CEV down select is near, wanna guess?

[tomnackid]

Hmmmm wasn't there a HLLV designed by NASA that flew with a 100% success rate? Named after a certain ringed planet I belive.

 

[radarredux]

> <i><font color="yellow">Anybody have a good set of reasons why one proposal is better than the other?</font>/i><br /><br />Just a few more hours until we know. I am betting on Northrop Grumman. Fresh blood.</i>

 

[elguapoguano]

"Hmmmm wasn't there a HLLV designed by NASA that flew with a 100% success rate? Named after a certain ringed planet I belive."<br /><br />Sure, but Saturn V only flew 13 times between 1967 and 1973. Yep 100% success rate! Shuttle flew the first 25 missions with 100% success. <div class="Discussion_UserSignature"> <font color="#ff0000"><u><em>Don't let your sig line incite a gay thread ;>)</em></u></font> </div>

 

[kane007]

I thought that announcement was on Thursay 07 September.

 

[edkyle98]

"Another pro, is the RS68 is 100% American. "<br /><br />Nope. Mitsubishi Heavy Industries (Japan) makes the RS-68 propellant valves and the LOX to GOX heat exchanger.<br /><br /> - Ed Kyle

 

[kane007]

Well, to be honest, nothing nowa days is 100% one particular country. With multinationalism every component is sourced from the cheapest/best supplier.

 

[gunsandrockets]

"As for Boeing mismanagement, they certainly seem to be able to increase their stock value by very large amounts! And THAT is the only management that really counts with the stockholders..."<br /><br />Keeping the stockholders happy is not the same as winning the Orion contract.<br /><br />During the 'happy stockholder' period Boeing lost the Joint Strike Fighter contract, was penalized for stealing Atlas V secrets, and got caught up in a scandal over the unethical deal for leasing tankers to the USAF. That's what I call mismanagement.

 

[gunsandrockets]

"May or may not be relivant but do note the only heavies to have flown thus far is Boeings Delta IV ..."<br /><br />I was shocked to see how much an Atlas V core stage with the addition of the five strap-on solid boosters can carry up to LEO. No wonder Lockheed hasn't bothered to fly the 3 x core-stage heavy configuration. They don't need it (at least under current market conditions).

 

[frodo1008]

I really didn't want to get involved in a knockdown, drag-out kind of a fight here. That is usually reserved for free space. And I am NOT trying to be nasty here either, but your (and several others) level of misunderstanding about things aerospace is quite incredible! I have no way of knowing your particular background as your profile is blank, so I will make the guess that you do not have anything to do with aerospace, or if you do you are very bitter over being laid off or some other slight to yourself. Please don't fret, I find that many that are hell-bent-for-leather here have the same kind of background. So please take this as an educational type of post, and not as an attack!<br /><br />Point one. And this one does not just apply to aerospace, but business in general.<br /><br /><font color="yellow"> "Primarily because NASA refuses to contract out launch services to private vendors. </font><br /><br />In the first place your definition of "private vendors" is such as spacex I am sure. But ANY company that you can buy stock in is a "Private" company. You can't buy stock in NASA itself, nor the US Air Force, nor social security because they are a part of the US government. But you CAN indeed buy stock in Boeing, LM, Northup, or any of the other large government contractors (Heck, I am pretty sure that you can buy stock in the much hated Halliburton!). So these companies are by definition "Private companies"! They are also contractors to the government for much more than NASA, most also are contractors for the military also. If you need an addition to your home you hire a contractor. The government even bids out contracts to such companies on a competitive basis (else, why are we even on this thread in the first place?)<br /><br />I even believe (I admittedly don't know for sure) that Space Alliance stock may also be available, but at any rate as Space Alliance is a compound of the private companies of Boeing and LM, the point would be somewhat m

 

[mattblack]

You know, hokie; we've been batting this ball for so long now, I've genuinely forgotten what you want or propose for an alternative. High flight rates for anything is so many years off, surely you know that? Worth aiming for, sure, but how do you propose to slay the development cost/flightrate/operating cost dragons?<br /><br />You're most probably better qualified in science and engineering than me and some others here, but I'd like to know how you'd get around all this. I'd LOVE the chance to agree with you, far more than disagreeing.<br /><br /> />>With additional hardware that may or may not ever get built.<<<br /><br />Yeah; which is why Nasa and Altspace BOTH need our support. There's far more Altspace gear that will NEVER get built than Nasa stuff.<br /><br /> />>CEV by itself cannot leave LEO.<<<br /><br />Neither can Soyuz, Gemini, Shuttle, or Apollo. I don't believe you're being deliberately obtuse.<br /><br /> />>And even if things go as planned, the most we'll see is a couple of Apollo style flights per year at a cost of billions of dollars. Big deal.<<<br /><br />It IS a big deal: Apollo was one of mankind's greatest achievements, even with the limited, inflexible mission architecture. Also, it was only a question of funding, as you SURELY must know: in 1969 Nasa flew FOUR Saturn Vs with crews. Given enough funding they could have done four all-up lunar expeditions per year in a squeeze, or three per-year in comfort. But of course with funding heavily cut, only 2x Apollos per year were done in 1971 and 1972. If Apollos 18 & 19 were done, sandwiched between Skylab, Apollo would have ended in late 1974. "Big deal" indeed.<br /> <br /> />>What are we missing here?? High flight rates. Significantly lower operational costs.<<<br /><br />HOLY GRAIL!! 15-20 years away, but on the way for sure: that we can agree on.<br /><br /> />>An abillity to make a controlled landing instead of having crews parachute back down in a tin (Aluminium <div class="Discussion_UserSignature"> <p> </p><p>One Percent of Federal Funding For Space: America <strong><em><u>CAN</u></em></strong> Afford it!!  LEO is a <strong><em>Prison</em></strong> -- It's time for a <em><strong>JAILBREAK</strong></em>!!</p> </div>

 

[tomnackid]

VT would have demanded that Lewis and Clark design and build a railroad before the started exploring the Louisiana territory! <img src="/images/icons/smile.gif" />

 

[vt_hokie]

SSTO might be just out of reach, but then so was the moon in the early 1960's. It's time to take on a difficult challenge again instead of being too scared to try something new. You say that new space planes are coming. Well, I don't see how as long as we're spending all our money on a re-creation of Apollo.<br /><br />If VentureStar isn't feasible, perhaps a TSTO system like the alleged Blackstar is.

 

[no_way]

>>wasn't there a HLLV designed by NASA that flew with a 100% success rate?<br /> Statistics is a funny science. A success rate calculation is often accompanied by confidence interval calculation which you chose to omit for some reason.<br /> <br /> Besides, the NASA that built that vehicle was significantly different organization from what you have now.<br />

 

[tomnackid]

Do you work for NASA now? Did you work for NASA in the 60s? How exactly do you know its a different organization? <br /><br />Anyway the original post was tongue-in-cheek.

 

[radarredux]

> <i><font color="yellow">It's time to take on a difficult challenge again instead of being too scared to try something new.</font>/i><br /><br />I generally agree with your position; however, not with the timing. Risking the wrath of many here, I think NASA's manned space program has had a terrible success record over the last few decades. While the Shuttle and ISS have flown, they have never come close to their planned timelines, budgets, goals, etc. And then there are so many project that were cancelled before ever being flown.<br /><br />IMHO, right now what NASA needs is a win.<br /><br />Getting the CEV into LEO within a reasonable margin of its projected budget and timeline is critical to building up confidence in NASA both inside and outside of NASA. The capsule design has the lowest programmatic risks.</i>

 

[radarredux]

> <i><font color="yellow">I thought that announcement was on Thursay 07 September.</font>/i><br /><br />Nope. 4 PM EDT today (Aug 31).</i>

 

[no_way]

I read the history books. Its a public agency, not black ops or skunk works so their doings arent exactly a secret.<br /><br />BTW, if given that option, i would have wanted to work for NASA in the 60ies, i wouldnt want to now.

 

[vt_hokie]

<i>VT would have demanded that Lewis and Clark design and build a railroad before the started exploring the Louisiana territory!</i><br /><br />A 300 mph maglev system, actually! <img src="/images/icons/wink.gif" />

 

[vt_hokie]

Don't have any LMT myself, but I still have Honeywell stock in my old 401k from my last job. Man, Honeywell has been worthless over the last few years...should have gotten out back when Allied laid me off! <br /><br />But hey, it still wasn't as painful as owning Loral stock! <img src="/images/icons/frown.gif" />

 

[geminivi]

Since NASA's primary customer is Congress, has anyone gotten any sense that Congress is enthusiastic about NASA throwing the dice for a "breakthru" propulsion technology as a way to get to LEO, the Moon or Mars?<br />I didn't think so. <br />NASA is on a short leash, kind of like a dog getting trained to take a walk and never tug on the leash. Bush didn't task them to launch a revolution, just to end the Shuttle program, build the ISS and redo Project Apollo, all without a serious budget increase and by 2014. I think they've got "Mission Impossible" already without adding unobtainium tasks to their list.

 

[geminivi]

I owned Loral stock. In fact I worked for them down in Socal. When I think of the 25+ year vets that had everthing in that skunk. Fortunately I quit before the chap 11 ... got out intact.

 

[crix]

Are we going to have tons of beautiful PDFs and Powerpoints to wade through in a couple hours? God, I hope so. I can't wait to study this thing.

 

[moonmadness]

So hoping for more than "X? wins" announcement.<br /><br />Even just a picture besides the old "artist concepts" <div class="Discussion_UserSignature"> <p>I'm not a rocket scientist, but I do play one on the TV in my mind.</p> </div>

 

[radarredux]

> <i><font color="yellow">Are we going to have tons of beautiful PDFs and Powerpoints to wade through in a couple hours? God, I hope so.</font>/i><br /><br />I hope so too. I also hope that NASA puts full scale mockups (perhaps next to Mercury, Gemini, and Apollo capsules) at all the appropriate locations (Johnson, Kennedy, Air and Space) in order to give the public and the press a feeling for the difference.</i>

 

[mattblack]

Maglev! Yeah man!!! (Told you we'd find something to agree on... <div class="Discussion_UserSignature"> <p> </p><p>One Percent of Federal Funding For Space: America <strong><em><u>CAN</u></em></strong> Afford it!!  LEO is a <strong><em>Prison</em></strong> -- It's time for a <em><strong>JAILBREAK</strong></em>!!</p> </div>