Author Topic: NASA FY 2011 Appropriations - preview  (Read 474555 times)

Online JohnFornaro

  • Not an expert
  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 10882
  • Delta-t is an important metric.
  • Planet Eaarth
    • Design / Program Associates
  • Liked: 1253
  • Likes Given: 718
Re: NASA FY 2011 Appropriations - preview
« Reply #80 on: 11/20/2010 02:06 pm »
Note that Senator Bob Bennett's above comment went, "I remain very concerned that NASA continues to delay the transition from Constellation systems toward the new heavy-lift program while they needlessly explore private start-up technologies that remain unproven, require more money and are unfit for human-rated space travel."

This is very frustrating to me.  The Senator's statement is basically a falsehood.  And here's how you tell:  If the private startup technologies are unproven, then so is SLS.  You can't say that SLS will have a "proven" engine, and that this is somehow better than the Merlin engine, also "proven".  Not at this level of analysis.

Plus, if the private technologies are also "unfit for human-rated space travel", then so is SLS, as it turns out.  What the difference is?  If you're trying to make an honest case in comparing private and SLS, you must compare honestly, which is not done in the Senator's quote.

Not only that you can't say that NASA is "delaying" the transition to SLS, when the authorization act supports both efforts simultaneously.  You can say that the President is "delaying" the transition, because that may be the operable truth.  I say "operable truth", but you could say "functional truth" as well.  Who knows what the intent is behind the black box of the Administration's actions, but delay is what is coming out of the black box.  As SpacexULA points out, this Prez is not all that different from the previous seven or so.  Also, LBJ didn't do all that much for NASA, remember.

Congress suggested that they can both happen at the same time, and I quite agree.

Mr. Bennett has no apparent leadership qualities either, from this quote.  Leaders do not use falsehoods to advance their position.

From the transcript:

Hey!  That's my line!  Not a bad posting style ya got there, pardner.  Easy to read.  Narrow bandwidth.  Topical.  Informative.  Plus...

...his comment about HEFT is interesting.  I guess they're starting to ask the question I asked elsewhere:  What are the astros going to be doing for their 180 days of travel?  Getting in touch with themselves?  Mightn't we better spend 180 days mapping and prospecting the entire lunar surface?  And sharing the database with STEM programs thruout the country, not forgetting our international partners?  I mean, the Brownie camera only takes twelve pictures of the rock.

That wise President will work hard to make sure that the needed appropriations are available...

And I just wanna say that a vote for me will guarantee everyone a chicken in every pot, and a rocket in every garage...

The only way the government would do it is by forced labor camps...

Hi.  I'm the Bernank.  I'm here at the camp because I defrauded the Fed to the tune of the $600B.  I knew all along that the quantitative easing was the wrong strategy.



Never mind.  Sometimes you gotta be me to get it.
Sometimes I just flat out don't get it.

Offline HappyMartian

  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 2713
  • Tap the Moon's water!
  • Asia
  • Liked: 15
  • Likes Given: 2
Re: NASA FY 2011 Appropriations - preview
« Reply #81 on: 11/20/2010 02:37 pm »

That wise President will work hard to make sure that the needed appropriations are available...

And I just wanna say that a vote for me will guarantee everyone a chicken in every pot, and a rocket in every garage...


"And I just wanna say that a vote for me will guarantee everyone a chicken in every pot, and a rocket in every garage..." and an electric jeep on your driveway and a swimming pool inside your vacation home on the Moon.

Way to go John! Not bad! You just got my vote... Wait a sec... You did say you were the Chairman of the House Appropriations Committee or the President or someone important in the Senate, didn't you?


Cheers!


"The Moon is the most accessible destination for realizing commercial, exploration and scientific objectives beyond low Earth orbit." - LEAG

Offline alexw

  • Full Member
  • ****
  • Posts: 1230
  • Liked: 4
  • Likes Given: 2
Re: NASA FY 2011 Appropriations - preview
« Reply #82 on: 11/22/2010 12:00 am »
My guess is an interim EDS/upper stage based on the Ares-I Upper Stage lauched on EELV-Hs, at least in the short term; J-2X is too big even for the proposed Common Centaur.  The ultimate plan will be to put it on SLS, of course.
    What would be the point of building a 5.5m stage on a brand-new production line at Michoud to fly only atop a Delta IVH, probably requiring new fairings, rather than the 5.1m designs that ULA desperately wants to build on the existing tooling in Decatur to fly on everything?
    Granted, NASA could pay to do it, but what role would it serve for NASA beyond Orion-to-LEO?

Quote
Quote
Quote
Right now if youíre an engine person, or if youíre a Heavy Lift person, I think youíll know, and for those of you who are like me and arenít a Heavy Lift person, the big question for us is what do we use for a first stage engine?  Do we use LOX hydrogen or do we use LOX RP, kerosene.
*facepalm*
Interesting that kerolox is still on the table, at least in Charles Bolden's view of matters.
     Yes, that is indeed most interesting.
     -Alex

Offline Ben the Space Brit

  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 7202
  • A spaceflight fan
  • London, UK
  • Liked: 801
  • Likes Given: 894
Re: NASA FY 2011 Appropriations - preview
« Reply #83 on: 11/22/2010 07:40 am »
My guess is an interim EDS/upper stage based on the Ares-I Upper Stage lauched on EELV-Hs, at least in the short term; J-2X is too big even for the proposed Common Centaur.  The ultimate plan will be to put it on SLS, of course.
    What would be the point of building a 5.5m stage on a brand-new production line at Michoud to fly only atop a Delta IVH, probably requiring new fairings, rather than the 5.1m designs that ULA desperately wants to build on the existing tooling in Decatur to fly on everything?
    Granted, NASA could pay to do it, but what role would it serve for NASA beyond Orion-to-LEO?

Well, the 5.5m tooling is already at Michoud whilst the 5.1m tooling for Common Centaur aren't ready to go yet.  NASA has been directed to use existing equipment and tooling wherever possible rather than spend on new stuff.  So, it makes more budgetary and schedule sense to utilise the 5.5m tooling rather than sit around for another couple of years whilst ULA get the 5.1m production line running.

Additionally, the 5.5m upper stage was designed for Orion, so I presume the payload interface is already mostly ready for metal bending.  More time and effort would be needed to design a payload interface for Common Centaur.

In terms of performance, a shuttle-derived SLS, the 5.5m upper stage should deliver ~40t through TLI.
"Oops! I left the silly thing in reverse!" - Duck Dodgers

~*~*~*~

The Space Shuttle Program - 1981-2011

The time for words has passed; The time has come to put up or shut up!
DON'T PROPAGANDISE, FLY!!!

Offline alexw

  • Full Member
  • ****
  • Posts: 1230
  • Liked: 4
  • Likes Given: 2
Re: NASA FY 2011 Appropriations - preview
« Reply #84 on: 11/22/2010 08:12 am »
5.5m stage on a brand-new production line at Michoud to fly only atop a Delta IVH, probably requiring new fairings, rather than the 5.1m designs that ULA desperately wants to build on the existing tooling in Decatur to fly on everything?
    Granted, NASA could pay to do it, but what role would it serve for NASA beyond Orion-to-LEO?
Well, the 5.5m tooling is already at Michoud whilst the 5.1m tooling for Common Centaur aren't ready to go yet.  NASA has been directed to use existing equipment and tooling wherever possible rather than spend on new stuff.  So, it makes more budgetary and schedule sense to utilise the 5.5m tooling rather than sit around for another couple of years whilst ULA get the 5.1m production line running.
   Huh? It's the existing tooling already used to produce the 5m DCSS/ DIVHUS or the Delta IV cores, no? (I forget which -- in fact, is the same tooling used for both?)

   That's sorta the whole point, why ULA engineers must be incredibly frustrated. It's all so close to falling into place. The old ACES and Atlas Phase II would probably have required new tooling in Denver or San Diego, choosing 5.4m to match the existing Atlas payload fairing, but after the centralization in Decatur ... 5m production is already ongoing for both parts of Delta, and utilization is far below capacity! That's why either Phase II or 5.1m Common Centaur or 5.1m ACES are all so attractive.
   -Alex

Offline 2552

  • Full Member
  • ****
  • Posts: 486
  • Liked: 42
  • Likes Given: 522
Re: NASA FY 2011 Appropriations - preview
« Reply #85 on: 11/22/2010 09:22 am »
Quote
Right now if youíre an engine person, or if youíre a Heavy Lift person, I think youíll know, and for those of you who are like me and arenít a Heavy Lift person, the big question for us is what do we use for a first stage engine?  Do we use LOX hydrogen or do we use LOX RP, kerosene.

*facepalm*

Interesting that kerolox is still on the table, at least in Charles Bolden's view of matters.

Hmm. Thinking about it some more, I wonder if this is just PR and he doesn't mean it. Before the Senate bill appeared, wasn't Bolden/Garver/etc talking only about LOX/RP-1? Now that the bill is law, maybe Bolden is trying to "transition" the PR to SLS by including LOX/LH2 (SSME) along with LOX/RP-1, and later (January/February) will publicly "decide" on LOX/LH2 (SSME) + SRB?

Offline Ben the Space Brit

  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 7202
  • A spaceflight fan
  • London, UK
  • Liked: 801
  • Likes Given: 894
Re: NASA FY 2011 Appropriations - preview
« Reply #86 on: 11/22/2010 01:06 pm »
Interesting that kerolox is still on the table, at least in Charles Bolden's view of matters.

Hmm. Thinking about it some more, I wonder if this is just PR and he doesn't mean it. Before the Senate bill appeared, wasn't Bolden/Garver/etc talking only about LOX/RP-1? Now that the bill is law, maybe Bolden is trying to "transition" the PR to SLS by including LOX/LH2 (SSME) along with LOX/RP-1, and later (January/February) will publicly "decide" on LOX/LH2 (SSME) + SRB?

There has been authoratative talk over on the HLV thread that KSC expects the SLS to be an Atlas-V Phase-2 derivative.  It would start with RD-180 and transition to RS-84/TR-107.  I'm not sure how reliable this is or whether it was just managers spouting off their pet ideas without authorisation (or responsibility).  However, Phase 2/3A in the form described in the post would be able to provide the 70-130t IMLEO payload demanded by the Senate.
"Oops! I left the silly thing in reverse!" - Duck Dodgers

~*~*~*~

The Space Shuttle Program - 1981-2011

The time for words has passed; The time has come to put up or shut up!
DON'T PROPAGANDISE, FLY!!!

Offline Warren Platts

Re: NASA FY 2011 Appropriations - preview
« Reply #87 on: 11/22/2010 01:20 pm »
Interesting that kerolox is still on the table, at least in Charles Bolden's view of matters.

Hmm. Thinking about it some more, I wonder if this is just PR and he doesn't mean it. Before the Senate bill appeared, wasn't Bolden/Garver/etc talking only about LOX/RP-1? Now that the bill is law, maybe Bolden is trying to "transition" the PR to SLS by including LOX/LH2 (SSME) along with LOX/RP-1, and later (January/February) will publicly "decide" on LOX/LH2 (SSME) + SRB?

There has been authoratative talk over on the HLV thread that KSC expects the SLS to be an Atlas-V Phase-2 derivative.  It would start with RD-180 and transition to RS-84/TR-107.  I'm not sure how reliable this is or whether it was just managers spouting off their pet ideas without authorisation (or responsibility).  However, Phase 2/3A in the form described in the post would be able to provide the 70-130t IMLEO payload demanded by the Senate.

Yeah, but it would cut MSFC and ATK out of the deal.... Shelby and Hatch ain't gonna let that happen.
"When once you have tasted flight, you will forever walk the earth with your eyes turned skyward, for there you have been, and there you will always long to return."--Leonardo Da Vinci

Offline HappyMartian

  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 2713
  • Tap the Moon's water!
  • Asia
  • Liked: 15
  • Likes Given: 2
Re: NASA FY 2011 Appropriations - preview
« Reply #88 on: 11/22/2010 01:24 pm »
Interesting that kerolox is still on the table, at least in Charles Bolden's view of matters.

Hmm. Thinking about it some more, I wonder if this is just PR and he doesn't mean it. Before the Senate bill appeared, wasn't Bolden/Garver/etc talking only about LOX/RP-1? Now that the bill is law, maybe Bolden is trying to "transition" the PR to SLS by including LOX/LH2 (SSME) along with LOX/RP-1, and later (January/February) will publicly "decide" on LOX/LH2 (SSME) + SRB?

There has been authoratative talk over on the HLV thread that KSC expects the SLS to be an Atlas-V Phase-2 derivative.  It would start with RD-180 and transition to RS-84/TR-107.  I'm not sure how reliable this is or whether it was just managers spouting off their pet ideas without authorisation (or responsibility).  However, Phase 2/3A in the form described in the post would be able to provide the 70-130t IMLEO payload demanded by the Senate.

Yeah, but it would cut MSFC and ATK out of the deal.... Shelby and Hatch ain't gonna let that happen.

NASA has been told what to build and perhaps needs some kind of negotiating position to get the best possible deal on the SRBs. But if that's not the game being played, the proposed LOX/RP-1  RD-180 / SSME based AJAX Launcher looks affordable and cleaner and greener than the SRB / SSME based J-130. If a NASA plan for the AJAX Launcher could also send some work and money to ATK, it might even be viable. Perhaps ATK could partner with Pratt & Whitney Rocketdyne to build a TAN version of the SSME... Or even a TAN version of the J-2X. Who knows, maybe a version of a TAN J-2X could burn methane...

We shall see.

Cheers!
"The Moon is the most accessible destination for realizing commercial, exploration and scientific objectives beyond low Earth orbit." - LEAG

Offline Jim

  • Night Gator
  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 36863
  • Cape Canaveral Spaceport
  • Liked: 20184
  • Likes Given: 412
Re: NASA FY 2011 Appropriations - preview
« Reply #89 on: 11/22/2010 01:59 pm »


Yeah, but it would cut MSFC and ATK out of the deal.... Shelby and Hatch ain't gonna let that happen.

Any HLV keeps MSFC in the mix and an EELV derivative means more for AL

Offline Jim

  • Night Gator
  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 36863
  • Cape Canaveral Spaceport
  • Liked: 20184
  • Likes Given: 412
Re: NASA FY 2011 Appropriations - preview
« Reply #90 on: 11/22/2010 02:02 pm »
Perhaps ATK could partner with Pratt & Whitney Rocketdyne to build a TAN version of the SSME... Or even a TAN version of the J-2X. Who knows, maybe a version of a TAN J-2X could burn methane...


There is no work for ATK with those engines.  The point with ATK is to keep the segmented solids facilities and people in work.   Throwing ATK composite structure work is not going to help UT.

Offline HappyMartian

  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 2713
  • Tap the Moon's water!
  • Asia
  • Liked: 15
  • Likes Given: 2
Re: NASA FY 2011 Appropriations - preview
« Reply #91 on: 11/22/2010 02:33 pm »
Perhaps ATK could partner with Pratt & Whitney Rocketdyne to build a TAN version of the SSME... Or even a TAN version of the J-2X. Who knows, maybe a version of a TAN J-2X could burn methane...


There is no work for ATK with those engines.  The point with ATK is to keep the segmented solids facilities and people in work.   Throwing ATK composite structure work is not going to help UT.

Do you have any ideas that might help the good folks in UT stay in the space exploration game?

Cheers!
"The Moon is the most accessible destination for realizing commercial, exploration and scientific objectives beyond low Earth orbit." - LEAG

Offline Jim

  • Night Gator
  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 36863
  • Cape Canaveral Spaceport
  • Liked: 20184
  • Likes Given: 412
Re: NASA FY 2011 Appropriations - preview
« Reply #92 on: 11/22/2010 02:45 pm »

Do you have any ideas that might help the good folks in UT stay in the space exploration game?


No,  we don't need the space exploration equivalent of a steam locomotive fireman.
« Last Edit: 11/22/2010 02:46 pm by Jim »

Offline HappyMartian

  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 2713
  • Tap the Moon's water!
  • Asia
  • Liked: 15
  • Likes Given: 2
Re: NASA FY 2011 Appropriations - preview
« Reply #93 on: 11/22/2010 02:46 pm »

Do you have any ideas that might help the good folks in UT stay in the space exploration game?


No, there is no need for segmented solids.  They can do more ICBM's and other missiles.

OK. Thanks!

Cheers!
"The Moon is the most accessible destination for realizing commercial, exploration and scientific objectives beyond low Earth orbit." - LEAG

Offline CommercialSpaceFan

  • Member
  • Full Member
  • *
  • Posts: 175
  • Liked: 12
  • Likes Given: 1
Re: NASA FY 2011 Appropriations - preview
« Reply #94 on: 11/23/2010 12:32 am »
Perhaps ATK could partner with Pratt & Whitney Rocketdyne to build a TAN version of the SSME... Or even a TAN version of the J-2X. Who knows, maybe a version of a TAN J-2X could burn methane...


There is no work for ATK with those engines.  The point with ATK is to keep the segmented solids facilities and people in work.   Throwing ATK composite structure work is not going to help UT.

Do you have any ideas that might help the good folks in UT stay in the space exploration game?

Cheers!

Encourage use of Delta (5,4) or single stick EELV Phase 2 using 6 strap on SRB's.  These strap on SRB's are really quite cost effective and a generation more advanced than shuttle's SRMs.  Of course this direction derails HLV, requires propellant depots and dozens of launches to support truly interesting exploration.

Offline alexw

  • Full Member
  • ****
  • Posts: 1230
  • Liked: 4
  • Likes Given: 2
Re: NASA FY 2011 Appropriations - preview
« Reply #95 on: 11/23/2010 12:53 am »
There has been authoratative talk over on the HLV thread that KSC expects the SLS to be an Atlas-V Phase-2 derivative.  It would start with RD-180 and transition to RS-84/TR-107.  I'm not sure how reliable this is or whether it was just managers spouting off their pet ideas without authorisation (or responsibility).  However, Phase 2/3A in the form described in the post would be able to provide the 70-130t IMLEO payload demanded by the Senate.
    On what HLV thread is this talk? I've seen hardly anything recent on Phase II vehicles (even though it's probably, through not yet provably, the cheapest HLV technically possible at this time.)
    There's plenty of recent talk of 8.4m vehicles powered by SSME or RD-180, augmented by either existing CBC or CCBs or large J-2X middle stages, but that's more or less the opposite of the entire point and spirit behind Phase II.
  -Alex

Offline Ben the Space Brit

  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 7202
  • A spaceflight fan
  • London, UK
  • Liked: 801
  • Likes Given: 894
Re: NASA FY 2011 Appropriations - preview
« Reply #96 on: 11/23/2010 07:11 am »

    On what HLV thread is this talk?

The "Predicting the SLS" thread on the HLV/SLS board.  Look for a post from KSC Sage on the first or second page, IIRC.

Specifically, the design in question is a type of Phase 3A.  Because it creates the Phase 2 CCB, Phase 2 comes with it if required.
« Last Edit: 11/23/2010 07:13 am by Ben the Space Brit »
"Oops! I left the silly thing in reverse!" - Duck Dodgers

~*~*~*~

The Space Shuttle Program - 1981-2011

The time for words has passed; The time has come to put up or shut up!
DON'T PROPAGANDISE, FLY!!!

Offline alexw

  • Full Member
  • ****
  • Posts: 1230
  • Liked: 4
  • Likes Given: 2
Re: NASA FY 2011 Appropriations - preview
« Reply #97 on: 11/23/2010 08:38 am »
    On what HLV thread is this talk?
The "Predicting the SLS" thread on the HLV/SLS board.  Look for a post from KSC Sage on the first or second page, IIRC.
Specifically, the design in question is a type of Phase 3A.  Because it creates the Phase 2 CCB, Phase 2 comes with it if required.

   Phase 2 and 3A may use the same booster core, but they are worlds apart in operational concepts and costs.
   But I do appreciate the rumors -- I was wondering if you'd seen any confirmation.
   -Alex

Online Chris Bergin

Re: NASA FY 2011 Appropriations - preview
« Reply #98 on: 11/23/2010 08:58 am »

The "Predicting the SLS" thread on the HLV/SLS board.  Look for a post from KSC Sage on the first or second page, IIRC.

Specifically, the design in question is a type of Phase 3A.  Because it creates the Phase 2 CCB, Phase 2 comes with it if required.

Be VERY careful before representing what KSC expects via one poster on a forum thread. That is nothing more than speculation, with respect to the poster.
« Last Edit: 11/23/2010 09:07 am by Chris Bergin »
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 Warren Platts

Re: NASA FY 2011 Appropriations - preview
« Reply #99 on: 11/23/2010 03:59 pm »
There has been authoratative talk over on the HLV thread that KSC expects the SLS to be an Atlas-V Phase-2 derivative.  It would start with RD-180 and transition to RS-84/TR-107.  I'm not sure how reliable this is or whether it was just managers spouting off their pet ideas without authorisation (or responsibility).  However, Phase 2/3A in the form described in the post would be able to provide the 70-130t IMLEO payload demanded by the Senate.
    On what HLV thread is this talk? I've seen hardly anything recent on Phase II vehicles (even though it's probably, through not yet provably, the cheapest HLV technically possible at this time.)
    There's plenty of recent talk of 8.4m vehicles powered by SSME or RD-180, augmented by either existing CBC or CCBs or large J-2X middle stages, but that's more or less the opposite of the entire point and spirit behind Phase II.
  -Alex

Here's the one post I could find (on page four):

Third that.  SLS, and specifically a SDHLV/DIRECT will never see the light of launch. 

It's unsustainable. Finishing Orion and seeding the rest to commercial and EELV upgrades would be a better use of money.

There is a lot of truth in that.  Bolden in a meeting yesterday at KSC said "everything is still on the table".  No SLS architecture has been chosen yet.  It'll depend on the NASA budget.  Both SDLV and RP-1 based vehicles are being looked at.  An EELV (Atlas Phase 2) is substantially cheaper than the SDLV HLLV.  He stated that a SLS architecture would be chosen and work will begin soon - "within months".

I predict an EELV based SLS architecture.


Looks to me he's merely pointing out what everybody knows anyway, that Atlas Phase 2 would be less expensive to develop than even a DIRECT J-130 in terms of absolute dollars--albeit by trading a cost in terms of lost Shuttle legacy/capabilities/experience. The Utah congressional delegation has already met with top NASA officials to make sure NASA tows the line. The "everything is still on the table" remark is just Bolden shooting from the hip again.
"When once you have tasted flight, you will forever walk the earth with your eyes turned skyward, for there you have been, and there you will always long to return."--Leonardo Da Vinci

Tags:
 

Advertisement NovaTech
Advertisement Northrop Grumman
Advertisement
Advertisement Margaritaville Beach Resort South Padre Island
Advertisement Brady Kenniston
Advertisement NextSpaceflight
Advertisement Nathan Barker Photography
1