JPL Webcast for Apollo on Steroids

Status
Not open for further replies.
C

crix

Guest
When will we have an official downselect announcement??!!!<br /><br />God, I'm dying to see these designs. I hope there's some new info in this webcast.
 
N

nacnud

Guest
Becase it is bigger and better than Apollo, also Griffin described it as such.
 
N

nacnud

Guest
The ISS CEV can take 400kg plus six crew to LEO, and on to the ISS, plus it delivers all the TEI fuel as well, about nine tonnes of it.<br /><br />Without the crew the CEV take up to 3.5 tonnes of pressureised cargo plus the nine tonnes of fuel.<br /><br />I don't think the CLV will ever be used without the CEV.
 
R

radarredux

Guest
> <i><font color="yellow">Why is it called "on steroids"?</font>/i><br /><br />Unfortunately, "steroids" has acquired a negative association lately, from cheating (e.g., the Barry Bonds scandal) to health dangers. NASA needs to come up with a new description.<br /><br />Apollo Next Generation (Apollo NG)<br />Apollo New Technology (Apollo NT)<br />Apollo 2.0<br />Apollo X<br />????</i>
 
J

j05h

Guest
Mmm, nothing like Roid Rage and shrunken genitalia. What does "Apollo on Steroids" really connate? NASA must on "the Juice". It really doesn't reflect well on them, and opens them up to all sorts of "been there, done that" criticism as well. <br /><br />I'd suggest they simply start calling it Constellation or Constellation System. <br /><br />josh <div class="Discussion_UserSignature"> <div align="center"><em>We need a first generation of pioneers.</em><br /></div> </div>
 
C

crix

Guest
Yeah, really the only thing about this new plan that relates to Apollo is that we're using a capsule. Apollo 2.0 would be a total misnomer.
 
C

crix

Guest
Wow, who gave this guy the microphone?? Maybe he's just nervous but his words are so jumbled.<br /><br />Overall, not very informative... definately not targetted at space enthusiants. <br /><br />One interesting fact I gained is that the dark side of the moon is around 50 degrees Kelvin! Wow, that's cold. I assume he means the temperature of the soil? Besides the ground being cold you have damn near to a vacuum everywhere else, a great insulator. Being on the light side I think would be much more hazardous. Assuming you have a nuclear power station I would want to spend all my above ground time on the Moon during those two weeks of dark. No sun radiating my body the whole time. And the view of the stars! <img src="/images/icons/laugh.gif" />
 
C

crix

Guest
I wonder if we'll get a peak at the competing CEV contractors designs before NASA announces their downselect decision. <br /><br />Without even knowing what the architectures look like I can say that I'm definately hoping for Lockheed-Martin. They are already swimming in cash from winning the F-22 and JSF aircraft contracts because they are such superb engineers. This would be the perfect project for them to tackle next!
 
C

crix

Guest
That's a terrible argument. I hope Mike Griffin doesn't compromise the choice of our next space vehicle based on this type of politics. Business is supposed to be competitive, not compassionate. Besides, all the DDX and other naval contract should be enough to keep NG afloat.<br /><br />If Boeing and NG can't produce better designs than Lockheed then they don't deserve a contract. They had better look for money elsewhere.
 
S

Swampcat

Guest
<font color="yellow">"That's a terrible argument."</font><br /><br />I agree.<br /><br />I don't know as much about the possible choices here as some, but if this is even a criteria for the decision then I might have to agree with some of the NASA bashers.<br /><br />America needs the best vehicle design, not the best corporate welfare needer. Certainly Boeing's continued existence is important to this nation, but just as certainly they have other opportunities to keep going even if they should not <b><i>earn</i></b> the CEV contract. <div class="Discussion_UserSignature"> <font size="3" color="#ff9900"><p><font size="1" color="#993300"><strong><em>------------------------------------------------------------------- </em></strong></font></p><p><font size="1" color="#993300"><strong><em>"I hold it that a little rebellion now and then is a good thing, and as necessary in the political world as storms in the physical. Unsuccessful rebellions, indeed, generally establish the encroachments on the rights of the people which have produced them. An observation of this truth should render honest republican governors so mild in their punishment of rebellions as not to discourage them too much. It is a medicine necessary for the sound health of government."</em></strong></font></p><p><font size="1" color="#993300"><strong>Thomas Jefferson</strong></font></p></font> </div>
 
F

frodo1008

Guest
While I am certain that this contract and business are important to Boeing, it isn't going to have nearly as negative affect on them to lose than to any of the other contractors as Boeings commercial aircraft business is doing so well right now that Boeing's cash flow situation is probably better than all the others put together!<br /><br />Besides we all knw that even the losers in such big conrtacts will get a good sized piece of the action!<br /><br />
 
V

vt_hokie

Guest
Does it really matter who gets the contract? NASA killed any chance at innovation by dictating the vehicle design anyway, so it'll be the same thing regardless.
 
M

mattblack

Guest
There'll be plenty of room for innovation, just admittedly not the ultimate amount of innovation. And you can just bet that most of those restrictions would be budget-based. Case in point: the sudden alteration of the 'Klipper'. <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>
 
S

Swampcat

Guest
<font color="yellow">"Besides we all knw that even the losers in such big conrtacts will get a good sized piece of the action!"</font><br /><br />Indeed. And I agree with your other point. <br /><br />I was essentially responding to S_G's post where he states, "[w]hich is a good reason for them (LockMart) NOT to win. The logic being keep Nothrop/Gruman and Boeing 'well fed' as well." I suspect S_G was being a bit sarcastic here (help me understand, S_G), but I would hope that large, important contracts such as this are not awarded based on corporate welfare needs as opposed to ability and the relative merits of the proposals.<br /><br />I'm not so naive as to believe this doesn't happen, it's just that some things the government purchases are more important than other things. Doling out launch services to various competent providers is one thing. Choosing the prime contractor for a vehicle that will be the centerpiece of US manned spaceflight into the foreseeable future is quite another. <div class="Discussion_UserSignature"> <font size="3" color="#ff9900"><p><font size="1" color="#993300"><strong><em>------------------------------------------------------------------- </em></strong></font></p><p><font size="1" color="#993300"><strong><em>"I hold it that a little rebellion now and then is a good thing, and as necessary in the political world as storms in the physical. Unsuccessful rebellions, indeed, generally establish the encroachments on the rights of the people which have produced them. An observation of this truth should render honest republican governors so mild in their punishment of rebellions as not to discourage them too much. It is a medicine necessary for the sound health of government."</em></strong></font></p><p><font size="1" color="#993300"><strong>Thomas Jefferson</strong></font></p></font> </div>
 
C

crix

Guest
SG's statements, I believe, are the wishful thinking of a member of the NG-Boeing team.<br /><br />I'm really looking forward to seeing what both teams have come up with, regardless. I had just finished reading a bunch and checking out pictures from the F-22 and JSF competitions when I made that post about wanting LM to win. The LM designs were clearly the winners... if based on just looks alone.
 
S

Swampcat

Guest
<font color="yellow">"...if based on just looks alone."</font><br /><br />Well, as I said, I'm no authority on spacecraft design so I will always defer to those who know what they're talking about. Irregardless of the motivations, S_G should be able to provide better reasons for NASA to pick Boeing's design than corporate welfare. Perhaps he has and I just missed them.<br /><br />And, as I'm sure you'll agree, looks aren't everything <img src="/images/icons/smile.gif" />. <div class="Discussion_UserSignature"> <font size="3" color="#ff9900"><p><font size="1" color="#993300"><strong><em>------------------------------------------------------------------- </em></strong></font></p><p><font size="1" color="#993300"><strong><em>"I hold it that a little rebellion now and then is a good thing, and as necessary in the political world as storms in the physical. Unsuccessful rebellions, indeed, generally establish the encroachments on the rights of the people which have produced them. An observation of this truth should render honest republican governors so mild in their punishment of rebellions as not to discourage them too much. It is a medicine necessary for the sound health of government."</em></strong></font></p><p><font size="1" color="#993300"><strong>Thomas Jefferson</strong></font></p></font> </div>
 
R

radarredux

Guest
> <i><font color="yellow">S_G should be able to provide better reasons for NASA to pick Boeing's design than corporate welfare.</font>/i><br /><br />To throw out an position in this direction: NASA may want to keep two healthy players in the appropriate aerospace field. If one company doesn't have enough business for an area to remain reasonably profitable, the company may shutdown the associated units and layoff the people. The end result would be a default monopoly which could charge NASA whatever it wanted for future work.<br /><br />Thus, one approach would be to make a less than optimal decision in the near term in order to preserve choices in the future.</i>
 
S

Swampcat

Guest
<font color="yellow">"...one approach would be to make a less than optimal decision in the near term in order to preserve choices in the future."</font><br /><br />I understand the reasoning for that...just don't agree that it should result in the best design losing.<br /><br />Also, as was pointed out earlier, chances are that whoever loses the prime contract will still get a piece of the action.<br /><br />Understand that I'm not arguing for or against either of the two major players. I just want to see the best design win. <div class="Discussion_UserSignature"> <font size="3" color="#ff9900"><p><font size="1" color="#993300"><strong><em>------------------------------------------------------------------- </em></strong></font></p><p><font size="1" color="#993300"><strong><em>"I hold it that a little rebellion now and then is a good thing, and as necessary in the political world as storms in the physical. Unsuccessful rebellions, indeed, generally establish the encroachments on the rights of the people which have produced them. An observation of this truth should render honest republican governors so mild in their punishment of rebellions as not to discourage them too much. It is a medicine necessary for the sound health of government."</em></strong></font></p><p><font size="1" color="#993300"><strong>Thomas Jefferson</strong></font></p></font> </div>
 
L

lampblack

Guest
Does anyone know if JPL archives its webcasts -- and if they're publicly available?<br /><br />I missed this -- and sure would like to check it out. <div class="Discussion_UserSignature"> <font color="#0000ff"><strong>Just tell the truth and let the chips fall...</strong></font> </div>
 
C

crix

Guest
I don't know about that, it wouldn't surprise me, but you really didn't miss anything.<br /><br />Although there was a funny moment at the end during Q&A where some conspiracy loon suggested that NASA was hiding their super advanced technology that could make the current VSE plan obsolete. Everyone laughed at him, haha. And then he said "Of course THEY want to make you out to look like an idiot. And I don't mind looking like an idiot."
 
R

radarredux

Guest
> <i><font color="yellow">I understand the reasoning for that...just don't agree that it should result in the best design losing.</font>/i><br /><br />I agree. I only wanted to point out that there could be some justification. I also agree that with the VSE being as large as it is, everyone should be getting some money, and I would prefer to see the best design win.<br /><br />Side note: Besides "who has the best design" there will probably be issues of "who has the best management team/plan", "who has the most credible design", and "who is most likely to succeed with their design/plan".</i>
 
Status
Not open for further replies.

Latest posts