New Mars Forums

Official discussion forum of The Mars Society and MarsNews.com

You are not logged in.

Announcement

Announcement: As a reader of NewMars forum, we have opportunities for you to assist with technical discussions in several initiatives underway. NewMars needs volunteers with appropriate education, skills, talent, motivation and generosity of spirit as a highly valued member. Write to newmarsmember * gmail.com to tell us about your ability's to help contribute to NewMars and become a registered member.

#51 2005-09-01 14:33:03

publiusr
Banned
From: Alabama
Registered: 2005-02-24
Posts: 682

Re: SRB booster for CEV

You have to at least promise that--and see what happens down the road. We need to keep Michold to keep the space support. Shut it down and move things to Decatur and the LA residents will howl and not support NASA anymore.

They may want it scrapped to pay for relief as it stands---no need to alienate them more.

Griffin needs to remind folks there that--without a vibrant space program (the Goes weather sats did not develop in a vacuum) the death toll would have been much higher--and it is their obligation to support NASA over rebuilding casinos and such nonsense. The 'aints are already talking about coming to Birmingham's Legion Field, and poor displaced folks are about to be run off by sports fans hogging our hotels.

Leave NASA alone.

Ban football.

Offline

#52 2005-09-01 17:19:24

GCNRevenger
Member
From: Earth
Registered: 2003-10-14
Posts: 6,056

Re: SRB booster for CEV

At this point, I think we ought to question if Michoud is worth saving...

In order to operate the Michoud facility, you have got to have engineers, right? Although their jobs may remain, the jobs of their families and their homes are very likly destroyed. Even if the Michoud plant would be a quick fix to get back online, rebuilding these peoples' lives will not be. This is probobly going to take two, three, or maybe more years.

This is time that NASA doesn't have to spare right now, and the question should be asked is the political penalty for abandoning Lousiana too large a price to pay?


"The power of accurate observation is often called cynicism by those that do not have it." - George Bernard Shaw

The glass is at 50% of capacity

Offline

#53 2005-09-08 15:21:06

publiusr
Banned
From: Alabama
Registered: 2005-02-24
Posts: 682

Re: SRB booster for CEV

It's suicide either way. Spend on NASA-rebuilding and they howl--but don't rebuild MAF and they howl worse.

As I see it Michold has to be rebuilt and here is the political reasons why. Florida will have to launch HLLV. But you still play hardball with them

You tell KSC "If you create a big stink we will just shut down NASA in total--you still want those mission control jobs, right? You still have your homes right? So suck it up--and kill orbiter." So KSC learns its place. Michold (not that bad) is rebuilt and you have LA support from the gov't. While they rebuild Marshall designs HLLV, Utah Thiokol has the stick--and you tell the folks in Johnson we will have one last Hubble flight in 2009.(Not really :twisted: )

So you keep support--gut JPL and you still have your launch architecture.

The other NASA centers will feel selfish--and feel bad if they were to criticize a new Michold-centered LV stable using engine-equipped ETs as CEV launchers. That might not sit well with Utah--but ATK still gets their five seg SRBs--so everyone is still happy--and you guilt everyone into building a Michold centered HLLV stable.

http://forum.nasaspaceflight.com/forums … mentid=860

Korolov knew how to manipulate people. We must emulate his brilliant social engineering (Mitnik style) to succeed.

Anyone have a better plan?

Either that or we will be flying orbiter until Sol goes Red Giant--which is what will happen otherwise.

There are some rumblings about Saturn again though :shock:

Pics of the stick:
http://forum.nasaspaceflight.com/forums … 4&posts=22

Offline

#54 2005-09-20 08:55:48

SpaceNut
Administrator
From: New Hampshire
Registered: 2004-07-22
Posts: 23,324

Re: SRB booster for CEV

With the recent news release of info concerning the moon plans and the creation of not one but two ships from the shuttle parts. I recall that the capsule landing using a disposeable shield and air bags was worked on within the last year and was successful by I think lockheed.

It appears that the monstrosity of osp rehash by lockheed is out andLockheed Martin engineers were forced back to the drawing board Monday after NASA endorsed the type of next-generation spacecraft championed by the Jefferson County company's rival.

Online

#55 2005-09-20 10:26:05

SpaceNut
Administrator
From: New Hampshire
Registered: 2004-07-22
Posts: 23,324

Re: SRB booster for CEV

Here is a question for how does one ignite a solid rocket booster motor (SRB), is it part of the motor or a seperate piece.

Key tests for Vega igniters While this is not a shuttle SRB igniter, they must all be simular one would think...
Afbeelding-083_L.jpg

Online

#56 2005-09-20 14:12:11

ftlwright
Member
Registered: 2004-11-17
Posts: 61

Re: SRB booster for CEV

So you keep support--gut JPL and you still have your launch architecture.

Hehe, you won't be able to gut JPL, but you will be able to put them in check.  Force those fellows to come up with unified flight architecture that 80% of there future mission will be able to fly on.  I'm so sick and tired of JPL developing and entirely new vehicle each and every time they design a mission (and someone please teach them how to write a report while your in their "backside").  Other than that, good plan.

Offline

#57 2005-09-20 14:19:47

RobertDyck
Moderator
From: Winnipeg, Canada
Registered: 2002-08-20
Posts: 6,762
Website

Re: SRB booster for CEV

This NASA web page describes SRB ignition sequence.
Here is a description from KSC.
I looked for an image of the igniter initiator, but didn't find one.

Offline

#58 2005-09-20 18:43:27

Ad Astra
Member
Registered: 2003-02-02
Posts: 584

Re: SRB booster for CEV

It's not realistic to think we can just end the shuttle program now and work on the new rockets.  To get appreciable cost savings, you'd have to lay off the shuttle workers--the same workers you need back on the job when the CEV, Stick, and "Magnum" are ready.  A smooth transition from shuttle flights to the stick in 2011-2012 will ensure that the cape's workforce stays on the job and stays sharp.

As much as I'd love to give ISS to the Russians and the other partners, I don't think they'd take it in its current state.  They want it completed with the modules that can only be delivered by the fragile shuttle.  Of course, we could sell them the shuttle and tell them to finish ISS by themselves.  Kill two birds with one stone.


Who needs Michael Griffin when you can have Peter Griffin?  Catch "Family Guy" Sunday nights on FOX.

Offline

#59 2005-09-23 15:24:18

publiusr
Banned
From: Alabama
Registered: 2005-02-24
Posts: 682

Re: SRB booster for CEV

So you keep support--gut JPL and you still have your launch architecture.

Hehe, you won't be able to gut JPL, but you will be able to put them in check.  Force those fellows to come up with unified flight architecture that 80% of there future mission will be able to fly on.  I'm so sick and tired of JPL developing and entirely new vehicle each and every time they design a mission (and someone please teach them how to write a report while your in their "backside").  Other than that, good plan.

Somebody needs to tell those prima donna's what for.

Offline

#60 2006-03-17 06:42:45

Yang Liwei Rocket
Member
Registered: 2004-03-03
Posts: 993

Re: SRB booster for CEV

Just out of couriosity has any given serious thought to a clean sheet design?

NASA begins testing CLV concept
http://www.spaceflightnow.com/news/n0602/14clvtests/

NASA officials are expected to pick a prime contractor for the CEV job this summer. The winner is likely to garner hefty bragging rights.
http://www.rockymountainnews.com/drmn/a … 85,00.html
"Whoever wins this is going to be known as the major player for putting Americans into space for the next 25 years," said J.P. Stevens, vice president of space systems at the Aerospace Industries Association, an industry trade group in Washington.


'first steps are not for cheap, think about it...
did China build a great Wall in a day ?' ( Y L R newmars forum member )

Offline

#61 2006-03-23 15:20:06

publiusr
Banned
From: Alabama
Registered: 2005-02-24
Posts: 682

Re: SRB booster for CEV

Offline

#62 2006-05-19 13:21:58

RedStreak
Banned
From: Illinois
Registered: 2006-05-12
Posts: 541

Re: SRB booster for CEV

BWhite wrote:

In response to BWhite:
If the Bush vision is to let a few NASA types collect rocks and thats all for the next 50 years then we don't hardly need anything.

Next, if you read the Congessional committee comments, the shuttle infrastructure types do not seem willing to let the oribter die an early death.

The funny thing with 'political' types in general is...give them 4 years and they get voted out. wink

...now assuming lets say either Discover, Atlantis, or Endeavor go the route of poor Columbia and Challenger those politicians will instantly change their position to save their faces and Congress and the public combined will instantly put the shuttle under the guilitene.  Three times will not be the shuttle's charm.

I'm not a shuttle-dismantalement-advocate however - personally I just want the damned ISS modules installed and perhaps a farewell visit to Hubble and be done with it, and only the shuttle has the capability.

Offline

#63 2006-05-26 20:18:08

SpaceNut
Administrator
From: New Hampshire
Registered: 2004-07-22
Posts: 23,324

Re: SRB booster for CEV

Just now thought does the team of Boeing have an unfair advantage to the builder of the CLV or CaLV especially since Boeing has the RS-68 engines over whatever Lockheed would choose or has for its latest proposal.
I know that usually Lockheeds proposals come in just a bit lower but if Nasa requires this engine this could be a problem for Lockheed.

Online

#64 2006-05-26 20:41:16

GCNRevenger
Member
From: Earth
Registered: 2003-10-14
Posts: 6,056

Re: SRB booster for CEV

Whos fault is it that they invested in cut-in-two Russian RD-180 that burn kerosene versus large low-pressure hydrogen engines?

On the other side of the coin, it seems pretty clear that the Lockheed EELV is superior to the Delta for all but the heaviest payloads, in which case the Detla-IV Heavy is much more expensive for only a half a dozen more tonnes.


"The power of accurate observation is often called cynicism by those that do not have it." - George Bernard Shaw

The glass is at 50% of capacity

Offline

#65 2006-06-09 10:59:18

publiusr
Banned
From: Alabama
Registered: 2005-02-24
Posts: 682

Re: SRB booster for CEV

Good point. BTW Boeing no longer has RS-68--that's P&W now--so they have both engines IIRC.

In the far future, I hope to see the SRBs replaced by liquids with RD-180s or RD-170s at some point.

Here is a thought: Perhaps the CaLV could be called "Delta V" ("Del-ta vee").

What with five RS-68s and all, it looks like a big Delta. This way, Boeing can look at it as a family member and have less hostility towards it.

Offline

#66 2017-02-08 22:33:42

SpaceNut
Administrator
From: New Hampshire
Registered: 2004-07-22
Posts: 23,324

Re: SRB booster for CEV

Just finished fixing this old topic of shifting and other artifacts that would keep it from being read.

It is a good summary of constellation

Online

#67 2021-07-27 19:41:02

SpaceNut
Administrator
From: New Hampshire
Registered: 2004-07-22
Posts: 23,324

Re: SRB booster for CEV

the older solid booster topic

Online

Board footer

Powered by FluxBB