tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-3673435362400368888.post7851105281925530560..comments2023-04-01T13:39:24.156-07:00Comments on RocketsAndSuch: Sacrificing at the AltairRocket Manhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/05109496878476775729noreply@blogger.comBlogger5125tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-3673435362400368888.post-5533492840019748192007-12-17T23:39:00.000-08:002007-12-17T23:39:00.000-08:00Of course, if one had an architecture based on pro...Of course, if one had an architecture based on propellant depots, this wouldn't be such a problem. You could use your lunar transfer stage to do the lunar orbit insertion if it wasn't also trying to function as a second stage (just to reach orbit)...<BR/><BR/>~JonJon Goffhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/10960488857253480586noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-3673435362400368888.post-85140808672858864302007-12-17T18:15:00.000-08:002007-12-17T18:15:00.000-08:00Off-topic FYI...Today, Congress cut Exploration Sy...Off-topic FYI...<BR/><BR/>Today, Congress cut Exploration Systems, which includes Constellation/Ares 1/Orion, to the tune of $82 million versus the White House request in the conference bill for NASA's FY 2008 appropriations bill. Like last year's flat funding of Constellation, this may force another delay in the Ares 1/Orion schedule.<BR/><BR/>STS/ISS was the only other program area to get a cut and it was considerably smaller. And Congress met the overall request for NASA. It would appear that Congress, or at least the appropriators, are targeting Exploration Systems.<BR/><BR/>Here's a repost of the details from a post at spacepolitics.com:<BR/><BR/>Congress met the White House’s overall request for NASA of $17,309 million. But there is some shuffling of funds, with most programs getting a boost at the expense of Exploration Systems, which includes Constellation/Ares I/Orion, and Exploration Capabilities, which includes STS/ISS.<BR/><BR/>Aeronautics gets a boost of $71 million, from $554 million in the request to $625 million in the bill.<BR/><BR/>Science gets a boost of $61 million, from $5,516 million in the request to $5,577 million in the bill.<BR/><BR/>Even Cross-Agency Support Programs (things like education, SBIR, tech transfer, prizes) gets a boost of $67 million, from $489 million in the request to $556 million in the bill. I don’t know whether any of that falls to useful programs like prizes — I have yet to read the full report language.<BR/><BR/>Exploration Systems, which includes Constellation (including Ares I/Orion) and Advanced Capabilities (exploration technology like new astronaut suits), however, gets a cut of $82 million, from $3,924 million in the request to $3,842 million in the bill. It’s not certain that such a cut would force another delay in the schedule for Ares I/Orion. But the White House request for both Constellation and Advanced Capabilities was already facing a dip going from FY 2007 to FY 2008, so another delay is likely.<BR/><BR/>Exploration Capabilities, which includes ISS and STS, also takes a cut of $58 million, from $6,792 million to $6,734 million.<BR/><BR/>There’s also language in the bill about limiting the amount of funding that goes to overhead functions. I presume that Congress is doing this to make room for earmarks in the report language, which I have yet to go through.<BR/><BR/>There’s still some steps to be taken before these numbers get fixed in stone. They have to be incorporated in the omnibus appropriations bill and that bill has to be agreed to and signed by the President. But obviously there will be no Mikulski/Hutchison miracle, or funding for a Weldon Shuttle extension, yet. And as predicted earlier in this forum, it looks increasingly likely that Exploration Capabilities will take another hit this year, with potential further delays to Ares I/Orion.<BR/><BR/>For those who want to see the numbers themselves, links to the bill and report language at available at NASAWatch.com. Links to the FY 2008 White House request for NASA can be found here (add http://www):<BR/><BR/>.nasa.gov/news/budget/index.html<BR/><BR/>FWIW…Anonymoushttps://www.blogger.com/profile/09376161457880052244noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-3673435362400368888.post-40029262946925853742007-12-15T17:42:00.000-08:002007-12-15T17:42:00.000-08:00"First and foremost, having the lander perform the..."First and foremost, having the lander perform the lunar injection burn, and then carrying the now mostly empty parasitic tank mass to the surface, is one of those big levers."<BR/><BR/>The ONLY way this can be salvaged is if the TLI propellant is housed in some type of drop tank that is jettisoned after the burn is complete. The LSAM *cannot* afford to carry the dead weight of depleated propellant tankage.Unknownhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/13482958353631379312noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-3673435362400368888.post-455384037278557722007-12-14T20:48:00.000-08:002007-12-14T20:48:00.000-08:00Agreed on the futility of tacking the LOI burn ont...Agreed on the futility of tacking the LOI burn onto the lander requirements. I've been wondering about that one for a while, and the only explanation is because Orion would be too heavy for Ares if it was forced to perform the LOI burn.<BR/><BR/>If NASA wants to get Altair to fit within the mass budgets, they should start by de-scoping the requirements. Reduce the number of man-days the lander is expected to last.Mr. Xhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/08537371901494918449noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-3673435362400368888.post-35244200138452147542007-12-14T20:47:00.000-08:002007-12-14T20:47:00.000-08:00This comment has been removed by the author.Mr. Xhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/08537371901494918449noreply@blogger.com