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

[shuttle_rtf]

Have there been any documents circulating along these lines since this one, to your knowledge?<br /><br />I'm told this is the latest one.

 

[shuttle_rtf]

Who are they and are you suggesting this was a designed public release. If so, why me and no one else?<br /><br />I find this an interesting statement given the amount of work taken to get hold of it.....but there is a possibility that someone allowed this leak? I'm intrigued....because no one else has this (you'd expect Spaceref.com to get a leak, or designed specific release like this.)

 

[najab]

You're making a few waves (ala PAL ramp repair) and they wanted someone other than the "usual sources", would be my guess.

 

[shuttle_rtf]

I can live with that <img src="/images/icons/smile.gif" /> <br /><br />The bonus is the forum threads, such as this one. It would be very easy to get over-excited about this document...but it's also important for the more experienced people to come on and add that this "didn't exactly come out of Griffin's laptop the minute it arrived in his inbox" (paraphrase).<br /><br />The last thing I want is a mis-representation of its importance, although I think it's pretty fair to say it's important as far as what's out in the public domain.

 

[franson_space]

Good for you, but us lower beings haven't seen it, it's not been on any website, it's not been released on NASA TV and unless we can mind read you it means nothing to us lower beings if you have seen it or not.

 

[franson_space]

Where was it "public knowledge" before yesterday then?<br /><br />No one else on here seemed to have this "public knowledge"

 

[franson_space]

What do you mean, I even act like a lawyer? What's your problem? I'm simply asking where was this information and images publically released before we saw this yesterday?<br /><br />Please drop the attitude.

 

[drwayne]

I really need to start going to those meetings. I seem to only get to optical conferences. <br /><br />Wayne <div class="Discussion_UserSignature"> <p>"1) Give no quarter; 2) Take no prisoners; 3) Sink everything."  Admiral Jackie Fisher</p> </div>

 

[shuttle_rtf]

Dionee, leave it.<br /><br />This info was not publically released. Some individuals in the space industry potentially having this does not constitute it being publically released. <br /><br />It is new and exciting info (as you can see from the absolute majority of posts here and on the other threads) to those of us who DON'T work at certain levels of the space industry, for instance, the general public.<br /><br />I tagged it exclusive for that very reason, as no one website or media company had this.<br /><br />Aforementioned members of the space industry who may or may not of had this before yesterday also choose not to give it to any media company before yesteday. Thus, it was not publically released information.<br /><br />It may not be new or exciting to some members of the space industry, but we don't serve them on our site. We serve the general public.

 

[shuttle_rtf]

>Presentation at the AIAA Joint Propulsion Conference Tucson, Arizona July 10 - 13, 2005<<br /><br />How many media were at that conference? The document relating to this conference was not released to the general public, by either NASA or contractor companies, or media companies.<br /><br />I checked <img src="/images/icons/smile.gif" />

 

[shuttle_rtf]

Absolutely.<br /><br />I believe the issue here is when you say "publically released" you mean the document was readily available at the conference.<br /><br />However, seen as none of the media that may have been in attendance (I hear there wasn't any) took it, it stayed with just those people at the conference - as well as select members of the companies that attended.<br /><br />I would note the term publically released means it has to be given to the general public through a vehicle, such as a press release, a page on nasa.gov, part of NASA TV or a website, media or official. That didn't happen, thus the claim it wasn't publically released.<br /><br />Not that it's an issue with me. We've shown something that many thousands of people have not seen before and are greatful to view.<br /><br />It took 48 hours of hard work to check this was good information and that I was able to publish it, because I want to be a journalist who continues to have due diligence on releasing information like this.<br /><br />We're not out to beat other media to things like this, we're aiming to be a good media source for information relating to space flight, one that has a mandate of expanding interest and respect on both sides of the Atlantic for the very job people like you do.<br /><br />Maybe it will foster some young kid in some remote place in the US to become an aerospace engineer, one that in years to come can on a forum and react to a article of interest like this by saying "Already seen it".<br /><br />And I, for one, will be proud of that.

 

[shuttle_rtf]

I was referring to this: >It was released publicly at the conference. It is public knowledge. <<br /><br />Public information is good, because I don't want to run restricted information. It wasn't public knowledge as the public didn't seem to know.<br /><br />Maybe the rest of the media dropped the ball - who knows. The last I've seen on SDLV is what was on Spaceref.com and that was a big step back from this one.<br /><br />It was certainly handed to me in a "You are getting this before anyone else in the media" style.<br /><br />I was expecting some negative comments...I mean, who wants a British Journalist running US information? But so far it's been 99.9 per cent positive. <br /><br />Anyway, so long as everyone is happy! <img src="/images/icons/smile.gif" />

 

[yurkin]

I think once Nasa actually picks a design that’s going to be something that the media will pick up on. As of right now I don’t think they have “officially” chosen between a Shuttle Derived LV, or an EELV Derived LV. And once that decision has been made there are still a lot of different options that the LV may take. As we have clearly seen.

 

[shuttle_rtf]

>I think once Nasa actually picks a design that’s going to be something that the media will pick up on.<<br /><br />For sure.<br /><br />As far as this document - a number of big US papers are requesting the PDF document - so this should get expanded on soon.<br /><br />(PS It'll go to the ones that haven't been Shuttle bashing around STS-114....I'm not selling this!!) <img src="/images/icons/smile.gif" />

 

[shuttle_rtf]

You sound like you're talking about Page Rank. I've got a mate in San Diego who makes a ton of money from Page Rank.

 

[shuttle_rtf]

Thanks and I may indeed PM you about revenue streams as you mentioned. I appreciate your comments.<br /><br />On the point of not selling it.....it's not 'mine' to sell. This is a NASA document that I've got my hands on (and it's not like it's come right out of Griffin's laptop, as SG noted this isn't some top secret document, just something the media didn't get). <br /><br />It wasn't given to me to sell on and our site is very new to be starting to barter information for financial gain. We can't start getting up (as we say here) "up our own arses" on issues like this <img src="/images/icons/wink.gif" /><br /><br />Main thing is to get the info out to people interesting in reading it - check.<br /><br />Giving it to interested, non-shuttle bashing media who want it - in works. We're talking about the likes of the Wash Post who aren't going to see a need in selling it on. Plus, the moment I published it on our forum, it became public domain. My media's unwritten law, they don't even need to ask, they just need to accredit.<br /><br />Moving on to the next story - check.<br /><br /><img src="/images/icons/smile.gif" />

 

[dougbaker]

I looked at the new document, it does have a great amount of detail, but I know I have read something similar recently. <br />I found this an article on the spaceref.com website archives from July 1, 2005.<br />It has some of the same details.<br />Here is a link,<br />http://www.spaceref.com/news/viewnews.html?id=1040<br /><br />Last, who cares where it came from, really the best part is where are we going with this.<br />When is it time to let Congress know that there are plans they should fund? I know the actually decisions that NASA will make may be different, but the money is one of the big issues. Congress needs to know that NASA has a plan and the public (that's us) are behind NASA.<br />

 

[shuttle_rtf]

Their article was based on the memo: "Exploration Systems Architecture Study Support"<br /><br />And has two images that made the document noted here. (39 images).<br /><br />When I recieved the document, I checked Spaceref.com as if anyone would have it, they would. They have nothing that can warrant being called as similar when comparing the two for depth and imagary.<br />

 

[kane007]

I think cost and time may be the most important issues here.<br />The "Demo-SMC (Side mount cargo)" option is the one they should get up and ready ASAP. 140,227 lbm's to ISS orbit is more that twice the capacity of the present STS and could mean reducing its flight to at least 2 flights a year until 2010. Bonus, it speeds up completion of ISS and the cash saved could be used to speed in getting the CEV and in line SDLV infrasture accelerated.

 

[shuttle_rtf]

Interesting, although my opinion would be that given the time it will take to get to an operational stage, it would be better served leaving the ISS to STS as planned - unless there was a major situation relating to STS operations.

 

[gawin]

love the doc. good job of getting it,<br /><br />now to take a moment and play devils advocate after showing it to a few friendss who arnt realy into following any of the shuttle or future systems.<br /><br />that have all said across the board that they do not suport funding of anything that is based off a system that is 20 some years old and they felt that thier should be a new design not just a rehash of somthing old.<br /><br />I personaly am on the other side of the fence if it works and is proven why not use it. But John Q Public wants and expects somthing bigger better faster and more advanced.. they alwyas do.<br /><br />The only draw back i personaly have with all thouse designs is they all use a main tank derived from the one that is in use now. If NASA goes this route and has one single failer due to anything related to a redesign of that probematic main tank the public will go nuts and congress could very well pull a large portion of funding of that project to keep thier voters happy.<br /><br />They need to keep one thing in mind. The genral population dose not remember successes very well but they cant seem to ever forget failers.<br /><br />gawin

 

[franson_space]

Is the main problem with the tank where foam falls off? But that wouldn't matter with these sorts of ships?

 

[franson_space]

It says that one pad would go and another remain. Would that pad be multi purpose, or do you build them with one vehicle in mind?

 

[mrmorris]

SG:<br /><br />I was just reading this article about Michoud, and how they hope/plan to have a hand in future space activities post-orbiter. One paragraph of the articvle got me to thinking (always dangerous):<br /><br /><i>"Any loss of jobs at Michoud would hurt the New Orleans region, including St. Tammany Parish. The facility, owned by Lockheed Martin Space Systems, averages about $130 million a year in payroll and spends $22.9 million with subcontractors in Louisiana each year. Average salary for Michoud employees is $65,000."</i><br /><br />Assuming a shuttle-derived vehicle using an ET -- they should still be doing fairly well. One thing I was wondering, though, is just how much manpower goes into activities that are orbiter-specific. As an example -- I imagine the manual foam application on the ET is a very manpower intensive process -- and is done (IIRC) primarily to minimize foam loss in critical areas during launch. Presumably then, post orbiter, the entire tank could be coated automagically. <br /><br />Do you think that there are other areas (or *any* areas -- I may well be wrong about the auto-foam) where the ET-construction process can be made less manpower-intensive for an orbiterless launch?

 

[mrmorris]

<font color="yellow">"I am told it is $40 million."</font><br /><br />Which compares with what price for the current one?