Author Topic: EELV Solutions for VSE  (Read 114135 times)

Offline kraisee

  • Expert
  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 10560
  • Liked: 807
  • Likes Given: 40
Re: EELV Solutions for VSE
« Reply #40 on: 10/29/2007 08:01 pm »
And who here thinks these conflicts will continue for much longer?   What happens then when the demand for munitions goes back to peace-time levels?

I'd sure get my investments out of defense stocks before Hilary gets in to office.

Ross.
"The meek shall inherit the Earth -- the rest of us will go to the stars"
-Robert A. Heinlein

Offline rsp1202

  • Elite Veteran
  • Full Member
  • ****
  • Posts: 1083
  • 3, 2, 1 . . . Make rocket go now
  • Liked: 0
  • Likes Given: 0
Re: EELV Solutions for VSE
« Reply #41 on: 10/29/2007 09:32 pm »
I cringe thinking about eight more years of vitriolic "discussion" over her demerits. After eight years of the same with the current WH resident, and eight years of the previous. That's a lot of talking NOT about space exploration. Back to the thread.

Offline mike robel

  • Extreme Veteran
  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 2304
  • Merritt Island, FL
  • Liked: 369
  • Likes Given: 260
Re: EELV Solutions for VSE
« Reply #42 on: 10/29/2007 09:38 pm »
VERY OT.   Ross, can you say 100 years war?  I thought so.  :)

Most likely not at the same level of intensity that it has been at for the last 4 years.

And, the sad thing is, if there was not a war, NASA still would not get much more money than it does now

Offline clongton

  • Expert
  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 12048
  • Connecticut
    • Direct Launcher
  • Liked: 7331
  • Likes Given: 3744
Re: EELV Solutions for VSE
« Reply #43 on: 10/29/2007 10:33 pm »
Quote
edkyle99 - 29/10/2007  3:05 PM

Quote
kraisee - 29/10/2007  1:13 AM

CFE,
Sure ATK *could* produce solid propellant products for other customers.   But where are those other customers?

U.S. Missile Defense Agency.  U.S. Navy.  U.S. Air Force.  U.S. Army.  U.S. allied military organizations.  Contractors that sell to same.  Numerous law enforcement entities.  Missile motors and ammunition, especially ammunition, which accounts for the largest ATK sales segment

 - Ed Kyle
Wonderful. Rambo is in the house. Just what we need.
They already have what they want. During the current adventure, you will see a (temporary) spike in need, but it is NOT permanent. No matter who gets in in '08, that need will dry up fast and return to normal levels. We already have one warmonger around. We don't need another.
Chuck - DIRECT co-founder
I started my career on the Saturn-V F-1A engine

Offline mike robel

  • Extreme Veteran
  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 2304
  • Merritt Island, FL
  • Liked: 369
  • Likes Given: 260
Re: EELV Solutions for VSE
« Reply #44 on: 10/30/2007 12:17 am »
Quote
clongton - 29/10/2007  7:33 PM

Quote
edkyle99 - 29/10/2007  3:05 PM

Quote
kraisee - 29/10/2007  1:13 AM

CFE,
Sure ATK *could* produce solid propellant products for other customers.   But where are those other customers?

U.S. Missile Defense Agency.  U.S. Navy.  U.S. Air Force.  U.S. Army.  U.S. allied military organizations.  Contractors that sell to same.  Numerous law enforcement entities.  Missile motors and ammunition, especially ammunition, which accounts for the largest ATK sales segment

 - Ed Kyle
Wonderful. Rambo is in the house. Just what we need.
They already have what they want. During the current adventure, you will see a (temporary) spike in need, but it is NOT permanent. No matter who gets in in '08, that need will dry up fast and return to normal levels. We already have one warmonger around. We don't need another.

OK.  Continueing my OT here and climbing on soapbox.

Chuck, I see no reason to categorize people as "Rambo" and "warmonger" regardless of who they are on this forum or even if they are not on the forum.

As I recall, you make your living working on nuclear submarines.  I bet you cash your paycheck, too, heh?

I also submit, that once "whoever" gets in office, they will not find it so easy to cut off the funding for the war and bring the troops home by Christmas.  It is more complicated than just saying, lets leave these people to their fate (again).  I sat on the banks of the Tigris-Euphraties and watched it happen once and it is part of the reason why we are not doing as well as we would like this time.

What people do not realize is that we are in a war of survival here.  Islamic Fascists, just like Hitler, have published exactly what it is they intend to do and like HItler, well meaning people don't believe it.  If we lose this war, there will be no space program.  Without this war, NASA's budget would not be appreciably bigger.  Losing the war, whether you agree with it or not, will not advance NASA's goals one bit.

In the interest of disclosure, I am a retired US Army LTC, with service in Desert Storm and on the Inter German Border, and I cash my present paycheck for developing battle simulations for the US Army.


Offline edkyle99

  • Expert
  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 15377
    • Space Launch Report
  • Liked: 8530
  • Likes Given: 1351
Re: EELV Solutions for VSE
« Reply #45 on: 10/30/2007 12:42 am »
Quote
clongton - 29/10/2007  6:33 PM

Quote
edkyle99 - 29/10/2007  3:05 PM

Quote
kraisee - 29/10/2007  1:13 AM

CFE,
Sure ATK *could* produce solid propellant products for other customers.   But where are those other customers?

U.S. Missile Defense Agency.  U.S. Navy.  U.S. Air Force.  U.S. Army.  U.S. allied military organizations.  Contractors that sell to same.  Numerous law enforcement entities.  Missile motors and ammunition, especially ammunition, which accounts for the largest ATK sales segment

 - Ed Kyle
Wonderful. Rambo is in the house. Just what we need.

The point of this discussion, it seems to me, is a truth that is uncomfortable for some.  The truth is that without national defense needs, there would be no NASA, no human space exploration, and possibly no space flight at all.  Solid propellants are essential for a ready national defense.  NASA has little choice but to use this asset, because there really is no alternative.  

Reckless Rambo-style stuff we don't need, clearly, and I hope you are right about these needs ramping down, but unquestionably superior firepower is an absolute must for those kids who right now are over in Afghanistan and other places, who aren't just from the U.S. but from Canada, Great Britain, The Netherlands, etc..

 - Ed Kyle

Offline clongton

  • Expert
  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 12048
  • Connecticut
    • Direct Launcher
  • Liked: 7331
  • Likes Given: 3744
Re: EELV Solutions for VSE
« Reply #46 on: 10/30/2007 12:57 am »
Quote
mike robel - 29/10/2007  9:17 PM

Quote
clongton - 29/10/2007  7:33 PM

Quote
edkyle99 - 29/10/2007  3:05 PM

Quote
kraisee - 29/10/2007  1:13 AM

CFE,
Sure ATK *could* produce solid propellant products for other customers.   But where are those other customers?

U.S. Missile Defense Agency.  U.S. Navy.  U.S. Air Force.  U.S. Army.  U.S. allied military organizations.  Contractors that sell to same.  Numerous law enforcement entities.  Missile motors and ammunition, especially ammunition, which accounts for the largest ATK sales segment

 - Ed Kyle
Wonderful. Rambo is in the house. Just what we need.
They already have what they want. During the current adventure, you will see a (temporary) spike in need, but it is NOT permanent. No matter who gets in in '08, that need will dry up fast and return to normal levels. We already have one warmonger around. We don't need another.

OK.  Continueing my OT here and climbing on soapbox.

Chuck, I see no reason to categorize people as "Rambo" and "warmonger" regardless of who they are on this forum or even if they are not on the forum.

As I recall, you make your living working on nuclear submarines.  I bet you cash your paycheck, too, heh?

I also submit, that once "whoever" gets in office, they will not find it so easy to cut off the funding for the war and bring the troops home by Christmas.  It is more complicated than just saying, lets leave these people to their fate (again).  I sat on the banks of the Tigris-Euphraties and watched it happen once and it is part of the reason why we are not doing as well as we would like this time.

What people do not realize is that we are in a war of survival here.  Islamic Fascists, just like Hitler, have published exactly what it is they intend to do and like HItler, well meaning people don't believe it.  If we lose this war, there will be no space program.  Without this war, NASA's budget would not be appreciably bigger.  Losing the war, whether you agree with it or not, will not advance NASA's goals one bit.

In the interest of disclosure, I am a retired US Army LTC, with service in Desert Storm and on the Inter German Border, and I cash my present paycheck for developing battle simulations for the US Army.

For the record - "Rambo" was supposed to be a humourous comment, given the subject matter, and warmonger was *not* directed at you. Yes, I make my living designing nuclear submarines for the US Navy and make no apologies for it. I hold my head up high when I cash my paycheck because what I do is "partly" responsible for the brankruptcy and subsequent fall of the Soviet Union. And for the record I earned my scars in the jungles of and in the skies above Vietnam. I know what it is to fight an enemy that plays the friend in the daylight and sets off bombs under your rack when you are sleeping. I also know what it's like to write letters to your buddy's wives after the fact.

I did not suggest that bringing the troops home for Christmas would be anyones plan - such an attempt would be exceptionally stupid. What I did suggest is that the current political climate dictates that whomever becomes the next president will find themselves under extreme pressure to end the conflict in as rapid a manner as possible. Boots on the ground not withstanding, the people of the country are making it pretty clear that they want the war ended. Hense, my comment about the temporary nature of the munitions spike.
I'm no peacenik as you can see from my ride in 1971 at Phan Rang, South Vietnam.
For the record: 352nd Tactical Fighter Squadron, F-100D/F Tail Code VM
And I'd do it again

Edit: That's not my personal ride. It went down but the silk worked good. Looks just like it though. The F-100 Super Saber is the sexiest jet to ever grace the skies of this good earth.  :)
But it doesn't fly too good with half a wing  :frown:
Chuck - DIRECT co-founder
I started my career on the Saturn-V F-1A engine

Offline MrTim

  • Full Member
  • ****
  • Posts: 731
  • Liked: 21
  • Likes Given: 0
RE: EELV Solutions for VSE
« Reply #47 on: 10/30/2007 01:24 am »
Quote
McDew - 29/10/2007  11:59 AM
Quote
CuddlyRocket - 28/10/2007  2:28 AM
Personally, I also think that the solid-fuel production facilities at ATK are considered a national security strategic asset, and so the replacement for STS had to continue to utilise them.
NASA totally embraced this logic in support of their ESAS "cost studies".  Any solution which was not shuttle derived using ATK RSRMs was penalized $2B for the cost of ATK industrial support.  Got to love that revolving door!!
Much as I detest the many revolving doors between government and industry, we need not always presume the nefarious when we see something we do not like. The USAF and NASA went into the shuttle program together decades ago. The DoD could be annoyed that an asset was jerked-away from them before they got their chance to fully use it (Shuttles from Vandenberg never happened after NASA violated their launch rules and destroyed one). The DoD could also be annoyed by the prospect of NASA abandoning SRMs and driving-up the costs of all solid motor based munitions in the process. But I do not think this is about anger OR about revolving doors. The simple fact is that if NASA is going to do something that causes another part of the government to take a multi-billion dollar hit after having previously committed to not do it, then you can bet NASA will have to take that financial hit. The costs WOULD go up, and NASA (not DoD) would be the cause.

It would be dishonest for any NASA plans that eliminated SRMs to NOT include the penalty.

Offline luke strawwalker

  • Regular
  • Full Member
  • ****
  • Posts: 1032
  • Liked: 9
  • Likes Given: 0
Re: EELV Solutions for VSE
« Reply #48 on: 10/30/2007 01:42 am »


Ross.[/QUOTE]
I normally just lurk, but I couldn't let this one pass. To be honest, I'm amazed to see the question even asked in the context of the US economy. Redeploy and reskill them if that's possible and desirable, otherwise you sack them. If you like euphemisms, then call it early retirement, downsizing, restructuring, RIF, but basically they're out the door. It's called capitalism & the free market.

Providing or retaining a heavy lift capability is a fine objective in terms of exploring space - but it should be done in the most cost-effective way, not as a job preservation program. There is no place for sentimentality over either existing infrastructure assets or workforce.

The minute you start thinking of a spending agency as an instrument of your social security program, you're lost in terms of achieving your objectives efficiently and cost effectively. Sub-optimal decisions lurk at every turn.

We in the UK learnt that lesson the hard way in the 70s and 80s. Russia learnt it the really hard way in the 90s. China learnt it post-Mao.

The more I read this and similar threads, the more it seems that people who should know better in the US think that the global economic realities  preached to everyone else don't apply to them.

Sorry if that gives offence. I don't mean it to. But it seems to me that many of the objections to Ares ultimately spring from the fact that its conception was deeply rooted in a political decision over the retention of STS workforce and assets, which forced engineering compromises that may now be coming home to roost. Be warned - any other course of action that looks over its shoulder to the same sort of political driver will likely run into a similar quagmire.

Nick[/QUOTE]

FINALLY somebody said what I was thinking to the point and quite concisely, and I couldn't agree more!!!

If NASA is about exploring space, either/both manned and unmanned, then that needs to be its primary focus, not on HOW it does that function.  The decisions should be made on purely cold scientific technical merits and cost efficiencies (or lack thereof).  In a perfect world it would work that way, but it's not a perfect world.  Politics SHOULDN'T enter into it (but they do).  How sad.  That's why I keep saying NASA has turned into a bloated beaureaucracy more interested in self-preservation than in performing it's mission.  MANY decisions made since Apollo bear that out and testify to that fact.  

OH, and BTW Nick, MOST of the population of the US is convinced that the "global economic realities (amongst many other realities) preached to everyone else doesn't apply to them" (US).  Just look at global warming, foriegn affairs, international law, etc.  Again, actions bear that assertion out.  

In short, if NASA is about exploring space,  then let's figure out the best way to do that and move on, politics aside.  IF, however, NASA is a latter day version of the Works Progress Administration or the Rural Electrification Administration whose main duty is to keep people on the payroll and off the soup lines, then God help us!!!

And all the talk about the 'safety' of Ares I, when viewed in the light of all the cuts to Orion and it's safety levels and redundancies, has become a rather sick joke.  It's a little like crowing that you're the safest person on the road because you drive the 'safest automobile in the world' while ignoring the fact that your Volvo has four slick tires, the steering is going out, and the brakes are completely shot.  

If you get killed in the safest car in the world you're still just as dead... OL JR :(
NO plan IS the plan...

"His plan had no goals, no timeline, and no budgetary guidelines. Just maybe's, pretty speeches, and smokescreens."

Offline Jorge

  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 6404
  • Liked: 529
  • Likes Given: 66
RE: EELV Solutions for VSE
« Reply #49 on: 10/30/2007 01:42 am »
Quote
MrTim - 29/10/2007  9:24 PM

Quote
McDew - 29/10/2007  11:59 AM
Quote
CuddlyRocket - 28/10/2007  2:28 AM
Personally, I also think that the solid-fuel production facilities at ATK are considered a national security strategic asset, and so the replacement for STS had to continue to utilise them.
NASA totally embraced this logic in support of their ESAS "cost studies".  Any solution which was not shuttle derived using ATK RSRMs was penalized $2B for the cost of ATK industrial support.  Got to love that revolving door!!
Much as I detest the many revolving doors between government and industry, we need not always presume the nefarious when we see something we do not like. The USAF and NASA went into the shuttle program together decades ago. The DoD could be annoyed that an asset was jerked-away from them before they got their chance to fully use it (Shuttles from Vandenberg never happened after NASA violated their launch rules and destroyed one).

Total nonsense. The DoD was looking for an excuse to get out of the shuttle program already; Challenger just gave them that excuse.

Quote
It would be dishonest for any NASA plans that eliminated SRMs to NOT include the penalty.

No moreso than what you just wrote.
JRF

Offline MrTim

  • Full Member
  • ****
  • Posts: 731
  • Liked: 21
  • Likes Given: 0
Re: EELV Solutions for VSE
« Reply #50 on: 10/30/2007 01:46 am »
Quote
edkyle99 - 29/10/2007  1:46 PM
ATK stock price is up 140% since 9/11/01, versus only 40% for the S&P500 - a period that has seen only a few space shuttle flights, but U.S. involvement in two major wars.
Ed,
There is a very real sense in which one can view it as two theaters in a larger war that has been cooking along at a low level for decades. Nobody says we waged two wars in the 40's (one against Germany and one against Japan), even though Japan and Germany were not as tightly aligned as the forces (not necessarily governments) we currently face in Iraq, Afghanistan (and Syria and Iran) are. The fact that our political people cannot bring themselves to name an enemy and therefore say we are at war against a tactic does not in fact mean that we face a non-ideological non-philosophical foe. As such, I doubt very much that the next president will pull the troops from the theaters and Mirable Dictu! the struggle ends and the need for munitions goes away. The next CinC will either keep fighting, or will pull back...but if it's a pull back, I suspect we will be forced by events to ramp back up again and re-engage until this particular brand of evil is properly dealt with. I am not very optimistic about this since I figure you cannot beat an enemy if you are too gutless to even say his name. Sorry, but I just do not believe in fairy tale endings; this is the real world and it gets nasty from time to time.

Any NASA action that drives-up munitions costs will have a real and lasting impact and NASA will have to pay its share of the penalty one way or another.

Offline kkattula2

  • Full Member
  • *
  • Posts: 133
  • Liked: 0
  • Likes Given: 0
RE: EELV Solutions for VSE
« Reply #51 on: 10/30/2007 02:16 am »
Quote
CFE - 29/10/2007  10:42 AM
...
ATK doesn't necessarily need to produce SRB's to meet DoD munitions cost targets.  ATK could produce solid rockets of a different design for some other program, as long as the same quantity of propellant is being poured.  Of course, with the development of EELV's already paid for, it's not like ATK is going to develop a Delta II-class or EELV-class solid launcher.  There's just no demand.

Secret EELV class development.  I believe it's code named Ares I.    

OT, but has anyone pushed Direct with DoD?  8 SRB segs per Orion instead of 5. That'll keep the solid propellant costs down.

Offline kraisee

  • Expert
  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 10560
  • Liked: 807
  • Likes Given: 40
Re: EELV Solutions for VSE
« Reply #52 on: 10/30/2007 02:36 am »
The thing I think most people are missing here is that there will be no VSE at all if there's aren't political votes in Congress supporting the idea and yet more political votes in the various committees which will actually dish out the money.

That is where the workforce issue makes its biggest difference.

Just a limited example: Here in central Florida, Senators Bill Nelson and Mel Martinez are only likely to get re-elected if they don't decimate the local economy of the space coast region here.

I'm not just talking about the 13,000 jobs at KSC, I'm talking about the 10-20,000 more jobs in the region which support all the activities at Kennedy, plus all those folk whop make a living from those KSC workers buying regular stuff for their normal lives throughout the local area.

I'm talking about the already slumped housing prices around here dropping like a stone if all those KSC folk lose their jobs and can't pay their mortgages here any more.   The foreclosure rate around here is already pretty awful (like much of the nation), but this would result in a repeat of the 1972 crash of the local area - and folk around here haven't forgotten that - nor did they re-elect the officials who let it happen I might add.

The total affect of 5-10,000 job losses up the road here would result in three to ten times the number of staff actually made redundant than just at KSC.   Local estimates put such a disaster at negatively affecting 30-50,000 people in this immediate area alone.   Can I suggest that pi$$ing off 30,000 of your local constituents isn't going to help Nelson's or Martinez' next election campaigns at all.

If the elected officials don't fight for Florida, Florida will sure fight them when the time comes around for payback and people around here are already watching this situation very carefully.


And that's just Florida.   Precisely the same thing will occur to all of the delegates from Alabama, Louisiana, Mississippi, Texas and Utah at *minimum*.   All of whom are supposed to be looking out for their constituents interests.

I just can't see that many politicians saying "yeah, sure lets ignore my constituents, they won't mind being screwed".

Sorry, I don't buy it.

Ross.
"The meek shall inherit the Earth -- the rest of us will go to the stars"
-Robert A. Heinlein

Offline kraisee

  • Expert
  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 10560
  • Liked: 807
  • Likes Given: 40
RE: EELV Solutions for VSE
« Reply #53 on: 10/30/2007 02:57 am »
Quote
kkattula2 - 29/10/2007  11:16 PM

OT, but has anyone pushed Direct with DoD?  8 SRB segs per Orion instead of 5. That'll keep the solid propellant costs down.

Yes. I know for a fact that two of the Joint Chiefs were interested in V1.0 of our proposal because the high payload capability of even the basic launcher opened a lot of options for DoD.

Not sure if they have continued to follow the progress through the V2.0 evolution though and into the AIAA paper.   But I'm sure the AIAA paper wasn't missed by readers at the Pentagon.

Ross.
"The meek shall inherit the Earth -- the rest of us will go to the stars"
-Robert A. Heinlein

Offline Jim

  • Night Gator
  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 37439
  • Cape Canaveral Spaceport
  • Liked: 21448
  • Likes Given: 428
RE: EELV Solutions for VSE
« Reply #54 on: 10/30/2007 03:12 am »
Quote
kraisee - 29/10/2007  11:57 PM

Yes. I know for a fact that two of the Joint Chiefs were interested in V1.0 of our proposal because the high payload capability of even the basic launcher opened a lot of options for DoD.

Ross.
Honestly, they wouldn't really know what they,  just better is better.  The DOD isn't going to get in bed with NASA again.  At the recent, AIAA Mission Integration conference, the DOD was saying "No new rockets"

Offline mike robel

  • Extreme Veteran
  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 2304
  • Merritt Island, FL
  • Liked: 369
  • Likes Given: 260
Re: EELV Solutions for VSE
« Reply #55 on: 10/30/2007 03:20 am »
Ross, in general I agree with your election statement.  However, now, unlike in 1972 (I lived here then) the economy is more diversified.  Having said that, the high paying jobs in Brevard come from the space center.

But insofar as trashing our electing senators and representatives:

Lawton Chiles - US Senator 1970 - 1989.   Governer 1991 - 1998.
Edward Guerney - US Senator 1969 - 1974
Lou Frey - US Representative (space coast)  1969 - 1979.

So, 2 out out of 3 continued to be elected after the moon program shut down after 1972.  The single termer was elected AFTER we landed on the moon.

It could be different this time, but I pretty much doubt it.  The  representative who has the space coast now is Tom Feeny and his district strength is in Orlando.  Dave Weldon's district is now South Brevard and does not include the space coast.  Feeny's top interest is not the space program.

Edit.  Feeny's district includes the Space Center.  Weldon's includes Merritt Island, less the space center.  And, while senators are generally said to represent the whole state, Florida's at least "split" the sate, so "our" Senator is Nelson and Marttinez "takes" South Florida.


Offline Jim

  • Night Gator
  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 37439
  • Cape Canaveral Spaceport
  • Liked: 21448
  • Likes Given: 428
Re: EELV Solutions for VSE
« Reply #56 on: 10/30/2007 03:39 am »
Weldons includes CCAFS

Offline mike robel

  • Extreme Veteran
  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 2304
  • Merritt Island, FL
  • Liked: 369
  • Likes Given: 260
Re: EELV Solutions for VSE
« Reply #57 on: 10/30/2007 03:43 am »
Thanks for the correction Jim.  I was undoubtedly busily editing as you posted.  :)

Offline mike robel

  • Extreme Veteran
  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 2304
  • Merritt Island, FL
  • Liked: 369
  • Likes Given: 260
Re: EELV Solutions for VSE
« Reply #58 on: 10/30/2007 03:47 am »
Chuck,
My intention was not to question your - or anyone elses - valor or service, just as you did not intend to question mine.  You have more guts than I have to fly one of those things.  My ass belongs on the ground in a tank, surrounded by depleted uranium armor.  :)  Besides, if my tank breaks, all I have to do is (1) jump to the ground from the turret top, with an intermediate stop on the hull, or more likely (2) call my executive officer over and inform him that his tank is broken and he should really fix it...  :)  And we don't even want to talk about ships or landing on aircraft carriers.

Mike

Offline MrTim

  • Full Member
  • ****
  • Posts: 731
  • Liked: 21
  • Likes Given: 0
RE: EELV Solutions for VSE
« Reply #59 on: 10/30/2007 04:18 am »
Quote
Jorge - 29/10/2007  7:42 PM
Total nonsense. The DoD was looking for an excuse to get out of the shuttle program already; Challenger just gave them that excuse.
Quote
Jorge - 29/10/2007  7:42 PM
No moreso than what you just wrote.
Please do not respond to any of my posts if you are not going to actually read them. I was indicating that one could understand DoD being unhappy with their experiences with NASA re STS, BUT I was specifically saying I did not think that was a real factor. Also, DoD requirements were a big factor in the design of STS (DoD drove the payload bay dimensions and the cross-range capability among other things), and the Air Force was drooling all over the idea of using it and having their own launch facility (WHAT a RECRUITING tool! woohoo!  :laugh: in addition to them wanting the capability of course) so it is simply incorrect to imply that they never wanted it. YES, many at DoD wanted to get clear of it AFTER its limitations became apparent just as many at NASA want to get clear of it NOW after the problems are apparent. DoD is big, for those who have not yet noticed, and many there love or hate a wide range of things (some love Warthogs, some hate them. Some love subs, some hate them. Some love battleships, some hate them... ) Additionally, administrations order DoD to love or hate things officially, even though people in various branches may or may not want them. There are simply too many people there with opposite views, so please do not plop-out the label "Total nonsense" which does not apply on at least the two levels I have just shown. As for the other, well if NASA chooses to do something that drives up DoD costs, they'll either be forced to account for it by the bean counters, OR the increased DoD costs will have to be balanced somewhere and NASA is a favorite target on Capitol Hill... so, again, not "Total nonsense". It's the sort of empty response that is simply aimed at starting an argument. I would have read all the substance of your post and tried to see it in the most positive light possible before stomping, had there been any substance. ;)

You know, there could be a day in the future when DoD goes "looking for an excuse to get out of the" EELV program... but that will not mean they never supported it or wanted it, and it will also not mean that some people over there might be annoyed that NASA did not make enough use of it to help bring costs down...   :o

Tags:
 

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