|
Mark S
|
|
« Reply #4140 on: 01/09/2009 06:55 PM » |
|
So it is now considered rude to point out the obvious? I didn't call him names or cast aspersions about his parentage or mental capacity. I simply made the observation that his site is hostile to DIRECT. How is that a problem?
I didn't even include any veiled insults, like "prominent ego", "vocal advocacy group", or even "input is of marginal ... value".
Mark S.
I agree with you. Folks, the criticism of Mark's post is unfair. He made no insults, just pointed out what is, in fact, obvious to many. Further, Keith updated his site an hour or two ago to point out that "the DIRECT fanboys" (his phrase) were upset with him.
Thanks Herb, I appreciate it. I will concede that the phrase "p*ssed in his lemonade" is a bit crude, and will try to refrain from such colloquialisms in the future. Mark S.
|
|
|
|
Matthew Raymond
|
|
« Reply #4141 on: 01/09/2009 07:02 PM » |
|
Against this Jupiter requires man-rating the RS-68 and Jupiter core, both of which will raise costs for those components considerably.
Anything with the potential to have an Orion on top will have this problem. For the Ares I, you'd have to man-rate the J2-X engine, plus the SRB first stage has to be man-rated because it's essentially a new booster and has different weight loads and distribution. Assuming NASA isn't going to man-rate the Ares V, you gain a little there, but only if you intend to never man-rate the Delta IV, which leaves you with only one rocket capable of transporting astronauts into space. Also, marginal cost will be higher on the ISS mission since you are buying more liquid engines and more SRB segments.
You're buying one extra engine and three extra SRBs. The SRBs in question are shuttle SRBs, so the Ares I SRB segments (which will almost certainly cost more than shuttle SRBs) would have to be no more than 1.6 times the cost of a shuttle SRB segment just to break even, SRB-wise. Of course, that's not counting the extra nozzle on the bottom, but then they're changing that for the Ares I too. You may have someone of a point for the engines, assuming a J2-X is not significantly more expensive than an RS-68, but it's an apples-to-oranges comparison anyways because the Ares I can't haul cargo.
|
|
|
|
jarmumd
|
|
« Reply #4142 on: 01/09/2009 07:04 PM » |
|
I believe that Ross or Chuck stated, a little while ago in this thread, that they already have an extra $2.5 Billion added in the figures they published just to deal with potential development cost overruns.
Do you think that is not enough?
I have no idea, and I wasn't trying to make claim to the value in cost or time of Jupiter, rather that the tone of their claims is a bit misleading when it sounds like it's easily modified heritage hardware. Essentially (and probably to NASA) it is a new tank, designed very closely to the existing ET. There may be more issues with this than we know. It is one thing to do a study (NLS) and another to design and analyze the tank as an integrated system. Marc
|
|
|
|
gladiator1332
|
|
« Reply #4143 on: 01/09/2009 07:12 PM » |
|
I believe that Ross or Chuck stated, a little while ago in this thread, that they already have an extra $2.5 Billion added in the figures they published just to deal with potential development cost overruns.
Do you think that is not enough?
I have no idea, and I wasn't trying to make claim to the value in cost or time of Jupiter, rather that the tone of their claims is a bit misleading when it sounds like it's easily modified heritage hardware. Essentially (and probably to NASA) it is a new tank, designed very closely to the existing ET. There may be more issues with this than we know. It is one thing to do a study (NLS) and another to design and analyze the tank as an integrated system.
Marc
While there is no way to tell how easy something really is until we actually try, you have to remember that there have been several studies over the last few decades on modifying the ET to do exactly what DIRECT wants to do. If there were a show stopper hidden somewhere, one of these studies would have had to found it by now.
|
|
|
|
William Barton
|
|
« Reply #4144 on: 01/09/2009 07:24 PM » |
|
Hope posting a link to another site won't get me in trouble:
http://www.nasawatch.com/archives/2009/01/transition_team_4.html
"Word has it Buzz was going with them"
Now that is interesting. I know Buzz has his own ideas, but if DIRECT can get his endorsement it would be a big boost in credibility.
As for the "other site", that dude harbors over-the-top hostility towards DIRECT. I suppose he must have his reasons, but even in the very first DIRECT article archived on his site, he comes down hard on DIRECT and any favorable posts. Someone must have really p*ssed in his lemonade.
Mark S.
Please change the tone. Please be constructive. Everyone has their own view. Saying rude things about anyone does not help matters.
I believe everyone in the space advocacy/development community needs to take this to heart, from those of us cheering from the sidelines right up to NASA Administrators. Sounding like a bunch of Internet jerks doesn't do the cause any good. Regardless of how we feel about rockets and personalities, at rock bottom, we all want the same thing: a future for humanity off-earth.
So it is now considered rude to point out the obvious? I didn't call him names or cast aspersions about his parentage or mental capacity. I simply made the observation that his site is hostile to DIRECT. How is that a problem?
I didn't even include any veiled insults, like "prominent ego", "vocal advocacy group", or even "input is of marginal ... value".
Mark S.
It wasn't meant to be a criticism of your post specifically, just a general observation that in-group bickering is hurting us all. I've tried to point this out on the site in question, as well. To no avail, of course.
|
|
|
|
Pheogh
|
|
« Reply #4145 on: 01/09/2009 07:29 PM » |
|
I believe that Ross or Chuck stated, a little while ago in this thread, that they already have an extra $2.5 Billion added in the figures they published just to deal with potential development cost overruns.
Do you think that is not enough?
I have no idea, and I wasn't trying to make claim to the value in cost or time of Jupiter, rather that the tone of their claims is a bit misleading when it sounds like it's easily modified heritage hardware. Essentially (and probably to NASA) it is a new tank, designed very closely to the existing ET. There may be more issues with this than we know. It is one thing to do a study (NLS) and another to design and analyze the tank as an integrated system.
Marc
I believe the NLS did pass PDR? did it not? Now, for sure it is not a one to one comparison but don't you think the review probably included analysis including ET-mods as well as Thrust structure evaluations. At the core of our argument has always been that this is not a completely new idea. p.s. oh boy the Team artist is trying to talk engineering... 
|
|
|
|
bad_astra
|
|
« Reply #4146 on: 01/09/2009 07:40 PM » |
|
Can we clear this up somehow with Keith Cowing? I just found his article interesting, and I did not intend for him to link back to us with the term "Fanboys."
Frankly I don't care what rocket he prefers. We're all on the same side, in the end.
|
|
|
|
Mark S
|
|
« Reply #4147 on: 01/09/2009 08:00 PM » |
|
Can we clear this up somehow with Keith Cowing? I just found his article interesting, and I did not intend for him to link back to us with the term "Fanboys."
Frankly I don't care what rocket he prefers. We're all on the same side, in the end.
Nah, let's just drop it. If anyone follow the link from his site, they will just find our normal conversations, not "all the DIRECT fanboys" being upset at him. I'm the only one here who said anything at all about his site, and even then saying that I'm "upset" at him is a stretch. And, they will see that I got thrown under the bus even for that. Mark S.
|
|
|
|
ballew
|
|
« Reply #4148 on: 01/09/2009 08:34 PM » |
|
Can we clear this up somehow with Keith Cowing? I just found his article interesting, and I did not intend for him to link back to us with the term "Fanboys."
Frankly I don't care what rocket he prefers. We're all on the same side, in the end.
I find it interesting that even though he obviously disagrees with the Direct concept he evidently monitors this thread.
|
|
|
|
|
|
Khadgars
|
|
« Reply #4150 on: 01/09/2009 08:42 PM » |
|
I find it interesting that even though he obviously disagrees with the Direct concept he evidently monitors this thread. Indeed.
|
|
|
|
Chris Bergin
|
|
« Reply #4151 on: 01/09/2009 08:42 PM » |
|
Can we clear this up somehow with Keith Cowing? I That might be the best idea, in which case I'm sure one of you could go on his site and ask him about that "in person"? He has a comment section on each of his posts. I can predict it might get messy on here, so to pre-empt...I personally won't stand for this potentially turning into a series of posts based around "OMG, he called me a person, I'm outraged" as he is former NASA, and thus deserves the respect that warrants.
|
|
|
|
luke strawwalker
|
|
« Reply #4152 on: 01/09/2009 08:47 PM » |
|
If a contractor can actually build the ultalightweight EDS claimed by Direct, Ares V will not need 5.5 segments.
This assumes NASA is willing to let contractor build such an EDS. So far NASA wanted to do it "their way", and considering that NASA does not have required experience, no wonder "NASA way" EDS is worse.
EXACTLY! Hit the nail right on the head... Suppose you and I decide we want to get into NASCAR racing... building a car and getting the requisite tools/equipment in place isn't that big of a deal, but now we come to the engine... Now I know about regular car engines. I know the basics of how to 'hop them up'... but I've never built a true racing engine... while I 'reinvent the wheel' going over plans and mods and hop-ups trying to figure out what to do to get 700 horsepower out of a big block, a old guy from the next shop comments he can get 750 horsepower out of a small block. Do I: 1.) call him a liar, since I don't even know how to get 700 horsepower out of a big block, let alone how to get that out of a small block and get it to hold together, or 2.) ask how, maybe swallow my pride and go over and do a little learnin' at the master's feet so to speak to take advantage of his experience and avoid making all the 'reinventing the wheel' mistakes along the way?? Wouldn't it make more sense to maybe hire him to build us a 750 horsepower small block, and learn by helping do it, so we'd stand a chance at a 'winning season' rather than pridefully decide to go it alone, develop the knowledge ourselves, and suffer a lot of blown engines and lost races learning what NOT to do, as well as WHAT to do and how to do it?? After all, that's what life is about... two ways to learn things: 1) school 2) school of hard knocks OL JR 
|
|
|
|
Pheogh
|
|
« Reply #4153 on: 01/09/2009 08:52 PM » |
|
Can we clear this up somehow with Keith Cowing? I
That might be the best idea, in which case I'm sure one of you could go on his site and ask him about that "in person"? He has a comment section on each of his posts.
I can predict it might get messy on here, so to pre-empt...I personally won't stand for this potentially turning into a series of posts based around "OMG, he called me a person, I'm outraged" as he is former NASA, and thus deserves the respect that warrants.
Chris he has "banned" DIRECT team members or anyone who appears to be a direct supporter from commenting on his blog. Furthermore he has put many of us in his "straight to trash" folder. So I am sure I speak for the entire team when I say our interest in engaging him in anyway concluded some time ago. I think we should move beyond this.
|
|
|
|
gladiator1332
|
|
« Reply #4154 on: 01/09/2009 09:18 PM » |
|
Just ignore it. There is nothing that could be said to change opinions. It is a waste of time and energy to debate this further and try to come to some terms of agreement.
Everyone is entitled to their own beliefs and opinions, and that is what I love about NSF. While you could lump me into the "Direct person" category, I also could be called an "EELV person", or "Anything that Isn't Ares I person".
It is great that on Nasaspaceflight, someone can hold several opinions and viewpoints and not be ridiculed for them.
Thanks Chris!
|
|
|
|
