Breaking news? - Admiral Steidle resigns

BWhite · 2005-06-13 19:51:06

Revisions to http://www.spacedaily.com/2005/05061311 … 3.html]ISS completion plans due out later this summer.

Edited By BWhite on 1118713876

SpaceNut · 2005-06-14 05:16:02

So we have the flyoff participants in Lockheed and Boeing, gee who would have thought...

The CEV acquisition strategy is a multi-phased project. Phase 1 called for industry to mature their crewed vehicle designs and demonstrate their ability to manage the cost, schedule, and risk of human-rated spacecraft development.
Phase 2, covering final CEV design and production, was scheduled to start with a down-selection to a single industry team in 2008. To reduce or eliminate the gap between the Shuttle's retirement in 2010 and an operational CEV, the Phase 2 down-selection is planned for 2006.

Now how do we get from paper to hardware in less than a year with these giants and be ready for manned flight?

clark · 2005-06-14 05:54:18

I was laughing simply because an "announcement of an announcement" telling us what we already know. Boeing and Lockheed were the only real contenders. t/Space didn't even submit for the CEV contract (they merely publicized their business model...)

All of the main contractors that could have bid on this job simply merged together into two opposing teams.

Now how do we get from paper to hardware in less than a year with these giants and be ready for manned flight?

Quick answer, we don’t. Phase one is the paper study. Both teams will present plans on how they will develop and manage the CEV program, and in 2006, NASA will choose which plan they like best. Call this the “promises, promises” phase, if you like.

This is why some consider the Lockheed design to be a fake, and one that will be modified for the final submission in 2006.

Prior to final selection, this is where NASA can extract the best deal from either company by demanding stricter budgetary compliance from the companies in their program management contract. Might be too much to hope for the end of the cost-plus contract, but Griffin is doing okay so far.

PS- SDV and Thiokol is the wrong way to go.

SpaceNut · 2005-06-14 06:55:10

Nasa CEV project cash flow from fiscal 2005 budget for the CEV is $422 million.
The budget request for fiscal 2006 is $753 million.

Lockheed was previously awarded about $5 million to get to this point in the process.

The two teams were anticipating three-year contracts worth about $1 billion each was the old goal under a flyoff.

But what is the contract goal awards for this now, under a rushed up process with no flyoff?

A selection process and contract award with no hardware built.
Just seems wrong since neither team has any have no manned vehicles at this time in either arsenal of launchers.

GCNRevenger · 2005-06-14 10:50:50

Clark says:

"If NASA is going to build something, then it should be experimental, and it should be cutting edge."

Nonsense. Technology development and exploration are both part of NASA's charter, but they do not have to be persued in the same project when it is obvious that neither can be served efficently.

"Without continued and persistent launches, there is less to publicize in terms of space exploration"

And what of Shuttle flights? Those are big and impressive and in its heyday fairly regular... now-a-days, nobody even knew that Coumbia was up there before it blew up.

I still maintain that a failure will not be catastrophic as losing a Shuttle orbiter and crew. NASA can rightfully just state that no rocket is perfect and load up the next flight. The USAF still trusts multibillion dollar mega spy satelites to Titan-IV, even though its track reccord isn't that good at all, why should NASA be any different? You are being hysterical.

EELV rockets may not be as interchangeable as you think either, it is quite unlikly that Boeing will be able to build a man-rated version of Delta-IV Medium at all, and the Heavy would be both expensive and difficult to meet minimum reliability needs. Likewise, Lockheed's Atlas single-barrel can't possibly match the big Delta Heavy without radical modification or making their own three-core rocket. Lockheed predicts this would take a minimum of 18 months to make the basic ~30-40MT version, and I imagine it would easily take a little longer to meet Delta's 50MT.

Performing the odious task of modifying and the certification for both rockets to be man-rated will also cost big money, money that would not have to be spent if only one launch option is selected. This is more important then it sounds, because NASA - unlike back in the Apollo days - needs stacks and stacks of money to DO anything when we get there AND work on what to do next. NASA simply cannot afford to spend more then about a quarter of its exploration budget on launch vehicles.

clark · 2005-06-14 11:43:12

Nonsense. Technology development and exploration are both part of NASA's charter, but they do not have to be persued in the same project when it is obvious that neither can be served efficently.

We have a difference of opinion here. I would rather see NASA buy what it needs, helping to invigorate the private aerospace industry. I would rather NASA develop cutting edge technology and applications, rather than building their own in-house rocket that will only ever be used by NASA.

And what of Shuttle flights? Those are big and impressive and in its heyday fairly regular... now-a-days, nobody even knew that Coumbia was up there before it blew up.

Shuttle flights were never regular, even in their heyday. They were few and far between, and people didn’t watch because NASA did a poor job of explaining exactly what they were doing. And when people did tune it, it was universally to watch the big fireball of Challenger and Columbia.

I still maintain that a failure will not be catastrophic as losing a Shuttle orbiter and crew. NASA can rightfully just state that no rocket is perfect and load up the next flight. The USAF still trusts multibillion dollar mega spy satelites to Titan-IV, even though its track reccord isn't that good at all, why should NASA be any different? You are being hysterical.

Okay, I’m being hysterical. You are acting dumb. A multi-billion dollar cargo on a half billion dollar rocket, and you think NASA can just shrug it off? Maybe billions don’t mean much to you, but Congress will ask a lot of questions and demand an answer before NASA launches again.

As for USAF, they routinely insure their sats. NASA has no such option.

EELV rockets may not be as interchangeable as you think either, it is quite unlikly that Boeing will be able to build a man-rated version of Delta-IV Medium at all, and the Heavy would be both expensive and difficult to meet minimum reliability needs. Likewise, Lockheed's Atlas single-barrel can't possibly match the big Delta Heavy without radical modification or making their own three-core rocket. Lockheed predicts this would take a minimum of 18 months to make the basic ~30-40MT version, and I imagine it would easily take a little longer to meet Delta's 50MT.

Perhaps, but I am more inclined to trust NASA and the rocket engineers on this assessment than you. You’re batting average when it comes to what can and cannot be done with rockets is woefully low. :laugh:

BWhite · 2005-06-14 13:14:55

http://aviationnow.ecnext.com/free-scri … 45]Thiokol says they can fly CEV by 2010.

BWhite · 2005-06-14 13:23:30

shuttle_guy is a poster at space.com who apparently works for NASA at Kennedy on the shuttle (d'oh!)

He posted this comment over there:

An input from a credible source at MSFC...
Jim Snoddy's team has generated a negative assessment of the EELV options for the CEV launcher. They would be required to meet the NASA structural safety factor of 1.4 for human-rating. Both the Delta IV and Atlas V are currently rated at 1.25 structural safety margin. This increase in the structural safety margin would require a requalification program for the EELVs. MSFC has generated cost estimates for these structural mods along with various performance upgrades to achieve the CEV lift capability. This is being used as a basis for ecommending the SDLV In-Line Medium launcher for the CEV.

It true, this is called building a case. . .

Edited By BWhite on 1118777039

Admiral_Ritt · 2005-06-14 13:51:40

My guess is if the SDV does not get approved a Mars Mission
will not be attempted with the current hardware/propulsion
system technology. Here is why.

While NASA HQ may approve of most of Zubrin's Plans for
a mars mission. I doubt that they will buy into it 100%.

Me, there is no way I would Tether two spacecraft to create
artificial Gravity. I am sure NASA believes It can safely be done with high reiliability, but the problem is Public Opinion. Once the public finds out what would happen in case of "Tether Failure" there would be strong opposition to it.

I think our mars ship is going to be a ship 120 feet long by 20 feet wide. It will weigh over 450 tons, bulk weight. it will spin for gravity. with the engines and crew compartments at opposite ends.
The fewer sections that a ship is assembled from the better.
SDV could do it in 4 Launches, 4 pieces. The other EELV's
would need 7 launches/pieces. This is even a low estimate
you may need 5 SDV launches. Which converts to 9 EELV's
launches. Don't the probabilities for a mission critical launch failure go up with more launches also?

Yes, it's the Shuttle hardware but mainly the engines, SRB and ET. it's a lobotomized shuttle program and Best of all NO TILES are required.

clark · 2005-06-14 14:00:26

Rumsfeld versus Griffin. Who do you think has the President's ear?

SDV and Thiokol is a good argument, don't get me wrong. But a convincing argument can be made for EELV, and that's all you need.

I will be very surprised if a non-EELV route is chosen, I just don't believe that Griffin has the support in the White House for it.

BWhite · 2005-06-14 14:16:37

Like I said, I'd love to be at that meeting.

clark · 2005-06-14 14:19:21

I'll see if I can get you a day pass.

Fledi · 2005-06-14 14:20:46

I am sure NASA believes It can safely be done with high reiliability, but the problem is Public Opinion. Once the public finds out what would happen in case of "Tether Failure" there would be strong opposition to it.

Uh oh, what will the public think when they find out what a "tether failure" would mean for any suspension bridge, cable railway, balloon car, ...

Admiral_Ritt · 2005-06-14 14:53:31

The public will shut down NASA if you have essentialy
long slow death for the crew. Everyday theere would be countdown to the end of lifesupport capacity by the press.

Add to that red meat the fact that the ship and dead crew
would be unretreivable, never to be seen again, at least in
most people's lifetimes.

So yeah, for those reasons I would not send a tether-gravity
ship out there. It has the potential to end manned US missions for a Decade or two.

Fledi · 2005-06-14 15:00:52

For that simple thing you can have 100 parallel tethers, each with a safety factor of ten and still be very light weight. If one tether breaks it can be retrieved and repaired by the very complicated procedure of tying a knot.
You seriously think we can launch a small capsule on top of a 1000 tonnes of explosives safely, but are unable to connect 2 pieces with a rope?

Admiral_Ritt · 2005-06-14 16:57:56

You don't need the damn tethers. Are you assuming a 1 G Effect That is not necessary. All you need is about
.3 G's A MODESTLY long ship can do the same thing by
tumbling E-to-E. If you need to get the crwe into shape for return to earth, More vigorous exercise will get the job done

Also, I did not mention it on a such a tube shaped spaceship
it is easier to put redundancies into your design.
for example: The ship can have Two thrust plants
and two indepedent Crew Modules at each end of the
ship. You could possibly do that in a tether ship but
but during an emergency as the wise HAL 9000 once said.

"I am afraid without space helmet Dave, you are going to find
that rather difficult"

Fledi · 2005-06-14 17:16:21

Yeah but then Dave did it anyway

I don't say it can't be done by a long ship like the Discovery from Odyssey 2001, that is fine, too. Although a tether might have some advantages if you plan on using a nuclear reactor in one of the modules, but ok the radiators would be more difficult to attach to that end because of the acceleration.
You must know I'm a bit biased with tethers because of my favorite project, the giant orbiting rotovator tether.

edit: also just calculated for 1g tip acceleration for a mass 50 meters away from the center of rotation you get a speed of 22meters/second relative to the center. Nothing even a small simple emergency propulsion system couldn't cope with in the VERY unlikely case of total tether separation.

RobertDyck · 2005-06-14 17:44:22

Are we talking about details of spacecraft design in this thread now? Ok. Admiral_Ritt brought up tethering two spacecraft for artificial gravity. The Mars Direct design uses a single spacecraft tethered to the spent upper stage. If there's a problem you can cut the tether and continue in the single spacecraft in zero gravity. Since rotation for artificial gravity is used during transit to Mars, it would use gravity the same as Mars: 0.38G.

That can be done easily with a Spectra or Kevlar rope like those used by mountain climbers. Graphite fibre is stronger but doesn't bend very well, and I don't know about impact strength from jerking the line. Mountain climbing rope is made for that. As for temperature, the outer layer of spacesuits is Ortho-fabric: a double layer with Goretex outside (ETFE fluoropolymer fibre, a form of Teflon) and the inner layer is Nomex and Kevlar. So Kevlar is already used in space. A space tether would use Kevlar woven in the same pattern as climbing rope so it has some stretch to handle jerking, and an outer casing of Goretex fibre. Simple and proven. Nomex is used to make spacesuits fire proof, it's the same stuff as fire fighter jacket and pants. You don't need to make the tether fire proof, there's vacuum.

The only problem with rotation is how do you manoeuvre? Theoretically you can fire thrusters when the spacecraft is in the direction you want to move so you only pull on the tether, never slacken it. However, experiments by NASA with long space tethers found problems with oscillations in the tether. Manoeuvring must not induce oscillations. The experiments did not rotate, which would create tension that would dampen oscillations. But manoeuvring is a technology that has to be developed in Earth orbit first.

Fledi · 2005-06-14 18:06:11

Only the plastic deformation part of the tension (that would warm up the tether) would really damp the oscillations. This would not exactly improve the lifetime of the tether, though.
What we need is an easy way to damp them and get their energy back into the rotation. There are possibilities like having a weight travelling the tether at varying speed or just a mechanism that can winch in the end and release it back out with differing force and so take the oscillation out of it.
Of course we need successful tests in Earth orbit before we proceed with anything like that.

edit: if we want to continue this discussion we should do it in a new thread or in an old one that already deals with this.

Commodore · 2005-06-14 19:13:25

I would perfer a revolver like craft with the pressurized cabins revolving around a center axle.

Tethers make me nervous.

Fledi · 2005-06-14 19:58:40

You will easily get oscillations in space with other structures, too. Was watching the orbital boosting of the first ISS modules with the shuttle some years back and and was surprised how wildly the module began to swing back and forth. I think it has to do with the lack of air friction and gravitational pull that keeps everything on Earth more or less fixated.
But tethers are probably the only present tech way of getting launch costs down far enough and placing the first one in orbit might become an epic adventure like laying the first transatlantic cable.

SpaceNut · 2005-06-15 05:23:52

BWhite:
so if da stick could fly by 2010, what is stopping them from designing it an getting one flying before then?

It would seem that little would be required in the order of design. Start with the capsule work back to the orbit stage and so on back to the SRB booster, adjusting each stages numbers as you go. Trying to use as much as possible of already made pieces where possible.

Admiral_Ritt · 2005-06-15 11:04:40

Is possible to have an abort-safe landing for a shuttle
derived heavy lauch stack? In order to save the payload
pod I mean.
I would think that if you had the quivalent of a Abort to
landing site type malfunction with a cargo pod it would be easier to save it, than a manned orbiter. Obcourse trying to soft land a 80-100 Ton payload without large retro rockets would be PROBLEMATICAL.

Also maybe most of the LOST $$$ would be in the SDV
rocket itself and not payload pod.

New Mars Forums

Announcement

#51 2005-06-13 19:51:06

Re: Breaking news? - Admiral Steidle resigns

#52 2005-06-14 05:16:02

Re: Breaking news? - Admiral Steidle resigns

#53 2005-06-14 05:54:18

Re: Breaking news? - Admiral Steidle resigns

#54 2005-06-14 06:55:10

Re: Breaking news? - Admiral Steidle resigns

#55 2005-06-14 10:50:50

Re: Breaking news? - Admiral Steidle resigns

#56 2005-06-14 11:43:12

Re: Breaking news? - Admiral Steidle resigns

#57 2005-06-14 13:14:55

Re: Breaking news? - Admiral Steidle resigns

#58 2005-06-14 13:23:30

Re: Breaking news? - Admiral Steidle resigns

#59 2005-06-14 13:51:40

Re: Breaking news? - Admiral Steidle resigns

#60 2005-06-14 14:00:26

Re: Breaking news? - Admiral Steidle resigns

#61 2005-06-14 14:16:37

Re: Breaking news? - Admiral Steidle resigns

#62 2005-06-14 14:19:21

Re: Breaking news? - Admiral Steidle resigns

#63 2005-06-14 14:20:46

Re: Breaking news? - Admiral Steidle resigns

#64 2005-06-14 14:53:31

Re: Breaking news? - Admiral Steidle resigns

#65 2005-06-14 15:00:52

Re: Breaking news? - Admiral Steidle resigns

#66 2005-06-14 16:57:56

Re: Breaking news? - Admiral Steidle resigns

#67 2005-06-14 17:16:21

Re: Breaking news? - Admiral Steidle resigns

#68 2005-06-14 17:44:22

Re: Breaking news? - Admiral Steidle resigns

#69 2005-06-14 18:06:11

Re: Breaking news? - Admiral Steidle resigns

#70 2005-06-14 19:13:25

Re: Breaking news? - Admiral Steidle resigns

#71 2005-06-14 19:58:40

Re: Breaking news? - Admiral Steidle resigns

#72 2005-06-15 05:23:52

Re: Breaking news? - Admiral Steidle resigns

#73 2005-06-15 11:04:40

Re: Breaking news? - Admiral Steidle resigns

Board footer