Maybe the Chinese could buy it?
Quote from: Nascent Ascent on 03/28/2010 01:43 pmMaybe the Chinese could buy it?Or more accurately, maybe the Chinese could rent it until we're able to get our priorities straightened out. And by that I mean scrapping the Obama non-plan and fund a viable alternative to the PoR.
Put a Apollo / Saturn V mockup on it and haul it to the visitor center.... A regular monument to failed and short sighted space policy....
It is a firm fixed-price contract with a value of $263,735,000, if all options are exercised.
And why did it have to be built 5 or so years before its first use? So we could pay maintenance fees on it the whole time?What exactly was the thinking there?
"CONTRACT RELEASE : C08-025 NASA Awards Contract for Ares I Mobile Launcher CAPE CANAVERAL, Fla. -- NASA's Kennedy Space Center has awarded a contract to Hensel Phelps of Orlando, Fla., for the construction of the Ares I mobile launcher for the Constellation Program...The contract includes an option for an additional Ares I mobile launcher. It is a firm fixed-price contract with a value of $263,735,000, if all options are exercised. "
So is it safe to say that the $500 million figure in the headline is misleading?
Quote from: renclod on 03/28/2010 07:48 pm"CONTRACT RELEASE : C08-025 NASA Awards Contract for Ares I Mobile Launcher CAPE CANAVERAL, Fla. -- NASA's Kennedy Space Center has awarded a contract to Hensel Phelps of Orlando, Fla., for the construction of the Ares I mobile launcher for the Constellation Program...The contract includes an option for an additional Ares I mobile launcher. It is a firm fixed-price contract with a value of $263,735,000, if all options are exercised. "That is for the basic structure and none of the utilities to support a launch vehicle. No umbilical arms, no propellant lines, no ECS ducts, no data or comm lines.
They should go ahead and build the roller coaster escape system, it can be the newest theme park ride at the visitors center.
Not a very simple or practical approach. But hey, this is NASA...
Quote Not a very simple or practical approach. But hey, this is NASA...And THAT, my friend, is the problem with the entire Ares I vehicle. Would it work? Sure. Could it work? Sure. Was it the best design possible? No way! The design for Ares I was impractical [in my humble opinion] who's real purpose was to keep ATK and Lockheed Martin in business. There was no real innovation in the design, but it featured plenty of needless engineering to make the stupid, functional.
Quote from: Captain Kirk on 03/29/2010 05:54 amQuote Not a very simple or practical approach. But hey, this is NASA...And THAT, my friend, is the problem with the entire Ares I vehicle. Would it work? Sure. Could it work? Sure. Was it the best design possible? No way! The design for Ares I was impractical [in my humble opinion] who's real purpose was to keep ATK and Lockheed Martin in business. There was no real innovation in the design, but it featured plenty of needless engineering to make the stupid, functional. OK, prove it! Let's see the data to support your statement.Oh, it's only your opinion. Sorry I missed that. Just accuse tons of honorable people it was a payola payoff. Lots of people have made that accusation, and it sure makes Ares look like a bad deal. But saying it, and proving it are two different things. And that should make anyone upset, pro-Ares or not.
Why the heck did it cost $500 million in the first place? It sounds to me like the biggest waste was paying that much just for this structure, even if it wasn't for a failed rocket design.
Quote from: Robotbeat on 03/28/2010 06:22 pmWhy the heck did it cost $500 million in the first place? It sounds to me like the biggest waste was paying that much just for this structure, even if it wasn't for a failed rocket design.Yeah, I find it amusing that with the rocket it was supposed to launch still being 5-9 years out from its first launch, that they spent all the money now on trying to get the new pad built. Why the rush? Even if you believed in the old PoR, why not spend that money on more urgent things like speeding up the J-2X or Orion?It more looks like a game of budgetary chicken--trying to get stuff built, even if it's in a totally suboptimal sequence in a hope that they can force people to keep building stuff so as not to waste what has already been done. We've already spent a couple hundred million on this tower that won't be used for 9 years and you want to cancel the program!!!?! Oh the humanity!
Quote from: jongoff on 03/29/2010 03:07 pmQuote from: Robotbeat on 03/28/2010 06:22 pmWhy the heck did it cost $500 million in the first place? It sounds to me like the biggest waste was paying that much just for this structure, even if it wasn't for a failed rocket design.Yeah, I find it amusing that with the rocket it was supposed to launch still being 5-9 years out from its first launch, that they spent all the money now on trying to get the new pad built. Why the rush? Even if you believed in the old PoR, why not spend that money on more urgent things like speeding up the J-2X or Orion?It more looks like a game of budgetary chicken--trying to get stuff built, even if it's in a totally suboptimal sequence in a hope that they can force people to keep building stuff so as not to waste what has already been done. We've already spent a couple hundred million on this tower that won't be used for 9 years and you want to cancel the program!!!?! Oh the humanity!Maybe it was for the following reasons:1. IOC was still being carried as 2015, with some hopes of still being 2013 (take that as you will but there was internal documentation saying that)2. GSE needed to be designed still in some regards, procured/built and installed. This also includes data lines, swing arms, purge systems, etc3. All this GSE needed to be functionally tested, validated, etc after installation.4. ICD's probably still needed to be verified.5. Integrated testing of the stack/pad was also probably planned.While clearly some believe they always know better, these were most likely some of the reasons. Also, it is probably wise to spread the money over as many years as possible to protect a budget from unnecessary one-time spikes and to give more budget flexibility. It's easy to throw stones, now I'm sure some will come my way too.
Quote from: OV-106 on 03/29/2010 06:16 pmQuote from: jongoff on 03/29/2010 03:07 pmQuote from: Robotbeat on 03/28/2010 06:22 pmWhy the heck did it cost $500 million in the first place? It sounds to me like the biggest waste was paying that much just for this structure, even if it wasn't for a failed rocket design.Yeah, I find it amusing that with the rocket it was supposed to launch still being 5-9 years out from its first launch, that they spent all the money now on trying to get the new pad built. Why the rush? Even if you believed in the old PoR, why not spend that money on more urgent things like speeding up the J-2X or Orion?It more looks like a game of budgetary chicken--trying to get stuff built, even if it's in a totally suboptimal sequence in a hope that they can force people to keep building stuff so as not to waste what has already been done. We've already spent a couple hundred million on this tower that won't be used for 9 years and you want to cancel the program!!!?! Oh the humanity!Maybe it was for the following reasons:1. IOC was still being carried as 2015, with some hopes of still being 2013 (take that as you will but there was internal documentation saying that)2. GSE needed to be designed still in some regards, procured/built and installed. This also includes data lines, swing arms, purge systems, etc3. All this GSE needed to be functionally tested, validated, etc after installation.4. ICD's probably still needed to be verified.5. Integrated testing of the stack/pad was also probably planned.While clearly some believe they always know better, these were most likely some of the reasons. Also, it is probably wise to spread the money over as many years as possible to protect a budget from unnecessary one-time spikes and to give more budget flexibility. It's easy to throw stones, now I'm sure some will come my way too. OV-106, you are correct. It was going to take a few years to outfit the ML. Helium dewers, Tilt Up Umbilical Arms, propellent lines, etc. all had to be installed and tested. Plus NASA KSC has to use the money when they get it even if part of the system (the rocket) is behind schedule. It also didn't help that when NASA paid for the ML construction a couple of years ago the price of steel was sky high.
Think on it for a moment, a milkstool with a Falcon 9, Atlas V or Delta IV on top of it. Since it has not had it's critical systems installed, it is just a skeleton ready for whatever we so choose to mount on it.
Since it has not had it's critical systems installed, it is just a skeleton ready for whatever we so choose to mount on it.
See all the other threads about the total chaos surrounding the "whatever".
Quote from: OV-106 on 03/29/2010 06:51 pmSee all the other threads about the total chaos surrounding the "whatever".?
ebay it!, look great in my garden
Quote from: Cog_in_the_machine on 03/29/2010 06:54 pmQuote from: OV-106 on 03/29/2010 06:51 pmSee all the other threads about the total chaos surrounding the "whatever".?Well, there is no plan for anything....http://forum.nasaspaceflight.com/index.php?topic=20894.msg565424#msg565424
Quote from: Robson68 on 03/28/2010 03:16 pmebay it!, look great in my gardenDoes clematis grow that hi?And FinalFrontier...all that coughing. Are you sick? Then stay away from the thread, lest you pass on your cold to someone else...Seriously, can his tower be used by a different rocket?
Look around here for a Delta IV plan in pdf format. I read it. I think it was written by lockheed. It included the use of the OPFs as horizontal processing for the boosters, which then get towed to the VAB for stacking on the adapted MLP/mobile launcher. Definitely looked like it could make use of this thing. No milkstool involved.
OV-106, you are correct. It was going to take a few years to outfit the ML. Helium dewers, Tilt Up Umbilical Arms, propellent lines, etc. all had to be installed and tested. Plus NASA KSC has to use the money when they get it even if part of the system (the rocket) is behind schedule. It also didn't help that when NASA paid for the ML construction a couple of years ago the price of steel was sky high.
It's easy to throw stones, now I'm sure some will come my way too.
... Also, it is probably wise to spread the money over as many years as possible to protect a budget from unnecessary one-time spikes and to give more budget flexibility. It's easy to throw stones, now I'm sure some will come my way too.
Someone on another thread commented how big this tower looks next to the pretty thin tower for Falcon 9
Quote from: JohnFornaro on 03/30/2010 06:33 pmSomeone on another thread commented how big this tower looks next to the pretty thin tower for Falcon 9It is because it is ridiculously oversized for any rocket, except perhaps the Saturn V. Even for Ares I it is over the top. There simply was no need for such a huge mobile structure.
Why would anyone built a 100m high rocket, when a few miles down the coast an existing 60m rocket can be launched, from an existing pad, using an existing tower ... ? Having the same or higher capability than the 100m high rocket. Why?