Ares V: 5 SSME's in the core

[CalliArcale]

<p><BR/>Replying to:<BR/><DIV CLASS='Discussion_PostQuote'>I am sorry Calli, but if the weight of the engines themselves were the issue the SSME would win hands down!!Weight if single SSME = 7,775 lbs&nbsp;Weight of single RS68&nbsp; = 14,560 lbsSo the weight of a single RS68 is very close to twice the weight of a single SSME.&nbsp; This even makes the SSME lighter when you consider the higher thrust of the RS68.&nbsp; Thrust of an SSME = 500k, thrust of an RS68 = 665K.So if you consider only engine weight the far more efficient and therefore lighter SSME is going to be your choice, hands down!However to achieve this higher performance and lower weight the SSME is more than three times the cost of an RS68.&nbsp; And even if Rocketdyne were to greatly simplify the SSME by cutting out its reusability it would still be at least twice as expensive as the RS68, and this is&nbsp; the area then both Congress and NASA consider the most important, the area of cost, and it is in this area that the RS68 wins hands down, and will be the choice of NASA for the Ares V!!!&nbsp;Personally, I consider the SSME to be the single greatest piece of machinery ever build by the hand of mankind, but it is not a cost affective item!&nbsp;&nbsp; <br /> Posted by frodo1008</DIV></p><p>I stand corrected; thank you Frodo! </p> <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>

 

[kyle_baron]

<p><BR/>Replying to:<BR/><DIV CLASS='Discussion_PostQuote'>&nbsp;One very big reason is the very high cost of the SSMEs. They are very expensive because they are designed to be reused. Even the proposed throw away version (eliminating the special materials etc.&nbsp;required for reusability) they are too expensive. <br />Posted by shuttle_guy</DIV></p><p>&nbsp;</p><p>Ok, I'm going to change the direction of the thread once again.&nbsp; It is a given the the RS-68 will be used and thrown away.&nbsp; Instead of throwing away 6-7 engines (now being planned), why doesn't Nasa make a&nbsp;360 Deg. turn, go back to it's original 4 engines in the core, along with 4 SRB's each with 4 segments?&nbsp; Then downsize the core (make it shorter and lighter).&nbsp; Let the SRB's do the heavy lifting and recover them.&nbsp; Sounds like a money saving idea to me.&nbsp; Therefore, there would be 16 recoverable segments compared to the 11 (2 x 5.5) now.&nbsp; Since Ares is getting new crawlers, they should be sized to the mass of the rocket + any additional segments x 4.&nbsp; Did I just hear "Not viable" in the background?&nbsp; </p><p>&nbsp;</p><p><br /><br />&nbsp;</p> <div class="Discussion_UserSignature"> <p><font size="4"><strong></strong></font></p> </div>

 

[BrianSlee]

<p><BR/>Replying to:<BR/><DIV CLASS='Discussion_PostQuote'>&nbsp;They still will be "thrown" away as orbiter flies its last mission.&nbsp; They won't be refurb and won't be returned to a flight condition <br />Posted by Cygnus_2112</DIV><br /><br />I doubt seriously that they will be "thrown away"&nbsp; the government has very strict rules for disposition of old assets, especially ones as expensive as the SSMEs.&nbsp; And I have a feeling that the people capable of&nbsp;refurbishing them might be available for employment at the end of the program.</p> <div class="Discussion_UserSignature"> <p> </p><p>"I am therefore I think" </p><p>"The only thing "I HAVE TO DO!!" is die, in everything else I have freewill" Brian P. Slee</p> </div>

 

[Cygnus_2112]

<p><BR/>Replying to:<BR/><DIV CLASS='Discussion_PostQuote'>&nbsp;Ok, I'm going to change the direction of the thread once again.&nbsp; It is a given the the RS-68 will be used and thrown away.&nbsp; Instead of throwing away 6-7 engines (now being planned), why doesn't Nasa make a&nbsp;360 Deg. turn, go back to it's original 4 engines in the core, along with 4 SRB's each with 4 segments?&nbsp; Then downsize the core (make it shorter and lighter).&nbsp; Let the SRB's do the heavy lifting and recover them.&nbsp; Sounds like a money saving idea to me.&nbsp; Therefore, there would be 16 recoverable segments compared to the 11 (2 x 5.5) now.&nbsp; Since Ares is getting new crawlers, they should be sized to the mass of the rocket + any additional segments x 4.&nbsp; Did I just hear "Not viable" in the background?&nbsp; &nbsp;&nbsp; <br /> Posted by kyle_baron</DIV></p><p>&nbsp;It won't be cheaper.&nbsp; </p><p>4 SRB's won't fit on the pad or in the VAB. &nbsp;&nbsp; Also now it is affecting the crawler way. </p><p>Also,&nbsp; 4 SRB's won't fix the problem.&nbsp;&nbsp; </p>

 

[BrianSlee]

Replying to:<BR/><DIV CLASS='Discussion_PostQuote'>I doubt seriously that they will be "thrown away"&nbsp; the government has very strict rules for disposition of old assets, especially ones as expensive as the SSMEs.&nbsp; And I have a feeling that the people capable of&nbsp;refurbishing them might be available for employment at the end of the program. <br />Posted by BrianSlee</DIV><br /><br />While your at it, how about throwing in all of the tooling and manufacturing capabilities.&nbsp; We could call it a NASA going out of business sale. <div class="Discussion_UserSignature"> <p> </p><p>"I am therefore I think" </p><p>"The only thing "I HAVE TO DO!!" is die, in everything else I have freewill" Brian P. Slee</p> </div>

 

[Cygnus_2112]

<p><BR/>Replying to:<BR/><DIV CLASS='Discussion_PostQuote'>I doubt seriously that they will be "thrown away"&nbsp; the government has very strict rules for disposition of old assets, especially ones as expensive as the SSMEs.&nbsp; And I have a feeling that the people capable of&nbsp;refurbishing them might be available for employment at the end of the program. <br /> Posted by BrianSlee</DIV></p><p>That is why I had "thrown" in quotes.&nbsp; They will go to museums but as far as being viable engines, they will be gone</p>

 

[BrianSlee]

<p><BR/>Replying to:<BR/><DIV CLASS='Discussion_PostQuote'>That is why I had "thrown" in quotes.&nbsp; They will go to museums but as far as being viable engines, they will be gone <br />Posted by Cygnus_2112</DIV></p><p>I think that I could make a case for that not happening under federal acquisition regulations.</p><h3 class="pSection">45.604&nbsp;&nbsp;Disposal of surplus property. </h3><a name="wp1129428"></a><h3 class="pSection">45.604-1&nbsp;&nbsp;Disposal methods. </h3><a name="wp1129429"></a><p class="pBody">(a) Except as provided in paragraphs&nbsp;(b) and (c) of this subsection, surplus property that has completed screening in accordance with 45.602-3(a) shall be sold in accordance with 45.604-3 </p> <div class="Discussion_UserSignature"> <p> </p><p>"I am therefore I think" </p><p>"The only thing "I HAVE TO DO!!" is die, in everything else I have freewill" Brian P. Slee</p> </div>

 

[Cygnus_2112]

<p><BR/>Replying to:<BR/><DIV CLASS='Discussion_PostQuote'>I think that I could make a case for that not happening under federal acquisition regulations.45.604 <br /> Posted by BrianSlee</DIV></p><p>&nbsp;</p><p>Wrong and too late.&nbsp;&nbsp; Where do you think all the museums get NASA hardware.&nbsp; there are many SSMEs at museums now.&nbsp; </p><p>&nbsp;Also your case would be shot down immediately, because the engines would be declared unflightworthy for many reasons, among them is that they will not go through post flight inspections, drying, and refurb.</p><p>&nbsp;</p><p>And finally, the engines will probably stay attached to the orbiters while they are on display in museums </p>

 

[BrianSlee]

Replying to:<BR/><DIV CLASS='Discussion_PostQuote'>&nbsp;Too late.&nbsp; there are many at museums now.&nbsp; Also your case would be shot down immediately, because the engines would be declared unflightworthy for many reasons, among them is that they will not go through post flight inspections, drying, and refurb <br />Posted by Cygnus_2112</DIV><br /><br />Flight worthiness has nothing to do with federal acquisition regulations,&nbsp; and I reccomend that you read the language a litlle more carefully,&nbsp;the word "shall" removes choice in the matter.&nbsp; Any action to the contrary would place the decision maker in violation of federal law. <div class="Discussion_UserSignature"> <p> </p><p>"I am therefore I think" </p><p>"The only thing "I HAVE TO DO!!" is die, in everything else I have freewill" Brian P. Slee</p> </div>

 

[Cygnus_2112]

<p><BR/>Replying to:<BR/><DIV CLASS='Discussion_PostQuote'>I doubt seriously that they will be "thrown away"&nbsp; the government has very strict rules for disposition of old assets, especially ones as expensive as the SSMEs.&nbsp; And I have a feeling that the people capable of&nbsp;refurbishing them might be available for employment at the end of the program. <br /> Posted by BrianSlee</DIV></p><p>&nbsp;</p><p>Doesn't matter if you don't have the engineering.&nbsp; </p>

 

[BrianSlee]

Replying to:<BR/><DIV CLASS='Discussion_PostQuote'>&nbsp;Doesn't matter if you don't have the engineering.&nbsp; <br />Posted by Cygnus_2112</DIV><br /><br />?? <div class="Discussion_UserSignature"> <p> </p><p>"I am therefore I think" </p><p>"The only thing "I HAVE TO DO!!" is die, in everything else I have freewill" Brian P. Slee</p> </div>

 

[Cygnus_2112]

<p><BR/>Replying to:<BR/><DIV CLASS='Discussion_PostQuote'>Flight worthiness has nothing to do with federal acquisition regulations,&nbsp; <br /> Posted by BrianSlee</DIV></p><p>Wrong again.&nbsp; If they are not flightworthy, they can be scrapped or instead used for educational purposes.&nbsp; Hence, the reason there are SSME's and other NASA artifacts in museums as we speak.&nbsp; NASA has exceptions to the FAR.</p><p>Also, the NASM has first right of refusal of all NASA excess artifacts. &nbsp; </p>

 

[BrianSlee]

<p><BR/>Replying to:<BR/><DIV CLASS='Discussion_PostQuote'>Wrong again.&nbsp; If they are not flightworthy, they can be scrapped.&nbsp; Hence, the reason there are SSME's and other NASA artifacts in museums as we speak.&nbsp;&nbsp; <br />Posted by Cygnus_2112</DIV><br /><br />Cygnus,</p><p>&nbsp; Are you a program manager or an expert in acquisition law?</p> <div class="Discussion_UserSignature"> <p> </p><p>"I am therefore I think" </p><p>"The only thing "I HAVE TO DO!!" is die, in everything else I have freewill" Brian P. Slee</p> </div>

 

[Cygnus_2112]

<p><BR/>Replying to:<BR/><DIV CLASS='Discussion_PostQuote'>?? <br /> Posted by BrianSlee</DIV></p><p>&nbsp;</p><p>The worker bees can't do anything if they don't have the engineering data.&nbsp;&nbsp; Anyways, other than the Cape personnel, most of the SSME workers are working on the RS-68.</p>

 

[Cygnus_2112]

<p><BR/>Replying to:<BR/><DIV CLASS='Discussion_PostQuote'>Cygnus,&nbsp; Are you a program manager or an expert in acquisition law? <br /> Posted by BrianSlee</DIV></p><p>&nbsp;</p><p>No, but I know how NASA disposes of hardware and the FAR is not applicable</p><p>http://nodis3.gsfc.nasa.gov/displayDir.cfm?Internal_ID=N_PR_4310_0001_&page_name=AppendixA</p><p>&nbsp;</p><p>Edit: the FAR is applicable.&nbsp; The hardware doesn't get past<font size="1"> 45.602-3&nbsp;&nbsp;Screening.</font>&nbsp; The NASM is a gov't agency and therefore the hardware goes to them.&nbsp; The NASM loans out its hardware to other museum.</p><p>&nbsp;Also, NASA could keep the hardware and put it on display in their vistor centers, therefore avoiding the whole "disposal" requirements of the FAR</p><p>&nbsp;</p>

 

[BrianSlee]

<p><BR/>Replying to:<BR/><DIV CLASS='Discussion_PostQuote'>&nbsp;The worker bees can't do anything if they don't have the engineering data.&nbsp;&nbsp; Anyways, other than the Cape personnel, most of the SSME workers are working on the RS-68. <br />Posted by Cygnus_2112</DIV><br /><br />Ok so you are saying that the engineering data is unobtainable.&nbsp; I would think that Rocketdyne would be happy to include another&nbsp;stream of revenue to provide support for the system.</p><p>&nbsp;</p> <div class="Discussion_UserSignature"> <p> </p><p>"I am therefore I think" </p><p>"The only thing "I HAVE TO DO!!" is die, in everything else I have freewill" Brian P. Slee</p> </div>

 

[BrianSlee]

Replying to:<BR/><DIV CLASS='Discussion_PostQuote'>&nbsp;No, but I know how NASA disposes of hardware and the FAR is not applicablehttp://nodis3.gsfc.nasa.gov/displayDir.cfm?Internal_ID=N_PR_4310_0001_&page_name=AppendixAEdit: the FAR is applicable.&nbsp; The NASM is a gov't agency and therefore the hardware goes to them.&nbsp; The NASM loans out its hardware to other museums &nbsp; <br />Posted by Cygnus_2112</DIV><br /><br />Then why do you insist on talking about things that you don't really understand.&nbsp; Bottom line is that the FAR trumps NASA procedural policies.&nbsp; The FAR is law NASA procedures cannot go against federal law, and the law specifically states that donation to museums and educational institutions does not take precedence over resale considerations for government equipment produced at taxpayer expense. <div class="Discussion_UserSignature"> <p> </p><p>"I am therefore I think" </p><p>"The only thing "I HAVE TO DO!!" is die, in everything else I have freewill" Brian P. Slee</p> </div>

 

[Cygnus_2112]

<p><BR/>Replying to:<BR/><DIV CLASS='Discussion_PostQuote'>Then why do you insist on talking about things that you don't really understand.&nbsp; Bottom line is that the FAR trumps NASA procedural policies.&nbsp; The FAR is law NASA procedures cannot go against federal law, and the law specifically states that donation to museums and educational institutions does not take precedence over resale considerations for government equipment produced at taxpayer expense. <br /> Posted by BrianSlee</DIV></p><p>&nbsp; You are the one that doesn't understand.&nbsp; You didn't read the FAR and what you posted.</p><p>&nbsp;</p><h3 class="pSection"> 45.604-1&nbsp;&nbsp;Disposal methods. </h3><p> <a name="wp1129429" title="wp1129429"></a> (a) Except as provided in paragraphs&nbsp;(b) and (c) of this subsection, surplus property that has completed screening in accordance with 45.602-3(a)</p><p>&nbsp;</p><h3 class="pSection"> 45.602-3&nbsp;&nbsp;Screening. </h3><a name="wp1129398" title="wp1129398"></a>.......<a name="wp1129400" title="wp1129400"></a>(1) <em class="cEmphasis">First through twentieth&nbsp;day&mdash;Screening by the contracting agency</em>. The contracting agency has 20&nbsp;days to screen property reported on the inventory disposal schedule for: other use within the agency; transfer of educationally useful equipment to other Federal agencies that have expressed a need for the property;<p> The hardware doesn't even get to the disposal process, since it isn't " surplus property" because it can be transferred to other gov't agencies by the&nbsp; screening process . </p><p>The NASM is a gov't agency.&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;</p><p>And again, whos says NASA has to give them up.&nbsp; It can keep them for its own use (visitor center displays).</p><p>&nbsp;</p><p>&nbsp;</p><p>&nbsp; </p><p>&nbsp;</p><p>&nbsp;</p>

 

[Cygnus_2112]

<p><BR/>Replying to:<BR/><DIV CLASS='Discussion_PostQuote'>and the law specifically states that donation to museums and educational institutions does not take precedence over resale considerations for government equipment produced at taxpayer expense. <br /> Posted by BrianSlee</DIV></p><p>&nbsp;</p><p>Show me the specific line in the FAR. &nbsp; </p>

 

[BrianSlee]

Replying to:<BR/><DIV CLASS='Discussion_PostQuote'>&nbsp;You are the one that doesn't understand.&nbsp; You didn't read the FAR.&nbsp; The NASM is a gov't agency.&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp; <br />Posted by Cygnus_2112</DIV><br /><br />Doesn't matter resale takes precedence over donation.&nbsp; So unless the PM can justify to Congress that donating the engines to NASM *is a better choice* he is bound by law to provide the assets for sale as long as the procedes exceed the cost of advertising and storage under this method.&nbsp; But just for the sake of argument let's suppose that NASM as a gov't org has some priorty in the process.&nbsp; How many of the SSME systems are they going to accept?&nbsp; How many would be left for sale under surplus disposal laws and regulations?&nbsp; Again if you can't claim expertise in this area why do you insist on arguing the point?&nbsp; Why don't you go and ask a Program Manager how much money he is willing to invest in a court action that he has little chance of winning in this instance. <div class="Discussion_UserSignature"> <p> </p><p>"I am therefore I think" </p><p>"The only thing "I HAVE TO DO!!" is die, in everything else I have freewill" Brian P. Slee</p> </div>

 

[BrianSlee]

Replying to:<BR/><DIV CLASS='Discussion_PostQuote'>&nbsp;Show me the specific line in the FAR. &nbsp; <br />Posted by Cygnus_2112</DIV><br /><br /><h3 class="pSection">45.603&nbsp;&nbsp;Abandonment, destruction or donation of excess personal property. </h3><a name="wp1129420"></a><p class="pBody">(<a name="wp1129423"></a>(d)(1) Before abandoning, destroying, or donating excess personal property, the plant clearance officer shall determine in writing that the property does not constitute a danger to public health or welfare and&mdash; </p><a name="wp1129424"></a><p class="pIndented2">(i) The property has no residual monetary value; or </p><a name="wp1129425"></a><p class="pIndented2">(ii) The estimated cost to sell the property, including advertising, storage, and other costs associated with making the sale, is greater than the probable sale proceeds; and </p><a name="wp1129426"></a><p class="pIndented1">(2) A Government reviewing official shall approve all written determinations for abandonment and destruction actions. </p> <div class="Discussion_UserSignature"> <p> </p><p>"I am therefore I think" </p><p>"The only thing "I HAVE TO DO!!" is die, in everything else I have freewill" Brian P. Slee</p> </div>

 

[BrianSlee]

Replying to:<BR/><DIV CLASS='Discussion_PostQuote'>&nbsp; You are the one that doesn't understand.&nbsp; You didn't read the FAR and what you posted.&nbsp; 45.604-1&nbsp;&nbsp;Disposal methods. (a) Except as provided in paragraphs&nbsp;(b) and (c) of this subsection, surplus property that has completed screening in accordance with 45.602-3(a)&nbsp; 45.602-3&nbsp;&nbsp;Screening. .......(1) First through twentieth&nbsp;day&mdash;Screening by the contracting agency. The contracting agency has 20&nbsp;days to screen property reported on the inventory disposal schedule for: other use within the agency; transfer of educationally useful equipment to other Federal agencies that have expressed a need for the property; The hardware doesn't even get to the disposal process, since it isn't " surplus property" because it can be transferred to other gov't agencies by the&nbsp; screening process . The NASM is a gov't agency.&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;And again, whos says NASA has to give them up.&nbsp; It can keep them for its own use (visitor center displays).&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp; &nbsp;&nbsp; <br />Posted by Cygnus_2112</DIV><br /><br />I don't think NASM could justify an "expressed need" in this case.&nbsp; Again how much money is the PM willing to invest to keep the assets off the market?&nbsp; What would be his justification?&nbsp; You should go talk to him before you speak for him in this matter. <div class="Discussion_UserSignature"> <p> </p><p>"I am therefore I think" </p><p>"The only thing "I HAVE TO DO!!" is die, in everything else I have freewill" Brian P. Slee</p> </div>

 

[Cygnus_2112]

<p><BR/>Replying to:<BR/><DIV CLASS='Discussion_PostQuote'>45.603&nbsp;&nbsp;Abandonment, destruction or donation of excess personal property. ((d)(1) Before abandoning, destroying, or donating excess personal property, the plant clearance officer shall determine in writing that the property does not constitute a danger to public health or welfare and&mdash; (i) The property has no residual monetary value; or (ii) The estimated cost to sell the property, including advertising, storage, and other costs associated with making the sale, is greater than the probable sale proceeds; and (2) A Government reviewing official shall approve all written determinations for abandonment and destruction actions. <br /> Posted by BrianSlee</DIV></p><p>&nbsp;</p><p>Huh?&nbsp; Read it again. &nbsp; That is "personal property"&nbsp; An SSME is not&nbsp; personal property.&nbsp; You are clueless.&nbsp; Stop before making more of a fool of yourself.&nbsp; </p>

 

[Cygnus_2112]

<p><BR/>Replying to:<BR/><DIV CLASS='Discussion_PostQuote'>But just for the sake of argument let's suppose that NASM as a gov't org has some priorty in the process.&nbsp; How many of the SSME systems are they going to accept?&nbsp; How many would be left for sale under surplus disposal laws and regulations?&nbsp; <br /> Posted by BrianSlee</DIV></p><p>&nbsp;A least set of 3 for each orbiter that the NASM gets and then others for individual displays </p>

 

[BrianSlee]

<p><BR/>Replying to:<BR/><DIV CLASS='Discussion_PostQuote'>&nbsp;Huh?&nbsp; Read it again. &nbsp; That is "personal property"&nbsp; An SSME is not&nbsp; personal property.&nbsp; You are clueless <br />Posted by Cygnus_2112</DIV><br /><br />Cygnus,</p><p>&nbsp; Personal Property from a legal perspective covers anything owned by the government that is not considered "real property" i.e. real estate.</p><p>And I will definately take my chances against looking the fool in this debate against someone who has admitted lack of expertise in the area he is talking about.</p><p>&nbsp; Right now I don't understand why you would argue against reutilization of assets that we the public have invested billions of dollars in.&nbsp; Can you explain your position in this matter.</p> <div class="Discussion_UserSignature"> <p> </p><p>"I am therefore I think" </p><p>"The only thing "I HAVE TO DO!!" is die, in everything else I have freewill" Brian P. Slee</p> </div>