Author Topic: To the Moon and Beyond–Examining the EELV-L1 Approach v2  (Read 61286 times)

Offline Jim

  • Night Gator
  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 37440
  • Cape Canaveral Spaceport
  • Liked: 21450
  • Likes Given: 428
Re: To the Moon and Beyond–Examining the EELV-L1 Approach v2
« Reply #160 on: 01/02/2008 12:15 pm »
Quote
A_M_Swallow - 2/1/2008  4:28 AM
The man-rated extra heavy EELV design specification does not have to come from LH or Boeing.  It could come from a 'retired' employee.

That is useless.  It doesn't mean that ULA (LM or Boeing) will buy into it

Offline luke strawwalker

  • Regular
  • Full Member
  • ****
  • Posts: 1032
  • Liked: 9
  • Likes Given: 0
Re: To the Moon and Beyond–Examining the EELV-L1 Approach v2
« Reply #161 on: 01/02/2008 11:11 pm »
Quote
meiza - 29/12/2007  11:44 AM

Chuck, you're really limping with semantics.
You're trying to present NASA's decision about Heavy Lift as something that can not be questioned or even talked about.
Yet you propose direct that questions NASA's decision about Ares I and V.

We are talking about NASA's decisions here. You keep missing the point. We are not talking about making maximum profit in selling crazy customers something they don't need, but about guiding NASA to make the best decisions for the future of humankind.

John Houbolt is relevant too. A propellant depot with multiple launchers is a procedure and an idea and a general architecture. It actually is quite close to the choice of direct vs LOR lunar mission. NASA did NOT have the heavy lifter needed to do a direct mission. It was contemplating Nova at the time, since Saturn would have been iffy at best for the great mass needed. LOR enabled a smaller launch vehicle to do the mission. Most results in the least time.
This all is much closer to the question than Direct vs Ares which is just arguing which type of heavy lifter is going to be used.

The analogy makes perfect sense to me... lemme put it in redneckese...

A customer walks into the dealership and says to the salesman, "I want a twin stick Mack truck to pull a forty foot float hauling a dozer between jobsites."  

Now the salesman doesn't have a twin stick Mack on the lot, but he does have a used 3/4 ton pickup from the power company and a heavy-duty tiltdeck trailer that came with it.  He tries desperately to convince the buyer that the 3/4 ton pickup and trailer is the way to go, though it is clearly too small for the dozer and 10 foot brush blade the customer wants to haul.  The customer laughs and walks out, to a used truck dealer down the street.  

Now, IF the salesman had made a few calls around, he could have gotten a nice Peterbuilt truck to pull the 40 foot float and dozer for the customer, and could EASILY have argued the point that the Peterbuilt tractor is a far superior truck to the old Mack twin stick.  He could have even looked around for a good Kenworth and argued the pros/cons of the Kenworth over the old Mack, but he didn't do anything but argue that his 3/4 ton Ford was the only way to go.  So he lost the sale.  Big surprise...  

THAT is the argument that's being made... the difference between a 3/4 ton truck, be it Ford, Dodge, or Chevy, or an 80,000 pound class "A" CDL highway semi tractor truck, be it Mack, Kenworth, or Peterbuilt.  The customer has already said he wants the class A truck, so don't keep trying to convince him he needs a 3/4 ton pickup.... A dealer up the street already is trying to sell him a Kenworth to do the job, even though his heart is set on a Mack; can you get a line on a Peterbuilt and convince him it's the best semi for the job and make the sale???

Good luck!  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 meiza

  • Expert
  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 3067
  • Where Be Dragons
  • Liked: 5
  • Likes Given: 3
Re: To the Moon and Beyond–Examining the EELV-L1 Approach v2
« Reply #162 on: 01/03/2008 12:06 am »
No, the guy lives on an island and wants to move some furniture over the course of a few months to his new summer cottage that's a few tens of kilometers away from his home. He would probably be best off by renting a moving service company (they have employees too who can help), or if that won't do, a van from a company and getting friends to help and doing a few trips with the van. Note that none of the furniture items is so big that it doesn't fit in a van. (None of the ESAS craft are so big they don't fit on an EELV.) A van that is existing on the island and rentable or even buyable.
If he's trying to buy a truck that would have to be transported from the mainland, it would take a year because one would need to build a deeper port and all, and it'd cost a huge amount of money. He should get some advice from smarter friends to get rid of that idea, or even seek psychological help for his delusions of grandeur. He would have to sell the truck after the one trip anyway, and he'd make a big loss in that.

Offline tankmodeler

  • Regular
  • Full Member
  • ****
  • Posts: 643
  • Brampton, ON, Canada
  • Liked: 8
  • Likes Given: 0
Re: To the Moon and Beyond–Examining the EELV-L1 Approach v2
« Reply #163 on: 01/03/2008 02:52 am »
Quote
meiza - 2/1/2008  8:06 PM

No, the guy lives on an island and wants to move some furniture over the course of a few months to his new summer cottage that's a few tens of kilometers away from his home. He would probably be best off by renting a moving service company (they have employees too who can help), or if that won't do, a van from a company and getting friends to help and doing a few trips with the van. Note that none of the furniture items is so big that it doesn't fit in a van. (None of the ESAS craft are so big they don't fit on an EELV.) A van that is existing on the island and rentable or even buyable.
If he's trying to buy a truck that would have to be transported from the mainland, it would take a year because one would need to build a deeper port and all, and it'd cost a huge amount of money. He should get some advice from smarter friends to get rid of that idea, or even seek psychological help for his delusions of grandeur. He would have to sell the truck after the one trip anyway, and he'd make a big loss in that.
You know, I suspect you may be right. The only problem is, the guy moving his crap from one place to another is either too dumb or too stubborn to see the wisdom in moving his crap in smaller loads. He insists on moving it in two loads and "that's final!"

Whattaya gonna do? He's a schmuck! Kinda like my Uncle Joe. :)

Paul
Sr. Mech. Engineer
MDA

Offline JIS

  • Elite Veteran
  • Full Member
  • ****
  • Posts: 1089
  • Liked: 4
  • Likes Given: 0
Re: To the Moon and Beyond–Examining the EELV-L1 Approach v2
« Reply #164 on: 01/03/2008 07:32 am »
Quote
meiza - 3/1/2008  1:06 AM

No, the guy lives on an island and wants to move some furniture over the course of a few months to his new summer cottage that's a few tens of kilometers away from his home. He would probably be best off by renting a moving service company (they have employees too who can help), or if that won't do, a van from a company and getting friends to help and doing a few trips with the van. Note that none of the furniture items is so big that it doesn't fit in a van. (None of the ESAS craft are so big they don't fit on an EELV.) A van that is existing on the island and rentable or even buyable.
If he's trying to buy a truck that would have to be transported from the mainland, it would take a year because one would need to build a deeper port and all, and it'd cost a huge amount of money. He should get some advice from smarter friends to get rid of that idea, or even seek psychological help for his delusions of grandeur. He would have to sell the truck after the one trip anyway, and he'd make a big loss in that.

It's more like the guy owns a pick-up and want to relocate 1000km away. His car (after some mods and repairs) can carry petrol just for that 1000km trip and just small part of his furniture.
Unfortunatelly there is no petrol station on the way. He can also buy expensive truck which can carry all his furniture all the way there.
What stratgy will he use? What if he knows he is relocating there and back every 6 months?
1. buy the truck to do everything in one trip, use pick-up just for moving few remaining boxes.
2. repair pick-up, build a petrol station at the half way and make a lot of traveling between here and there every six months.
'Old age and treachery will overcome youth and skill' - Old Greek experience

Offline A_M_Swallow

  • Elite Veteran
  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 8906
  • South coast of England
  • Liked: 500
  • Likes Given: 223
Re: To the Moon and Beyond–Examining the EELV-L1 Approach v2
« Reply #165 on: 01/03/2008 04:18 pm »
Quote
Jim - 2/1/2008  1:15 PM

Quote
A_M_Swallow - 2/1/2008  4:28 AM
The man-rated extra heavy EELV design specification does not have to come from LH or Boeing.  It could come from a 'retired' employee.

That is useless.  It doesn't mean that ULA (LM or Boeing) will buy into it

This is a political problem.  Think why I put retired in quotes.

Offline luke strawwalker

  • Regular
  • Full Member
  • ****
  • Posts: 1032
  • Liked: 9
  • Likes Given: 0
Re: To the Moon and Beyond–Examining the EELV-L1 Approach v2
« Reply #166 on: 01/03/2008 05:05 pm »
Quote
JIS - 3/1/2008  2:32 AM

It's more like the guy owns a pick-up and want to relocate 1000km away. His car (after some mods and repairs) can carry petrol just for that 1000km trip and just small part of his furniture.
Unfortunatelly there is no petrol station on the way. He can also buy expensive truck which can carry all his furniture all the way there.
What stratgy will he use? What if he knows he is relocating there and back every 6 months?
1. buy the truck to do everything in one trip, use pick-up just for moving few remaining boxes.
2. repair pick-up, build a petrol station at the half way and make a lot of traveling between here and there every six months.

For once I agree with JIS. (grin)  I face the same type of decision in my business and I see yall's side of the coin.  I have to haul round bales of hay from my farm here near Houston to my other farm 100 miles west.  I haul three 1500 pound bales at a time behind my half ton pickup on a tandem axle lowboy trailer.  That's about 9,000 pounds all together, which is about all a half ton pickup can properly handle without seriously overloading it.  When Bill Clinton first got elected, he was pushing for raising the fuel economy standards on pickups, and the auto industry started scaring farmers and general contractors with talk of "not being able to buy a pickup larger than a 1/4 ton Ford Ranger/Chevy S-10 size pickup."  Now, I COULD haul hay with a Ford Ranger, but it would require 2 trips, and I'd have to buy a new, smaller trailer to get the job done because the old trailer would be too heavy.  I'd have to split the cargo between the two trips, which is a simple matter since it's in 1500 pound packages.  SURE the Ranger gets say 20 miles/gallon pulling a trailer, where the half ton pickup I currently use only gets about 16 loaded, but I have to make TWO TRIPS with the Ranger, which means DOUBLE the miles travelled, DOUBLE the time to travel them, and DOUBLE the wear and tear on the truck, so it will wear out a LOT faster than the half ton pickup.  It also means effectively HALVING the gas mileage of the smaller truck because it's travelling twice as far to do the same job, doing it in two loads instead of one.  So, the Ranger ends up burning 20 gallons of gas to do the job, while the half ton pickup burns 12.5 gallons, and the smaller truck takes twice the time and twice the wear and tear.  Not a smart trade.  

Now, I COULD go the other way, and haul say 30 bales at a time on a semi-tractor trailer truck.  It would end up getting about 6 miles/gallon or burn about 33 gallons of fuel to move ten times the hay.  That is a LOT more efficient in terms of fuel per bale, BUT I don't own a semi-truck.  I would have to hire somebody to do it, and with the higher costs of diesel fuel and insurance, maintenance, licenses, and the driver's salary and profit on top, it has proven CHEAPER to simply haul it myself with the small truck and trailer I already own rather than hire a hauling company to do it for me.  I don't pay as much for the extra fuel as I would for the trucking company to haul it with their profit, overhead, salaries, and expenses added to the cost of the fuel.  NOW as fuel prices rise above $3.00 per gallon here in the US, at some point it WILL be cheaper to hire the trucking company, because of the greater cargo hauling capability even at lower fuel efficiency.  After all, it would only take the semi 33 gallons of fuel to haul the same load it would take me 125 gallons to haul in my pickup, ignoring for the moment the fact that diesel fuel costs about 10% more for the semi than gasoline does for my pickup, which actually works in the pickup's favor.  I have to have a pickup either way for other chores, so I'm not going to save money getting rid of the pickup and getting a Yugo or something in it's place, either.  I already own the pickup and trailer as well, and maintenance is a lot cheaper on a pickup than a semi-tractor, in terms of absolute costs, though on terms of actual loaded miles travelled I'd bet the semi would win.  

SO there are compelling reasons on both sides of the fence for doing things one way or the other.  We already own TWO vehicles capable of hauling the individual chunks (LSAM, CEV, EDS, PROPELLANT) where they need to go SEPERATELY but it will require more trips and more operational cost, but we save the development costs.  We CAN build a Heavy vehicle capable of hauling all (or most) of the individual chunks in ONE trip, which means less trips, less risk of 'breaking down' on any one of those individual trips (statistically) but would require MAJOR development expenses and operating costs.  It all depends on what the customer wants, and so far the customer has said, "I want the semi-truck".   Others (us) can disagree but it's up to the guy paying his bills what he wants to do.  When I grew grain, I hauled it with a 1966 Chevy two ton truck that was nearly worn out.  I had a Mexican trucker pull in behind me at the grain elevator one day, driving a brand new Volvo semi-tractor and pulling a brand new hopper bottom grain trailer, who became irate that he had to wait in line behind an old jalopy hauling 1/4 the grain his new rig could haul.  He popped off something about,"why didn't I just hire a trucker like him to haul my grain".  I politely informed him I could do it myself with my old jalopy a lot cheaper (and I could; I'd already looked into the possibility) than hiring him to do it, pay his salary, and help make the notes on his brand new $200,000 semi tractor trailer.   He got more irate and stewed, but oh well; he's not paying MY bills... and agree or disagree, THAT'S whose opinion ULTIMATELY counts.... JMHO!  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 Jim

  • Night Gator
  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 37440
  • Cape Canaveral Spaceport
  • Liked: 21450
  • Likes Given: 428
Re: To the Moon and Beyond–Examining the EELV-L1 Approach v2
« Reply #167 on: 01/03/2008 05:06 pm »
Quote
A_M_Swallow - 3/1/2008  12:18 PM

Quote
Jim - 2/1/2008  1:15 PM

Quote
A_M_Swallow - 2/1/2008  4:28 AM
The man-rated extra heavy EELV design specification does not have to come from LH or Boeing.  It could come from a 'retired' employee.

That is useless.  It doesn't mean that ULA (LM or Boeing) will buy into it

This is a political problem.  Think why I put retired in quotes.

still not applicable.  NO 'retired' employee is going to have a say in what NASA astronauts fly.  NASA has no say in commercial astronauts

Offline A_M_Swallow

  • Elite Veteran
  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 8906
  • South coast of England
  • Liked: 500
  • Likes Given: 223
Re: To the Moon and Beyond–Examining the EELV-L1 Approach v2
« Reply #168 on: 01/03/2008 05:18 pm »
Quote
Jim - 2/1/2008  1:15 PM

Quote
A_M_Swallow - 2/1/2008  4:28 AM
The man-rated extra heavy EELV design specification does not have to come from LH or Boeing.  It could come from a 'retired' employee.

That is useless.  It doesn't mean that ULA (LM or Boeing) will buy into it

The first problem is getting NASA to buy into it.

The managers at Government Contractors tend to fall into line when civil servants start waving billion dollar contracts under their nose.  The companies will have to believe that they have a reasonable chance of making a profit.

If ULA is not interested in a COTS type contract then try something similar to the Private Finance Initiative used by the British Government when it wants a new hospital built.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Private_Finance_Initiative

Say a contract to launch n off man-rated 100mT payload LV for 15 (or 20) years.  ULA can find its own bank to lend it the money.

Offline Jim

  • Night Gator
  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 37440
  • Cape Canaveral Spaceport
  • Liked: 21450
  • Likes Given: 428
Re: To the Moon and Beyond–Examining the EELV-L1 Approach v2
« Reply #169 on: 01/03/2008 06:12 pm »
Quote
A_M_Swallow - 3/1/2008  1:18 PM

If ULA is not interested in a COTS type contract then try something similar to the Private Finance Initiative used by the British Government when it wants a new hospital built.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Private_Finance_Initiative

Say a contract to launch n off man-rated 100mT payload LV for 15 (or 20) years.  ULA can find its own bank to lend it the money.

Not viable.  The US gov't can't guarantee such a contract and therefore the risk is still on ULA.

And again, ULA does not build spacecraft, so it by itself can not compete for a COTS contract.

Also, NASA does not have requirements for 100 mT manrated payloads

Offline Jim

  • Night Gator
  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 37440
  • Cape Canaveral Spaceport
  • Liked: 21450
  • Likes Given: 428
Re: To the Moon and Beyond–Examining the EELV-L1 Approach v2
« Reply #170 on: 01/03/2008 06:14 pm »
Quote
A_M_Swallow - 3/1/2008  1:18 PM
The managers at Government Contractors tend to fall into line when civil servants start waving billion dollar contracts under their nose.  The companies will have to believe that they have a reasonable chance of making a profit..

That is not the issue.  the issue is gov't isn't waving contracts

Offline meiza

  • Expert
  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 3067
  • Where Be Dragons
  • Liked: 5
  • Likes Given: 3
Re: To the Moon and Beyond–Examining the EELV-L1 Approach v2
« Reply #171 on: 01/03/2008 07:31 pm »
It's the American taxpayers who pay NASA, it's not as if it's some quirky person's own money. One can question the customer's desires. Why is everyone so bent on this analogy of "the customer is always right". It breaks down really quickly. NASA has been wrong in it's ideas countless times before too.

Offline clongton

  • Expert
  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 12053
  • Connecticut
    • Direct Launcher
  • Liked: 7347
  • Likes Given: 3749
Re: To the Moon and Beyond–Examining the EELV-L1 Approach v2
« Reply #172 on: 01/03/2008 08:22 pm »
Quote
meiza - 3/1/2008  3:31 PM

It's the American taxpayers who pay NASA, it's not as if it's some quirky person's own money. One can question the customer's desires. Why is everyone so bent on this analogy of "the customer is always right". It breaks down really quickly. NASA has been wrong in it's ideas countless times before too.
True, it’s the taxpayer’s money, but the vast majority of the American public has no idea what NASA does with its money, and in fact most don’t care. That’s a sad commentary, but true. NASA has been wrong before, many times, and will be wrong again in the future – for sure. But the fact remains that right or wrong, they have decided to spend ‘X’ amount of $billions of dollars on a “heavy lift” launch system. Do they need it? Probably not, but that’s not the point. They are spending the money, come hell or high water. And to rub salt into the wound, they are spending it on heavy lift. The time to try to change NASA’s mind is past – they are way beyond reasoning with. They are going to do what they are going to do, and they have decided they are going to do heavy lift. So the question for the contractors becomes not “how do I convince them they need to do something else”, but “do I want a piece if this action or not”.

NASA isn’t waiting for independent corroboration – they are spending the money now. Anyone who waits for another chance to change the customers mind is going to miss the boat because the boat is sailing and they won’t turn back for latecomers.

I’m not saying heavy lift is the only way to go – I never said that. What I have said is that heavy lift is the way they ARE going. Once that dye was cast, then the challenge became how to get the best use out of that. I suggested 2 solutions: (1) propose an EELV Heavy Lift to replace the Ares and (2) create a mixed launch stable by examining the payloads and split them up. Utilize the EELV as much as possible while still getting as much value from the heavy lift as you can. Because barring the resignation or firing of Griffin (which could happen), NASA is moving forward with a heavy lift architecture. If ULA wants a piece of that action, there is still time, in my opinion, for them to put their own EELV heavy lift proposal on the table (option 1). NASA is not so far down the line that it couldn’t switch to it if it proves better. That’s what the DIRECT people are hoping for as well, because the Jupiter is obviously a better launch vehicle than Ares (different topic).

Conversely, ULA could also create their own version of the IMS which manifested EELV flights in support of the heavy lift. Then they’d be running with option (2) above and they would surely get some of the pie. But it’s up to them. Right now they are loosing everything by default - by choosing not to play.

Whatever they do, I hope that whoever ultimately replaces Griffin will not be so dogmatically opposed as he is to a propellant depot. That's what is killing the EELV hope. He adamantly refuses to even consider it. That was made crystal clear to us. But once the architecture is place, even the Heavy Lift could benefit from the depot. Then the EELV/Heavy Lift combination would be the envy of every nation on earth. Unfortunately however, not on Griffin’s watch.
Chuck - DIRECT co-founder
I started my career on the Saturn-V F-1A engine

Offline meiza

  • Expert
  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 3067
  • Where Be Dragons
  • Liked: 5
  • Likes Given: 3
Re: To the Moon and Beyond–Examining the EELV-L1 Approach v2
« Reply #173 on: 01/03/2008 11:00 pm »
You're performing your "the dye is cast so don't discuss" speech again.
It's not about car sales for ULA, it's the future of human spaceflight and spacefaring and the timetable of that.

Offline yinzer

  • Extreme Veteran
  • Full Member
  • ****
  • Posts: 1509
  • Liked: 3
  • Likes Given: 0
Re: To the Moon and Beyond–Examining the EELV-L1 Approach v2
« Reply #174 on: 01/04/2008 12:30 am »
What money are they spending on "heavy lift"?  As near as I can tell they are spending money on the five-segment SRB, on J-2X development, and on designing the Orion.  None of those are useful only in a heavy-lift architecture.

Quote
They are spending the money, come hell or high water. And to rub salt into the wound, they are spending it on heavy lift.

Come hell, high water, or a change in congress or the administration.  See the history of the ISS.
California 2008 - taking rights from people and giving rights to chickens.

Offline clongton

  • Expert
  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 12053
  • Connecticut
    • Direct Launcher
  • Liked: 7347
  • Likes Given: 3749
Re: To the Moon and Beyond–Examining the EELV-L1 Approach v2
« Reply #175 on: 01/04/2008 01:01 am »
Quote
meiza - 3/1/2008  7:00 PM

You're performing your "the dye is cast so don't discuss" speech again.
It's not about car sales for ULA, it's the future of human spaceflight and spacefaring and the timetable of that.
One can only think about what might be possible with different people in the drivers seat.
ULA doesn't seem very interested in the future of human spaceflight, spacefaring and an appropriate timetable. I wish they were, but alas, there are no great minds at the top anymore.
Unfortunately for us all, we have leadership that (in my opinion) isn't very interested in what's best, but only in how to get what "they" want. I wish it were not so.
Chuck - DIRECT co-founder
I started my career on the Saturn-V F-1A engine

Offline clongton

  • Expert
  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 12053
  • Connecticut
    • Direct Launcher
  • Liked: 7347
  • Likes Given: 3749
Re: To the Moon and Beyond–Examining the EELV-L1 Approach v2
« Reply #176 on: 01/04/2008 01:08 am »
Quote
yinzer - 3/1/2008  8:30 PM

What money are they spending on "heavy lift"?  As near as I can tell they are spending money on the five-segment SRB, on J-2X development, and on designing the Orion.  None of those are useful only in a heavy-lift architecture.

Quote
They are spending the money, come hell or high water. And to rub salt into the wound, they are spending it on heavy lift.

Come hell, high water, or a change in congress or the administration.  See the history of the ISS.
Their version of heavy lift is the Ares-V. The Ares-I is a setup. They are using it to build the Ares-V.
The 5-segment SRB is an Ares-V necessity.
The J-2X is an Ares-V necessity.
They are building the Ares-I for the sole purpose of building the Ares-V.
They are spending the money to get the heavy lift.
Once they have it, Ares-I will be retired.
After ISS is retired Griffin has no plans to do anything at all in LEO, so Ares-I won't be needed.
Orion will fly on the Ares-V.
Chuck - DIRECT co-founder
I started my career on the Saturn-V F-1A engine

Offline yinzer

  • Extreme Veteran
  • Full Member
  • ****
  • Posts: 1509
  • Liked: 3
  • Likes Given: 0
Re: To the Moon and Beyond–Examining the EELV-L1 Approach v2
« Reply #177 on: 01/04/2008 04:04 am »
Quote
clongton - 3/1/2008  6:08 PM
Their version of heavy lift is the Ares-V. The Ares-I is a setup. They are using it to build the Ares-V.
The 5-segment SRB is an Ares-V necessity.
The J-2X is an Ares-V necessity.
They are building the Ares-I for the sole purpose of building the Ares-V.
They are spending the money to get the heavy lift.
Once they have it, Ares-I will be retired.
After ISS is retired Griffin has no plans to do anything at all in LEO, so Ares-I won't be needed.
Orion will fly on the Ares-V.

Griffin may have those plans, but he doesn't get to decide.  The Ares V needs the J-2X and the 5-segment SRB, but it also needs many billions of dollars appropriated by the congresses of the mid-2010s.  If they think that the Ares V is too expensive and demand that NASA go back and come up with something that fits within existing budgets or else not go to the moon at all, then there's no Ares V.  Simple as that.
California 2008 - taking rights from people and giving rights to chickens.

Offline kraisee

  • Expert
  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 10560
  • Liked: 807
  • Likes Given: 40
Re: To the Moon and Beyond–Examining the EELV-L1 Approach v2
« Reply #178 on: 01/04/2008 11:23 am »
Quote
Jim - 3/1/2008  1:06 PM

Quote
A_M_Swallow - 3/1/2008  12:18 PM

Quote
Jim - 2/1/2008  1:15 PM

Quote
A_M_Swallow - 2/1/2008  4:28 AM
The man-rated extra heavy EELV design specification does not have to come from LH or Boeing.  It could come from a 'retired' employee.

That is useless.  It doesn't mean that ULA (LM or Boeing) will buy into it

This is a political problem.  Think why I put retired in quotes.

still not applicable.  NO 'retired' employee is going to have a say in what NASA astronauts fly.  NASA has no say in commercial astronauts

Oh I dunno Jim, I think Horowitz might have fitted that description while he was still at ATK, and look at the mess he's gotten us into...

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: To the Moon and Beyond–Examining the EELV-L1 Approach v2
« Reply #179 on: 01/04/2008 11:29 am »
Quote
yinzer - 3/1/2008  12:04 AM

Quote
clongton - 3/1/2008  6:08 PM
Their version of heavy lift is the Ares-V. The Ares-I is a setup. They are using it to build the Ares-V.
The 5-segment SRB is an Ares-V necessity.
The J-2X is an Ares-V necessity.
They are building the Ares-I for the sole purpose of building the Ares-V.
They are spending the money to get the heavy lift.
Once they have it, Ares-I will be retired.
After ISS is retired Griffin has no plans to do anything at all in LEO, so Ares-I won't be needed.
Orion will fly on the Ares-V.

Griffin may have those plans, but he doesn't get to decide.  The Ares V needs the J-2X and the 5-segment SRB, but it also needs many billions of dollars appropriated by the congresses of the mid-2010s.  If they think that the Ares V is too expensive and demand that NASA go back and come up with something that fits within existing budgets or else not go to the moon at all, then there's no Ares V.  Simple as that.

Correct.   That's where I think Griffin's plans all go to hell in a hand-basket.   I don't think he's made any backup plans for the situation you describe - even though it is a situation with a VERY high probability.   That path is a total dead-end with no options available.

If we lose Ares-V, having spent billions on the mediocre performance of the Ares-I, I don't see any chance of Congress supporting NASA any further in ANY of its plans.

I feel that losing Ares-V will simply signal the end to the whole VSE.

I don't even think the EELV camp would get an opportunity to try to plea the case in that situation.   History demonstrates that it will be another 10-15 years before any future President/Congress gets serious about the moon or Mars again, and China will just walk their lunar program in the mean-time.

I think Griffin has made a very serious mis-calculation and is leading the VSE straight towards a brick wall.   His first "shiny new launcher" can't possibly get us anywhere except LEO - and if that's all we get, that's really all we will get.

I think we'd be in a far stronger position if the first "shiny new launcher" is actually capable of doing lunar missions.   But that would have to be very different from Ares-I.

At this point I'm not sure if he knows it but is too scared to publicly acknowledge it, or if he's so blinded by his own genius that he doesn't believe such an event is possible.   His political naiveté has bitten him on the ass a number of times before though so I'm not expecting miracles.

Time will certainly tell, but I sure wish we were not all on the same train as he's driving...   I wanna get off.

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

Tags:
 

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