Ares V: 5 SSME's in the core

[BrianSlee]

<p><BR/>Replying to:<BR/><DIV CLASS='Discussion_PostQuote'>1.&nbsp; The COTS program is not funding anymore entrants.&nbsp; OSC and Spacex get all the money.2.&nbsp; the higher authority to NASA is the president. He isn't going toget involved and neither is the DOD3.&nbsp; You don't know what my expertise and experience is. Disposal of NASA hardware is among it, in addition to the DOD's view of the shuttle and it components.&nbsp; 4.&nbsp; No one in industry or the gov't is going to take a money pit like the SSME.&nbsp; <br />Posted by Cygnus_2112</DIV><br /><br />Cygnus,</p><p>&nbsp; The current COTS program funds being fully allocated at the moment does not mean there are no future opportunities for more companies to become involved.&nbsp; Also based on recent history there is always a chance that the current participants will lose the opportunity they have through non-performance.&nbsp; You are right I don't know what your experience is,&nbsp; so please enlighten me and let me know just what it is you do for a living.&nbsp; Based on what you have said I am pretty sure it has nothing to do with LTA systems or program management.&nbsp; I would also not rule out congress or the judicial system in your hierarchy of who's in charge.&nbsp; I am truly impressed though that you have had the time to canvass the entire government (all&nbsp;the way up to the President) &nbsp;and every organization within DoD for their thoughts on this, during the time we have been discussing it and garnered their approval to represent them in this matter.&nbsp;&nbsp;You must also let me know how you manage&nbsp;to read the minds of absolutely everyone in industry giving you the abilty&nbsp;to determine that there is absolutely no interest from anyone, excepting my company of course, in acquiring the SSME system.&nbsp; You still keep providing fallacious arguments while refusing to answer direct questions that would bring some value to the discussion.&nbsp; The only pertinent question at this point as far as I am concerned is are you authorized to represent NASA in any negotiation of this magnitude.&nbsp; If you are not a program manager, contracting officer or somebody higher on the food chain then the answer in my opinion is probably not.&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>

 

[DrRocket]

<p>None of us in the forum can speak for NASA or any other government agency for that matter.&nbsp; The best that we can do is to give, based on our experience and imperfect knowledge of a situation, our impression of what might transpire.</p><p>If one has a specific idea then the best way to get a definitive and objective evaluation is to prepare and submit an unsolicited proposal to NASA or other appropriate agency.&nbsp; If I recall correctly they are required to evaluate and respond to such a proposal.&nbsp; If it involves the use of government assets then that fact should be identified in the proposal.&nbsp; In fact, all proposals with which I am familiar include a section defining the specific government property that is required for the execution of the proposal.&nbsp; Use of government property is quite normal and the government is used to evaluating proposals containing such requests.</p><p>Submission of a proposal would eliminate all relevance of opinions and suppositions by people who are really outside of the process.&nbsp; The proposal would be either accepted or rejected, and reasons supplied for the decision by the people who make the decisions and whose opinions really count.</p> <div class="Discussion_UserSignature"> </div>

 

[BrianSlee]

<p><BR/>Replying to:<BR/><DIV CLASS='Discussion_PostQuote'>I answered your question, but perhaps you did not either recognize that fact or like the answer.</DIV></p><p>Maybe I am just too simple minded to understand your response.&nbsp; But I didn't recognise the answer to my question in your response.&nbsp;&nbsp;I don't see the need for a dissertation for a simple question that could be answered succinctly with yes or no, which could then&nbsp;be followed by some substantiation for your position.&nbsp; Here is the question again.</p><p>"Do you believe that NASA would not be willing to transfer these assets to a program that could demonstrate the technical and economic viability for their use?&nbsp; (this question is not&nbsp;concept specific. I am talking about any concept in general)"</p><p>&nbsp;I am asking your opinion.&nbsp; I was more interested in what you think on the subject,&nbsp;my expectation&nbsp;was that the answer&nbsp;would resemble something more like... The answer is yes, I think NASA would consider it, if the feasibility was empirically demonstrated.&nbsp; Or no, I think NASA would be unwilling to part with the hardware for any&nbsp;reason.&nbsp; I don't think the answer that "NASA will do whatever is determined by politics or national interest to be a desirable course of action." clearly expresses what your opinion is on the matter.&nbsp; Of course my expectations might be a little too simplistic in this instance.</p><p>Replying to:<BR/><DIV CLASS='Discussion_PostQuote'>I will explain further.&nbsp; The main point is that NASA will not waste national resources on schemes that should not be pursued.The SSMEs are both obsolete and a historical national artifact of a significant portion of our space program.&nbsp; NASA has an obligation, which I am confident that they will discharge as the steward of those assets, to put them to a use appropriate to their value in that role.&nbsp; Education and preservation of artifacts in a museum or display setting may be that appropriate use.&nbsp; Other uses might also be appropriate. Assessment of what is appropriate takes some knowledge and expertise.</DIV></p><p>I believe this comes closer to answering the question by saying that NASA would assess the value of both prospects and consider which is most appropriate.&nbsp;&nbsp;I will take this to mean that you are saying "Yes" to the original question and that NASA would be willing to release the SSMEs under the appropriate conditions.&nbsp; Let me know if this was not your intent.</p><p>Replying to:<BR/><DIV CLASS='Discussion_PostQuote'>What constitutes a technically and economically feasible project, on objective grounds, is perhaps more apparent to thosse with a solid technical background and experience than it is to others.&nbsp; NASA&nbsp;has witihin the organization people with the capability to recognize such projects and also to recognize notions that do not cut the mustard.&nbsp; They have access to such expertise from people outside of NASA itself as well. &nbsp;There are some enterprises, and rocket and space propulsion seem unfortunately among them, that attract a significant number of <font color="#ff0000">crackpots</font> with elaborate but flawed schemes.&nbsp; NASA has the obligation to see that assets such as the SSMEs are not wasted on such <font color="#ff0000">schemes</font>.I have seen quite a few such <font color="#ff0000">crackpot ideas</font>, in a professional capacity, in directing Independent Research and Development work, managing projects and businesses, and acting as an expert witness in legal proceedings.&nbsp; These situations show some remarkable similarities.&nbsp; The principals in such schemes believe that they have truly conceived a system, product, or principle that has eluded the experts for years, despite the fact that the idea uses no new science nor evidences a particularly clever or novel integration of known technology.&nbsp; The principals believe themselves to be competent and usually expert in areas in which <font color="#ff0000">they are actually quite wanting in expertise</font>. These areas include science, engineering, and project management. They&nbsp;believe this strongly enough to be what a layman would probably call "delusional".&nbsp; Logical arguments, often from people with both experience and&nbsp;actual expertise,&nbsp;make no impression.&nbsp;&nbsp;The <font color="#ff0000">schemes</font>put forward are often quite intricate, and in that sense quite clever,&nbsp; But they overlook clear&nbsp;conflicts with basic science and engineering and with matters of scale.&nbsp; Quite often they see as "off the shelf" items that are neither "off the shelf" nor capable of being produced.&nbsp; There tends to a confusion between that which can be illustrated with a computer and that which is feasible in the physical world -- usually due to the neglect of properties of materials, matters of scale, or basic physical principles.&nbsp; Almost always the ideas that are proposed are stated as having a revolutionary effect on technology -- orders of magnitude reduction in cost, complete elimination of failures, huge gains in performance, etc.&nbsp; Always the claims do not hold up under technical scrutiny, but rarely do the principals recognize this.Some examples might help.&nbsp;I have seen what was actually a fundamentally good idea for solar thermal propulsion go on the rocks because the principal believed far too strongly that implementation was easy.&nbsp; The basic physics was probably there, modulo a need to demonstrate efficient heat transfer.&nbsp; But the necessary manufacturing technology was not.&nbsp;&nbsp;Rather than take the time to develop the manufacturing technology rigorously, the principal insisted on pushing ahead quickly and advertising the potential of the idea.&nbsp; He was rather successful in attracting interest in the idea, too successful&nbsp;for the good of the project.&nbsp; He also believed too quickly and and easily what he was told by vendors with a vested interest in receiving subcontracts.&nbsp; The result was overenthusiasm, followed by disappointment when manufacturing of prototypes failed and cancellation of the project.&nbsp; Hundreds of thousands of dollars spent that came to nothing.&nbsp; In this case it did not have to be that way.Same inventor, second attempt.&nbsp; Revolutionary idea for electric propulsion.&nbsp; Unfortunately it violated conservation of momentum.&nbsp; Clearly that one didn't work out, and in fact did not get to the point of serious consideration for funding. His credibility had been compromised by that point in any case.Same inventor, third attempt.&nbsp; New idea to improve Isp.&nbsp; But not thermodynamically viable.&nbsp; Not funded by the company.&nbsp; Inventor is now spending his own money in&nbsp;testing, that is most unlikely to bear fruit.&nbsp; It is his money and if he wants to pursue the idea then that is his right.&nbsp;Different inventor.&nbsp; Thought he had an idea to eliminate all rocket failures through use of fiber optic technology.&nbsp; Then thought his ideas (trade secrets)&nbsp;had been stolen and made public by a larger company.&nbsp; Sued for $1.4 BILLION.&nbsp; Could not very clearly define what his idea was, but whatever it was, it would eliminate rocket failures.&nbsp; Suckered law firm into pursuing the suit.&nbsp; Expert witnesses for defense concluded that his ideas were either 1) obvious to anyone with knowledge of the art or 2) well-known and in the open literature or 3) false on the basis of basic science.&nbsp; In addition his claims for damages were quickly shown to be based on fallacious analysis based on misuse of mathematics&nbsp;and in any case absurd.&nbsp; He, of course, also had expert witnesses.&nbsp; The case was dismissed on summary judgment and his (expensive) expert witnesses were officially discredited by the court.&nbsp; The complainant received nothing and his attorneys wasted quite of bit of their own money -- which is appropriate since they had no case whatever. But the legal bills for the defense exceeded half a million dollars, and they had no fault whatever.There are other examples.&nbsp;&nbsp; <font color="#ff0000">Delusional inventors</font> and <font color="#ff0000">outlandish claims</font> are unfortunately common in the propulsion industry.&nbsp; The <font color="#ff0000">crackpots</font> that put forth such ideas do not recognize the flaws in their ideas, and can waste significant resources.&nbsp;&nbsp; NASA will discharge their duty as a steward of national resources and not waste those resources on schemes that lack merit. <br />Posted by DrRocket</DIV></p><p>I consider much of what you say in this passage to be sophistic in nature and aimed at trying to discredit me while you have conveniently avoided any serious attempt at evaluating the idea.&nbsp; You have continuously refused to base any statements you make as to the feasibility of the concept on&nbsp;any argument that wasn't based&nbsp;on personal bias, an invalid assumption or erroneous information supplied by you and in direct conflict with the data presented.&nbsp;&nbsp; While I share the belief that any assets as important, expensive, and historically relavent&nbsp;as the SSMEs should be safeguarded from ideas that can't clearly demonstrate empirically that they have merit, I don't believe that you have put forth sufficient effort to either prove or disprove my concept so have no right to even discuss the merits of it in relation to this question or any other.</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'>None of us in the forum can speak for NASA or any other government agency for that matter.&nbsp; The best that we can do is to give, based on our experience and imperfect knowledge of a situation, our impression of what might transpire.If one has a specific idea then the best way to get a definitive and objective evaluation is to prepare and submit an unsolicited proposal to NASA or other appropriate agency.&nbsp; If I recall correctly they are required to evaluate and respond to such a proposal.&nbsp; If it involves the use of government assets then that fact should be identified in the proposal.&nbsp; In fact, all proposals with which I am familiar include a section defining the specific government property that is required for the execution of the proposal.&nbsp; Use of government property is quite normal and the government is used to evaluating proposals containing such requests.Submission of a proposal would eliminate all relevance of opinions and suppositions by people who are really outside of the process.&nbsp; The proposal would be either accepted or rejected, and reasons supplied for the decision by the people who make the decisions and whose opinions really count. <br />Posted by DrRocket</DIV><br /><br />Should I consider this a retraction since you edited over all of the contents from the original post?</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 .The current COTS program funds being fully allocated at the moment does not mean there are no future opportunities for more companies to become involved.&nbsp; Also based on recent history there is always a chance that the current participants will lose the opportunity they have through non-performance.&nbsp;</p><p>2 You are right I don't know what your experience is,&nbsp; so please enlghten me and let me know just what it is you do for a living.&nbsp; Based on what you have said I am pretty sure it has nothing to do with LTA systems or program management.&nbsp; </p><p>3.&nbsp; every organization within DoD for their thoughts on this, during the time we have been discussing it and garnered their approval to represent them in this matter.&nbsp;&nbsp;</p><p>&nbsp;3. You must also let me know how you manage&nbsp;to read the minds of absolutely everyone in industry giving you the abilty&nbsp;to determine that there is absolutely no interest from anyone, excepting my company of course, in acquiring the SSME system.&nbsp; Posted by BrianSlee</DIV></p><p>&nbsp;</p><p>1.&nbsp; Wrong.&nbsp; NASA has no intend of reopening the competition, no matter what happens with the current contractors.</p><p>2. I am in the spacelaunch business.&nbsp; As for LTA's, I know they can't be space vehicles.</p><p>3.&nbsp; There are only a few orgs in the DOD that are concerned with space launch and they are total repulsed by any related to the shuttle.&nbsp; Been there, done that.&nbsp; I was in the USAF shuttle program office (when there was one).&nbsp; i know how the USAF and NRO feel. &nbsp; </p><p>&nbsp;4. Same goes for commercial companies. Other than the ones that Dr Rocket describes, no legitimate company who is in spacelaunch or interested in low costs will go near the SSMEs.&nbsp; There is no way to make them cost effective.&nbsp; Don't go spouting off BS about high flight rates, because there isn't enough business to support them </p>

 

[BrianSlee]

Replying to:<BR/><DIV CLASS='Discussion_PostQuote'>&nbsp;1.&nbsp; Wrong.&nbsp; NASA has no intend of reopening the competition, no matter what happens with the current contractors.2. I am in the spacelaunch business.&nbsp; As for LTA's, I know they can't be space vehicles.3.&nbsp; There are only a few orgs in the DOD that are concerned with space launch and they are total repulsed by any related to the shuttle.&nbsp; Been there, done that.&nbsp; I was in the USAF shuttle program office (when there was one).&nbsp; i know how the USAF and NRO feel. &nbsp; &nbsp;4. Same goes for commercial companies. Other than the ones that Dr Rocket describes, no legitimate company who is in spacelaunch or interested in low costs will go near the SSMEs.&nbsp; There is no way to make them cost effective.&nbsp; Don't go spouting off BS about high flight rates, because there isn't enough business to support them <br />Posted by Cygnus_2112</DIV><br /><br />I bow to your superior knowledge and obviously keen intelect. <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'>Should I consider this a retraction since you edited over all of the contents from the original post? <br />Posted by BrianSlee</DIV></p><p>You can take it any way you want.&nbsp; You might take it that I had a headache and figured that further debate would be pretty useless so I pulled the post -- apparently too late.<br /></p> <div class="Discussion_UserSignature"> </div>

 

[Cygnus_2112]

<p><BR/>Replying to:<BR/><DIV CLASS='Discussion_PostQuote'>I bow to your superior knowledge and obviously keen intelect. <br /> Posted by BrianSlee</DIV></p><p>&nbsp;</p><p>First correct thing you have said on this thread.&nbsp; Now you got idea. &nbsp;</p><p>&nbsp;</p><p>You don't know the breadth of my experience.&nbsp;&nbsp; I have been in military, civil and commercial space business manned and unmanned and have maintained contacts in those areas.&nbsp; Been fortunate to be in positions where I see more than one project or program but see the whole picture. &nbsp; </p>

 

[BrianSlee]

Replying to:<BR/><DIV CLASS='Discussion_PostQuote'>&nbsp;First correct thing you have said on this thread.&nbsp; Now you got idea. &nbsp;&nbsp;You don't know the breadth of my experience.&nbsp;&nbsp; I have been in military, civil and commercial space business manned and unmanned and have maintained contacts in those areas.&nbsp; Been fortunate to be in positions where I see more than one project or program but see the whole picture. &nbsp; <br />Posted by Cygnus_2112</DIV><br /><br />You are a beacon shining brightly for everyone to see <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>

 

[kyle_baron]

<p><BR/>Replying to:<BR/><DIV CLASS='Discussion_PostQuote'>You are a beacon shining brightly for everyone to see <br />Posted by BrianSlee</DIV></p><p>&nbsp;</p><p>Even though you guys hijacked my thread, I love the sarcasm!&nbsp; <img src="http://sitelife.space.com/ver1.0/content/scripts/tinymce/plugins/emotions/images/smiley-wink.gif" border="0" alt="Wink" title="Wink" /><br /></p> <div class="Discussion_UserSignature"> <p><font size="4"><strong></strong></font></p> </div>

 

[dougbaker]

<p>Does anyone have any examples of NASA selling hardware. Any private person or company&nbsp;own an Apollo capsule, Saturn V, or any of the previous generation of launch systems? &nbsp;</p>

 

[CalliArcale]

<p><BR/>Replying to:<BR/><DIV CLASS='Discussion_PostQuote'>Does anyone have any examples of NASA selling hardware. Any private person or company&nbsp;own an Apollo capsule, Saturn V, or any of the previous generation of launch systems? &nbsp; <br /> Posted by dougbaker</DIV></p><p>I once saw a website that listed the locations of old Apollo hardware and stuff like that.&nbsp; I'll see if I can find that, becuase it could be a good starting point to answering that question.&nbsp; However, I think it's uncommon, if it ever happens at all.&nbsp; I'm not sure why NASA is so reluctant to sell this stuff.&nbsp; Perhaps it is for historical sentiment; I don't know.&nbsp; Or maybe it's just the nature of an organization that must answer to the whims of Congressional mandates -- once a project is over, it has little interest in spending effort to dispose of hardware in a manner which benefits private enterprise. </p><p>I do know that NASA considers any fallen spacecraft still their property.&nbsp; They're rather possessive about these things, for better or worse.</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'>I once saw a website that listed the locations of old Apollo hardware and stuff like that.&nbsp; I'll see if I can find that, becuase it could be a good starting point to answering that question.&nbsp; However, I think it's uncommon, if it ever happens at all.&nbsp; I'm not sure why NASA is so reluctant to sell this stuff.&nbsp; Perhaps it is for historical sentiment; I don't know.&nbsp; Or maybe it's just the nature of an organization that must answer to the whims of Congressional mandates -- once a project is over, it has little interest in spending effort to dispose of hardware in a manner which benefits private enterprise. I do know that NASA considers any fallen spacecraft still their property.&nbsp; They're rather possessive about these things, for better or worse. <br />Posted by CalliArcale</DIV></p><p>Sometimes NASA property from a contract is declared excess and sold.&nbsp; In the 1980's dthre was a program called the Filament Wound Case (FWC) which was to develope a graphite composite case as an alternate to the steel cases used for the Shuttle SRBs.&nbsp; That program was actually successful and at the time of the Challenger accident a flight from Vandenberg was in preparation that would have used the FWC.&nbsp; It actually had incorporated as a design&nbsp;element the O-ring capture feature that was implemented after Challenger.&nbsp; However, as a reault of Challenger the program was cancelled and the FWC was never flown.&nbsp; Some residual FWC segments were declared excess.&nbsp; I think some others were painted white and used for display purposes since they look like the flight steel cases but are lighter and therefore easier to handle, and also because they are not part of the flight program and hence basically useless.</p><p>I personally know a man who owns at least one of the excess FWC segments, stored in a field.&nbsp; I have no idea what he is going to do with&nbsp;it, and I don't think he does either. &nbsp;But he does indeed own it.&nbsp; His picture is in the dictionary, right next to "packrat". </p><p>However, the sale of this piece of hardware probably provides no useful information as to what NASA might do with&nbsp;equipment that does have significant historical significance and was used in flight.&nbsp; Also the technology that might be inadvertently released by sale of an FWC is nil, while there is likely some sensitivity with the technology for something like an SSME.&nbsp; It is also perhaps worth noting that the item was not loaded with propellant, as any such item would have to be decontaminated before being transferred to anyone not capable of handling explosives, and the decontaminatin process is a bit hard on equipment.&nbsp; <br /></p> <div class="Discussion_UserSignature"> </div>

 

[kyle_baron]

<br /><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 class="Discussion_PostQuote">&nbsp;</p><p>&nbsp;</p><p>Posted by Cygnus 2112:</p><div class="Discussion_PostQuote">"It won't be cheaper".&nbsp;</div><div class="Discussion_PostQuote">Explain with&nbsp; $ amounts, please.&nbsp;</div><p>"4 SRB's won't fit on the pad or in the VAB."</p><p>&nbsp;Ares V could get a new launch pad.&nbsp; If 2 SRB's now fit on the core of Ares V, how does the addition of 2 more SRB's not allow it to fit in the vehicle assembly building?</p><p>&nbsp;"Also now it is affecting the crawler way."</p><p>&nbsp;Probably.&nbsp; Some weight savings could come off the core, by making it shorter.&nbsp; And 2-3 less engines in the core, and the weight distribution of the new crawlers might make up the difference.&nbsp;</p><p>"Also,&nbsp; 4 SRB's won't fix the problem."&nbsp;</p><p>Explain please.&nbsp; Just making a statement that it won't work, doesn't bring anything to the table for discussion.&nbsp;&nbsp; </p> <div class="Discussion_UserSignature"> <p><font size="4"><strong></strong></font></p> </div>

 

[Cygnus_2112]

<p><BR/>Replying to:<BR/><DIV CLASS='Discussion_PostQuote'>Replying to:&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; Posted by kyle_baron&nbsp;&nbsp;Posted by Cygnus 2112:"It won't be cheaper".&nbsp;Explain with&nbsp; $ amounts, please.&nbsp;"4 SRB's won't fit on the pad or in the VAB."&nbsp;Ares V could get a new launch pad.&nbsp; If 2 SRB's now fit on the core of Ares V, how does the addition of 2 more SRB's not allow it to fit in the vehicle assembly building?&nbsp;"Also now it is affecting the crawler way."&nbsp;Probably.&nbsp; Some weight savings could come off the core, by making it shorter.&nbsp; And 2-3 less engines in the core, and the weight distribution of the new crawlers might make up the difference.&nbsp;"Also,&nbsp; 4 SRB's won't fix the problem."&nbsp;Explain please.&nbsp; Just making a statement that it won't work, doesn't bring anything to the table for discussion.&nbsp;&nbsp; <br /> Posted by kyle_baron</DIV></p><p>&nbsp;</p><p>Ares V isn't getting a new pad.&nbsp; that is not in the cards.</p><p>Ares 5 will be skewed on the MLP to fit on the pad&nbsp; </p><p>Weight savings in the core is insignificant.&nbsp; The weight of one segment is many times greater. &nbsp; </p><p>The new crawler will not help, the stack is still too heavy </p><p>&nbsp; </p>

 

[kyle_baron]

<p><BR/>Replying to:<BR/><DIV CLASS='Discussion_PostQuote'>&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp; The new crawler will not help, the stack is still too heavy &nbsp; <br />Posted by Cygnus_2112</DIV></p><p>&nbsp;</p><p>The 50' crawlerway median strip could easily be filled in with stone, just like the two 40' wide lanes.&nbsp; A new crawler could be designed to utilize this center 50' section.&nbsp; Problem solved.</p><p>http://www-pao.ksc.nasa.gov/kscpao/nasafact/count3teaf.htm#mlp<br /></p> <div class="Discussion_UserSignature"> <p><font size="4"><strong></strong></font></p> </div>

 

[Cygnus_2112]

<p><BR/>Replying to:<BR/><DIV CLASS='Discussion_PostQuote'>&nbsp;The 50' crawlerway median strip could easily be filled in with stone, just like the two 40' wide lanes.&nbsp; A new crawler could be designed to utilize this center 50' section.&nbsp; Problem solved.http://www-pao.ksc.nasa.gov/kscpao/nasafact/count3teaf.htm#mlp <br /> Posted by kyle_baron</DIV></p><p>Nope, there is a flame trench in the middle at the pad.&nbsp;</p><p>Ares V problems are not going to be solved on this forum. &nbsp; </p>

 

[earth_bound_misfit]

<p>Cygnus and Brian, you guys crack me up. Most entertaining, I really should've have a bowl of popcorn while reading this thread and I was wondering who was going to get their big brother first lol. Keep up the great work <img src="http://sitelife.space.com/ver1.0/content/scripts/tinymce/plugins/emotions/images/smiley-laughing.gif" border="0" alt="Laughing" title="Laughing" /></p><p>&nbsp;</p><p>Anyhow, back on subject, is Ares a winner or a lemon?</p> <div class="Discussion_UserSignature"> <p> </p><p> </p><p>----------------------------------------------------------------- </p><p>Wanna see this site looking like the old SDC uplink?</p><p>Go here to see how: <strong>SDC Eye saver </strong>  </p> </div>

 

[SpaceKiwi]

<p><BR/>Replying to:<BR/><DIV CLASS='Discussion_PostQuote'><font color="#3366ff">Does anyone have any examples of NASA selling hardware.&nbsp;&nbsp; <br /></font><strong>Posted by dougbaker</strong></DIV></p><p>&nbsp;</p><p>I seem to recall NASA was recently going to offer up their collection of used Orbiter tyres (one careful driver) for sale.&nbsp; That decision was reversed in favour of making them available to appropriate institutions as part of an educational outreach program.&nbsp; It's interesting to consider this in light of the previous discussion about the SSME's and perhaps conclude that NASA are not easily persuaded to make their tech available, even relatively mundane one-use main landing gear rubber.</p><p>&nbsp;</p><p>SK&nbsp; <img src="http://sitelife.space.com/ver1.0/Content/images/store/13/3/0d115c04-da62-47d6-b3fe-6159f1e3f3b1.Medium.gif" alt="" /></p> <div class="Discussion_UserSignature"> <p><em><font size="2" color="#ff0000">Who is this superhero?  Henry, the mild-mannered janitor ... could be!</font></em></p><p><em><font size="2">-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------</font></em></p><p><font size="5">Bring Back The Black!</font></p> </div>

 

[kyle_baron]

<p><BR/>Replying to:<BR/><DIV CLASS='Discussion_PostQuote'>Nope, there is a flame trench in the middle at the pad.</DIV></p><p>&nbsp;</p><p>Well then, fill it in with rock, and&nbsp;move it to a different location.&nbsp; A simple civil engineering project - No Physics involved.&nbsp; <img src="http://sitelife.space.com/ver1.0/content/scripts/tinymce/plugins/emotions/images/smiley-tongue-out.gif" border="0" alt="Tongue out" title="Tongue out" />&nbsp; </p><p>&nbsp;</p><p>Replying to:<BR/><DIV CLASS='Discussion_PostQuote'>&nbsp;Ares V problems are not going to be solved on this forum. &nbsp; <br />Posted by Cygnus_2112</DIV></p><p>&nbsp;</p><p>Not the specifics or details, we'll have to leave that to the professionals.&nbsp; But the large simple problems can certainly be addressed.&nbsp; <img src="http://sitelife.space.com/ver1.0/content/scripts/tinymce/plugins/emotions/images/smiley-tongue-out.gif" border="0" alt="Tongue out" title="Tongue out" /><br /></p> <div class="Discussion_UserSignature"> <p><font size="4"><strong></strong></font></p> </div>

 

[vulture4]

<p><BR/>Replying to:<BR/><DIV CLASS='Discussion_PostQuote'>&nbsp;I seem to recall NASA was recently going to offer up their collection of used Orbiter tyres (one careful driver) for sale.&nbsp; That decision was reversed in favour of making them available to appropriate institutions as part of an educational outreach program.&nbsp; It's interesting to consider this in light of the previous discussion about the SSME's and perhaps conclude that NASA are not easily persuaded to make their tech available, even relatively mundane one-use main landing gear rubber.&nbsp;SK&nbsp; <br /> Posted by SpaceKiwi</DIV></p><p>NASA frequently sells excess equipment, they have a large surplus yard at KSC. Not long age the remains of the Saturn V launch towers were sold as scrap. However if there is any interest in using items for museum display, which is usually the case for flight hardware, that has a higher priority.&nbsp; </p>