Author Topic: ESAS Lead Dr Stanley Q and A (Mk II)  (Read 76580 times)

Offline kraisee

  • Expert
  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 10560
  • Liked: 807
  • Likes Given: 40
RE: ESAS Lead Dr Stanley Q and A (Mk II)
« Reply #240 on: 05/21/2006 09:08 am »
The term "Shuttle derived" is still true for the CLV and CaLV.   They clearly still have the STS hardware as their primary heritage line.   They are evolutionary designs,

A similar comparison might be the Atlas-V has virtually no common parts with the heritage Atlas-II which was just retired, yet they are still considered related vehicles.

It's still the same deal here, but actually there is still a considerable amount of common hardware being carried over.

Mind you, a new evolution is also an excellent time to re-work all the systems over-again to ensure you're using all the possible modern equipment and technical advances which have come about since the last vehicle was built.

As the ESAS recommendations are worked through in finite engineering detail, there seems to me to be excellent work going on which is finding even better solutions than were originally proposed.   So far each Lunar mission now costs $100m less than it ESAS recommended, simply due to the deletion of SSME and adoption of RS-68 on the CaLV.   This general sort of development process, selecting and rejecting elements based on really in-depth studies (which can only really be done once you've selected the genral path you're going to follow), would have happened for any vehicle development program - its a regular part of the process.

If ESAS had been followed blindly, to the letter, then I'd have been far more concerned that nobody was doing more serious analysis work.   The detailed engineering assessmentss are proving there are better options, so I believe that demonstrates the engineering analysis are being done very thoroughly by NASA and also the various contractors who are also working the designs.

Ross.
"The meek shall inherit the Earth -- the rest of us will go to the stars"
-Robert A. Heinlein

Offline MATTBLAK

  • Elite Veteran & 'J.A.F.A'
  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 5362
  • 'Space Cadets' Let us; UNITE!! (crickets chirping)
  • New Zealand
  • Liked: 2239
  • Likes Given: 3883
RE: ESAS Lead Dr Stanley Q and A (Mk II)
« Reply #241 on: 05/21/2006 09:27 am »
>>Mind you, a new evolution is also an excellent time to re-work all the systems over-again to ensure you're using all the possible modern equipment and technical advances which have come about since the last vehicle was built.<<

What he said!!

:) :)
"Those who can't, Blog".   'Space Cadets' of the World - Let us UNITE!! (crickets chirping)

Offline CuddlyRocket

RE: ESAS Lead Dr Stanley Q and A (Mk II)
« Reply #242 on: 05/21/2006 11:17 am »
I've been so busy recently that I haven't had time to even post to this forum, let alone wade through all the technical detail to try and decide (with my limited engineering knowledge) whether the ESAS or EELV approach would be best for the CEV etc. But, obviously, NASA had gone for the ESAS approach, and it therefore seems there are only two possibilities:

1. This is the people who made the decision's honest assessment of the best approach. This doesn't mean that they are right, but it was their best judgment. Now in order to change this, the proponents of EELV would have to convince these people that they are wrong. Not generally an easy task in my experience (especially when there is a bureaucracy involved), and they don't appear to be having much luck if Dr Stanley is any example. It would certainly take time, and time is a limiting resource here. There is a well-known adage that the sign of a good commander is the ability to make quick decisions, and if they happen to be right so much the better. A decision needed to be taken. It has been taken. Let's hope it's right. (Actually, it doesn't have to have been the optimum choice. Good enough will suffice.) No-one is going to re-open it now.

2. The decision was pre-ordained for political reasons. If so, they presumably still subsist, and to get the decision changed is going to create a whole lot of political enemies. I think it would take even longer than in 1. to demonstrably prove to third parties that EELV is the best option, and to gain enough public and political support to overcome the resistance. The die is cast. I doubt any potential political supporters will be willing to spend the political capital.

Now as enthusiasts, we can debate the merits of the decision as long as we like. And historians may well do so for all time. But that's different from campaigning to change it. I wouldn't support such a campaign if I was an American because NASA needs to get on and do - whatever their motivations.

Offline Jim

  • Night Gator
  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 37440
  • Cape Canaveral Spaceport
  • Liked: 21450
  • Likes Given: 428
Re: ESAS Lead Dr Stanley Q and A (Mk II)
« Reply #243 on: 05/21/2006 11:38 am »
The five segment SRM was not a flight configuration.  Other than having 5 segments, it will not be the same as what will be used for ESAS.  The core configuration will be different, the nozzle,  and other things.  The test had nothing to do with what will fly.

Offline mong'

  • Whatever gets us to Mars
  • Full Member
  • ****
  • Posts: 689
  • Liked: 0
  • Likes Given: 0
RE: ESAS Lead Dr Stanley Q and A (Mk II)
« Reply #244 on: 05/21/2006 12:07 pm »
Quote
CuddlyRocket - 21/5/2006  1:04 PM

Now as enthusiasts, we can debate the merits of the decision as long as we like. And historians may well do so for all time. But that's different from campaigning to change it. I wouldn't support such a campaign if I was an American because NASA needs to get on and do - whatever their motivations.

amen to that comrade !

The decisions have been made, there's nothing anyone can do to change them, 'cause now NASA needs to move forward and start building these things.
Now the best thing we can do is support them because NASA needs our support more than our advice. a plan has been submitted, it looks like it could work, and it's the biggest advance in spaceflight for the past 30 years !! but the program is still in its infancy, and to many promising programs have been killed in their infancy. We, as space enthusiasts, must not allow that to happen.

Wether you agree or not with NASA's decisions, or even if you think the ESAS is just the worst way of doing thins (I, personnaly have my doubts) It doesn't matter. Beacause this is progress, and progress is good, progress is what we want.
And right now criticizing every little detail about ths ESAS is going to do far more harm than good. Imagine if a layman, or a politician (who lives totally outsdide of the space community) would come to this forum because he doesn't really now what to think about the new plan, and see some of our discussions. He wouldn't see technical discussions, he would see the people who are supposed to support the space program doing the contrary.
He would jump on the following conclusion "even the space buffs community thinks it's bad, and they are well informed people, some of them working in the field, now if those guys say it's bad, then it oughta be" and he would be wrong, BUT now imagine that this person has some power (maybe he's a politician or something), it would be really bad for us. and it's as simple as that

as I said above, NASA needs our support more than our advice. that means every single one of us should scream our support out loud, even if you don't agree with the new plan, if you are interested in progress in spaceflight, then SHOW IT ! whenever you meet someone, whenever you're in a convention or a conference, whenever you're dining with friends, wherever you find a microphone, show your support, scream it if you want ! but explain to every people you can why it's good, why it concerns them, why they should support it too.
It doesn't mean we can't argue among us on the decisions, i'm just saying that right now, we are at a critical  moment, and in the space communiy I see far more criticizing than support. and that can only be bad for the space program in general

Offline Jim

  • Night Gator
  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 37440
  • Cape Canaveral Spaceport
  • Liked: 21450
  • Likes Given: 428
RE: ESAS Lead Dr Stanley Q and A (Mk II)
« Reply #245 on: 05/21/2006 12:20 pm »
Quote
kraisee - 21/5/2006  4:55 AM

The term "Shuttle derived" is still true for the CLV and CaLV.   They clearly still have the STS hardware as their primary heritage line.   They are evolutionary designs,

A similar comparison might be the Atlas-V has virtually no common parts with the heritage Atlas-II which was just retired, yet they are still considered related vehicles.

Ross.

Other than the length, the Centaur is the same

Offline Jim

  • Night Gator
  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 37440
  • Cape Canaveral Spaceport
  • Liked: 21450
  • Likes Given: 428
Re: ESAS Lead Dr Stanley Q and A (Mk II)
« Reply #246 on: 05/21/2006 12:48 pm »
I am going to take the opposite point of view.  When would we have landed on the moon if it wasn't for John C. Houbolt?  He had the stones to go against the larger than life icon of the US spaceprogram, Werhner Von Braun.  Who ended up right?   If I think parts of the ESAS is wrong, then I want to change it.

Offline Kayla

  • Extreme Veteran
  • Full Member
  • ***
  • Posts: 396
  • Liked: 0
  • Likes Given: 0
RE: ESAS Lead Dr Stanley Q and A (Mk II)
« Reply #247 on: 05/21/2006 12:52 pm »
Quote
lmike - 20/5/2006  11:49 PM

The ESAS is/was *a* solution.  It's been revised quite drastically over the past months.  Sorry to say, but I agree that now "shuttle derived" is now a misterm.  So the plan is malleable.  Very malleable.  But no matter.  The VSE is the objective.  Explore beyond LEO.  Go back to the Moon.  That's one interpretation.  Formulating the objective is half of the solution as any good engineer will tell you.  Still the die has been cast.  I think it's a valid solution, and I hope it works, and presents no roadblocks down the road.  I think it'll work, just in as much as the Apollo worked (although, it's not an Apollo at all with the 1.5 launch scenario)  

I'm very much interested in what others, "in opposition", have to say, and I see no lack of hard data on their part.  The problem is the interpretation.  EELV based ESAS could also work.  COTS based ESAS could work.  We can now "massage" the existing approach based on the feedback from the contractors.  Still I fear there is not much time left to fix the overall approach, downselects, and planning specific hardware orders, and what not.  Come 2008, and NASA is still deliberating on the engines for the first stage of their heavy lift, it's game over.

Your final comment hits the nail on the head.
“Come 2008, and NASA is still deliberating on the engines for the first stage of their heavy lift, it's game over”

The schedule for CLV is first crewed flight in 2014 (and who believes that this schedule will hold?) is in my opinion the killer for exploration.  We’ve got 5 congressional elections and 2 presidential elections between now and then.  And all this LV development does is spend a third of explorations budget to launch CEV to LEO on and EELV class rocket, robbing NASA science, aeronautics and robotic exploration to pay for it.  Wow, yes that gets me excited!!!
http://t2www.nasa.r3h.net/pdf/142458main_FY07_budget_full.pdf

And then NASA has the nerve to say that they are under funded!  Yes Ross, you are absolutely correct that flying the shuttle during the next few years consumes even more budget than the CLV.

Prior to Griffin taking over, when Steidle was running the show Atlas derivatives were the leading launch vehicle candidate for both crew and cargo.  Griffin has been a long SDLV advocate, see his July 2004 Planetary Society paper: http://www.spaceref.com/news/viewpr.html?pid=14678

I’m guessing that Griffin formed this opinion from his involvement in the last exploration effort of the early 1990’s, prior to the EELV program.  For his Planetary Society paper Griffin never bothered to call the EELV providers to understand alternatives to SDLV.  Is it any surprise that we are where we are today?  But there is plenty of time to change and still beat CLV’s 2014 ILC for humans.

What I find very interesting is the fact that parts of NASA do truly understand the Atlas vehicle.  Multiple COTS proposals included Atlas as the launch vehicle.  For one of them the feed back was: “strongly positive for the use of Atlas due to its strong heritage and capabilities”.  This same proposal had: “negative for over estimating the cost of human rating the Atlas”.  Quite the dichotomy at NASA.

If one wants to keep exploration sold we need to provide frequent, major progressional steps to show congress and the nation that NASA is using the tax payer’s money wisely.  Keeping the fantastically successful robotic Mars missions fully funded with multiple flights every 2 years is one major step in the correct direction.  Heck, isn’t Mars the primary destination.  LRO is another great step as part of the Lunar Robotic Exploration Program (RLEP).  But don’t wait until 2014 for the second RLEP flight.  If one wants to truly do fantastic stuff at the moon let the robotic missions truly be the precursors in developing the capability and technology. Fly them soon and fly them often.  I could go on and on regarding astronomy, ISS, aeronautics, etc.  

The schedule and cost to fly CEV on an EELV HLV is a fraction that of CLV.  Human rating the EELV, meeting NASA’s performance goals can be done well before the CEV is ready!  

I’ve argued against CaLV for many reasons on this site.  But to me the real key to keeping exploration sold is for NASA to show progress toward exploration now and at a minimum every 2 years.  If exploration decides on using a 100+ mT lifter, start its development now in parallel to the LSAM, this is a new capability.  But please don’t waist money and 8 years on duplicating capabilities that we already have.  This is a killer for exploration.

Offline Kayla

  • Extreme Veteran
  • Full Member
  • ***
  • Posts: 396
  • Liked: 0
  • Likes Given: 0
RE: ESAS Lead Dr Stanley Q and A (Mk II)
« Reply #248 on: 05/21/2006 12:56 pm »
Quote
MATTBLAK - 21/5/2006  12:34 AM
FACT #2): Shuttle SRMs are the most powerful man-rated rocket motors in the world. End of story. They EXIST and a 5-segment version has already been tested.

If the 5 segment exists, why does ATK say that it will cost $3B???  That is more than the entire Atlas V development cost (DoD+Lockheed Martin).  It is approaching what Boeing spent on the Delta IV, despite this including the cost of developing the fantastic RS-68???

Offline Kayla

  • Extreme Veteran
  • Full Member
  • ***
  • Posts: 396
  • Liked: 0
  • Likes Given: 0
RE: ESAS Lead Dr Stanley Q and A (Mk II)
« Reply #249 on: 05/21/2006 01:08 pm »
All of us on this site have been expressing our strong support for exploration.  It is what must be done.  

We obviously have disagreement on how to perform the exploration, so be it.  It is not too late for NASA to change directions.  ESAS was a 60 day study that over ruled the 1.5 years of work NASA had started when the president announced the initiative.  Some of us believe a different direction is required to keep the program sustainable.  We should express that.

Offline mong'

  • Whatever gets us to Mars
  • Full Member
  • ****
  • Posts: 689
  • Liked: 0
  • Likes Given: 0
RE: ESAS Lead Dr Stanley Q and A (Mk II)
« Reply #250 on: 05/21/2006 01:21 pm »
Quote
Kayla - 21/5/2006  2:55 PM
  Some of us believe a different direction is required to keep the program sustainable.  We should express that.

And I entirely agree, discussion always leads to progress. Everyone working in the field who can improve things, make them more feasible, simpler or cheaper should do it, and I follow you guys 100% on that.
What I mean is for the rest of us (those who are not directly related to the field and can only be qualified as enthusiasts or supporters), to show more support than bad criticizing because NASA badly needs our public support at this time

Offline Chris Bergin

RE: ESAS Lead Dr Stanley Q and A (Mk II)
« Reply #251 on: 05/21/2006 03:04 pm »
I'm locking this thread and will try and split some of the recent posts into a new thread, as Dr Stanley has already said he's answered the questions posed before he's had to get on with his job. It would be very unfair to keep asking him questions after he's spent a huge amount of time capably responding to those that had inquiries about the ESAS report....and we thank him for this hugely interesting thread.

So, thread locked, new thread or split new thread to come later on.
Support NSF via L2 -- Help improve NSF -- Site Rules/Feedback/Updates
**Not a L2 member? Whitelist this forum in your adblocker to support the site and ensure full functionality.**

Offline Chris Bergin

Re: ESAS Lead Dr Stanley Q and A (Mk II)
« Reply #252 on: 07/21/2006 03:32 am »
Moved to CEV, note this is a reference thread now.
Support NSF via L2 -- Help improve NSF -- Site Rules/Feedback/Updates
**Not a L2 member? Whitelist this forum in your adblocker to support the site and ensure full functionality.**

Tags:
 

Advertisement NovaTech
Advertisement Northrop Grumman
Advertisement
Advertisement Margaritaville Beach Resort South Padre Island
Advertisement Brady Kenniston
Advertisement NextSpaceflight
Advertisement Nathan Barker Photography
0