New Jupiter Class Launcher

Page 2 - Seeking answers about space? Join the Space community: the premier source of space exploration, innovation, and astronomy news, chronicling (and celebrating) humanity's ongoing expansion across the final frontier.
Status
Not open for further replies.
R

rocketscientist327

Guest
Jim,<br /><br />This is a great system, but I do not see NASA throwing away all their own work for someone in the private sector. I won't say ever, but hell will freeze over first.<br /><br />This is what kills me about NASA. Is anyone pushing this? This is the first I heard of this program and it sounds promising. I read the whole document, twice now, and I think that with the exception of the ET mods, it should be possible to obtain on the time line that is reported in the document.<br /><br />While I agree with you Falcon has a long way to go, I do like the direction SpaceX is heading.<br /><br />I also like this proposal by ULA. Even though it is "The Empire" they are delivering an entirely new launch vehicle in that they can take a lot more stuff into space.<br /><br />I hope that NASA does the right thing and selects it.<br /><br />Respectfully,<br />Rocket Scientist 327
 
J

jimfromnsf

Guest
"This is a great system, but I do not see NASA throwing away all their own work for someone in the private sector.....I also like this proposal by ULA"<br /><br />What I meant by private is that the Direct proposal was put together by a group of private individuals and is not associated with ULA.<br />The actual Direct vehicles have been studied by NASA and its contractors many times over the last 25 years. So there is nothing new there, the proposal just replaces Ares I and V with another SDLV<br /><br />
 
H

holmec

Guest
<blockquote><font class="small">In reply to:</font><hr /><p>1. It doesn't matter whether there is a manned capsule or a cargo canister on top of a the launch vehicle. The same processes would be used to launch them. Just as the same processes right now are used for a comsat or a Mars probe.<br /><br />2. Your idea has less launches on more vehicles, which decreases safety. There isn't enough manned flights to get proficient . For instance, there is only a requirement for 2 CEV launches a years and maybe 4-6 cargo launches. 2 flights a year is not a good flight rate to maintain proficiency, especially for a manned system. 6-8 on the same vehicle would be better.<br /><br />3. A launch vehicle used for cargo and capsules would be able to have a higher flight rate which would allow for more monitoring of trends.<br /><br />4. Also most launch vehicles are swiss knives. There isn't specialization needed for a manned launch or any others <p><hr /></p></p></blockquote><br /><br />That's a lot of assumptions, its not my idea...its NASA's. <br /><br />1. Yeah right, try to get cargo to pull the abort handle.<br /><br />2. number of flights won't change for either system. To ISS there will be same number of launches. To the moon use ARES I and ARES V. Launches to the moon won't be frequent, so moot point. <br /><br />3. Flight rate??? You mean how often it flies? Minimal difference. Besides, have you met our Congress?<br /><br />4. Uptil now. <div class="Discussion_UserSignature"> <p> </p><p><font color="#0000ff"><em>"SCE to AUX" - John Aaron, curiosity pays off</em></font></p> </div>
 
J

jimfromnsf

Guest
It is not NASA's intention to have a specialized launch vehicle only for crew, see below They aren't "assumptions", they are basic rocket science<br /><br />1. Huh? Abort is a spacecraft function, not launch vehicle function. All the launch vehicle provides is a health monitoring system. This system would fly on all missions and would provide trend data on cargo missions<br /><br />2. Wrong. There are cargo flights to ISS that could be done by an Orion launch vehicle (which doesn't have to be the stick. <br />3. Again, the Orion launch vehicle doesn't have to be the Stick. If it were EELV's, it would benefit from USAF missions<br />4. Nope, up till now is not applicable. ATK wants to market the Stick for other mission types. Also the Stick is not a given. There will be changes<br /><br />
 
H

holmec

Guest
<blockquote><font class="small">In reply to:</font><hr /><p>2. Wrong. There are cargo flights to ISS that could be done by an Orion launch vehicle (which doesn't have to be the stick.<p><hr /></p></p></blockquote><br /><br />I thought NASA did away with those cargo missions, I think they replaced them with crew and cargo missions. Also you deviated from your previous post saying "2 CEV launches a years and maybe 4-6 cargo launches." Thus giving the idea that the cargo launches were not using CEV (Orion). So now if you say that the cargo launches are using Orion, then that nullifies your original point here that there are fewer launches.<br /><br />Thought I have been mentioning crew launches, I'm not opposed to those Orion cargo launches because it uses the same orbiter. I'm guessing the difference in launching or prepare for launching is minimal, no white room crew for cargo and all. <br /><br />But if your going to use the 'Jupiter 2' for ISS, it seems that some combined launches would happen and you end up with less launches. Because it would have the capability of launching crew and cargo in separate orbiters.<br /><br /><br /><blockquote><font class="small">In reply to:</font><hr /><p>4. Nope, up till now is not applicable. ATK wants to market the Stick for other mission types. Also the Stick is not a given.<p><hr /></p></p></blockquote><br /><br />But the 'Stick' is becoming a reality!<br /><br />ATK only has the Solid Rocket first stage, Beoing has the second. <div class="Discussion_UserSignature"> <p> </p><p><font color="#0000ff"><em>"SCE to AUX" - John Aaron, curiosity pays off</em></font></p> </div>
 
R

radarredux

Guest
> <i><font color="yellow">ATK only has the Solid Rocket first stage, Beoing has the second.</font>/i><br /><br />Interesting note: A few weeks ago AW&ST said ATK's proposal for the Ares I upper stage was technically superior to Boeing's. But as we know, Boeing won the contract to almost no one's surprise.</i>
 
J

jimfromnsf

Guest
I said Orion "launch vehicle" meaning whatever vehicle is used to launch the CEV without the Orion<br /><br />"But the 'Stick' is becoming a reality! "<br /><br />Don't bet on it
 
H

holmec

Guest
<blockquote><font class="small">In reply to:</font><hr /><p>I said Orion "launch vehicle" meaning whatever vehicle is used to launch the CEV without the Orion<br /><p><hr /></p></p></blockquote><br /><br />???? You made up a definition. Orion is the CEV, not a launch vehicle. <br /><br />I don't see anywhere you said that. Here's you whole quote:<br /><blockquote><font class="small">In reply to:</font><hr /><p>2. Your idea has less launches on more vehicles, which decreases safety. There isn't enough manned flights to get proficient . For instance, there is only a requirement for 2 CEV launches a years and maybe 4-6 cargo launches. 2 flights a year is not a good flight rate to maintain proficiency, especially for a manned system. 6-8 on the same vehicle would be better.<br /><p><hr /></p></p></blockquote><br /><br /><br /><br /> And its still a contradiction. Because now your talking about Ares I launches without Orion. NASA did away with those. <div class="Discussion_UserSignature"> <p> </p><p><font color="#0000ff"><em>"SCE to AUX" - John Aaron, curiosity pays off</em></font></p> </div>
 
C

crix

Guest
I think he meant whichever vehicle is used to launch the Orion capsule (the CEV). I.e, the Orion launcher is currently called Ares I.
 
H

holmec

Guest
True, but that's not what he said. If he would have said it, why would you put it in a context where Orion is not used? It makes for a very confusing statement.<br /><br />In contrast what he did say was:<br /><blockquote><font class="small">In reply to:</font><hr /><p>For instance, there is only a requirement for 2 CEV launches a years and maybe 4-6 cargo launches.<p><hr /></p></p></blockquote><br /><br />He's flip flopping between Orion cargo launches and non-Orion cargo launches. And its just not working with his point. <br /><br />But this is off the subject. <div class="Discussion_UserSignature"> <p> </p><p><font color="#0000ff"><em>"SCE to AUX" - John Aaron, curiosity pays off</em></font></p> </div>
 
H

holmec

Guest
Well, let me sum up what I'm taking away from this little discussion.<br /><br />1. The fact that more consecutive launches translates to better safety. Jim brought that up, and I agree and appreciate that very much.<br /><br />2. Jupiter 2 vs Ares I, V. While using Jupiter 2 would use the same launcher for all missions, that would translate in an increased number of launches by one launcher. But at the same time it might decrease the total number of launches due to Jupiter 2's capability of launching crew and cargo. Which reduces the number of launches by one launcher, but could be a plus to reduce total cost.<br /><br />So I conclude that Jupiter 2 and Ares I would have similar safety rate, all thing being equal. And in that context Jupiter 2 may reduce cost.<br /><br />But all things are not equal are they? What is the cost difference in propellant using Jupiter 2 over Ares I. I don't know, but I suspect that since Ares I uses solid fuel than liquid fuel, and I heard somewhere that the solid fuel used is cheaper than liquid, that Ares I might be cheaper to operate in that regard.<br /><br />But that's not the end of the story either, because you have assembly costs to compare, and also setting up for assembly costs (which Ares I is more expensive, supposibly). <br /><br />So all in all it seems to me that Jupiter 2 and ARES I are not that far off in costs from one to another except for setting up for assembly costs, which I think is the big driving force here.<br /><br />But my concern was safety of the crew when launching cargo and crew. That's because of the the STS program. But it the crew abort system alleviates that concern, then fine. I do remember the Saturn I and V not having such safety issues as the STS. <div class="Discussion_UserSignature"> <p> </p><p><font color="#0000ff"><em>"SCE to AUX" - John Aaron, curiosity pays off</em></font></p> </div>
 
J

jimfromnsf

Guest
"For instance, there is only a requirement for 2 CEV launches a years and maybe 4-6 cargo launches."<br /><br />I never said they were on the same vehicle. My point is that if the 2 CEV flights and the 4-6 COTS II cargo flights used the same launch vehicle (and not necessarily the Ares I) it would be better.
 
J

jimfromnsf

Guest
"You made up a definition. Orion is the CEV, not a launch vehicle. " <br />I did not. Ares I is the current "Orion" launch vehicle, which used to be called CLV. What I meant by "Orion" launch vehicle is any vehicle that could be used to launch the CEV<br /><br />The 4-6 cargo launches are the COTS II launches.
 
G

gunsandrockets

Guest
I haven't read the new PDF file yet, but I hear from other sources the updated plan makes extensive use of orbital propellant transfer. Is it true?<br /><br />It certainly would make the basic two launch lunar mission plan of the Directlauncher more practical than before.
 
H

holmec

Guest
then this is what threw me off:<br /><blockquote><font class="small">In reply to:</font><hr /><p>2. Wrong. There are cargo flights to ISS that could be done by an Orion launch vehicle (which doesn't have to be the stick.<p><hr /></p></p></blockquote><br /><br />Which led me to believe:<br />1. Orion capsule is used<br />2. a launcher other than Ares I can be used<br /><br />What I now hear you say is:<br />1. Ares I is used with some cargo oribter.<br />2. And Ares I doesn't have to be used.<br /><br />Its extremely vague and misleading. I mean if its an Orion launch vehicle without Orion then its not Orion launch vehicle!!! Further more your changing the launcher!!!<br /><br />I assumed you were not trying to contradict yourself, but in reality you were. Ares I used but not used.....contradiction! <div class="Discussion_UserSignature"> <p> </p><p><font color="#0000ff"><em>"SCE to AUX" - John Aaron, curiosity pays off</em></font></p> </div>
 
J

jimfromnsf

Guest
"I mean if its an Orion launch vehicle without Orion then its not Orion launch vehicle!!"<br /><br />Any vehicle designated to fly Orion is by default an "Orion" launch vehicle whether or not the capsule is flying on a specific mission<br /><br />"a launcher other than Ares I can be used "<br />This is my point. If Orion flew on EELV's and the COTS/cargo missions used EELV's there would be synergism and it would be inherently safer than having a dedicated launcher that only flew Orion.<br /><br />This was to counter your argument<br />"In other words I'd much prefer a launcher dedicated to crew launches than a launcher that can do it all"<br /><br />
 
H

holmec

Guest
<blockquote><font class="small">In reply to:</font><hr /><p>Any vehicle designated to fly Orion is by default an "Orion" launch vehicle whether or not the capsule is flying on a specific mission<p><hr /></p></p></blockquote><br /><br />Wrong and illogical! Its always because its launching it. This is why I say your inventing terms that don't exist. <br /><br />When your talking about launching something else other than Orion, then its that something else's launcher, not Orion's.<br /><br />And in this case you use the words 'Orion launch vehicle' and 'the stick' when you really don't mean either at all, but COTS II. How much sense does that make?<br /><br />And why use two different terms for the same thing in the same sentence? <div class="Discussion_UserSignature"> <p> </p><p><font color="#0000ff"><em>"SCE to AUX" - John Aaron, curiosity pays off</em></font></p> </div>
 
J

jimfromnsf

Guest
Huh? Read carefully. I am using simple terms and they are not made up<br /><br />"AN Orion launch vehicle" is a generic term *. It could be applied to any vehicle potentially used to fly an Orion capsule, Delta IV, Atlas V, Direct, Ares I, etc. I am talking theoretical.<br /><br />Right now, THE Orion launch vehicle is Ares I.<br /><br />If Delta IV was use as AN Orion launch vehicle and COTS II there would be synergism. <br /><br />I used "AN Orion launch vehicle" because I doubt you would have understood CLV. <br /><br />* DMSP is a program that has flown on many launch vehicles. A DMSP launch vehicle could mean Titan II, Atlas E or Delta IV. GPS will be flying on D-IV and A-V, which will be GPS launch vehicles
 
H

holmec

Guest
<blockquote><font class="small">In reply to:</font><hr /><p>Huh? Read carefully.<p><hr /></p></p></blockquote><br /><br />Ok lets:<br /><br />compare:<br /><blockquote><font class="small">In reply to:</font><hr /><p>2. Wrong. There are cargo flights to ISS that could be done by an Orion launch vehicle (which doesn't have to be the stick.<p><hr /></p></p></blockquote><br /><br />with:<br /><blockquote><font class="small">In reply to:</font><hr /><p>I never said they were on the same vehicle. My point is that if the 2 CEV flights and the 4-6 COTS II cargo flights used the same launch vehicle (and not necessarily the Ares I) it would be better.<p><hr /></p></p></blockquote><br /><br />And according to you these have the same meaning. But I say the first one is misleading and can convey other meaning than you want it to convey, while the second one is clear.<br /> <br />So to me "Orion launch vehicle" is Ares I with Orion on top. To you it means a Ares I used to launch Orion but in the context of cargo flight that doesn't use Orion, and maybe not Ares I. Contradictory argument.<br /><br />Yes you did give it a new meaning:<br /><blockquote><font class="small">In reply to:</font><hr /><p>I said Orion "launch vehicle" meaning whatever vehicle is used to launch the CEV without the Orion <p><hr /></p></p></blockquote><br /><br />No one can make that logical leap even with a pole vault.<br /><br />If your convince its that meaning, why don't you put it in wiki to inform the rest of us? Oh right wiki is not a source, and you would have to say "thus says Jim".<br /><br /><blockquote><font class="small">In reply to:</font><hr /><p>I used "AN Orion launch vehicle" because I doubt you would have understood CLV.<p><hr /></p></p></blockquote><br /><br />I understand NASA notation better than your poor communication. Don't insult my intelligence.<br /><br />I did a google search, and no one is using it like you did here. <div class="Discussion_UserSignature"> <p> </p><p><font color="#0000ff"><em>"SCE to AUX" - John Aaron, curiosity pays off</em></font></p> </div>
 
C

CalliArcale

Guest
Misleading or not, I think jimfromnsf's intent has been cleared up now and we can move on. <img src="/images/icons/wink.gif" /> <div class="Discussion_UserSignature"> <p> </p><p><font color="#666699"><em>"People assume that time is a strict progression of cause to effect, but actually from a non-linear, non-subjective viewpoint it's more like a big ball of wibbly wobbly . . . timey wimey . . . stuff."</em>  -- The Tenth Doctor, "Blink"</font></p> </div>
 
S

solarspot

Guest
I'm not entirely certain this post belongs in this thread, but it is tied to Jim's comment earlier in the thread about flight rate. What if, instead of Ares 1 being used for a minuscule number of manned flights and nothing else, what if several Ares 1 launches were used to launch fuel, replacing the role of Ares 5 in Lunar missions? I know many of us dislike Ares 1, but it's development has already begun, and it may or may not prove to be safer for a crew than EELV's. So why not have the man-rated booster fill the role of both crew transport and cargo? NASA will have to foot the bill for more Ares 1 launches, but this will be a tiny fraction what it would cost to develop Ares 5.
 
J

j05h

Guest
ARES I will cost about half an ARES V per launch while delivering 1/4 the payload. Not really a deal. <br /><br />Josh<br /> <div class="Discussion_UserSignature"> <div align="center"><em>We need a first generation of pioneers.</em><br /></div> </div>
 
Status
Not open for further replies.

ASK THE COMMUNITY