EELV Discussion, was: Goodbye Direct/Jupiter, Hello Ares I

[J.McDonald]

Contrary to your opinion, Ares I is indeed breaking new ground. The use of solids to completely power a manned vehicle stage is unprecedented.

I believe it was actually myself, rather than 'Me2', who suggested that. But your response is missing the point. Developing Saturn meant creating a whole new kind of vehicle, because its performance was so far in excess of anything that had been built yet at that time.
By contrast, launching a 25t payload to LEO is Ares-I's job, and whilst NASA have chosen a route that requires unprecedented design elements, the job itself is something that is well within the capabilities of more proven systems and methods. It is ironic that EELV is now looking safer, simpler, and sooner than Ares-I.

[Spacenut]

It is ironic that EELV is now looking safer, simpler, and sooner than Ares-I.

What information can you post here that says that its so???

[J.McDonald]

What information can you post here that says that its so???

OK....

Safe: The faul tolerance level for Ares-I has been reduced to the same standard as an EELV now. Further, would you not believe the argument that the real-life data we have on EELV launches should be weighted more heavily than the numbers ascribed to Ares-I in a paper study (ESAS) especially since the design has diverged from that original starting point. TO mitigation systems weren't part of the equation when Ares-I's safety numbers were calcuated. A second blow to 'paper' safety numbers can be seen by how wrong NASA were last time they did this; the STS does not have a 10,000:1 chance of failure, does it?

Simple: Is it simpler to slightly modify an existing vehicle (that is, instalaltion of a few new parts, mostly in relation ot fault detection), or to build a brand new first stage which is technologically ground-brekaing, coupled with a brand new upper stage, the whole thing held together with a never before attempted TO damping system?

Soon: From the OSP program, it appears that an EELV could be readied in about two years or so. Ares-I will keep us waiting until 2015- for a total prgram length of over eleven years.

[Rick]

.... it appears that an EELV could be readied in about two years or so. Ares-I will keep us waiting until 2015- for a total prgram length of over eleven years.

Which vehicle are you referring to? What type of testing would need to be achieved prior to strapping humans on it? How long would that realistically take?

[Me2]

No 'testing" is required. Just the addition of a LV health monitoring system that would activate an escape system.

[Rick]

For which launch vehicle Me2? My interest is being peeked.

[Me2]

Both Atlas V and Delta IV, which were looked at for OSP. Before Griffin, under Stiedel, EELVs were going to launch the CEV.

It would be more like 3 years now


Atlas V Heavy (it could be ready 30 months from ATP)

Delta IV as is could launch an unmanned CEV to ISS.

Single Core Atlas V Phase II 4 years.

The real long pole is launch pad mods for crew access towers, which envelope other needed changes (CEV umbilicals, services etc).

All which could be done before Orion is ready

[Rick]

Would not the Atlas V Heavy be in pretty much the same boat as Ares, as it doesn't even exist yet?

P.S. I am going to move this thread to the EELV forum, where it probably belongs.
P.P.S. Just some of the thread replies, not the whole thread.

[J.McDonald]

Would not the Atlas V Heavy be in pretty much the same boat as Ares, as it doesn't even exist yet?

P.S. I am going to move this thread to the EELV forum, where it probably belongs.
P.P.S. Just some of the thread replies, not the whole thread.

Sensible thread move, thanks Rick.
I'm less qualified to answer this than Me2 is, but if you consider the facts I don't think that Atlas V heavy and Ares-I are 'in the same boat'. Atlas was built with the three-core version in mind, and the basic hardware involved (i.e. the engines and the stages) is already flying; Ares, on the other hand, requires a brand new first stage and a brand new upper stage powered by a brand new engine. None of those 'new' things applies to Atlas. To the best of my knowledge, the only reason that an Atlas heavy has not yet flown is that nobody had bought a launch on one.

[Rick]

Good points John.
I'm going to have a chat with some of my EELV buddies (many who were sucked into the program when ULA took over) and see what their opinions are.

It's not that I don't believe Me2 or you, but I tend to gather as much information from as many as possible sources before making up my mind on things such as this.

Also, I am not opposed to EELV, as I am as far as Direct goes. I'm sure that is crystal clear, hoefully. I still am in the Ares corner however for a multitude of reasons which I've outlined.

Thanks for the input!

Rick

[Me2]

Would not the Atlas V Heavy be in pretty much the same boat as Ares, as it doesn't even exist yet?

It went to CDR and the pad and facilities are scarred for it. But the engines, cores, and upperstage exist.

[J.McDonald]

How does a CDR compare to a PDR?

[Me2]

How does a CDR compare to a PDR?

PDR
http://nodis3.gsfc.nasa.gov/displayD...#_Toc159347556

CDR

http://nodis3.gsfc.nasa.gov/displayD...#_Toc159347557