Document acquired - in-depth SDLV and CEV plans and images

[teije]

A lot of the intended cost-savings come from the smaller amount of labour required. That means loss of jobs. Both directly (NASA) but at least as important: indirectly at subcontractors. <br />That means a lot of jobs gone. I am not aware of the impact that would give. But it is my experience that it is very easy to save labour cost on paper, but a lot harder to actually decrease your staff.<br /><br />Anyone that has any ideas on how easy/hard it would be to go on with plans that (local) politicians KNOW are going to cost their state a lot of jobs?<br /><br />Teije

 

[radarredux]

> <i><font color="yellow">The plan is to have one pad modified for the SDLV heavy as one pad remains for the Shuttle.</font>/i><br /><br />Does this mean that the SDHLV and the Shuttle will be operating concurrently?<br /><br />Man, I am behind in this thread...</i>

 

[shuttle_rtf]

So far the document has been taken by Florida Today and Salt Lake Tribune - for the ATK angle.

 

[kane007]

Aren't there 2 pads at KSC for shuttle launches?<br /><br />If so couldn't one be worked on while the other is in use?

 

[nacnud]

I think that is the plan.<br />

 

[shuttle_rtf]

Managed to acquire the document for "Presentation at the AIAA 1st Exploration Conference Orlando, Florida, January 30–February 1, 2005."<br /><br />Will post it like we've done with the July, 2005 meeting in Arizona....a good comparision document, given there are some expansions between the two documents, while the Jan/Feb document has more on the In-Line Medium lift SDLV and CEV (Single SRB Stick) for instance. You can also see how they've stuck with some designs, while added the Longfellow to the Magnum between the two, etc.

 

[spacester]

<font color="yellow">Anyone that has any ideas on how easy/hard it would be to go on with plans that (local) politicians KNOW are going to cost their state a lot of jobs?</font><br /><br />Hire a NASA administrator who knows what he's doing and also has the political skills to reach the compromises needed to build 'political rockets' that still get us to where we need to be.<br /><br />Amazingly enough it appears that is exactly what has happened.<br /><br />It would appear that the Congresspersons in question have been sufficiently mollified, else why would we be allowed to see these documents? Griffin is not stupid enough to release this material without making the deals on Capital Hill first.<br /><br />It appears to me that enough jobs will be transitioned from SSP (STS) to VSE that our pal Mike is going to be able to move forward. BoeLock will get lots of new contracts and Michoud and ATK will be taken care of. Perhaps it can be concluded there will be additional announcements regarding the preservation of Jobs, but that those announcments will be made by the Congresspersons so they can take the credit. <div class="Discussion_UserSignature"> </div>

 

[yurkin]

Oh it will certainly be faster then the shuttle or anything else for that matter. Maybe that’s why I never really like the solid rocket main engine LV. Being almost 300 meters up on this narrow little LV is scary enough but when they light it its going to really move.

 

[chriscdc]

Wasn't one of the pads crossed out in the documents to show that it wouldn't be used. If they are only going to have a few SDHLV launches a year then they don't need 2 pads.<br />What will the SRB derived launcher be launched from?

 

[najab]

><i>What will the SRB derived launcher be launched from?</i><p>It can be launched from a slightly modifed Shuttle MLP.</p>

 

[john_316]

Wouldnt it make more sense to build a pad or refab another pad for the SRB derived CEV and then one pad for the SDHLV then after shuttle is done then the final one?<br /><br />I mean I think a cev srb pad doesnt need as much works a SDHLV pad you would think?<br /><br />so that would give you 3 launch pads or better yet just one CEV/SRB pad and one for SDHLV. Allow another for a future SSTO or what ever.<br /><br /><img src="/images/icons/smile.gif" /><br />

 

[kane007]

I think the SRB CEV launch complex might need to be configuered similar to one of the EELV setups (or Soyuz) - something like rail from vehicle horizontal processing to launcher erection on the pad. <br /><br />Keep it simple, ...

 

[teije]

<font color="yellow"> It appears to me that enough jobs will be transitioned from SSP (STS) to VSE that our pal Mike is going to be able to move forward. BoeLock will get lots of new contracts and Michoud and ATK will be taken care of. Perhaps it can be concluded there will be additional announcements regarding the preservation of Jobs, but that those announcments will be made by the Congresspersons so they can take the credit. </font><br /><br />That's what keeps nagging me on this issue. The jobs will probably be saved or transitioned. Of course this is good news for all the people having these jobs, but it is not good news in terms of cost saving. The annual personnel costs aren't going to go down by a lot. Especially not the first few years. I don't want to be a doomsayer, but even though I love these new concepts and they really sound plausible I am not convinced yet. <br /><br />Of course there is a very easy solution out of this. Same annual costs / higher flight rate = less cost per flight. I guess that is the way they'll sell it, and I also guess that is a very elegant solution. Now all they have to do is achieve is this higher flight rate with brand new hardware. <br />Teije<br />

 

[spd405]

Rockwell wanted way too much money to build the engine compartment. I believe that originall killed the Shuttle-C <br /><br /><br />If it had been developed, would it have seen use in time to have an impact on space station design?

 

[najab]

<blockquote><font class="small">In reply to:</font><hr /><p>The jobs will probably be saved or transitioned. Of course this is good news for all the people having these jobs, but it is not good news in terms of cost saving. The annual personnel costs aren't going to go down by a lot. Especially not the first few years.<p><hr /></p></p></blockquote>But that's okay. So it takes 5 years to get staffing levels down post-Shuttle - so what? As long as they are trending down instead of up, that's what's important. Remember: it's a Government program, not a business, it doesn't have to turn a profit!

 

[propforce]

<blockquote><font class="small">In reply to:</font><hr /><p>Remember: it's a Government program, not a business, it doesn't have to turn a profit! <p><hr /></p></p></blockquote><br /><br /><img src="/images/icons/laugh.gif" /> M&L quote of the day !! <img src="/images/icons/laugh.gif" /><br /><br />So true.... <div class="Discussion_UserSignature"> </div>

 

[propforce]

<font color="yellow">... however I am told it is $40 million</font><br /><br />Everything on the SDLV seem to be $40 million/ea. Each of the SRB is $40M/ea, now the new ET tank is $40M/ea, each of SSME is also $40M each... now if the new cryogenic 2nd stage (no acronym yet?) also come out to $40M.. then the new heavy lifter would be about ~ $320M + NASA personnel + launch cost. <div class="Discussion_UserSignature"> </div>

 

[najab]

><i>Everything on the SDLV seem to be $40 million/ea. Each of the SRB is $40M/ea, now the new ET tank is $40M/ea, each of SSME is also $40M each...</i><p>Welcome to the "Dolllar Store" of the space industry! <img src="/images/icons/tongue.gif" /> "Everything on Special - $40M"</p>

 

[propforce]

<blockquote><font class="small">In reply to:</font><hr /><p>"I was referring to this: >It was released publicly at the conference. It is public knowledge. < " <br /><br />I stand corrected. Thanks. <p><hr /></p></p></blockquote><br /><br />Sorry for coming into this thread late. Although it appears you both have settled on the differences, it is not clear to me.<br /><br />The paper was published in the AIAA Joint Propulsion Conference (JPC) in July, 2005. By definition, authors had to have NASA as well as Boeing permission to publish the paper and clear for public released of what we called "export-controlled information" (this involved with branch of office that deals with the U.S. State Department). The nature of conference, however; is geared toward aerospace propulsion professionals, therefore not many news reporters presence. Most of them would have no clue on various subject matter anyhow. The paper, by itself, is not a "publicity released" news package for the press. Perhaps this is what Chris (shuttle_RTF) was focusing on.<br /><br />So I agreed with Shuttle_Guy that this information was "released to the public' (yes even a foreigner such as a brit can get a copy <img src="/images/icons/laugh.gif" />). However; I think the phrase "public release" means something unique in the journalistic world that Chris (shuttle_RTF) was sensitive about. <br /><br />Botome line - you could've obtain a copy of paper for FREE simply by asking the author for it during the meeting, or a PDF file as a courtesy copy from the author, or you can purchase a CD from AIAA and obtain ALL the papers published in this JPC meeting. As far as the author is concerned, the information was "cleared" for public release and AIAA owns the copyright of that paper. Eventually, it shows up on AIAA website and anyone who pays for a subscription service can download that paper, plus all previous published papers, with a click of mouse.<br /><br />But here is my personal insight - why don't you ask Shuttle_Guy <div class="Discussion_UserSignature"> </div>

 

[shuttle_rtf]

>Sorry for coming into this thread late.<<br /><br />May we visually picture you arriving? <img src="/images/icons/wink.gif" /><br /><br /> />BTW - even I have a PDF copy of this paper< <br /><br />Good for you. The General Public and Media didn't.

 

[propforce]

<font color="yellow">"Welcome to the "Dolllar Store" of the space industry! "Everything on Special - $40M" ' <br /><br />It is the equvalent of the weather channel ads where everything is $19.95. </font><br /><br />or the SNL skit... cheeseburger... cheeseburger... <div class="Discussion_UserSignature"> </div>

 

[propforce]

<font color="yellow">>BTW - even I have a PDF copy of this paper< <br /><br />Good for you. The General Public and Media didn't. </font><br /><br />I am not discounting the "news worthiness" of this paper and I congratulate you for being the first in the media for publicizing this and informing the general public. <br /> <div class="Discussion_UserSignature"> </div>

 

[shuttle_rtf]

Thanks, that is ALL I'm doing. I'm not bothered in the slightest who had this and who didn't. I serve my readers.<br /><br />I'm just a bit baffled by the way the two people on here who did have a copy decided to open their contributions to this thread.<br /><br />Three posts in a row:<br /><br /> />It was released publicly at the conference. It is public knowledge.<<br /><br /> />I have had a copy for a few weeks.<<br /><br /> />I did not see anything in it that was a surprize. <<br /><br />And then your post.<br /><br />The question that begs to be answered...........why - if you had it (and/or) knew it could be paid for by subscribing to the AIAA Website (hands up if you knew that exsisted - keep your hands down prop and SG) wasn't there a thread with this info on?<br /><br />Maybe it's the journalist in me, but sitting on info and only saying "Yeah, got it already" doesn't help anybody.<br /><br />Maybe when the next one comes out, we'll be expecting a thread on here?

 

[shuttle_rtf]

Well it was, so put me down on the list of people who'd be over appreciative of gaining a copy when you next do.

 

[tap_sa]

<font color="yellow">"Everything on the SDLV seem to be $40 million/ea"</font><br /><br />SRB/ET/SSME: $40M/ea<br />SDHLV: $320/ea<br />SDHLV + NASA personel + launch cost: <b>priceless</b><br /><br />With one launch per year (the payload will be priceless too!), it'll be like ~$2B a pop.