NASA's Constellation Alternative

Status
Not open for further replies.
O

odysseus145

Guest
Sorry if this has been posted already. Phil Plait has written on his blog about NASA's Plan B to get to the moon in case the Constellation doesn't pan out.

http://blogs.discovermagazine.com/badas ... as-plan-b/

"There are some obvious advantages with taking Shuttle parts and using them in a new program. For one, the technology already exists and has been tested in well over 100 launches. For another, the machinery and manpower already exist as well, which would save billions of dollars in new development and training. "

What do you guys think about it?
 
M

mr_mark

Guest
Listen, hint hint, they are going with Ares. They are just giving everyone a fair hearing, It's cheaper and as they've said before in other articles much saferthan shuttle technology. This would cost WAY more than Ares to develope and would not be as safe. As soon as Ares I-X has a safe launch which it will all the momentum will be in Ares' corner. Once a boulder is rolling it's hard to stop. Ares will then go forward along with Falcon 9 and also the Orbital Science cargo vehicle.
 
V

vulture4

Guest
The side-mount cargo vehicle also means we would keep the ET and SRB production lines open, so if it turned out that it was a stupid mistake to kill the shuttle just when it was starting to work, we might have a way back. Woops, better not say that or they'll crush the orbiters with wrecking balls.
 
S

scottb50

Guest
vulture4":3449foxu said:
The side-mount cargo vehicle also means we would keep the ET and SRB production lines open, so if it turned out that it was a stupid mistake to kill the shuttle just when it was starting to work, we might have a way back. Woops, better not say that or they'll crush the orbiters with wrecking balls.
If there is an escape option side mounting would be as safe as linear mounting. The problem with Shuttle is putting the main engines on the orbiter and not the tank. With a TSTO vehicle the second stage and crew module could be side mounted and capable of departing quickly if a first stage failure occurs. This would get the crew vehicle to a point it could return or at least make a controlled arrival somewhere.

The biggest problem with Shuttle is from a fully fueled state to SRB separation there is no escape option and a RLS beyond that is pretty much a theoretical possibility. Simulated but never tested.

If an independent second stage could depart from a launch failure and allow reliable return of the crew the configuration is not a factor.
 
G

gunsandrockets

Guest
The Ares rockets are a waste of money. If NASA must have a heavy lift rocket, then the sidemount type Shuttle-Derived Heavy Lift Launch Vehicle will do the job for the least money. And it's capability is more than enough for future missions. In fact the 1990's era NASA Design Reference Mission 3.0 for Mars (DRM 3.0) included just such a launch vehicle.

But I don't think a Heavy Lift LV should be used for crew launch: Ares V, Shuttle C, Direct or otherwise. And since the Ares I CLV is a joke, if we have to use the current Orion design just launch it via a Delta IVH instead.

In fact a Shuttle C type cargo launcher and a Delta IV crew launcher are probably the options the Augustine committee will look upon most favorably. It's an option NASA should have and could have chosen back when the ESAS report first saddled NASA with the Ares I and Ares V abortions.
 
T

tanstaafl76

Guest
It seems like any side-mount cargo module is going to face the same ice/foam strike problems that the shuttle faces, unless it's not reusable or does not carry humans in which case it doesn't matter so much.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.

ASK THE COMMUNITY

Latest posts