Author Topic: Post-speech discussion about Obama's April 15 KSC speech  (Read 382365 times)

Offline Jim

  • Night Gator
  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 37449
  • Cape Canaveral Spaceport
  • Liked: 21466
  • Likes Given: 428
Re: Post-speech discussion about Obama's April 15 KSC speech
« Reply #640 on: 04/22/2010 12:51 pm »

IMO Senator Nelson sees value in near term (2012 ?), continued test launches of 5-seg, single stick, first stage powered flight only - configuration(s).


As a jobs program.  If a 5-seg SRB is not going to be used as a single stick for first stage powered flight, then the tests are a waste.  The motors can be ground tested and flight testing them doesn't nothing towards a dual motor configuration.

Offline marsavian

  • Elite Veteran
  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 3216
  • Liked: 2
  • Likes Given: 3
Re: Post-speech discussion about Obama's April 15 KSC speech
« Reply #641 on: 04/22/2010 12:53 pm »
I do not believe Sen. Nelson is pushing for a Shuttle derived HLV, I think he knows that the window of opportunity for such a vehicle has passed.

Not while the Shuttle remains flying and the personnel are all still employed.

Online MP99

IMO when Senator Nelson talks about the continued testing of monster rocket (or rocket X) and saving jobs at KSC, he is not looking at a quasi-complete Ares I config that given the funding requested could not fly soon enough to save any jobs.

No, he explicitly mentioned Ares I-X yesterday:-

http://billnelson.senate.gov/audiofiles/NelsonBudget.wmv

cheers, Martin

Offline Drapper23

  • Full Member
  • **
  • Posts: 262
  • Liked: 0
  • Likes Given: 0
Re: Post-speech discussion about Obama's April 15 KSC speech
« Reply #643 on: 04/22/2010 02:42 pm »
It seems to me that Bill Nelson's flight test program of the Ares 1 5 Segment Solids is transferable to the J-241SH(Stretched Heavy). This is the vehicle the Bolden Marshall Group was favoring.    http://blog.al.com/live/2010/02/alabama_lawmakers_vow_to_save.html  http://www.nasaspaceflight.com/2010/01/maf-provide-positive-et-hardware-overview-for-early-sd-hlv-test-flight/ http://www.nasaspaceflight.com/2010/01/bolden-review-hlv-friday-sidemount-doubt-in-linessme-boost/
« Last Edit: 04/22/2010 03:38 pm by Drapper23 »

Offline Jim

  • Night Gator
  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 37449
  • Cape Canaveral Spaceport
  • Liked: 21466
  • Likes Given: 428
Re: Post-speech discussion about Obama's April 15 KSC speech
« Reply #644 on: 04/22/2010 03:03 pm »
It seems to me that a flight test program of the Ares 1 5 Segment Solids is transferable to the J-241SH(Stretched Heavy). T

It is not transferable.  There is nothing to be learned that is applicable.  Much like hopping on one foot is not applicable to walking.

Offline simonth

  • Full Member
  • ****
  • Posts: 472
  • Liked: 0
  • Likes Given: 0
Re: Post-speech discussion about Obama's April 15 KSC speech
« Reply #645 on: 04/22/2010 03:06 pm »
I do not believe Sen. Nelson is pushing for a Shuttle derived HLV, I think he knows that the window of opportunity for such a vehicle has passed.

Not while the Shuttle remains flying and the personnel are all still employed.

I meant politically, technically it is of course still possible, just like Shuttle extension is still possible.

Offline JohnFornaro

  • Not an expert
  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 10974
  • Delta-t is an important metric.
  • Planet Eaarth
    • Design / Program Associates
  • Liked: 1257
  • Likes Given: 724
Re: Post-speech discussion about Obama's April 15 KSC speech
« Reply #646 on: 04/22/2010 03:23 pm »
Zerm does a great analysis up there.

An analysis which equates an ICBM with a nuclear weapon would be too simplistic, thus of less utility. An ICBM without a warhead is analagous to a rifle without bullets; the latter is an expensive, elaborate stick of limited utility.  The inverted analogy, the single bullet and the single warhead, is not equivalent because the warhead is still quite dangerous, and can be delivered by alternate means, unlike the bullet.  Further, a world without nuclear weapons is not equivalent to a world without hi explosive weapons; the ICBM continues to have great utility.  Therefore, solid rocket production, especially on the scale of Ares, would have significant effect on national security, since large non-nuclear weapons are already virtually available for use.

The slo-mo Mexican standoff which characterized the first nuclear arms race has been fundamentally modified by the growing number of nuclear club members, the vocal irresponsibility of the soon to be new members, expected improvements in miniturization, the growing realization that dirty bombs would serve terrorist functions quite nicely, and other developments.  I would say that the Iranians are probably using nano-concrete in their new deeply dug facilities, which would be a lo-tech partial solution for protecting the facilities from attack.  This would require either official non-commital to a first strike, or sound confidence in new conventional delivery systems which could penetrate those defenses.

So I can easily see a national security scenario regarding the development of a heavy lift solid rocket, capable of any inclination.  How many segments it needs depends on how much you want to put on top of it.  100K pounds in a polar orbit, droppable at will?  Yowza.

So, will DoD be able to provide some funding, then?

The "sunk cost" issue keeps being repeated.  While it's a no-brainer to say that throwing good money after bad is a lousy strategy, it is the determination of whether or not that was "bad" money in the first place which causes the frenzied debate.  Clearly, I don't have adequate information on this, but not for want of asking.  Anyhow, the budgetary landscape is littered with the carcasses of discarded programs.  No-brainer example?  Check out the new proposed presidential helicopter.  Good thing that money... never mind, I was gonna get sarcastic.  One of the reasons we taxpayers aren't getting enough bang for the buck is because our government is burning so many of the bucks.

I'm in favor of scrapping Ares at this point were it true that the program would not deliver the crew and cargo capabilities that it was allegedly intended to.  This doesn't imply that I would abandon the principle of use what ya got.  Are there legitimate uses for the data, designs, and hardware created by the Ares program?  Senator Nelson seems to think so.  And the strategy of using the Senate Budget Resolution as a vehicle to argue for greater NASA funding is certainly good as well.

What Nelson doesn't seem to get is that the allocations in the budget proposal are incorrect, the proposed dates are completely speculative, and that the President errs completely in using the failed BTDT argument for a lunar outpost.  A sustainable plan will build on smaller operational steps, will seek and develop lunar mineral wealth and manufacturing capability, will involve the tourist industry, and will develop and perfect the L1 waystation on the path to Mars and NEO's.
Sometimes I just flat out don't get it.

Offline Jim

  • Night Gator
  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 37449
  • Cape Canaveral Spaceport
  • Liked: 21466
  • Likes Given: 428
Re: Post-speech discussion about Obama's April 15 KSC speech
« Reply #647 on: 04/22/2010 03:31 pm »

He said, in part: “You have allowed in this the flexibility of continuing the testing for that big solid rocket motor called the Ares 1-X, which will not only be important to the future of us getting out of low Earth orbit by building a heavy-lift vehicle for NASA, but is going to be critical to the solid rocket motors that protect this country’s national security.”


The nation security card has been trumped over.  The DOD has now said there is no linkage between large diameter solids and national security needs.   Solids for ICBM's are half as wide and continuous pour vs segmented.

Well, according to Gary Payton (Dep UNSECAF for Space):
Quote
[on concern about ending the shuttle SRB line and the (affect on)  military solids lines] . . . "We've come to find out that it has a trivial impact . . . because we don't use the big three and a half meter solids, we use the one-and-a-half meter . . ."
« Last Edit: 04/22/2010 03:40 pm by Jim »

Offline Jim

  • Night Gator
  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 37449
  • Cape Canaveral Spaceport
  • Liked: 21466
  • Likes Given: 428
Re: Post-speech discussion about Obama's April 15 KSC speech
« Reply #648 on: 04/22/2010 03:39 pm »

second- Nelson's referance to the Ares I-X, although some may find puzzeling is not, nor is it an error if you place it into a context where he is speaking of the of I-X not in terms of last October's launch of a single vehicle, but rather as that configuration becoming a project to be used for testing large SRBs.

There is no point in "flight testing" large SRB's.  SRM can be testing on the ground and this has be proven over and over again.  Flight testing is for vehicle configurations and there isn't going to be a single stick SRB vehicle and then there is no point of flying a test version of one.  Dual or multiple SRB vehicles don't need roll control, standalone avionics, and many other systems, they don't have the same aero or separation dynamics. 

Any such testing would be a jobs program.

Offline edkyle99

  • Expert
  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 15394
    • Space Launch Report
  • Liked: 8567
  • Likes Given: 1356
Re: Post-speech discussion about Obama's April 15 KSC speech
« Reply #649 on: 04/22/2010 04:15 pm »
There is no point in "flight testing" large SRB's. 

Especially since there are only three more flights planned using big segmented solid boosters in the United States.  By the end of the year, big throat segmented solids will likely be history in this country.

IMO

 - Ed Kyle
« Last Edit: 04/22/2010 04:16 pm by edkyle99 »

Offline Jim

  • Night Gator
  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 37449
  • Cape Canaveral Spaceport
  • Liked: 21466
  • Likes Given: 428
Re: Post-speech discussion about Obama's April 15 KSC speech
« Reply #650 on: 04/22/2010 04:18 pm »
There is no point in "flight testing" large SRB's. 

Especially since there are only three more flights planned using big segmented solid boosters in the United States.  By the end of the year, big throat segmented solids will likely be history in this country.

IMO

 - Ed Kyle

And is that a loss?  Russians never used them.

Offline edkyle99

  • Expert
  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 15394
    • Space Launch Report
  • Liked: 8567
  • Likes Given: 1356
Re: Post-speech discussion about Obama's April 15 KSC speech
« Reply #651 on: 04/22/2010 04:20 pm »
There is no point in "flight testing" large SRB's. 

Especially since there are only three more flights planned using big segmented solid boosters in the United States.  By the end of the year, big throat segmented solids will likely be history in this country.

IMO

 - Ed Kyle

And is that a loss?  Russians never used them.

'Didn't say it was.  But, unlike the Russians, the U.S. does not have anything to replace these super thrust boosters today, or for many years from today.

IMO

 - Ed Kyle
« Last Edit: 04/22/2010 04:22 pm by edkyle99 »

Offline mmeijeri

  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 7772
  • Martijn Meijering
  • NL
  • Liked: 397
  • Likes Given: 822
Re: Post-speech discussion about Obama's April 15 KSC speech
« Reply #652 on: 04/22/2010 04:24 pm »
The big solids could live on in an Athena III. You'd have to find the payloads for it. Hmm, what kind of payloads are cheap and easily divisible?
Pro-tip: you don't have to be a jerk if someone doesn't agree with your theories

Offline Ben the Space Brit

  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 7206
  • A spaceflight fan
  • London, UK
  • Liked: 806
  • Likes Given: 900
Re: Post-speech discussion about Obama's April 15 KSC speech
« Reply #653 on: 04/22/2010 04:34 pm »
The big solids could live on in an Athena III. You'd have to find the payloads for it. Hmm, what kind of payloads are cheap and easily divisible?

At the moment and in the near future? Nothing really.  Anything further away would turn the segmented/large-bore solid production line into a years-long corporate welfare system for a program that might emerge.  I can't see either the current Congress (with its focus on social issues) or an incoming Republican Congress (cut, cut, cut) being in favour of something like that.
« Last Edit: 04/22/2010 04:36 pm 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 edkyle99

  • Expert
  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 15394
    • Space Launch Report
  • Liked: 8567
  • Likes Given: 1356
Re: Post-speech discussion about Obama's April 15 KSC speech
« Reply #654 on: 04/22/2010 04:34 pm »
The big solids could live on in an Athena III. You'd have to find the payloads for it. Hmm, what kind of payloads are cheap and easily divisible?

After "Athena III" lost the CRS proposal, it seemed unlikely to resurface.  There are, after all, two brand new rockets currently being developed to cover the proposed "Athena III" payload category.

Still, hearing that Lockheed Martin (with ATK subcontracting) revived Athena I/II recently seems to leave the Athena III door ever so slightly ajar. 

IMO

 - Ed Kyle

Offline Cog_in_the_machine

  • Full Member
  • ****
  • Posts: 1232
  • Liked: 2
  • Likes Given: 0
Re: Post-speech discussion about Obama's April 15 KSC speech
« Reply #655 on: 04/22/2010 04:36 pm »
The big solids could live on in an Athena III. You'd have to find the payloads for it. Hmm, what kind of payloads are cheap and easily divisible?

I don't know about cheap, but rocket fuel is easily divisible right?
^^ Warning! Contains opinions. ^^ 

Offline mmeijeri

  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 7772
  • Martijn Meijering
  • NL
  • Liked: 397
  • Likes Given: 822
Re: Post-speech discussion about Obama's April 15 KSC speech
« Reply #656 on: 04/22/2010 04:38 pm »
At the moment and in the near future? Nothing really.

It would be easy enough to come up with something soon, but I agree that's unlikely to happen.

Quote
  Anything further away would turn the segmented/large-bore solid production line into a years-long corporate welfare system for a program that might emerge.

A jobs program would be a bad reason. If there is a genuine benefit to maintaining solids knowledge, then the capability could be reactivated in a few years' time. Synergy with a propellant launch architecture might then be an interesting bonus.

Another possibility: might there be synergy between the hybrids that SpaceDev is working on and large solids?
Pro-tip: you don't have to be a jerk if someone doesn't agree with your theories

Offline mmeijeri

  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 7772
  • Martijn Meijering
  • NL
  • Liked: 397
  • Likes Given: 822
Re: Post-speech discussion about Obama's April 15 KSC speech
« Reply #657 on: 04/22/2010 04:39 pm »
I don't know about cheap, but rocket fuel is easily divisible right?

Yes, that's what I was thinking of. It's both cheap compared to high-tech aerospace payloads (even if you use relatively expensive propellants) and easily divisible. A rising tide lifts everybody's boat.
« Last Edit: 04/22/2010 04:40 pm by mmeijeri »
Pro-tip: you don't have to be a jerk if someone doesn't agree with your theories

Offline mmeijeri

  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 7772
  • Martijn Meijering
  • NL
  • Liked: 397
  • Likes Given: 822
Re: Post-speech discussion about Obama's April 15 KSC speech
« Reply #658 on: 04/22/2010 04:52 pm »
Athena IIc could be a stopgap that kept the capability alive. It could be operationally responsive, which might come in handy for ISS support. That could be a natural edge it would have over current liquid boosters now that the all-hypergolic ones have long gone.
Pro-tip: you don't have to be a jerk if someone doesn't agree with your theories

Offline Arthur

  • Full Member
  • ***
  • Posts: 351
  • Liked: 0
  • Likes Given: 5
Re: Post-speech discussion about Obama's April 15 KSC speech
« Reply #659 on: 04/22/2010 04:58 pm »
The big solids could live on in an Athena III. You'd have to find the payloads for it. Hmm, what kind of payloads are cheap and easily divisible?

I don't know about cheap, but rocket fuel is easily divisible right?

I hear that there might be a need for LiOH canisters in the future. :)

Tags:
 

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