Given the problems that appear to be occurring with Ares I, affecting weights of the Orion, is this a real surprise?

We need to re-think this whole program, including Shuttle shutdown, and beyond.

From what we are hearing the LM folks are being told NET than April 2009, but realistically if SBR completes and kicks off another DAC cycle incorporating some ideas that the iDOT are supposed to bring forward from what I hear end of summer 2009 is more likely or later. Depends how much clean sheet work is incorporated into the DAC. Now if only someone would realize that Ares needs to be addressed also.

I wonder what Orion's schedule would look like if the Ares-I were taken completely out of the picture?

1. We could designate the EELV's to be the LEO launch vehicle. If all of Ares-I funding were diverted and refocused on Orion, I would bet that Orion would be operational on an EELV before the exemption expired in 2011. Translation: no gap! This is the fastest and probably most efficient thing to do but doesn't really contribute to the VSE beyond Orion itself.

2. We could designate the Jupiter-120 as the the launcher. The advantage this offers is that it not only removes the mass pressure that Ares-I is placing on Orion, but also puts the VSE lunar and Mars core launcher on the pad as part of the effort to reduce/eliminate the gap. The disadvantage is that while the gap would be small, there would likely still be a gap, perhaps a year. Can we live with that? I don't know the answer to that.

Personally, I think a combination of the two would be best. Eliminate the Ares and fly Orion to ISS on an EELV in 2011. Immediately following IOC, return to the HLLV effort by fielding the Jupiter-120 for crew plus cargo, and then the Jupiter-232 for lunar and Mars. This has the distinct advantage of now having either two or three man-rated launchers for Orion, depending on if one or two EELV's are man-rated. Never again would we be at the mercy of a launch vehicle system shutdown causing the loss of the ability to fly our own astronauts into space.

I think that this whole Constellation program is the wrong way to go. With that small capsule and the SRBs the only thing reused seems such a waste to me.
There has to be a better way.

>>and the SRBs the only thing reused

Not even that, actually. With a new length, a new fuel formula, new core shape and new nozzle, the only thing reused are the actual casing shells. Everything else is new. Of course, if it's so new, exactly how does it capitalize on the shuttle motor's heritage to be "safe"?

Paul

[quote]...the only thing reused are the actual casing shells.[/quote]

That's all that gets reused with the shuttle motors. How do you reuse the other things you listed?

>>How do you reuse the other things you listed?

You reuse the design.

My apologies if I wasn't clear. By new, I didn't mean that they are made new for each flight, I mean that the basic design is new. All the vaunted heritage comes from the design and if the design is new, there goes the "safe" heritage.

That's the key point. With new design comes new risk that flying the actual casings doesn't deal with. The risk of the casing design is low, but the others are all new.

Paul

According to Mike Griffin, Steve Cook and others we were halfway to a design coming out of ESAS??? You don't design a program in 6 months, wow what a revelation.

CEV has been overweight since the fall of 2005 with not much being done. CEV was awarded late to LM with a lot of catch-up to be done. NASA can't operate like a normal bureaucracy and stay within cost and schedule on this type of advance schedule program.

tankmodeler: Sorry if I misunderstood. I agree with you completely.

"Crews have to be reduced to 3.That's the economic sweet spot for rocket launches because it's similar to the weight of nuclear warheads for which ICBMs & facilities were designed."

That is just plain ludicrous. It also could not be any more wrong. The only thing the EELV's have in common with the ICBM's is their name. Additionally, the EELV's facilities are no where like a missile silo. And finally, a Minuteman III can even orbit a ton. The smallest EELV's can put 20klb into LEO. Even the largest of heritage ICBM's, the Titan II, couldn't lift more than 8k lbs.

What news....
And the Congress is planning to extend the Shuttle.
Giving the political situation (in USA and in Georgia), and (the most important reason) is the Ares I-Orion design. Why NASA make a capsule for 6, when the lunar version is for 4 crewmen? The EELV approach is not very expensive they must be man-rated. The EELV derived HLLVs nor the DIRECT have the capacity for planetary missions as the Ares V. But for now a Delta IV Heavy is the only one that can do the job. LM is not planning yet to build the Atlas V Heavy. Falcon 9?
Wait to a successful launch (the Delta 4 Heavy did it)

Fernando;
Orion is sized for transporting a crew of 6 to the Mars Transport Vehicle. This spacecraft is supposed to retain the same OML as used for LEO and Lunar missions. This is NOT a LEO-only spacecraft. It is meant for Mars. That's why it's sized for 6, the Mars mission crew size.

The Jupiter-232 can lift 80% of the Ares-V to LEO. The difference is that for each Ares mission, one small (25mT) and one large (130mT) vehicle is used, placing a total of 155mT into LEO. The equivalent 2xJupiter-232 mission lifts 210mT to LEO.
Ares mission = 155mT
Jupiter mission = 210mT

The Jupiter-based architecture is fine for planetary missions in terms of LEO lift capacity. There comes a point where a big rocket is just unnecessarily too big. The 1.5 architecture forces the Ares-V to be monstrous, and, in my opinion, will ultimately follow Saturn down the path of unaffordablity because of its size.

Not much of a surprise, given the earlier announcement of a launch delay. Whoever is president, they're going to have to take a good, long look at this program to see what can be salvaged.

Let the lesson be clear: When you embrace a design concept that comes off a napkin scribbled-on in the astronaut office, and continue to try to force it when engineers surface the problems, you get what you deserve.

From Ray -- "you get what you deserve". Problem is, all the rest of us are getting this as well. Surely we deserve better.

Problem is, all the rest of us are getting this as well. Surely we deserve better.

The easiest remedy for that is to vote-out incumbents. All of them up for reelection. It is pretty much the only way to get a message across to Congress that we are fed up. Apparantly, a sub-15% approval rating is not getting the message across to their pea-brains.

"The easiest remedy for that is to vote-out incumbents."

Don't vote for any lawyers, teachers, or anyone with 6 degrees to replace them.