10 billion wasted on constellation...but why???

Status
Not open for further replies.
E

emudude

Guest
:idea: Sorry if this has already come up in another thread, but if the new space plan is to boost the private sector...why would they scrap all the work put into constellation when they could hand it over to a private company? Stimulating businesses with technology is just as good as with money, if not better, in my opinion. I'm sure that even some test data could be used, if the workforce isn't available to continue work on this project. :idea:
 
T

tanstaafl76

Guest
I don't think there would be much worth sharing. Ares I is not going to be a practical solution for most commercial space flight operations, and Orion is not needed for orbital transport services.
 
E

emudude

Guest
Surely they would have some use for any lifting body components that they've already assembled and tested :p they're spending hundreds of millions of dollars designing their own rocket systems when there are perfectly good components already sitting there from constellation. I've even seen proposals for using the space shuttle's fuel tanks :D anything can have value if you allow it :D
 
R

RVHM

Guest
emudude":11sqrnro said:
Surely they would have some use for any lifting body components that they've already assembled and tested :p they're spending hundreds of millions of dollars designing their own rocket systems when there are perfectly good components already sitting there from constellation. I've even seen proposals for using the space shuttle's fuel tanks :D anything can have value if you allow it :D
You mean DIRECT.

On the other hand, it's a real shame they're cancelling all of Constellation. I have a certain administrative job in one of the companies working on Ares I (can't say which due to NDCs), and I've seen documentation showing that PWR was already planning a Block II version of the J-2X which would have had a thrust of 315,630 pounds force and an ISP of 484 seconds. This would have flown after a few system shakedown flights with the Block I version.

But that's going down the drain as well thanks to the WH. :evil:
 
E

emudude

Guest
@RVHM

Hopefully someone will be in the drain ready to grab that stuff up...last time I checked, 315630 pounds of thrust and an ISP of 484 seconds works just as well in the private sector as it does in the commercial sector. Please do what you can and try to garner support for salvaging what you have and making use of it, lest the taxpayer dollars and man hours be pissed away... :evil: :evil: :evil: :evil: :evil: :evil: :evil:
 
R

RVHM

Guest
emudude":z2g64xz2 said:
@RVHM

Hopefully someone will be in the drain ready to grab that stuff up...last time I checked, 315630 pounds of thrust and an ISP of 484 seconds works just as well in the private sector as it does in the commercial sector. Please do what you can and try to garner support for salvaging what you have and making use of it, lest the taxpayer dollars and man hours be pissed away... :evil: :evil: :evil: :evil: :evil: :evil: :evil:
My company is not the one which manufactures the engine, even though we do work closely with them. Salvaging the engine is therefore up to PWR.

Personally I never was in favor of the J-2X because it was too expensive, but it has a great growth potential and could develop into a very fine engine in the future. IIRC, Rocketdyne already had a J-2S upgrade ready for the Saturn V program with remarkable improvements on the original J-2, but they had to scrap it because the program was defunded. We're making the same mistake all over again!

And finally, I seem to remember some consideration was given to using that J-2S as the Space Shuttle's main engines, but they ruled out that option because it was too difficult to ground-start.
 
E

emudude

Guest
Yeah, I'm familiar with the complexities involved with making the improvements over the Apollo J2 and the expenses that came with them...did they already do a hot-fire test on it too?

This is a bit of a digression, but do you know if Pratt & Whitney is going to be contracted to make engines for any of the new private sector launch companies? If that's the case, I suppose constellation funding hasn't been completely wasted as they will have learned something from developing the J-2X
 
R

RVHM

Guest
emudude":3ml1wg5x said:
Yeah, I'm familiar with the complexities involved with making the improvements over the Apollo J2 and the expenses that came with them...did they already do a hot-fire test on it too?

This is a bit of a digression, but do you know if Pratt & Whitney is going to be contracted to make engines for any of the new private sector launch companies? If that's the case, I suppose constellation funding hasn't been completely wasted as they will have learned something from developing the J-2X
AFAIK only the gas generator is the only component of the Block II J-2X which has already been hot-fired.

As for PRW's contracts with commercial launch companies, I cannot give information on that since it would infringe on corporate secrets.
 
E

EarthlingX

Guest
Wasn't that gas generator from the aero-spike engines ?
 
B

BrianBoru

Guest
Because unlike Wall Street, NASA was not too big to allow to die.
 
H

halman

Guest
The Constellation program was just about the most expensive way possible to go nowhere slowly.
 
E

EarthlingX

Guest
halman":48hq9yvg said:
The Constellation program was just about the most expensive way possible to go nowhere slowly.
I think, i'm gonna quote this a couple of times, very well put :lol: :cool:
 
J

Jazman1985

Guest
"I've seen documentation showing that PWR was already planning a Block II version of the J-2X which would have had a thrust of 315,630 pounds force and an ISP of 484 seconds."

I presume this ISP is incorrect, do you know what it was supposed to be theoretically capable of? The J2 was 421 seconds I believe.
 
R

RVHM

Guest
Jazman1985":494far2e said:
"I've seen documentation showing that PWR was already planning a Block II version of the J-2X which would have had a thrust of 315,630 pounds force and an ISP of 484 seconds."

I presume this ISP is incorrect, do you know what it was supposed to be theoretically capable of? The J2 was 421 seconds I believe.
The original J-2 was 421 seconds, yes. Block I J-2X would have been capable of 448 seconds, Block II J-2X would have reached 484 seconds according to the documents I've worked with.
 
S

steve82

Guest
BrianBoru":1mu17q9f said:
Because unlike Wall Street, NASA was not too big to allow to die.
You got that right, Brian. The amount of money Constellation needs to get on track wouldn't amount to round-of errors in the AIG bailout.
 
J

Jazman1985

Guest
"The original J-2 was 421 seconds, yes. Block I J-2X would have been capable of 448 seconds, Block II J-2X would have reached 484 seconds according to the documents I've worked with."

448 seconds is a very good ISP, very comparable to the SSME's. My question in regards to the 484 second ISP is that it is not(according to my knowledge) chemically possible using LH2/LOX. Was this intended to be a potential tri-propellant engine, an "arcjet" style engine, or something else designed to increase ISP? If it was supposed to use a new form of propulsion it's sad that we don't have it. IMO, we need to be working on newer forms of propulsion that compliment those we've already learned, I think looking into hybrid electric/chemical rocket would be very enlightening and if nothing else, give us a good idea of the limits of both forms.
 
R

RVHM

Guest
Jazman1985":2fakp36l said:
"The original J-2 was 421 seconds, yes. Block I J-2X would have been capable of 448 seconds, Block II J-2X would have reached 484 seconds according to the documents I've worked with."

448 seconds is a very good ISP, very comparable to the SSME's. My question in regards to the 484 second ISP is that it is not(according to my knowledge) chemically possible using LH2/LOX. Was this intended to be a potential tri-propellant engine, an "arcjet" style engine, or something else designed to increase ISP? If it was supposed to use a new form of propulsion it's sad that we don't have it. IMO, we need to be working on newer forms of propulsion that compliment those we've already learned, I think looking into hybrid electric/chemical rocket would be very enlightening and if nothing else, give us a good idea of the limits of both forms.
The document I am talking about just mentioned the general specs and did not go into the technical details.
 
R

RVHM

Guest
OK, I don't like double posting but this may be of interest to some of you. Without going into any more detail, the paper described an increase of ISP by means of modifications to the engine itself, and not the propellant.
 
E

EarthlingX

Guest
That would translate into higher combustion temperature, let say 100 deg C, meaning new materials, since it is the same engine, right ?

I think 485 is a big number for LOX/LH2 Engine Isp, but you could probably push it over 500, perhaps with some tech used for fusion reactors, since combustion temperatures would be around 4k C deg ? ..
 
Status
Not open for further replies.

ASK THE COMMUNITY

TRENDING THREADS

Latest posts