Meet Stumpy, the sticks rival.

[radarredux]

> <i><font color="yellow">So what is it, gents? Should we go with the Stick and hope support holds for Ares V? Or do we forgo that booster, nix the Stick--and get the Magnum HLLV while we can?</font>/i><br /><br />Like we have decision authority?! <img src="/images/icons/wink.gif" /><br /><br />By the way, is there a cost estimate for stumpy? Did I miss it?</i>

 

[holmec]

It just seem a half baked idea!<br /><br />Sure take some parts, thow it together without cleary thinking it through. Did NASA do any flight sims on this configuration? <br /><br />I mean under different circumstances, they would never have come up with this design. Most successful rockets have always been tall and slim, why go with something so different than what works. It seems to me there must be a hidden problem here. <div class="Discussion_UserSignature"> <p> </p><p><font color="#0000ff"><em>"SCE to AUX" - John Aaron, curiosity pays off</em></font></p> </div>

 

[qso1]

Gonna need the pro Russian rocket types here.<br /><br />This design is not so far from Energia "M" in appearance so where are the people who would say we could benefit from funtional Russian design philosophy?<br /><br />Cost drives our program more than anything else and what happened here is NASA looked at a less costly alternative to the previous CALV design. Stumpy appears to me to require very little in pad mods and probably the same for VAB internal processing.<br /><br />Once again however, this is just a phase. All sorts of designs will be examined. This time next year, few will remember this design. If one is aware of a few of the designs leading up to the final shuttle designs. There are several there that look as hastily thought out as the Stumpy does. <div class="Discussion_UserSignature"> <p><strong>My borrowed quote for the time being:</strong></p><p><em>There are three kinds of people in life. Those who make it happen, those who watch it happen...and those who do not know what happened.</em></p> </div>

 

[ragnorak]

<br />I think its a concept that was considered and dumped. As for these EELV suggestions, you have to be joking. The flight profile of a unmanned unman rated rocket is totally different and man rating it is just too expensive. Just read ESAS to find out how quickly that was rejected. Personally I think EELV is doomed and the reason the military are holding out on United Launch Alliance is that they prefer the 125t Ares V. This military, NASA split on boosters always has been an expensive farce.

 

[holmec]

>I think its a concept that was considered and dumped. As for these EELV suggestions, you have to be joking. The flight profile of a unmanned unman rated rocket is totally different and man rating it is just too expensive.<<br /><br />I agree.<br />Though the stick has its problems, I'm sure they are workable and they will overcome them. The F-111 development program had tones of problems but we got a plane out of it. <div class="Discussion_UserSignature"> <p> </p><p><font color="#0000ff"><em>"SCE to AUX" - John Aaron, curiosity pays off</em></font></p> </div>