Quote from: HMXHMX on 04/21/2011 05:28 amI wonder if they read the same proposal we wrote, frankly. <snip>Then they complain that we provided insufficient detail to evaluate launch vehicle integration. Eh? We explained carefully that there was only a bolted joint between LV and spacecraft, no other interface (fluid, electrical, etc.). They state that we failed to provide sufficient detail on the technical risks of launch-escape-integral-abort recovery system. Pardon moi? Our partner HMX holds the patent. Their previous CCDEV1 proposal was highly detailed, and was referenced. If there is no electrical interface between the LV and spacecraft, then how can the LV's EDS signal the spacecraft's LAS to activate? Does the above referenced patented system not require any kind of connection other than the above mentioned bolted joints?Clearly I am missing something here, or I have been thrown by the "only a bolted joint" comment. Could the examiner have stopped reading there?
I wonder if they read the same proposal we wrote, frankly. <snip>Then they complain that we provided insufficient detail to evaluate launch vehicle integration. Eh? We explained carefully that there was only a bolted joint between LV and spacecraft, no other interface (fluid, electrical, etc.). They state that we failed to provide sufficient detail on the technical risks of launch-escape-integral-abort recovery system. Pardon moi? Our partner HMX holds the patent. Their previous CCDEV1 proposal was highly detailed, and was referenced.
The thinkg I liked about your CXV proposal was the clever simplicity of it. A beautiful piece of engineering, like looking inside a Kalashnikov Rifle. Function distilled down to its most basic form.
Have you considered putting a second company, making the exact same proposal but only asking money for reviews and trades studies and more paperwork? I'm sure it would have made to second round.
Quote from: M_Puckett on 04/22/2011 01:01 amThe thinkg I liked about your CXV proposal was the clever simplicity of it. A beautiful piece of engineering, like looking inside a Kalashnikov Rifle. Function distilled down to its most basic form.Kind of you to say so. I once had Burt refer to a bit of my work as "slick" and that was high praise, too. But I've done some stinkers, too, in the full glare of the public eye.
Quote from: baldusi on 04/22/2011 01:12 amHave you considered putting a second company, making the exact same proposal but only asking money for reviews and trades studies and more paperwork? I'm sure it would have made to second round.I am done with NASA. Six bids since 2004, one win (2004) and that only because Craig Stiedle was a visionary who selected our proposal after others at a lower level had rejected it.
I should have said bolted separation joint, of course. The XV avionics is our EDS. I don't want nor need an EDS on the LV. The XV has a telemetry receiver tuned to the LV's transmit frequency and thus hears every bit of data transmitted to the ground. The XV then makes it own determination of the need for abort. If the ground sends a command destruct signal to the LV, it is received by the XV as well and it automatically separates. The only modification to the booster is a several second delay line that blocks the flight termination command from actually triggering the explosive charges to give XV a few seconds to clear.
Quote from: HMXHMX on 04/22/2011 12:00 amI should have said bolted separation joint, of course. The XV avionics is our EDS. I don't want nor need an EDS on the LV. The XV has a telemetry receiver tuned to the LV's transmit frequency and thus hears every bit of data transmitted to the ground. The XV then makes it own determination of the need for abort. If the ground sends a command destruct signal to the LV, it is received by the XV as well and it automatically separates. The only modification to the booster is a several second delay line that blocks the flight termination command from actually triggering the explosive charges to give XV a few seconds to clear.Of course it is a separation joint! That goes so without saying that I didn't miss the qualifier. Having the spacecraft avionics monitor the LV health & command destruct is an interesting approach and I have no problem with that.The only thing I would add is a sense line that would be blown open by the separation charges so the LV has positive confirmation that the spacecraft has departed. For all I know, that could be standard practice in the industry.
Quote from: HMXHMX on 04/22/2011 03:56 amQuote from: baldusi on 04/22/2011 01:12 amHave you considered putting a second company, making the exact same proposal but only asking money for reviews and trades studies and more paperwork? I'm sure it would have made to second round.I am done with NASA. Six bids since 2004, one win (2004) and that only because Craig Stiedle was a visionary who selected our proposal after others at a lower level had rejected it.I can only hope that you dont give up....$6million and you had hardware and a drop test...while the others had paper studies...I can only wish that you had $10-30 million. Do you feel that you were rated Red on business due to your lack of money??? Do you feel NASA should have given more companies $10-20 million to see what they could do?
Quote from: M_Puckett on 04/22/2011 01:01 amThe thinkg I liked about your CXV proposal was the clever simplicity of it. A beautiful piece of engineering, like looking inside a Kalashnikov Rifle. Function distilled down to its most basic form.I Have to second that opinion.What I especially liked about it was it seemed to be a system that could launch on very short notice, to just about any orbit. I could see a system like it being used as an emergency rescue vehicle, although could a single crew member have managed docking with a crippled CRS vehicle?Likely be a loooong time before crewed traffic would be flying often enough to justify investment in such a rescue service.Yeah, just call me a dreamer!
Quote from: JimP on 04/22/2011 05:23 amQuote from: M_Puckett on 04/22/2011 01:01 amThe thinkg I liked about your CXV proposal was the clever simplicity of it. A beautiful piece of engineering, like looking inside a Kalashnikov Rifle. Function distilled down to its most basic form.I Have to second that opinion.What I especially liked about it was it seemed to be a system that could launch on very short notice, to just about any orbit. I could see a system like it being used as an emergency rescue vehicle, although could a single crew member have managed docking with a crippled CRS vehicle?Likely be a loooong time before crewed traffic would be flying often enough to justify investment in such a rescue service.Yeah, just call me a dreamer! During the 1960s, single astronauts trained to conduct docks alone. So I don't see any reason why a single CXV crewman could not do the same.
Have you tried the Air Force? With the air launch capability, it would give the Air Force ability to quickly get men into space if necessary.
Have you tried the Air Force? With the air launch capability, it would give the Air Force ability to quickly get men into space if necessary. This seems to be one of the best ideas brought forth.
Well, with a lot of other nations getting the ability to launch humans into space, and with a lot of private companies getting the ability, the Air Force might want a way up also.
Quote from: HMXHMX on 04/21/2011 05:48 pmAttached for your viewing pleasure.
