<font color="yellow">....and on and on and on. We have all heard these arguments and many more made by people who know just enough to fancy themsleves experts.</font><br /><br />They are also taxpayers. Experts or not, they have the right to have their voice heard on the issue.<br /><br />Personally, I'm a fan of the <i>"The NASA led CEV is ludicrously expensive and could be fielded by Boeing/Lockmart for under 1/10th the cost"</i> argument.
- Status
<font color="yellow">Of course they can however the performance is then below what is needed for the CEV.</font><br /><br />You don't say.
<blockquote><font class="small">In reply to:</font><hr /><p>There's no secret. Try looking in the 90 day report. I think the analyseses are there. <p><hr /></p></p></blockquote><br />Nothing like that there.<br /><br />shuttle_guy didnt answer either. So we are hearing repeated claims that there is a problem with EELV trajectories, but noone is willing to provide any cite or reference or analysis. Nor are they willing to say why cant they point to anything.<br /><br />is it that unreasonable to guess in this situation, that no such analysis has been done ?
LOL!
<br /><br />Too funny. Yeah its easier to come up with crazy conspiracy than to hide and watch or change your point of view. <div class="Discussion_UserSignature"> <p> </p><p><font color="#0000ff"><em>"SCE to AUX" - John Aaron, curiosity pays off</em></font></p> </div>
<br /><br />Too funny. Yeah its easier to come up with crazy conspiracy than to hide and watch or change your point of view. <div class="Discussion_UserSignature"> <p> </p><p><font color="#0000ff"><em>"SCE to AUX" - John Aaron, curiosity pays off</em></font></p> </div>I found something interesting from 2005:<br />http://www.spacepolitics.com/2005/08/10/shuttle-derived-a-done-deal/<br /><br /><br /><blockquote><font class="small">In reply to:</font><hr /><p>In an August 5 letter to White House officials NASA administrator Michael Griffin and Air Force undersecretary Ronald Sega said that they had agreed that NASA will use shuttle-derived technology to develop a CEV launch vehicle by 2010, followed by a shuttle-derived heavy-lift vehicle. The letter was required by the space transportation policy issued at the beginning of this year, which states that NASA and the DoD would submit a joint recommendation on heavy-lift launch options to the White House.<p><hr /></p></p></blockquote><br /><br />I do think that the silent partner here is the the Air Force and DoD. Its also a controlling factor that is probably causing the conflict/debate. If so this issue will not be answered for several decades under the guise of national security.<br /><br />I suggest we hold on our opinions till the opportune time when more info is revealed, and agree to disagree.<br /> <div class="Discussion_UserSignature"> <p> </p><p><font color="#0000ff"><em>"SCE to AUX" - John Aaron, curiosity pays off</em></font></p> </div>
<font color="yellow">Of course they can however the performance is then below what is needed for the CEV.</font><br /><br />Which CEV? The one specifically sized <i><b>not</b></i> to work on ULA launchers or the one that makes the most common and economic sense; one that will. <div class="Discussion_UserSignature"> </div>
""Both Atlas and Delta can (have) redesigned their trajectories to eliminate "black" zones. " <br /><br />Of course they can however the performance is then below what is needed for the CEV. "<br /><br />Also not true. The EELV's could get the CEV and the required payload mass to the ISS. Lunar CEV could be worked later and use of the EELV's would eliminate the gap
Advanced Atlas Vs--wich are even more pie in the sky and power point slides than the Ares V. <br /><br />Do you see how much rationalizing you are doing just to cram a CEV onto a EELV? <br /><br />You end up with a CEV that NASA doesn't want, flying a mission architecture it says is pointless (barely an Apollo reduxe) and leading up to nothing. No Sturn V+ class HLLV. All just for the dubious distinction of using a "commercial" rocket. As if anyone could call LockMArt and Boeing and their launch vehicle "private" with a straight face.<br /><br />Its the stingy mand who spends the most.<br />Its the lazy mand who works the hardest.
<blockquote><font class="small">In reply to:</font><hr /><p>Also not true. The EELV's could get the CEV and the required payload mass to the ISS<p><hr /></p></p></blockquote><br /><br />Don't think so. EELV's are underpowered compared to ARES I <div class="Discussion_UserSignature"> <p> </p><p><font color="#0000ff"><em>"SCE to AUX" - John Aaron, curiosity pays off</em></font></p> </div>
They are also taxpayers. Experts or not, they have the right to have their voice heard on the issue. <br />________________________________________________<br /><br />Is it your position that taxpayers should have the right to manage troops in combat, fiddle with the design of flood control dams, tell doctors how to treat public health issues? i think you see the point.<br /><br />Taxpayers, through congress, told NASA that we want to go back to the moon and on to mars. now let them do their jobs. if you wanted to be a rocket scientist you should have gone to school, got your degree and worked in the field. If you wanted to call the shots you should have done all that, plus do it well enought tha you reached a position of authority. <br /><br />It drive me up a wall when people think they can read "The Big Book of Rockets and Spacecraft" and can then start telling people who have dedcated their lives to this field how to do their jobs. That includes "NASA insiders" who are actually software engineers or payload specialists trying to pass themselves off as rocket designers.
<blockquote><font class="small">In reply to:</font><hr /><p>later they decided to further develop it to launch Vostok, Voschod and Soyuz. <p><hr /></p></p></blockquote><br /><br />Right, each development resulted in a new rocket, thus it was a growing period for RSA. Also bear in mind that the requirements of the mission. To orbit the earth once, to do experiments in orbit, to dock with space stations, are all different mission objectives that are linear in development. <br /><br />When you take and existing rocket built for unmanned spacecraft and try to adapt it to a manned spacecraft not yet built with a complex mission such as transporting men and equipment to the moon and back, you are going to find road blocks. And adaptation to overcome the roadblocks can result in the failure of the development. Thus the end product, spacecraft and launcher, come out to be inadequate for the mission it was designed for, thought it may be in budget.<br /><br />But if you develop in a linear fashion, one piece at a time and control the requirements overcome the roadblocks in a linear fashion then you have a well performing product even though you may have overruns on the budget to overcome the roadblocks.<br /><br />Remember NASA is not a company that needs to look at the bottom line but it just need to justify its overruns to Congress. <br /><br />You could take like Atlas V rocket as a base and redesign it to fit the Orion's needs, but that would result in a new rocket, it will be different than the Atlas V.<br /><br />Now you could develop a capsule for an existing launcher and see what its capabilities would be and make missions based on that. That's what I think ULA is trying to do.<br /><br />But interfacing a manned spacecraft to fit the mission and a pre-existing launcher for other missions will result in failure.<br /><br />But I think NASA is far too deep to change directions now. <div class="Discussion_UserSignature"> <p> </p><p><font color="#0000ff"><em>"SCE to AUX" - John Aaron, curiosity pays off</em></font></p> </div>
"Now you could develop a capsule for an existing launcher and see what its capabilities would be and make missions based on that. That's what I think ULA is trying to do. "<br /><br />Actually, that's what NASA is doing with the stick. It is an "existing" launcher and the CEV is having to adapt to it vs a clean design launcher
"It drive me up a wall when people think they can read "The Big Book of Rockets and Spacecraft" and can then start telling people who have dedcated their lives to this field how to do their jobs. That includes "NASA insiders" who are actually software engineers or payload specialists trying to pass themselves off as rocket designers. "<br /><br />What is even worse is "artists" who think they know something about spaceflight and actually are spreading mis information
"Advanced Atlas Vs--wich are even more pie in the sky and power point slides than the Ares V."<br /><br />What expertise are you basing your wrong opinion on
<blockquote><font class="small">In reply to:</font><hr /><p>Actually, that's what NASA is doing with the stick. It is an "existing" launcher and the CEV is having to adapt to it vs a clean design launcher<p><hr /></p></p></blockquote><br /><br />I dunno; there's an awful lot of new development work going into Ares I; I think it's a stretch to call it an existing launcher. It's based on existing technology (Shuttle RSMs in particular) but it's pretty seriously modified IMHO. (Note: I am not a rocket designer; just an enthusiastic observer.) It's a bit like comparing Delta II to Delta IV; they're in the same family and have some commonalities, but they're really different beasts.<br /><br />Note: I do think NASA has been relying on people thinking of the "Stick" as an existing launcher, as if it will somehow save a large amount of development money. It's not an existing launcher, but it does involve extensive technology reuse. In fact, I suspect the only thing it will save is time. That may be a good justification in and of itself, but it's not what people tend to think of when they think of technology reuse. My experience with technology reuse is on a much smaller scale, but still I find that it tends to save less than management expects. I can't see a really big scale project being any better in that area. <div class="Discussion_UserSignature"> <p> </p><p><font color="#666699"><em>"People assume that time is a strict progression of cause to effect, but actually from a non-linear, non-subjective viewpoint it's more like a big ball of wibbly wobbly . . . timey wimey . . . stuff."</em> -- The Tenth Doctor, "Blink"</font></p> </div>
<font color="yellow">"I suspect the only thing it will save is time."</font><br /><br />Time is money.<img src="/images/icons/smile.gif" /> <div class="Discussion_UserSignature"> </div>
> <i><font color="yellow">I dunno; there's an awful lot of new development work going into Ares I; I think it's a stretch to call it an existing launcher.<br />...<br />Note: I do think NASA has been relying on people thinking of the "Stick" as an existing launcher, as if it will somehow save a large amount of development money.</font>/i><br /><br />I think that is what bothers me more than any technical issue. I felt ATK pushed this as a very easy path, and almost immediately there were technical issues, delays, and large sums of money added to the contract.<br /><br />Ultimately the Ares I may still be the fastest, easiest, and best solution for putting Orion into LEO, but I still feel a little like a "bait and switch" victim. I think I drank a little too much of ATK's kool-aid at the beginning.</i>
It is an "existing" launcher in that it uses components from an existing vehicle. The use of these components is constraining the design of the stick which causing suboptimal performance and impacting the design of the CEV
Let's try a "what if"<br /><br />1. ULA launches their 8-man PTV on an Atlas V. Lunar capable? Maybe with a SM.<br /><br />2. they do the same with orbital Dream Chaser. <br /><br />3. Dragon is shown to be lunar-flyby capable, as stated. Again, add a SM and....<br /><br />and these occur before Ares I puts a man in LEO, the date for which is a moving target.<br /><br />Who eats mud in the Congressional hearings? <div class="Discussion_UserSignature"> </div>
<blockquote><font class="small">In reply to:</font><hr /><p>Who eats mud in the Congressional hearings? <p><hr /></p></p></blockquote><br />Nobody currently in charge of things. So people currently in charge dont worry about this.
ULA does not have a spacecraft. That was only when Atlas was part of Lockheed. The only manned spacecraft ULA is working is Dreamchaser.<br /><br /><br />PS. Lockheed is only working on the CEV now
The CEV can indeed be launched on existing EELV vehicles: by removing the Launch Escape System and launching the CEV unmanned.<br /><br />Instead of the Ares 1 booster, develop one of the previously suggested CTVs for the Atlas 5 401 vehicle and man the CEV on orbit. Sooner, cheaper, better.<br /><br />For an expanded entry on the subject of this combination, called Ares-Lite, read the NSF thread:<br /><br />The Ares-Lite
Why? I mean why prefer LockMart to ATK. Both are bloated aerospace companies bellied up to the public trough. Should national space policy be based around who has a personal vendetta against what contractor? This whole thread is becomming extremely ridiculous. NASA had to make a choice and for a variety of reason they chose Ares I / Ares V. NO MATTER WHAT CHOICE THEY MADE THERE WERE GOING TO BE TRADE OFFS! Get that through your heads. There were plenty of engineers inside and outside of NASA who hated the Saturn V. The airforce mockingly refered to the Saturn V design team as the "boiler works." They prefered a manned space program built around their Titan family. Don't think there wasn't heated discussion around the halls of congress over this issue back then. The difference was it was mostly discussion among experts. That was before the interenet gave every blowhard who ever visited a NASA facility the chance to pass himself off as a rocket expert! Now people who never did a differential equation in their lives are talking about petitioning congress to kill Ares--based on not much more than "I think it looks stupid." (And yes I have heard people on message board use this as an argument!).<br /><br />No, Ares isn't "simple" in absolute terms--no orbital rocket is. But knowledgable people I trust (people who actually design and build real rockets as opposed to those who just work around them) have stated that if NASA went with an EELV apprach the level of complexity for making them what NASA wants a booster to do would be about the same if not greater, plus the fact that we could loose much of the SRB infrastructure and expertise and be stuck without a viable HLLV. Is it a perfect plan? Of course not. Was Apollo perfect? By some standards Apollo wasn't even sucessful since it didn't lead directly to a follow on program, but life sometimes gets in the way of what you want.<br /><br />BTW if flying people on a EELV is so simple and cheap why doesn't Boeing and LockMart ju
- Status
Similar threads
TRENDING THREADS
-
Basic Error: The accelerating Universe conclusion - reason- Started by Gibsense
- Replies: 190
-
-
Definition of Universe requires clarification, to enable discussion
- Started by Catastrophe
- Replies: 38
-
This Christmas Eve, humans will try to embrace a star
- Started by Admin
- Replies: 6
-
-
Facebook
Twitter
Instagram