Ares V: 5 SSME's in the core

[Cygnus_2112]

<p><BR/>Replying to:<BR/><DIV CLASS='Discussion_PostQuote'>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. <br /> Posted by BrianSlee</DIV></p><p>&nbsp;yes, the NASM could.&nbsp; " educationally useful equipment to other Federal agencies that have expressed a need for the property" is sufficent justification.&nbsp; The PM doesn't have to invest any money to keep it of the market, since they go to the NASM. &nbsp;</p><p>&nbsp;</p><p>&nbsp;</p><p>&nbsp;</p>

 

[CalliArcale]

<p><BR/>Replying to:<BR/><DIV CLASS='Discussion_PostQuote'>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.&nbsp; <br /> Posted by BrianSlee</DIV></p><p>I wish!</p><p>The reality is that very few large government contractors are interested in investing a lot of internal money on something of significant scope.&nbsp; They might do it if they believed they could sell the system down the road -- but if the only potential customer is someone who has already decided not to use this technology, what's the point?&nbsp; I agree that it would be nice, but I've gotten cynical about the big contractors doing that sort of thing.&nbsp; They have become very risk-averse.</p><p>There was a very good article written about this problem, endemic throughout defense contracting right now.&nbsp; I'll see if I can dig up a URL. </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>

 

[BrianSlee]

<p><BR/>Replying to:<BR/><DIV CLASS='Discussion_PostQuote'>I wish!The reality is that very few large government contractors are interested in investing a lot of internal money on something of significant scope.&nbsp; They might do it if they believed they could sell the system down the road -- but if the only potential customer is someone who has already decided not to use this technology, what's the point?&nbsp; I agree that it would be nice, but I've gotten cynical about the big contractors doing that sort of thing.&nbsp; They have become very risk-averse.There was a very good article written about this problem, endemic throughout defense contracting right now.&nbsp; I'll see if I can dig up a URL. <br />Posted by CalliArcale</DIV><br /><br />Calli,</p><p>&nbsp; In this case the contractor would not need to invest any money.&nbsp; They already have the data, expertise, and facilities to do the job.&nbsp; They would simply be trading who paid them for their efforts.</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'></p><p>1.&nbsp; 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.&nbsp; </p><p>2. 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. <br /> Posted by BrianSlee</DIV></p><p>1.&nbsp; Looks like you lost. &nbsp; NASA gives the NASM first crack at all the unused hardware. &nbsp; But still NASA can keep them for themselves like I said and keep them on display or keep them in bonded storage.&nbsp; This is SOP. &nbsp; Show me one a similar system that NASA has sold.&nbsp; you won't find one. &nbsp; </p><p>2.&nbsp; No one is going to&nbsp; use them.&nbsp; .&nbsp; No one is going to spend the large amount of money to keep the expertise viable. If you think someone is, then you are delusional.&nbsp; It is not like an aircraft at DMAFB.&nbsp;</p><p>And they won't work in an ballon. &nbsp; The SSME can not be airstarted. Significant mods required.&nbsp; So many that NASA abandon the idea of using them for the 2nd Stage of Ares I.</p><p>&nbsp;</p><p>&nbsp;</p>

 

[Cygnus_2112]

<p><BR/>Replying to:<BR/><DIV CLASS='Discussion_PostQuote'>Calli,&nbsp; In this case the contractor would not need to invest any money.&nbsp; They already have the data, expertise, and facilities to do the job.&nbsp; They would simply be trading who paid them for their efforts. <br /> Posted by BrianSlee</DIV></p><p>No, again you are wrong.&nbsp; The contractor would need money to maintain the exertise.&nbsp; The contractor will be laying off people as each orbiter flies its last mission </p><p>And the facilities are not theirs, most are the gov't. &nbsp;&nbsp;</p>

 

[CalliArcale]

<p>...the answer is really quite simple.&nbsp; Just like the Apollo hardware, the government does not need to deal with the FAR in this case because it isn't going to be disposing of it.&nbsp; The FAR only applies if they're planning on getting rid of the SSMEs.&nbsp; If they're going to keep them, the whole question of how to get rid of them is moot.</p><p>The government still owns most of the NASA stuff that's in museums.&nbsp; They have not donated it.&nbsp; They have loaned it, which is a horse of a different color, legally speaking. </p><p>It is not uncommon for the government to do stuff like that with items which, for whatever reason, they don't want to sell.&nbsp; Just because they're not using it does not mean they have an obligation to make it available to the public.&nbsp; There are thousands of aircraft in boneyards which attest to that fact, to say nothing of the ones currently on loan to various museums.&nbsp; *If* they decide to make it available to the public, then the FAR comes into play.</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>

 

[DrRocket]

<p><BR/>Replying to:<BR/><DIV CLASS='Discussion_PostQuote'>Calli,&nbsp; In this case the contractor would not need to invest any money.&nbsp; They already have the data, expertise, and facilities to do the job.&nbsp; They would simply be trading who paid them for their efforts. <br />Posted by BrianSlee</DIV></p><p>You are making a rather large assumption as to who actually owns the engineering data.&nbsp; Do you know for a fact that it is Boeing/Rocketdyne and not the government who owns the engineering data ?</p><p>I have worked programs where the data was owned by the Navy and we could not even divulge engineering data to the Air Force without specific&nbsp;permission from the Navy.&nbsp; </p> <div class="Discussion_UserSignature"> </div>

 

[BrianSlee]

<p><BR/>Replying to:<BR/><DIV CLASS='Discussion_PostQuote'>1.&nbsp; Looks like you lost. &nbsp; NASA gives the NASM first crack at all the unused hardware. &nbsp; But still NASA can keep them for themselves like I said and keep them on display or keep them in bonded storage.&nbsp; This is SOP. &nbsp; Show me one a similar system that NASA has sold.&nbsp; you won't find one. &nbsp; 2.&nbsp; No one is going to&nbsp; use them.&nbsp; .&nbsp; No one is going to spend the large amount of money to keep the expertise viable. If you think someone is, then you are delusional.&nbsp; It is not like an aircraft at DMAFB.&nbsp;And they won't work in an ballon. &nbsp; The SSME can not be airstarted. Significant mods required.&nbsp; So many that NASA abandon the idea of using them for the 2nd Stage of Ares I.&nbsp;&nbsp; <br />Posted by Cygnus_2112</DIV><br /><br />Cygnus,</p><p>Are you a government employee?</p><p>Do you represent the PM in this matter?</p><p>Again why do argue against possible reuse of the assets?</p><p>And I will gladly let anyone who knows even a little about acquisition law determine who is being foolish in this instance and who really knows what they are talking about.&nbsp; Declaring victory does not make you victorious.</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]

<p><BR/>Replying to:<BR/><DIV CLASS='Discussion_PostQuote'>...the answer is really quite simple.&nbsp; Just like the Apollo hardware, the government does not need to deal with the FAR in this case because it isn't going to be disposing of it.&nbsp; The FAR only applies if they're planning on getting rid of the SSMEs.&nbsp; If they're going to keep them, the whole question of how to get rid of them is moot.The government still owns most of the NASA stuff that's in museums.&nbsp; They have not donated it.&nbsp; They have loaned it, which is a horse of a different color, legally speaking. It is not uncommon for the government to do stuff like that with items which, for whatever reason, they don't want to sell.&nbsp; Just because they're not using it does not mean they have an obligation to make it available to the public.&nbsp; There are thousands of aircraft in boneyards which attest to that fact, to say nothing of the ones currently on loan to various museums.&nbsp; *If* they decide to make it available to the public, then the FAR comes into play. <br />Posted by CalliArcale</DIV><br /><br />Calli,</p><p>&nbsp; You actually have an argument in what you say.&nbsp; But will NASA close its eyes to the probability that the hardware could make another program viable in this case.&nbsp; I would hope not.</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'></p><p>1. Again why do argue against possible reuse of the assets?</p><p>And I will gladly let anyone who knows even a little about acquisition law determine who is being foolish in this instance and who really knows what they are talking about.&nbsp; </DIV></p><p>&nbsp;</p><p>1.&nbsp; I am not against.&nbsp; I am being realistic.&nbsp; They aren't going to be reused.</p><p>&nbsp;2.&nbsp; you are the one being foolish here in not knowing how NASA deals with old hardware. </p>

 

[Cygnus_2112]

<p><BR/>Replying to:<BR/><DIV CLASS='Discussion_PostQuote'>&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></p><p>&nbsp;</p><p>I said that many posts ago&nbsp;</p>

 

[BrianSlee]

<p><BR/>Replying to:<BR/><DIV CLASS='Discussion_PostQuote'>You are making a rather large assumption as to who actually owns the engineering data.&nbsp; Do you know for a fact that it is Boeing/Rocketdyne and not the government who owns the engineering data ?I have worked programs where the data was owned by the Navy and we could not even divulge engineering data to the Air Force without specific&nbsp;permission from the Navy.&nbsp; <br />Posted by DrRocket</DIV><br /><br />Dr. Rocket,</p><p>&nbsp; You are correct.&nbsp; It is an asumption and I am not familiar with who owns the data.&nbsp; Any deal or arrangement would have to&nbsp;be able to overcome&nbsp;those issues to be successful.</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'>But will NASA close its eyes to the probability that the hardware could make another program viable in this case.&nbsp; I would hope not. <br /> Posted by BrianSlee</DIV></p><p>You are deluding yourself with that statement.&nbsp; You have no idea of the costs involved.&nbsp; It is not a commercially viable engine </p>

 

[BrianSlee]

<p><BR/>Replying to:<BR/><DIV CLASS='Discussion_PostQuote'>&nbsp;I said that many posts ago&nbsp; <br />Posted by Cygnus_2112</DIV><br /><br />Actually here is what you said </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."</p><p>The term "loaned" was never used&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>

 

[CalliArcale]

<p><BR/>Replying to:<BR/><DIV CLASS='Discussion_PostQuote'>Calli,&nbsp; In this case the contractor would not need to invest any money.&nbsp; They already have the data, expertise, and facilities to do the job.&nbsp; They would simply be trading who paid them for their efforts. <br /> Posted by BrianSlee</DIV></p><p>The "who paid them for their efforts" is actually the part I was referring to.&nbsp; Don't overlook the cost of retaining employees.&nbsp; You have to fund them full-time if you want them to stay.&nbsp; Now, you can try to shuffle some of them on to other programs temporarily while you look for a funding source for their old project, but you're not going to be able to reshuffle them all.&nbsp; Not unless you managed to win a similarly large contract at just the right time.&nbsp; So what will you do to with the remainder?&nbsp; You can put them on internal R&D programs, or you can let them go.&nbsp; Those are basically your choices.&nbsp; Few companies are willing to put for that kind of R&D funding just to keep a bunch of staff busy for the years it will take for you to find a new customer for this huge and highly specialized rocket engine.</p><p>SOP in the industry is to lay off a whole bunch of them, I'm afraid.</p><p>I found the article I was thinking of.&nbsp; It's not quite what I was thinking about; I read the article a couple of years ago.&nbsp; But he does criticize industry for thinking in the very near term, which is the root cause for why industry won't invest in knowledge retention -- it has no short-term payoff.</p><p>Donald Winter, Secretary of the Navy, addresses the Sea Air Space Exposition, April 2006 </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>

 

[Cygnus_2112]

<p><BR/>Replying to:<BR/><DIV CLASS='Discussion_PostQuote'>Actually here is what you said "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.Also, the NASM has first right of refusal of all NASA excess artifacts."The term "loaned" was never used&nbsp; <br /> Posted by BrianSlee</DIV></p><p>Huh? &nbsp;</p><p>I quoted my exact words "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>The point is that the SSME won't be put on an auction block</p>

 

[BrianSlee]

<p><BR/>Replying to:<BR/><DIV CLASS='Discussion_PostQuote'>You are deluding yourself with that statement.&nbsp; You have no idea of the costs involved.&nbsp; It is not a commercially viable engine <br />Posted by Cygnus_2112</DIV><br /><br />Cygnus,</p><p>&nbsp; You keep making statements that are simply arbitrary and argumentative without any basis.</p><p>What leads you to conclude that I don't understand the costs involved and what would be required to make them viable for use in a commercial application?</p><p>&nbsp; If you want to argue simply for the sake of it, I don't have time for you.&nbsp; If you want to discuss the issue then come up with other information that actually supports your statements instead of throwing out negative comments that have no value in the conversation.</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>

 

[DrRocket]

<p><BR/>Replying to:<BR/><DIV CLASS='Discussion_PostQuote'>The "who paid them for their efforts" is actually the part I was referring to.&nbsp; Don't overlook the cost of retaining employees.&nbsp; You have to fund them full-time if you want them to stay.&nbsp; Now, you can try to shuffle some of them on to other programs temporarily while you look for a funding source for their old project, but you're not going to be able to reshuffle them all.&nbsp; Not unless you managed to win a similarly large contract at just the right time.&nbsp; So what will you do to with the remainder?&nbsp; You can put them on internal R&D programs, or you can let them go.&nbsp; Those are basically your choices.&nbsp; Few companies are willing to put for that kind of R&D funding just to keep a bunch of staff busy for the years it will take for you to find a new customer for this huge and highly specialized rocket engine.SOP in the industry is to lay off a whole bunch of them, I'm afraid.I found the article I was thinking of.&nbsp; It's not quite what I was thinking about; I read the article a couple of years ago.&nbsp; But he does criticize industry for thinking in the very near term, which is the root cause for why industry won't invest in knowledge retention -- it has no short-term payoff.Donald Winter, Secretary of the Navy, addresses the Sea Air Space Exposition, April 2006 <br />Posted by CalliArcale</DIV></p><p>If you are referring to the usual IR&D (Independent Research and Development) then contractors need to be a bit more circumspect.&nbsp; IR&D has a specific definition in the FAR and is reimbursible to the contractor through the overhead structure (the amount of reimbursement depends on the mix of fixed price vs reimbursible contracts held by the contractor).&nbsp; But you cannot use IR&D funds just to support people, there must be a project that meets the FAR guidelines, which is basically development of a new product for sale.</p><p>Now, if the contractor is willing to fund a projedt solely out of profits, then the contractor can do whatever he wants.&nbsp; That situation is rather unusual.<br /></p> <div class="Discussion_UserSignature"> </div>

 

[BrianSlee]

<p><BR/>Replying to:<BR/><DIV CLASS='Discussion_PostQuote'>The "who paid them for their efforts" is actually the part I was referring to.&nbsp; Don't overlook the cost of retaining employees.&nbsp; You have to fund them full-time if you want them to stay.&nbsp; Now, you can try to shuffle some of them on to other programs temporarily while you look for a funding source for their old project, but you're not going to be able to reshuffle them all.&nbsp; Not unless you managed to win a similarly large contract at just the right time.&nbsp; So what will you do to with the remainder?&nbsp; You can put them on internal R&D programs, or you can let them go.&nbsp; Those are basically your choices.&nbsp; Few companies are willing to put for that kind of R&D funding just to keep a bunch of staff busy for the years it will take for you to find a new customer for this huge and highly specialized rocket engine.SOP in the industry is to lay off a whole bunch of them, I'm afraid.I found the article I was thinking of.&nbsp; It's not quite what I was thinking about; I read the article a couple of years ago.&nbsp; But he does criticize industry for thinking in the very near term, which is the root cause for why industry won't invest in knowledge retention -- it has no short-term payoff.Donald Winter, Secretary of the Navy, addresses the Sea Air Space Exposition, April 2006 <br />Posted by CalliArcale</DIV><br /><br />Calli,</p><p>&nbsp; Timing is critical in this case.&nbsp; Anybody contemplating this approach would have to have their ducks in a row to ensure transition costs were kept to a minimum and that the employees were supported through the process to make it viable.&nbsp; That would mean the onus for those costs would be on the organization looking to acquire the support services.&nbsp; That definitely wouldn't be cheap, but nothing associated with space access is.&nbsp; But it would still be cheaper by many orders of magnitude than starting from scratch.</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'>What leads you to conclude that I don't understand the costs involved&nbsp; Posted by BrianSlee</DIV></p><p>&nbsp;Your crazy LTA idea.</p><p>Support for the&nbsp; SSME was 1 billion dollars for 5 years.</p><p>&nbsp;</p><p>And again, they won't work in an ballon. &nbsp; The SSME can not be airstarted nor fired horizontal. Significant mods required.&nbsp; So many that NASA abandon the idea of using them for the 2nd Stage of Ares I. </p><p>&nbsp;&nbsp;</p>

 

[Cygnus_2112]

<p><BR/>Replying to:<BR/><DIV CLASS='Discussion_PostQuote'>&nbsp; But it would still be cheaper by many orders of magnitude than starting from scratch. <br /> Posted by BrianSlee</DIV></p><p>not quite so.&nbsp; there are other engines out there.&nbsp; Also spacex started from scratch.&nbsp;</p>

 

[BrianSlee]

<p><BR/>Replying to:<BR/><DIV CLASS='Discussion_PostQuote'>&nbsp;Your crazy LTA idea.Support for the&nbsp; SSME was 1 billion dollars for 5 years.&nbsp;And again, they won't work in an ballon. &nbsp; The SSME can not be airstarted nor fired horizontal. Significant mods required.&nbsp; So many that NASA abandon the idea of using them for the 2nd Stage of Ares I. &nbsp;&nbsp; <br />Posted by Cygnus_2112</DIV><br /><br />Ok and how many launches can you get out of a set of reusable engines in 5 years?&nbsp; 200 Million a year would be cheap, Especially if you can&nbsp;go back to the original utilization rates specified&nbsp;before NASA decided to rebuild them before every flight for safety.</p><p>Would a different application&nbsp;enable components for air&nbsp;start for&nbsp;less, if weight and size weren't major considerations?</p><p>Who say's an air start is required in this case or they have to be fired horizontally?&nbsp; </p><p>And what precludes horizontal firing?</p><p>Are you saying that it is impossible to run the shuttle engines in anything but a vertical attitude?</p><p>And what the heck is a "an ballon"?</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'>not quite so.&nbsp; there are other engines out there.&nbsp; Also spacex started from scratch.&nbsp; <br />Posted by Cygnus_2112</DIV><br /><br />That has got to be one of the most idiotic statements I have ever heard how can you justify a position that it would not be orders of magnitude less to use a system already in existence than to&nbsp;to design, test and field a system with the exact same capabilities.&nbsp; What do you do for a living?&nbsp; Do you think Space-X would have turned down the technology if they had a better option handed to them already in a box ready for flight? <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'>TDo you think Space-X would have turned down the technology if they had a better option handed to them already in a box ready for flight? <br /> Posted by BrianSlee</DIV></p><p>&nbsp;</p><p>Not if it cost more&nbsp; Low cost trumps high technology in the commecial world. </p><p>Also the SSME is not in a "box"&nbsp; It is not a plug and play engine.&nbsp; There is significant hardware needed on the launch pad and in the vehicle to use it. </p><p>That is why the RS-68 is going to be used vs the SSME in the Ares.&nbsp; <br /> </p>

 

[BrianSlee]

Replying to:<BR/><DIV CLASS='Discussion_PostQuote'>&nbsp;Not if it cost more.&nbsp; That is why the RS-68 is going to be used vs the SSME <br />Posted by Cygnus_2112</DIV><br /><br />Different engines for different applications.&nbsp; The RS-68 is disposable and made to be used in an ELV configuration the SSMEs are not.&nbsp; So it would obviously be more expensive to use the SSMEs in a throwaway configuration.&nbsp; Try another analogy.&nbsp; And you are saying that if NASA offered Space-X a ready to go RS-68 engine they would turn it down in pursuit of their own design?&nbsp; Your stupidity is showing again. <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>