<i>> There is no "Block 1 Orion". </i><br /><br />Whatever you want to call it. They've talked about different heat shields for different missions, plus other possible changes. NASA's documentation referred to a Block 1 Orion, my apologies if my info is out of date. It's to bad if they did drop the Block designations, as variants and planned design evolution are powerful leverages of a technology.<br /><br /><i>> NASA's statements on Orion/Ares I development progress say nothing to suggest that Ares I will be unable to lift Orion on a lunar mission. The idea that NASA is purposefully developing a spaceflight system that cannot accomplish its mission is absurd. </i><br /><br />There are persistent rumors about roadblocks due to Ares underperformance. I'm not saying they are doing this on purpose, quite the opposite. This is happening because some Good Ol Boys didn't fully vet their concept before making it public, then moved the goalposts when it turned out the original idea couldn't work. The original Ares was an interesting stop-gap (SSRM, SSME) that has grown into something much different. The proper move would have been to re-compete the ESAS launcher in late 2006, when it was obvious that Ares I was not what it seemed. <br /><br />Last, the entire Ares architecture, even if built, will just barely not break the bank. This is again because of designing the payload around the rockets and political budgets. HLV is not needed for going to the moon or anywhere else. Ares I is touted as a MLV that will add to the HLV, but in fact it is entering into a market already overloaded with MLVs that will put it to shame in capabilities and price. <br /><br />Josh <div class="Discussion_UserSignature"> <div align="center"><em>We need a first generation of pioneers.</em><br /></div> </div>