|
manboy
|
|
« Reply #30 on: 06/16/2012 05:52 PM » |
|
Not sure if this is the best place to ask, but is there anything legally preventing Lockheed from submitting it's own CCP proposal?
Other than the fact that the deadline past, nothing. it is likely they are involved in some of the submitted proposals if not all by themselves.
Lockheed Martin is heavily involved in the ATK/Astrium Liberty proposal. The Liberty spacecraft appears, essentially, to be "Orion Lite", outfitted by Lockheed Martin, with final assembly at KSC alongside Orion.
- Ed Kyle
Although for some reason it has a composite structure and uses a pusher escape system.
|
|
|
|
Lars_J
|
|
« Reply #31 on: 06/16/2012 06:59 PM » |
|
MLAS is not a pusher LAS.
|
|
|
|
Robotbeat
|
|
« Reply #32 on: 06/16/2012 08:20 PM » |
|
MLAS is not a pusher LAS.
Only because of the load path. I'm betting most in this field still consider it a pusher.
|
|
|
|
Jim
|
|
« Reply #33 on: 06/16/2012 08:23 PM » |
|
Load path determines it
|
|
|
|
simonbp
|
|
« Reply #34 on: 06/17/2012 04:53 AM » |
|
No, I'd say the location of the center of thrust relative to the center of mass determines it.
If the center of thrust is is aft of the center of mass, it's a pusher. Otherwise, it's a tractor. Just the same as for any aircraft.
|
|
|
|
Silmfeanor
|
|
« Reply #35 on: 06/17/2012 10:34 AM » |
|
No, I'd say the location of the center of thrust relative to the center of mass determines it.
If the center of thrust is is aft of the center of mass, it's a pusher. Otherwise, it's a tractor. Just the same as for any aircraft.
Perhaps this is not really something that can be discussed or argued about, but just a standing fact in the world of aerospace engineering? I vaguely remember reading something about MLAS before, where this same question was asked. It most certainly is a puller for the capsule engineers, no matter where the center of thrust is.
|
|
|
|
Jim
|
|
« Reply #36 on: 06/17/2012 12:59 PM » |
|
No, I'd say the location of the center of thrust relative to the center of mass determines it.
If the center of thrust is is aft of the center of mass, it's a pusher. Otherwise, it's a tractor. Just the same as for any aircraft.
I didn't post a question.
|
|
|
|
Nomadd
|
|
« Reply #37 on: 06/18/2012 11:43 AM » |
|
Gotta go with Jim on this one. Even if the center of thrust is aft, you're still pulling the vessel.
Semantics and not technology maybe. More defining the term than the reality. What are you going to call it if the load path is distributed vertically?
|
|
|
|
yg1968
|
|
« Reply #38 on: 06/19/2012 06:25 PM » |
|
There was an update on commercial crew in this Bolden/FAA press conference: http://www.parabolicarc.com/2012/06/18/nasafaa-press-conference-on-commercial-crew-agreement/Q: When will CCiCAP selection be announced?
Bolden: We fully expect to announce those selected by mid-July or so. That’s our hope. [...]
Q: How will CciCap work?
Bolden: NASA will fund three companies this summer. Two companies will get full funding and the third company will receive half funding. That will go through 21 months. NASA will then put out a request for contracts to provide services under FAR. Any company will be able to bid on it.
NASA would prefer that Congress fully fund the President’s request for commercial crew at $830 million but Congress may come in at less. NASA will ask for significant greater amounts in future years to keep to a 2017 schedule for commercial crew flights. See also: http://www.transterrestrial.com/?p=43025 How many companies selected in CC down select (Bolden said earlier announcement in mid-July)? Two and a half, per recent agreement with Congress. Take them through 21-month process, full funders all the way, half funded as best they could. Following that, an RFP under the FAR under which any company can bid. And finally: http://www.newspacejournal.com/2012/06/19/nasa-plans-to-announce-commercial-crew-awards-next-month/comment-page-1/#comment-626918
|
|
|
|
AnalogMan
|
|
« Reply #39 on: 06/19/2012 07:12 PM » |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Silmfeanor
|
|
« Reply #42 on: 06/19/2012 11:41 PM » |
|
For some reason the report says that SpaceX hasn't completed their second crew accommodations trial (self-funded).
thanks for the larger picture. I'm not sure what your question is regarding the second in-situ crew trial - it's scheduled for q3 2012. The pictures we have seen are the first in-situ crew trials as far as I know. Presumably they'll make some changes from the input they received in the first trial, then try again in the second trial.
|
|
|
|
Geron
|
|
« Reply #43 on: 06/20/2012 04:37 AM » |
|
Isn't it bad that the contracting mechanism switched to FAR? I seem to recall Elon Musk and others stating that they would consider opting out of Comercial Crew if FAR was used over space act agreements as the contracting mechanism is much more expensive and not productive?
|
|
|
|
QuantumG
|
|
« Reply #44 on: 06/20/2012 04:50 AM » |
|
Isn't it bad that the contracting mechanism switched to FAR? I seem to recall Elon Musk and others stating that they would consider opting out of Comercial Crew if FAR was used over space act agreements as the contracting mechanism is much more expensive and not productive?
For development, yes. For services provided at a fixed price, no. For example, CRS.
|
|
|
|
