TrueGrit - 27/10/2007 11:56 AMThere's a lot of discussion on the belief that if NASA changed direction the perfered direction would be EELV. So I'm taking a quick look at the EELV backup option... Particularly the maximum the upgraded DeltaIV Heavy CBCs described in the RIF responce can lift and what size upperstage that results in. A change to a more capable but lower thrust booster means the upperstage needs to shink. What weight should I assume for Orion?
Looking at the Atlas solutions as well:http://onfinite.com/libraries/1256957/e5e.jpghttp://onfinite.com/libraries/1256959/e5e.jpgAnd a render of the Atlas Stick:
http://onfinite.com/libraries/1256958/e5e.jpg" />
These (pictured) manned boosters were/are pretty reliable: I'd ride them over a Shuttle anyday, which has 5x propulsive units at liftoff and 3x after staging. Saturn 1B had eight, Soyuz/R-7 has five, Saturn V had five, Titan 2 had two, Atlas had three... NASA's contention that having 'lots' of engines makes for an unsafe manned launcher and always will is nonsense. It is nonsense because of the insistence of sticking with Ares 1 makes their statements more and more 'Emporer has no clothes' with each passing month.
Sheesh...
MATTBLAK - 27/10/2007 8:15 PM
EE Scott - 28/10/2007 2:07 AM{snip}Too bad some funding source just couldn't appear to develop it independently, as a concurrent contrast to Ares I development.
kraisee - 27/10/2007 11:25 PMSo, the burning question of the day: What do we do about the thousands of people who lose their jobs at all the Centers with this solution?Ross.
kraisee - 28/10/2007 12:25 AMSo, the burning question of the day: What do we do about the thousands of people who lose their jobs at all the Centers with this solution?Ross.
hyper_snyper - 28/10/2007 1:13 AMQuotekraisee - 28/10/2007 12:25 AMSo, the burning question of the day: What do we do about the thousands of people who lose their jobs at all the Centers with this solution?Ross.I hate to sound heartless, and I'm not advocating an RIF of this magnitude. But wouldn't less overhead be a good thing for NASA overall? A more cost effective architecture means more money to NASA's missions. I know this isn't workable politically but in the end NASA isn't a jobs program. Or then again maybe it is, I don't know.
hyper_snyper - 27/10/2007 12:13 AMQuotekraisee - 28/10/2007 12:25 AMSo, the burning question of the day: What do we do about the thousands of people who lose their jobs at all the Centers with this solution?Ross.I hate to sound heartless, and I'm not advocating an RIF of this magnitude. But wouldn't less overhead be a good thing for NASA overall? A more cost effective architecture means more money to NASA's missions. I know this isn't workable politically but in the end NASA isn't a jobs program. Or then again maybe it is, I don't know.
EE Scott - 28/10/2007 2:07 AMOne thing that gets me so uptight about current NASA management is how relatively straightforward it seems to be to take the current EELV upgrade path...