.mozilla:en-US
fficial&client=firefox-a <div class="Discussion_UserSignature"> <div align="center"><em>We need a first generation of pioneers.</em><br /></div> </div>
fficial&client=firefox-a <div class="Discussion_UserSignature"> <div align="center"><em>We need a first generation of pioneers.</em><br /></div> </div>Ok that link has no numbers.<br /><br />What I am finding though is in wiki:<br />http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Atlas_V<br />Atlas V: Payload to LEO 10,300 - 20,050 kg<br /><br />http://www.nasa.gov/mission_pages/constellation/ares/aresI.html<br />Ares I: Payload to LEO 25 tons or 22 679.618 5 kilogram<br /><br />So Atlas V does not stack up to Ares I, missing about 2000 kg.<br /><br />But what's this about a new upper (2nd) stage (replacement for Centaur?) then and where does that put Atlas V's capabilities? <div class="Discussion_UserSignature"> <p> </p><p><font color="#0000ff"><em>"SCE to AUX" - John Aaron, curiosity pays off</em></font></p> </div>
>> In reply to:<br /><br /> />> A full scale SSTO VentureStar wouldn't work<br /><br /><br /> />By no means i am a proponent of SSTOs and especially<br /> />flawed programs to get to them, but you cant make <br /> />statements like these either. <br /><br />Indeed, reusable SSTOs become more capable as they get larger and at some (very large) size one could be built with relatively mature technology. It's not that it's impossible, just that it's impractical. That can give guys like VT hope because what's impractical now may not remain so forever.
<blockquote><font class="small">In reply to:</font><hr /><p>One big problem is the EELV lofting trajectory during ascent. This does not allow a survivable CEV abort. <p><hr /></p></p></blockquote><br />Im not claiming any knowledge in the matter, but this claim has been repeatedly refuted by certain people on NSF forums.<br />
"Any EELVs on the dreawing board or not are not suitable. One big problem is the EELV lofting trajectory during ascent. This does not allow a survivable CEV abort. If the trajectory is changed then the payload capability of the EELV is reduced and the EELV can not launch a CEV into the planned LEO. "<br /><br /><br />This was solved for OSP. There is no lofting "issue"<br /><br />Also Dr Mikey has stated since the reliability of ELV's are good enough for billion dollar NASA flag ship spacecraft and national security payloads, they are good enough to be manned. <br /><br />It seems Mikey talks from both sides of his mouth
"I am in agreement with Dr Griffin that EELVs are not suitable for Orion. "<br /><br />He and many other KSC personnel don't agree with you
>> <i>"He and many other KSC personnel don't agree with you "</i><br /><br /> /> <i><font color="yellow">You are not correct in that griffin disagrees with me.</font>/i><br /><br />Change in direction... What is the progress status of the Ares I? Have some of the various technical issues (e.g., size/shape of the grain) been resolved?<br /><br />I seem to recall there was a plan for a fairly early test launch with a dumby upper stage (was it for 2008?). Is that still on track?</i>
<blockquote><font class="small">In reply to:</font><hr /><p>BTW, In Griffin's all hands, telivised on NASA TV last week, this question was asked and he said, once again, the lofting issue is real and it does wliminate the EELVs for CEV. <p><hr /></p></p></blockquote><br />People are claiming that there is no documentation or analysis available on this, inferring that no analysis was done.<br />Can you provide a cite or pointer to any documents that would prove otherwise ? Has Griffin done that ?
> <i><font color="yellow">Can Griffin do it ? Can you tell us the reason why you cant ?</font>/i><br /><br />I am not sure how high up the food chain shuttle_guy is, but I suspect his ability to lean on Griffin is limited.</i>
Its not the question of food chain, and leaning on anyone. I just wanted to know what prevents them of pointing to the sources on their claims. Maybe its some policy issue, or regulations, ITAR, whatever. <br />Coming out and saying : "sorry, its a national security issue, cant disclose these documents" would be satisfactory. I was just thinking maybe s_g KNOWS why Griffin isnt telling and can tell us as well.
There's no secret. Try looking in the 90 day report. I think the analyseses are there. <br /><br />A lot of goofballs, rocket scientist wannabes, low level engineers in a snit and anti-government liber-terrorists will yap on and on about how "EELVs can do everythign NASA wants...assumming NASA completely changes their requirements to accomodate what the EELVs can do."
"This was solved for OSP. There is no lofting "issue" " <br />BTW, In Griffin's all hands, telivised on NASA TV last week, this question was asked and he said, once again, the lofting issue is real and it does wliminate the EELVs for CEV. "<br /><br />It is doesn't matter whether it is OSP or CEV or any other capsule, the fix is the same. Mikey is telling a untruth. Lofting has been fixed for years, he just keeps bringing it up. Both Atlas and Delta can (have) redesigned their trajectories to eliminate "black" zones.<br /><br />Mikey and Whoritz keep bringing it up to justify their love child "the Stick"<br /><br />As for the assine comment about that CEV can fly on EELV's if requirements are changed. CEV requirements have been changing to accomodate the stick. 5.5 to 5 meters, CEV performing 3 burns to insert itself into orbit and lowering weight requirements
Boy, some of you guys must think Griffin is almost god-like in that he can operate a conspiracy of such magnitude! I mean one man apparently has fooled the president (OK, that one is no big deal I'll grant you!) fooled the congress, cowed Aerospace mega giants Boeing and LockMart. Convinced hundreds of engineers to work on an "impossible" project all so he can...uh, what exactly is his motivation supposed to be again? Is it part of his clever plan to produce a rocket that won't work so he can be fired and humilitated? It must be something to do with all of the power that ATK wields with its workforce one tenth the size of Boeing's.<br /><br />No mater what NASA or anyone else proposes the naysayers are going to come out of the woodwork--espeically on anonomous forums like this. <br /><br />"The CEV is too big."<br />"The CEV is too small."<br />"The CEV should have wings."<br />"The CEV should be a Soyuz clone"<br />"We should put 6 people on the moon."<br />"We should put 2 people on the moon."<br />"The Stick is not shuttle derived enough."<br />"The Stick is too shuttle derived."<br />"VSE should use LOR."<br />"VSE should use EOR."<br />"VSE shouold loiter at L2."<br />"VSE should use on orbit refueling."<br />'VSE should use one HLLV."<br /><br />....and on and on and on. We have all heard these arguments and many more made by people who know just enough to fancy themsleves experts. Ideas that by themselves are reasonable and in many cases have already been investigated and discarded by NASA for various reasons.<br /><br />Conspiracy theories and monday morning quarterbacking are fun, but at some point we actually do have to let NASA get on with its job. I can only imagine that some people's agenda is to try and hamstring NASA so that it can't do anything and hope it withers on the vine.
<font color="yellow">You are not correct in that griffin disagrees with me. </font><br /><br />He either disagrees with you, or he lied in congressional testimony. Pick one.
- Status
TRENDING THREADS
-
-
-
-
-
SpaceX launches 250th Starlink satellite mission, lands rocket at sea (photos)- Started by Admin
- Replies: 0
-
-
Facebook
Twitter
Instagram