Re: Ares vs DIRECT

On Sat, 17 Nov 2007 05:42:50 GMT, Brian Thorn
<bthorn64@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote:

.... NASA would simply have to rename the DIRECT vehicles "Ares II" and
"Ares III" and the general public will hardly notice. Ares V would
still be a possibility for Mars farther down the road.



Well, direct wouldn't be totally "direct." It would still be LOR
unless they ditch the separate lander and tried to land Orion on the
Moon. Then you'd need something bigger than Ares V, more of a
nova-class booster, as they proposed for the direct ascent for Apollo.

Even if they stuck with LOR, it seems to me launching both vehicles on
the same booster would again necessitate a slightly bigger launch
vehicle. I'm guessing the advantage of having the crew launch on an
Ares 1 and eveything else on an Ares V would be to keep the V as small
as possible but still do the job. I know I could be wrong. Anyone
crunch the numbers on this?



----== Posted via Newsfeeds.Com - Unlimited-Unrestricted-Secure Usenet News==----
http://www.newsfeeds.com The #1 Newsgroup Service in the World! 120,000+ Newsgroups
----= East and West-Coast Server Farms - Total Privacy via Encryption =----
.

Relevant Pages

  • Re: Flexible Path? What?
    ... :>: simplifying ground handling and launch preparations. ... Dumping Ares I ... :>and less capability for direct cargo missions. ... ....and there go the cost savings. ...
    (sci.space.policy)
  • Re: Flexible Path? What?
    ... Dumping Ares I ... for lunar missions is difficult to understand. ... If your Orion has a Launch Escape System, ... before getting to the humongous cost and risk... ...
    (sci.space.policy)
  • About Augustine Final Report
    ... In its selection of a crew launch system, ... premium on crew safety, and the Ares I ... But if the SRB of Ares I fails the crew has no "abort capability ... abort a Moon mission with some billion $ still in orbit if there is no proof ...
    (sci.space.policy)
  • Re: Flexible Path? What?
    ... Ares I or not. ... simplifying ground handling and launch preparations. ... and less capability for direct cargo missions. ... substantially increases the minimum cost for a single lunar mission as compared to the ...
    (sci.space.policy)
  • Re: Ares V: Launch Industry Game-Changer
    ... development cost of Ares V doesn't figure into the equation because ... The only way you can make a 10 meter core work is if you power it with SSMEs and take it directly to orbit where it will be incorporated into vast orbiting spaceports and spacecraft a la' Star Trek, and where the expensive reusable engines can be recovered and returned to Earth. ... Their Falcon I rocket would likely be the cheapest way to ... If you want a reusable heavy lift, your best bet is to use SSTO hydrogen powered cores with reusable engines, and hydrocarbon powered reusable boosters, where those boosters are recovered from the ocean or even better, flown back to the launch site. ...
    (sci.space.policy)
Loading