Shuttle derived revival - Space.com

RobertDyck · 2005-06-07 21:58:04

So, you call it new development to replace the shuttle orbiter with an engine pod whose guts are the same as the engine section of the orbiter. Parafoil is from X-38, space hardened Single-Board-Computer is Commercial-Off-The-Shelf developed for communication satellites, thermal blankets are developed, and ablative heat shield is Apollo-age technology. This is new, why? Wait! That was a rhetorical question.

Stop and think. You call throwing away a pair of RS-68R engines at $15 million each to be cheap. I think we have different definitions of cheap. Besides, cargo lifted with such an engine pod will not have orbital circularization engines, or the ability to stabilize the cargo. You need RCS thrusters to either rendezvous for on-orbit assembly, or rendezvous with ISS to complete ISS assembly. Your design just doesn't have what it takes for LEO work.

And Magnum! The Magnum has an axial configuration that requires re-engineering the propellant tank because additional weight from stacking the payload, as well as completely different torsional stresses. I thought you wanted to eliminate development work; the ET redesign is more work than a recoverable engine pod. Because of the different engine location, Magnum requires moving the exhaust hole and hold-down clamps on the Mobile Launcher, and might require changing the flame trench of the launch pad. The real kicker is that Magnum lifts 80 tonnes to LEO while Shuttle-C lifts 100 tonnes. Why would you want to spend the extra development and infrastructure money to reduce the lift capacity per launch? The cost per launch would be the same, but cargo would be 80%. That doesn't make any sense at all.

And finally you are exaggerating about orbital inclination. You are the one who criticized Robert Zubrin for doing that, why are you doing it now? Truth is any object in Earth orbit doesn't know where the Earth's axis of rotation is. That means you can depart Earth orbit for the Moon or any interplanetary trajectory equally from any inclination. Arriving can also be to any inclination, there is no difference. There is no penalty for departing or arriving at a high, low, or any inclination. The problem is launching from Earth surface. The higher the inclination above equatorial the more fuel it takes, but you can't launch to an orbit below your launch site latitude. Changing inclination on-orbit takes a hell of a lot of fuel, but you can depart for the Moon from any inclination so you wouldn't change inclination. Returning to the Earth doesn't matter what your inclination is, because you can use aerodynamics to fly back to the runway. So the only cost to using ISS as your staging location is the cost to get up to ISS. The payload penalty from 185km orbit @ 28.5° to 407km @ 51.6° is roughly 10%, but most of that is due to altitude, not inclination. Increased altitude means that much less fuel to go to the Moon. Higher altitude also means it takes less fuel to keep the space station up. The penalty is much less than you imply.

Oh, you're right about X-38 life support. The summary in Encyclopedia Astronautica said "Design Life: .4 days. Orbital Storage: 4,000.00 days." The text said life support was 9 hours. I missed the decimal point ".4 days". It also said HL-20 "Design Life: 3 days. Orbital Storage: 3.00 days" and didn't mention life support duration. Since that doesn't have a decimal point, that means 3 days life support.

As for why Shuttle-C, remember my preferred mission architecture involves a reusable ITV that's assembled in LEO and crew delivered via space taxi. That permits SDV to be non-man-rated. The only launches directly to escape velocity are the surface hab to the Moon (without crew) and the MAV to Mars. You could also send an unmanned cargo lander to Mars. The ITV and LTV would be sent to LEO.

Also remember I'm counting on just a single Shuttle-C engine pod. That requires a new ET and refurbish/refuel a pair of 4-segment SRBs with each launch. Land the engine pod at the Salt Flats and pick it up with a stock medium flat bed truck with dual rear axle and a truck crane. The truck crane actual picks up the engine pod and sets it on the flat bed. Drive the engine pod back to the Cape via highway. I saw a TV interview with astronaut Julie Payette who said the main engines are not refurbished after every flight; they have a schedule for overhaul. You would start Shuttle-C with a new set of engines so how many flights before the first overhaul?

GCNRevenger · 2005-06-07 22:33:51

Thats correct, it would be a brand new vehicle. You can't just bodily copy the Shuttle engine compartment, so you are going to have to do that over from scratch to accomodate the structural changes due to the heat shield, different positions for the RCS/OMS engines, and so on. Even with all the materials available and nothing new needs developing, its STILL going to cost a pretty big nine-digit sum to actually design, develop, and build the thing. $$$

Frankly I don't buy that your "cheap simple etc" computer could do the job, each SSME has its own control computer on Shuttle, and probobly a spare too. These computers, however, are not capable of controlling the vehicle. The software would obviously require radical work (IBM is asking $7M just for a video codec), which would have to be done brand new for the control computer. $$$

Power systems? Landing guidence systems? Airbags so those expensive engines aren't jarred on impact to hard? Provision for accidental water landing? Cold-soak thermal protection? New, new, new, new some more etc... $$$

And you can't just have a couple' a good ol' boys pick up your pod, oh no... EW type radar to monitor its reentry, perhaps a helecopter to track it to its actual resting place, and a real doozie... specialized personel (NBC suits w/ corrosives handling gear) and equipment for handling the deadly and dangerous OMS/RCS fuel that would still be in the tanks. $$$

"...the main engines are not refurbished after every flight; they have a schedule for overhaul..."

The SSME engines are actually dismantled between every single flight to check every single moving part in them to make sure they work, including the almost-microscope-grade inspection of the fuel lines and perhaps even X-Ray testing for welds and turbopump parts. Oh, and you want to develop a brand new 7-8m wide heat shield, which you'll have to replace on every flight? NASA has proven that it CAN'T refurbish SSME very economically. $$$$$$

So yes, all this compared to $30M of engines for every flight and vastly reduced development complexity will be no more expensive then the engine pod idea. And actually, the reduced development time, difficulty, and risk will infact make up for the engine pod being a few million a flight cheaper for a $300-500M rocket if I'm wrong.

Oh, and then there is the issue about what happens if you lose the thing. Even if you could tear the engines out of a museum piece, how long do you think it would take you to build a new one? I bet that would screw up a tight launch schedule pretty badly, even if it were free... which its not. $$$

And from a performance standpoint, how much is this engine pod going to weigh versus RS-68?

I think there should be a principle here, the Just Get On With It principle, that if you have something that works, its simple, its got no major problems, but it costs only a little more... That its just not worth it to try and eke out a few percent of cost versus the simplicity and low risk.

---------------------------------------------------------------------

Ahhh another publiusr like "side mount = good"

Now, if you are going to go and modify the external tank and KSC for top-mounting to make a bigger heavy lifter, but you are also going to modify the tank to be a side-mount smaller heavy lifter too, why bother if the top-mount can do both? You save having to do one big development step, and you won't be wasting the Shuttle-C development by changing the KSC pad so the C-model can't fly on it anymore. Going inline from the start saves development versus Shuttle-C & Ares... come on Robert, I thought you were good at big-picture stuff.

Inline mounting is also more efficent, Magnum versus the standard 4-segment SRB Shuttle-C can carry 5-10MT more estimated, and thats with the lower Isp RS-68 engines. Shuttle-C can only carry about ~70-75MT with the standard 4-segment SRBs you know. Switch to the RS-68R and Magnum would climb substantially perhaps. Add the 5-segment SRBs, and it would easily hit 100MT probobly even with inferior Isp engines.

And as far as OMS and RCS goes, Magnum does away with the old Shuttle OMS pods and uses a dedicated kick-stage for circulization and probobly Centaur-derived RCS, which can be very easily swapped out with a heavier upper stage to build an Ares-class vehicle. Hows that for saving development?

BWhite · 2005-06-07 22:33:57

So, how do you see it? NASA and Griffin that is.
So how do I feel?

I would be content with this scenario.

PurduesUSAFguy · 2005-06-08 00:20:02

I think that the term SDV is a pretty ill defined term at this point. It could mean anything from current stack + cargo pod to redesigned tank for inline with RS-68r engine pods, which is damn closed to a clean sheet vehicle, so I'm not up to panikcing yet.

If we went with an inline design with RS-68rs, would it be possible to use 4 SRBs arranged around the 'core' rather then the two. SRBs are a very cheap are reliable way to add thrust, and 4 SRBs would really increase the throw weight of the booster.

srmeaney · 2005-06-08 04:44:48

(Dayton3 @ June 07 2005, 16:14)
All of us here should be rejoicing. Not whining.
If NASA is seriously committing to a renewed Heavy Lift launch capability, then it means we're ultimately going to see manned missions beyond Earth orbit.
No currently planned Earth orbital missions require heavy lift.
And I don't really care if the plan is to keep Lockheed or Boeing employees or NASA workers on the job.

I think the big picture is being missed. With reductions in engineers who specialize in rocket science and astronautics it is all that harder to rebuild the skills base when Colonizing Mars comes up. All you can hope is that they will throw in together and set up a company designing and developing a bulk passenger transport that covers the Earth to Moon transport loop on the scale proposed by the Japanese Rocket Society consortium (Mitsubishi heavy industries, Kawasaki heavy industries, ect) for the KankohMaru Space Transport.

The future does not benifit from disposable single use heavylift. It benifits from stuff with reusable life spans in the area of ten, fifty and a hundred years (depending on whether you are discussing the Space plane, the Earth-Mars colony transport, or the space colonies).

If those Engineers are lost from the industry then the policies that caused them to be lost will be perpetuated for centuries to come.

clark · 2005-06-08 05:42:23

So, I tend not to look at what I would personally want to see happen – but rather tend to try to envision what is likely to happen when taking into consideration all of the constraints and opportunities that NASA operates within. What I want really doesn’t matter. What is likely to happen does matter. So that said, I would expect the following to play out, based on the situation right now (tomorrow the situation may change and none of this may be valid).

GregM,

You're in good company in looking at the situation like this. (well, 'good' is relative)

Anyway, most of what you listed, I agree with. No big surprises there in the assessment. However, the one sticking point... SDVL. What are you evaluating that lets you assume SDV development will get the green light when so many of the cards are stacked against SDV development?

All we have to go on is Griffin's small comment that the Exploration Office had tenatively determined, internally, to choose an SDV route. He made this statement during a confrence whose audience included people greatly affected by this decision. Griffin also made statements that he supports SDV development, but he hasn't catagorically stated NASA will build SDV.

So why the leap of faifth here?

Yes, from a technical stand point, going to the Moon without HLLV or SDV would be "silly" (Bill, ) but I think we can all agree that NASA does not always get the chance to do the best thing from a technical standpoint. Politcal considerations almost always trump science (just look at ISS orbit, Shuttle configuration, etc.).

Based on this, and given the needs of other players, I do not see SDV being pursued in any meaningful way.

Fledi · 2005-06-08 06:53:53

GregM,

You pretty accuratly described what could be done at NASA, but forgot about the commercial part. I think they will have a major role to play along the way and wouldn't be too surprised if they became the driving force behind the development of Mars in the long run (thinking there about getting one-way passenger ticket prizes to Mars down to an affordable level).

BWhite · 2005-06-08 08:25:54

http://www.klydemorris.com/strips.cfm?s … 5]Speaking of Mike

or this one about

http://www.klydemorris.com/strips.cfm?s … 56]shuttle derived

and, I http://www.klydemorris.com/strips.cfm?s … 1434]found it

Edited By BWhite on 1118241174

Dayton3 · 2005-06-08 08:30:56

[quot
The future does not benifit from disposable single use heavylift.

Please don't take this the wrong way.

But I don't give a rats ass about the future.

The problem with we space advocates is we keep talking, hoping, planning...praying...for a "future". that we all just know will be great and perfect in regards to space exploration.

We spend too much time on 20 years in the future and not enough on 2 years from now.

I don't care why we're getting new rockets. I don't care if its a NASA jobs program. I don't care if its to get a politician reelected.

What I care is about getting some flags and footprints in as many places as possible as soon as possible.

Focus on the present. The future will take care of itself.

SpaceNut · 2005-06-08 08:37:40

But only if one continues to go after the first execution of flight by that means...

I wonder if an old gemini capsule could be retrofited for use on say the srb boosters for the first spiral 1 for LEO to the ISS could be done.

quick find a museum...

GCNRevenger · 2005-06-08 09:46:12

To partially echo the sentiment that we ought to pay more heed to actually getting started, and in the words of one of Bill's hopeful future AltSpace financiers, just do it.

Nah, Gemini is way too small and infact way way too light.

Another thought or two on the SDV engine pod...

How long does it take to turn the thing around and reintegrate it at Michoud or KSC? If you want to send a two-piece vehicle to Mars, then you need to launch two HLLVs in relativly quick sucession to avoid fuel boiloff and extra crew zero-G exposure. DRM calls for a pair of light SDV launches, rather then a single mega-SDV for each sortie, if a single engine pod can't do this reliably then you will have to build multiples of them, which will inevitibly spend some signifigant time sitting on the ground.

Compare this with SDV cores, built with engines at Michoud just like the old Saturn days, and you could fit several of them in the VAB and all be ready to fly within weeks of eachother without having to worry about if 4-6 rockets can reasonably fly with only one set of engines between them during a particular Mars launch window.

BWhite · 2005-06-08 09:50:56

To partially echo the sentiment that we ought to pay more heed to actually getting started, and in the words of one of Bill's hopeful future AltSpace financiers, just do it.

Burt Rutan said pretty much the same thing at ISDC:

"If NASA is going to use capsules launched on top of expendable rockets, well, why can't they start doing that say next Thursday?"

(paraphrased)

GregM · 2005-06-08 21:21:48

However, the one sticking point... SDVL. What are you evaluating that lets you assume SDV development will get the green light when so many of the cards are stacked against SDV development?
All we have to go on is Griffin's small comment that the Exploration Office had tenatively determined, internally, to choose an SDV route. He made this statement during a confrence whose audience included people greatly affected by this decision. Griffin also made statements that he supports SDV development, but he hasn't catagorically stated NASA will build SDV.
So why the leap of faifth here?

I think SDV is gonna happen for 5 reasons. None of these reasons are at this time solid – so hey, maybe I will be wrong – just trying to read the tea leaves like everyone else. None of which means that I support or am against an SDV heavy lift LV.

1) Griffin has testified to congress that he cannot envision doing the VSE without heavy lift capability.

2) Griffin has said that he believes that the STS system is a fundamentally good launch system. If I remember correctly, I believe that he was saying this in the context of leaving the complexities of the orbiter/spacecraft out of the equation, and focusing on the capabilities of the system as a LV.

3) Politically, shutting down LC-39, the VAB, the LCC, and the OPF is a very difficult sell to congress and the state of Florida – especially when replacement facilities to perform many of the same functions would have to be constructed elsewhere at government cost if LC-39 were shut down. A lot more political and regional support would be garnered if some of the VSE objectives could be accomplished using these existing facilities.

4) Griffin has told Marshall and Michoud that they have a good future with the VSE.

5) Most importantly, there is a VERY strong rumor that NASA will announce in the first week of July its plans to develop and fly some sort of SDV heavy lift LV with an 80-100 ton payload capability (see the NASAWATCH site – it’s usually pretty reliable).

Personally, if NASA decides that they are gonna go the heavy lift route, I would prefer to see a Magnum type booster developed from STS components. I would be surprised to see that happen however, as costs and development times would be greater than some sort of Shuttle-C or Ares vehicle.

As for the other question concerning any envisioned role for the private sector, I DO believe that there will be a spot at the VSE table for them. It will start slowly though. The private sector is gonna have to prove itself on an incremental scale before it gets the big fish. Initially, there will likely be a contract let for privately owned and operated resupply and other related unmanned cargo services to the ISS once the shuttle is decommissioned – something similar to the European ATV system. This will give Kistler, Falcon, Atlas 5, and Delta 4 some potential meaty work. Following that, there will be a need for unmanned launch services in the 10-30 ton payload range to support the VSE. There is even a chance that the CEV may launch on an EELV, although I lean towards the slightly greater likelihood of an STS SRB-derived vehicle for the CEV at this time. If the private sector can prove themselves in these roles – especially in ISS resupply, because it involves both LV operations and spacecraft operations – then I would imagine that they just well might get a larger role in the post 2015 time period. This would likely encompass the period following the first round of lunar missions. This might include crew ferry work to LEO as well as cargo. The architecture for Mars missions is really undefined at this point, so the private sector may or may not have a significant role to play in a direct way for that.

clark · 2005-06-09 06:40:37

GregM, fair enough. Pretty good reasons you have there.

So let’s see how they hold up though…

1) Griffin has testified to congress that he cannot envision doing the VSE without heavy lift capability.

Well, no, he can’t do VSE without HLLV because he needs to be able to go beyond the Moon, eventually. That doesn’t mean he needs SDV to do VSE. Griffin has made a lot of statements to Congress, prior to becoming Administrator- would you happen to have a link to his testimony (or if anyone else does, please provide). Not that I doubt the accuracy here, just want to review.

While Griffin’s opinion is known, how does that translate into being able to secure the SDV development? (After all, Goldin ostensibly wanted to a more robust space program, but had to take his marching orders from the President)

2) Griffin has said that he believes that the STS system is a fundamentally good launch system. If I remember correctly, I believe that he was saying this in the context of leaving the complexities of the orbiter/spacecraft out of the equation, and focusing on the capabilities of the system as a LV.

STS is a good launch system, but is it the best or optimal solution right now? If we are curtailing ISS development, there will be several years where STS goes unutilized. It also creates the temptation to use SDV for further ISS development, to do something with it (SDV) in the interim term before going to the Moon. That reduces available resources to focus on going to the Moon.

3) Politically, shutting down LC-39, the VAB, the LCC, and the OPF is a very difficult sell to congress and the state of Florida – especially when replacement facilities to perform many of the same functions would have to be constructed elsewhere at government cost if LC-39 were shut down. A lot more political and regional support would be garnered if some of the VSE objectives could be accomplished using these existing facilities.

VSE already has enough support. It has consistently received the necessary budgets since Bush made his speech. NASA’s budget has increased while other agency budgets have decreased.

4) Griffin has told Marshall and Michoud that they have a good future with the VSE.

Griffin has told every center the same thing, while also telling them to expect some painful changes.

5) Most importantly, there is a VERY strong rumor that NASA will announce in the first week of July its plans to develop and fly some sort of SDV heavy lift LV with an 80-100 ton payload capability (see the NASAWATCH site – it’s usually pretty reliable).

NASA has a long history of rumors, but I grant that they may want to build the SDV. It’s just a matter of whether or not they will be allowed.

BWhite · 2005-06-09 08:13:00

GregM, fair enough. Pretty good reasons you have there.
So let’s see how they hold up though…
1) Griffin has testified to congress that he cannot envision doing the VSE without heavy lift capability.
Well, no, he can’t do VSE without HLLV because he needs to be able to go beyond the Moon, eventually. That doesn’t mean he needs SDV to do VSE. Griffin has made a lot of statements to Congress, prior to becoming Administrator- would you happen to have a link to his testimony (or if anyone else does, please provide). Not that I doubt the accuracy here, just want to review.
While Griffin’s opinion is known, how does that translate into being able to secure the SDV development? (After all, Goldin ostensibly wanted to a more robust space program, but had to take his marching orders from the President)

Ask, and ye shall be answered:

http://www.spaceref.com/news/viewsr.html?pid=16642]Link - prepared statement released 18 May 2005

Dr. Griffin, 18 May 2005: "Flight-proven Space Shuttle propulsion elements (including the Space Shuttle Main Engines, the Solid Rocket Boosters, and the External Tank, as well as some of the existing Space Shuttle infrastructure and workforce) will be carefully evaluated, as their use may enable more rapid development of crew and heavy lift capability than other alternatives like Evolved Expendable Launch Vehicles (Delta IV and Atlas V)."

Extended quote:

As the Space Shuttle resumes its mission, NASA will begin tackling an equally challenging assignment – ensuring a safe and orderly retirement of the Space Shuttle system by 2010 and a graceful transition of the Space Shuttle knowledge, workforce, and assets to future exploration missions. We need to maintain a robust program that is capable of safely executing the remaining Space Shuttle missions while, at the same time, not displacing the orderly pursuit of necessary transition activities.
This effort could very well be one of the largest single planned transitions NASA (or any federal agency) has ever undertaken. The Space Shuttle program occupies 640 facilities, utilizes over 900,000 equipment line items, and directly employs over 2,000 civil servants and more than 15,000 work-year-equivalent prime contractors, with an additional 3,000 people working indirectly on Space Shuttle activities at all NASA Centers. Thousands more are employed at the subcontractor level in 43 states across the country. The total equipment value held by the Program is over $12 billion. The total facilities value held by the Program is approximately $5.7 billion (approximately one-third of the value of NASA's entire facility inventory), mostly at the field centers. There are also approximately 1,500 active suppliers and 3,000 – 4,000 qualified suppliers that directly support the Space Shuttle program.
Of all these assets, the most important are, of course, the people. Space Shuttle transition will have an unavoidable impact on NASA's workforce. The early transition of workforce elements, the need to retain segments of that workforce, and the transition of program knowledge to future programs must all be addressed. We will ensure that this transition treats these dedicated people with the respect they deserve, and that their knowledge and experience will be captured or converted as we begin the next phase of exploration. There will be challenges, but we will ensure that critical skills are retained for safe mission execution through the operational life of the program.
NASA and the Space Shuttle program will also face significant challenges in terms of balancing different technical and programmatic requirements: (1) maintaining access to the necessary equipment, facilities, and vendors needed through Space Shuttle flyout; (2) identifying and maintaining those capabilities that may be needed for next-generation exploration systems activities, and; (3) retiring unneeded capabilities to free resources that will support future exploration. For example, because the amount of flight hardware accumulated (including spares) will be sufficient to meet the current mission manifest through 2010, several key Space Shuttle hardware vendors and sub-tier suppliers will be ending their relationship with the program prior to 2010. Draw-down decisions need to be made with regard to equipment and facilities which currently support (and are supported by) the Space Shuttle program. These resources will need to be characterized and dispositioned in such a way that either supports exploration goals or removes them from NASA's books.
Many of these decisions depend upon the role that Space Shuttle knowledge, workforce, hardware, and infrastructure will play in follow-on launch vehicles. NASA is continuing to analyze next-generation crew and heavy-lift launch requirements in support of the Vision for Space Exploration, including the degree to which those requirements could be met by boosters derived from existing Space Shuttle propulsion components and systems. Flight-proven Space Shuttle propulsion elements (including the Space Shuttle Main Engines, the Solid Rocket Boosters, and the External Tank, as well as some of the existing Space Shuttle infrastructure and workforce) will be carefully evaluated, as their use may enable more rapid development of crew and heavy lift capability than other alternatives like Evolved Expendable Launch Vehicles (Delta IV and Atlas V). A decision to use Space Shuttle propulsion elements as part of our next-generation space transportation architecture would have a significant impact on Space Shuttle transition planning. However, since these launch vehicle requirements are not yet fully defined, current Space Shuttle transition planning must take into account the risks of prematurely terminating Space Shuttle vendors and retiring equipment and facilities that could possibly be needed to fulfill these requirements.

Since the same workorce that will assemble and launch the orbiter will assemble and launch "da' stick" CEV the development cost of SDV CEV may well fit inside the current budget and fly by 2010.

BWhite · 2005-06-09 08:16:57

If the CEV benchmarks are fly by 2010 and weigh 30MT can EELV possibly compete?

The sad thing is that we probably could have flown "da' stick" launch stack (RSRM plus RL-10s) this week if we had started working on it in January 2004. (Its not like the Thiokol people and the VAB staff and the crawler drivers - - who were not part of RTF - - were real busy these last 16 months.)

Edited By BWhite on 1118326926

SpaceNut · 2005-06-09 08:35:14

So what is the stopping point for the Thiokol people from making "da' stick" for spiral 1 of the vision or for that fact anyone else?

BWhite · 2005-06-09 08:45:38

So what is the stopping point for the Thiokol people from making "da' stick" for spiral 1 of the vision or for that fact anyone else?

Thiokol started lobbying for this last spring (2004).

Sure, they "could" make one for someone else, except Pad 39 at the Kennedy Space Center is the only place you can launch it from.

GCNRevenger · 2005-06-09 09:39:35

If the CEV benchmarks are fly by 2010 and weigh 30MT can EELV possibly compete?
The sad thing is that we probably could have flown "da' stick" launch stack (RSRM plus RL-10s) this week if we had started working on it in January 2004. (Its not like the Thiokol people and the VAB staff and the crawler drivers - - who were not part of RTF - - were real busy these last 16 months.)

I don't like the sound of this... Mikey-G keeps on saying things like this that amounts to a Shuttle-Army "group hug" then he needs to be un-confirmed as soon as possible.

Simple Bill, that the "Stick" can only carry 20MT as advertised, and if that number falls from the advertised payload, then the Stick will be too puny to fly to CEV. Lockheed on the other hand is talking about an "Atlas-V 2.0" with a 25MT capacity and no boosters.

Then there are still the safety issues, that big huge mega solid engines would fail "in a big way" with no way to avoid it.

BWhite · 2005-06-09 10:08:53

If the CEV benchmarks are fly by 2010 and weigh 30MT can EELV possibly compete?
The sad thing is that we probably could have flown "da' stick" launch stack (RSRM plus RL-10s) this week if we had started working on it in January 2004. (Its not like the Thiokol people and the VAB staff and the crawler drivers - - who were not part of RTF - - were real busy these last 16 months.)
I don't like the sound of this... Mikey-G keeps on saying things like this that amounts to a Shuttle-Army "group hug" then he needs to be un-confirmed as soon as possible.
Simple Bill, that the "Stick" can only carry 20MT as advertised, and if that number falls from the advertised payload, then the Stick will be too puny to fly to CEV.
Then there are still the safety issues, that big huge mega solid engines would fail "in a big way" with no way to avoid it.

I feel your pain.

The way I see it, in the months prior to January 2004 a secret team came up with the VSE behind closed doors and intended a complete transition to EELV with all of Pad 39, VAB etc. . . being abandoned in its entirety.

Very, very few of the "army" would transition to employment at Boeing's Delta launch pad.

Then, Dr. Griffin and another small group of different insiders (see the other quotes about his "team" and the Planetary Society report) had a different vision.

So, its ALL inside baseball, right now.

Edited By BWhite on 1118333363

clark · 2005-06-09 10:18:04

The way I see it, in the months prior to January 2004 a secret team came up with the VSE behind closed doors

How secret could it have been if I was telling you what the result would be beforehand?

So this would be bottom of the ninth, bases loaded, and SDV to the plate?

BWhite · 2005-06-09 10:23:34

The way I see it, in the months prior to January 2004 a secret team came up with the VSE behind closed doors
How secret could it have been if I was telling you what the result would be beforehand?
So this would be bottom of the ninth, bases loaded, and SDV to the plate?

Heh!

Cheney's energy task force was secret yet no one should need a Magic 8-ball to predict what they would recommend.

But some still do.

SpaceNut · 2005-06-09 10:29:22

So what is the stopping point for the Thiokol people from making "da' stick" for spiral 1 of the vision or for that fact anyone else?
Thiokol started lobbying for this last spring (2004).
Sure, they "could" make one for someone else, except Pad 39 at the Kennedy Space Center is the only place you can launch it from.

So what is stopping them from developing there own launch pad if not here maybe in a more favorable nation, say french guiana where the russians are building one for them.

clark · 2005-06-09 10:29:46

Cheney's energy task force was secret yet no one should need a Magic 8-ball to predict what they would recommend.

Ah, but what do you need to know the results of the reccomendations? ???

My eight ball has one eye. :laugh:

clark · 2005-06-09 10:31:10

So what is stopping them from developing there own launch pad if not here maybe in a more favorable nation, say french guiana where the russians are building one for them.

American export laws. Most rocket technology in the US is heavily regulated and controlled. You need federal approval for foriegn launches.

New Mars Forums

Announcement

#51 2005-06-07 21:58:04

Re: Shuttle derived revival - Space.com

#52 2005-06-07 22:33:51

Re: Shuttle derived revival - Space.com

#53 2005-06-07 22:33:57

Re: Shuttle derived revival - Space.com

#54 2005-06-08 00:20:02

Re: Shuttle derived revival - Space.com

#55 2005-06-08 04:44:48

Re: Shuttle derived revival - Space.com

#56 2005-06-08 05:42:23

Re: Shuttle derived revival - Space.com

#57 2005-06-08 06:53:53

Re: Shuttle derived revival - Space.com

#58 2005-06-08 08:25:54

Re: Shuttle derived revival - Space.com

#59 2005-06-08 08:30:56

Re: Shuttle derived revival - Space.com

#60 2005-06-08 08:37:40

Re: Shuttle derived revival - Space.com

#61 2005-06-08 09:46:12

Re: Shuttle derived revival - Space.com

#62 2005-06-08 09:50:56

Re: Shuttle derived revival - Space.com

#63 2005-06-08 21:21:48

Re: Shuttle derived revival - Space.com

#64 2005-06-09 06:40:37

Re: Shuttle derived revival - Space.com

#65 2005-06-09 08:13:00

Re: Shuttle derived revival - Space.com

#66 2005-06-09 08:16:57

Re: Shuttle derived revival - Space.com

#67 2005-06-09 08:35:14

Re: Shuttle derived revival - Space.com

#68 2005-06-09 08:45:38

Re: Shuttle derived revival - Space.com

#69 2005-06-09 09:39:35

Re: Shuttle derived revival - Space.com

#70 2005-06-09 10:08:53

Re: Shuttle derived revival - Space.com

#71 2005-06-09 10:18:04

Re: Shuttle derived revival - Space.com

#72 2005-06-09 10:23:34

Re: Shuttle derived revival - Space.com

#73 2005-06-09 10:29:22

Re: Shuttle derived revival - Space.com

#74 2005-06-09 10:29:46

Re: Shuttle derived revival - Space.com

#75 2005-06-09 10:31:10

Re: Shuttle derived revival - Space.com

Board footer