RS68 confirmed for CaLV

[nyarlathotep]

<font color="yellow">While I don't think that NASA is going to be able to overcome political objections to using Russian hardware for America's prime manned program</font><br /><br />Well, technically it's Ukrainian hardware. Using it would probably make the Russians unhappy as well.

 

[lampblack]

<font color="yellow">"Opening it up" at this moment in time is a great way to add another 5 years to the schedule. is this what people want?</font><br /><br />Well... given that not much actual work can be done until after the shuttle program shuts down in 2010 -- would the extra time involved in opening things up a bit really be a problem?<br /><br />Given the <b>inherent</b> delay already present in the timeline, it seems right now would be the best time to consider other options. <div class="Discussion_UserSignature"> <font color="#0000ff"><strong>Just tell the truth and let the chips fall...</strong></font> </div>

 

[scottb50]

I would like to point out I was one who tried to tell you it was all smoke and mirrors.<br /><br />I would think it would be quite simple, take three or four, Delta , core vehicles and add an outer shell that attaches over them making it a flyback, re-usable first stage. Weight of the shell, and supporting structure, wing spars, landing gear and more is negated using turbofans. They start for lift off and operate to near MaxQ, where they shutdown and their inlets close, like the SR-71 cones.<br /><br />Once the upper stage is released the launcher descends, with reaction motors controlling orientation until aerodynamic control becomes usable. Reaching the mid- twenties the turbofans are restarted and the first stage flies back to the launch site for relaunch.<br /><br />You could scale it however you wanted to. Add solids and payload goes way up.<br /><br />I seriously doubt we can afford Shuttle to ISS or HST even if we wanted to and every flight that did get done was a complete success.<br /><br />The other side of the coin is they seem to be opening up the ability to pursue commercial ventures somewhat. Rutan has worked on a lot of things for the government, even some he can talk about. <div class="Discussion_UserSignature"> </div>

 

[mattblack]

Egad! It all sounds so SIMPLE!!<br /><br />(Just as "simple" as all good ideas here, eh?) <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>

 

[extropiandreams]

>Well, technically it's Ukrainian hardware. Using it would probably make the Russians unhappy as well. <br /><br />well, the zenit isn't exactly ukrainian. Such unimportant parts like the engines are russian, for example. From a sea-launch start russian companies get about 65 %, land launch even 70 % of revenues.<br /><br />Zenit also maye a dead end. Russia is replacing ukrainian suppliers where they can, they might even kill the program in the long run.<br />

 

[edkyle98]

>>OK, let us then assume that the original estimates (If there is somebody here that actually knows the actual original amount, perhaps it would be good to come forward with the actual figure) were even $1.5 billion. And now six months later that estimate is now some $3 billion. <<<br /><br />The original $1.2 billion would have been for a five-segment booster for Shuttle. An extra $1 billion is needed to develop the CLV version (cost of roll control, interstage, new separation motor setup, new recovery system, new flight control systems, thrust tailoring, etc.) <br />This extra $1 billion is required whether it is a four or a five segment booster. So we're up to, what, $2.2 billion now? IMO, ATK's estimated cost increase was from something like $2.2 billion to $3 billion, a 36% increase, not a 100% jump.<br /><br />Clearly, that 36% increase was a nasty surprise for NASA, but it is anything but unprecedented in government contracting history. Perhaps NASA will find a way to cut some of these projected costs (ATK's first proposal is probably gold-plated - probably includes the cost of a new factory, etc.)<br /><br /> - Ed Kyle

 

[nacnud]

The thing is ATK only make to rocket motors, the parachutes, vector thrust system, roll control will be made by third parties. It is currently unclear whether the extra money includes these things or whether it only accounts to the motors them selves i.e. the bits that burn.<br /><br />I have yet to find a difinitive answer but if the $3B is only for the 5 segment motor, and not all the exrta stuff, then thats not such good value.

 

[frodo1008]

You can quibble if you wish (I am certain that ATK is going to), but just about any kind of major increase (and anything over about 5% on a $100 billion dollar program, is major) is going to be used by this and future congresses to kill the program entirely. <br /><br />This is exactly the kind of excuse that was used some 35 years ago to give us the shuttle. Which you would be hard put to find people here that would call it a triumph of the space program, I say this, and I am one of its actual supporters on this forum!<br /><br />Here we may not just end up with something unsatisfactory, we may end up with NOTHING! This is why Mike Griffin is upset! I really don't understand why an aerospace firm dosn't seem to realize this themselves. But perhaps it is just a part of their bagaining strategy. <br /><br />I am sorry (evidently you are either a direct supporter of ATK or perhaps even work for them), but they ARE walking a thin line here. And no, I am NOT against them per se. I would personally like to see the CEV/CALV actually use equipment that was developed for the shuttle. But COST is what congress is going to look at (although when it comes to their own pork, costs are suddenly not such a consideration anymore) and if there is a cheaper way to accomplish its mission, then NASA should take it!