End of Constellation

I thought the SRBs had steerable nozzles to facilitate the 106 degree roll manoeuvre right after lift-off. How about building a launch pad facing the right way?

The SSME's have enough control authority to do nearly any manoeuvre on their own.

The first of the two rolls is done for aerodynamics, for orbital alignment and is huge because they used the old Saturn pads.

The Buran on the other hand, was a clean sheet booster on a clean sheet pad. It also does a large roll manoeuvre shortly after liftoff. When an American observer asked why it rolls, the reply was that it rolls because the Space Shuttle roll and the Americans must have had a good reason.

Seriously? That's brilliant!

Its apparently true.

However, the Shuttle is capable of both equtorial and polar orbits. Due to its asymmetrical lift it has to roll to face the direction its heading, so a new pad could never have been aligned anyway.

I don't recall the shuttle ever actually doing a polar orbit mission. Wasn't there a second pad built at Vandenberg for polar launches, and it was converted for Titan instead?

I think the highest out of plane they ever flew was 62 degrees on STS 36.

To get back on topic... The military is going to miss Ares V.

The proposed cancellation might have a good outcome: it might get a lot of people who don't much care about spaceflight to start caring more, especially in the legislature.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Vandenberg ... ce_Shuttle

As for Buran... it really is funny how much they did "because the Americans are doing it, so there must be a reason..." If they only knew the truth

If I remember correctly though, Buran would have been capable of Polar Orbit missions, which is more likely the reason they copied the roll capability. That and the Buran was a payload of the Energia Booster and did not have engines of its own (not for getting to orbit anyways). the Energia booster was supposed to be a do all type booster, with several configurations, payload capabilities, and orbital inclinations. For only two launches, both of which were successful, (the payload failing to do it's job is not the booster's problem ) it was a vehicle with a lot of potential. Probably still could be if the money was there. Unless you are US or China military though, getting a hold of that...(money that is,lol)

Constellation was always the wrong tool for the wrong job. It didn't advance spaceflight, and the focus on sending men to Mars was never a useful plan. NASA should be focusing on innovation, exploration and research. The Moon Base -> Mars plan was always just theater.

It's easy to say that, but the latest discovery of water on the Moon shows that Constellation was aimed in the right direction, even if unwittingly.

Fine, it was behind schedule and over-budget, but what major launch system hasn't been? The current administration's cure for being behind schedule and over-budget is to eliminate the schedule altogether. If you have no goals, then there's no way to fail on them.

The replacement of returning Man to the Moon with a hazy undefined agenda of "flexible path" means flexibility to fall back on yourself and do nothing.
Just researching new technologies means pouring lots of money into projects and solutions that don't see light of day. This is the inverse of the X-Prize!

The problem was new technologies were not seeing the light of day under Cx. The new plan is a schedule of demonstrations of new technology so that they can be baselined into future plans.

Like what new technology, then?

What is it that will radically boost US spaceflight capabilities, that will obsolete existing technologies?

Bigger Engines, Aerospikes, lighter heatshields, long term cryogenic storage, NTR's, inflatable heat shields, MCP space suits, robotics, composite tanks, High efficiency solar arrays, long duration manned space flight capabilities, on orbit fuel transfer, ISRU, Inflatables.

Most of these are ready to go, sitting in labs, but have never flown in space so Mars missions can't be built around them.

going to have to disagree with you on that one. the ARES V may have been somewhat on the right track, but Ares I was way off. and what they had to do to the Orion because of Ares I was just.... wrong.

deffinitly agree with that.

@ idiom: NTRs? not sure i recognize that acronym

yeah teh Cx program lacked much inthe way of new innovation. Granted.... Reusing alot of shuttle tech should have allowed for quicker, cheaper develpment to a new interim vehicle. but well... we know how that went

I guess he is referring to Nuclear Thermal Rockets