Spacely - 14/8/2006 6:22 PMMy personal opinion is that a CEV that can launch on a number of EELVs (Delta IV, Atlas V, Ariane, etc.) is ideal, as it can fly even when/if one EELV line is stood down, and it can be sold to friendly countries.
kraisee - 14/8/2006 5:37 PMPure speculation on my part, but I strongly doubt you will see is a mix of EELV and SDLV technologies for Crew and Cargo missions - because that gets real tricky financially-speaking. Whatever the first vehicle is, it will be the direct descendant of whatever Heavy lifter comes later. I'd make a bet and say it'll be one or the other, neatly.Ross.
SMetch - 15/8/2006 1:19 AMStrongly disagree, ELV for CLV and SD for HLV is the best balance of economics, politics and physics. We keep bouncing between the extremes. Under Sean only ELV, Mike only SD. Can’t we all just get along?
Jim - 15/8/2006 7:05 AMDirect Shuttle Derivative, 2x4seg, 3xSSME is not viable for CLV, too big and too costly. There isn't going to be a 48 ton payload module for the ISS. Where is the money for this?
Jim - 15/8/2006 8:05 AMDirect Shuttle Derivative, 2x4seg, 3xSSME is not viable for CLV, too big and too costly. There isn't going to be a 48 ton payload module for the ISS. Where is the money for this?
zinfab - 15/8/2006 9:25 AMBy developing ONE LV instead of 2, is there no savings? Paying too much for the FEW ISS launches seems nothing compared to the $3B planned for developing the stick.
kraisee - 14/8/2006 11:52 PMQuoteSMetch - 15/8/2006 1:19 AMStrongly disagree, ELV for CLV and SD for HLV is the best balance of economics, politics and physics. We keep bouncing between the extremes. Under Sean only ELV, Mike only SD. Can’t we all just get along?It actually costs a lot more, and forces a huge number of workers out of jobs nationwide.Ross.
kraisee - 15/8/2006 1:52 AMQuoteSMetch - 15/8/2006 1:19 AMStrongly disagree, ELV for CLV and SD for HLV is the best balance of economics, politics and physics. We keep bouncing between the extremes. Under Sean only ELV, Mike only SD. Can’t we all just get along?It actually costs a lot more, and forces a huge number of workers out of jobs nationwide.
edkyle99 - 15/8/2006 12:17 PM Quotekraisee - 15/8/2006 1:52 AM QuoteSMetch - 15/8/2006 1:19 AM Strongly disagree, ELV for CLV and SD for HLV is the best balance of economics, politics and physics. We keep bouncing between the extremes. Under Sean only ELV, Mike only SD. Can’t we all just get along? It actually costs a lot more, and forces a huge number of workers out of jobs nationwide. What is the priority - going to the Moon, or creating jobs?
kraisee - 15/8/2006 1:52 AM QuoteSMetch - 15/8/2006 1:19 AM Strongly disagree, ELV for CLV and SD for HLV is the best balance of economics, politics and physics. We keep bouncing between the extremes. Under Sean only ELV, Mike only SD. Can’t we all just get along? It actually costs a lot more, and forces a huge number of workers out of jobs nationwide.
SMetch - 15/8/2006 1:19 AM Strongly disagree, ELV for CLV and SD for HLV is the best balance of economics, politics and physics. We keep bouncing between the extremes. Under Sean only ELV, Mike only SD. Can’t we all just get along?
Going to the moon.
edkyle99 - 15/8/2006 3:17 PMQuotekraisee - 15/8/2006 1:52 AMQuoteSMetch - 15/8/2006 1:19 AMStrongly disagree, ELV for CLV and SD for HLV is the best balance of economics, politics and physics. We keep bouncing between the extremes. Under Sean only ELV, Mike only SD. Can’t we all just get along?It actually costs a lot more, and forces a huge number of workers out of jobs nationwide.What is the priority - going to the Moon, or creating jobs? As someone who has had to switch jobs to evade commercial downsizing over the years, I say let them go. These displaced workers will do just fine in this economy, if they want to. They'll be more productive in the commercial world than they are working on NASA projects.At any rate, NASA's jobs shouldn't be in the launching side, they should be in the "payload" side. There will be plenty of work to do to prepare CEV, LSAM, and crews for missions. - Ed Kyle
punkboi - 15/8/2006 2:41 PMQuoteedkyle99 - 15/8/2006 12:17 PM Quotekraisee - 15/8/2006 1:52 AMIt actually costs a lot more, and forces a huge number of workers out of jobs nationwide.What is the priority - going to the Moon, or creating jobs?Going to the moon.
edkyle99 - 15/8/2006 12:17 PM Quotekraisee - 15/8/2006 1:52 AMIt actually costs a lot more, and forces a huge number of workers out of jobs nationwide.What is the priority - going to the Moon, or creating jobs?
kraisee - 15/8/2006 1:52 AMIt actually costs a lot more, and forces a huge number of workers out of jobs nationwide.
zinfab - 15/8/2006 3:58 PMThe priority is going to the moon, but Congress is currently telling NASA that they won't be ALLOWED to go there if they cut jobs. How do we fix THAT?
What is the priority - going to the Moon, or creating jobs?