ULA Archecture Superior

[DarkenedOne]

The more time goes by the more it seems like the Constellation architecture is dead. It was already greatly over budget and years behind. Now it seems that it stands a good chance of being cancelled all together if not radically modified. I think it is time we start to consider alternatives to it.

http://www.nasaspaceflight.com/2009/09/ ... ster-plan/

I was just taking a look at the architecture being proposed by ULA. You can check it out on the link above. Personally I think it is a better architecture for a number of reasons.

First of all it is based on rockets that already exist and have a great flight record. According to them only minor modifications would need to be made to their either of their Ares V and Delta IV rockets. Therefore the massive expense of new rockets is no longer necessary.

Second the architecture is open to private and international cooperation. The Constellation program seem to be just like Apollo. It is based on rockets that NASA develops and operates themselves will little to no outside participation. With the ULA infrastructure it appears that private companies and other government agencies will be able to provide fuel to the depot. Competition will of course drive fuel costs down.

Thirdly new technologies will be developed. Constellation disappointed many people including myself because it was merely a larger version of Apollo. In the ULA architecture new technologies such as fuel depots will be developed.

What do you think?

 

[menellom]

Given the recent meetings NASA had with some of the guys advocating DIRECT, I suspect that they'll probably be going in a direction similar to what DIRECT proposed, the Jupiter rocket series... or at least something similar to it.

 

[Valcan]

Given the recent meetings NASA had with some of the guys advocating DIRECT, I suspect that they'll probably be going in a direction similar to what DIRECT proposed, the Jupiter rocket series... or at least something similar to it.

I think if its done right it will come down to cost, mass to orbit, and safety.

Direct accually sounds pretty good for a HLV

 

[pathfinder_01]

The more time goes by the more it seems like the Constellation architecture is dead. It was already greatly over budget and years behind. Now it seems that it stands a good chance of being cancelled all together if not radically modified. I think it is time we start to consider alternatives to it.

http://www.nasaspaceflight.com/2009/09/ ... ster-plan/

I was just taking a look at the architecture being proposed by ULA. You can check it out on the link above. Personally I think it is a better architecture for a number of reasons.

First of all it is based on rockets that already exist and have a great flight record. According to them only minor modifications would need to be made to their either of their Ares V and Delta IV rockets. Therefore the massive expense of new rockets is no longer necessary.

Second the architecture is open to private and international cooperation. The Constellation program seem to be just like Apollo. It is based on rockets that NASA develops and operates themselves will little to no outside participation. With the ULA infrastructure it appears that private companies and other government agencies will be able to provide fuel to the depot. Competition will of course drive fuel costs down.

Thirdly new technologies will be developed. Constellation disappointed many people including myself because it was merely a larger version of Apollo. In the ULA architecture new technologies such as fuel depots will be developed.

What do you think?

Yeap, I wonder how far along would we be today if instead of building the Ares I they took the funding and created a capsule capable of being launched on many boosters. I originally thought the Ares I was doable, but cost overruns, lack of funding, and delays says not. It should not take from 2003 till 2015 or more likely 2017 to put a capsule in low earth orbit. I could understand if it were something new and untried like the shuttle 1969(or 71)-1981 but I think by now we should have mastered how to build a capsule.

I like the fuel depot idea, one of the big problems I had with Ares V was the fact that the rocket that took it too the moon had to wait in orbit and it was cryogenically fueled. It makes much more sense I think to have a fuel depot built to stay in orbit for years than a booster that is only good for a few hours or days before its fuel boils off. It also adds new possibilities (like refueling and reusing a 2nd stage motor instead of needing a 3rd to get to the moon. Or being able to have one mission make multiple landings on the moon. Or just sending the return fuel to mars instead of lugging it all).

I think that is the biggest problem with Constellation, going to the moon and doing it almost the exact same way with no explanation about how it would be more affordable this time. With this approach you could use smaller cheaper boosters to get the job done.