Jim - 6/4/2007 10:50 AM
skywalker - 6/4/2007 11:36 AM
Jim - 6/4/2007 9:53 AM
bombay - 5/4/2007 11:45 PM
Jim - 5/4/2007 10:11 PM
bombay - 5/4/2007 10:55 PM
Jim - 5/4/2007 9:43 PM
bombay - 5/4/2007 10:21 PM
Jim - 5/4/2007 8:52 PM
bombay - 5/4/2007 9:22 PM
Jim - 5/4/2007 7:41 AM
Not true. I am referring to the 60's and 70's when Delta and Atlas program offices were combined gov't and industry. I totally agree that the current era, ULA is 100% responsible for everything.
You're correct. The program offices back then were in many respects controlled by NASA. The engineering however, was not performed by NASA.
Not so. You guys thinkf engineering just involves design and drawings. That is a just a small part of the work.
NASA performed flight design, stress analyses, thermal analyses, etc on these vehicles back in the day. NASA engineers did some of the hands on testing at the launch sites.
Atlas engineering (design, stress, flight dynamics, etc.) was performed by GD engineers, not NASA engineers. Quit giving NASA more credit than its due, at least as far as Atlas is concerned!
We are talking the 60's and especially Centaur. NASA bailed GD out.
This has nothing to do with my current employment. I knew this when I was in the Air Force in the early 80's
NASA provided opportunity for GD back in the 60's, I won't deny that. If that's what you mean by "bailing out", then fine, I agree. But don't tell me that NASA bailed out GD engineering, that's an out right lie!
Wrong. Centaur was going to be cancelled and LERC bailed it out. It helped GD fix it. GD had no experience in dealing with LH2. It was LERC that insisted on a full up Centaur tests at either Plumbrook or Arnold AFS. Altas was one thing and totally GD. That was the way the USAF wanted it. Centaur was different and for a while it was treated differently within GD.
You're right. GD was given an ultimatum based on initial failures with Centaur. Old GD engineers freely admit that their knowledge of LH2 affects was limited, but they're the ones that ultimately established LH2 material allowables and discovered the key that led to a successful product. To this day, the AF (or its representives) will insist that various tests or analyses be conducted over and beyond baseline, however they're not the ones that do it. That's left to the company engineers, as its always been.
ADDJUST was a joint development.
Not true, Not so, Wrong, the only way NASA bailed GD out was by buying more Atlas Centaurs during the 60's and 70's when the program died a thousand deaths. NASA did not engineer they provided requirements and oversite. Prgram offices do not design, they do not engineer hardware, Chief Engineer's office does do engineering, and the basic Deisgn groups, but NASA was not involved with this process. I will say it again it was the brilliant people of industry the designed the Atlas PERIOD!
The issue isn't design, it is engineering. NASA did engineering on the Centaur period. ADDUST is one example, redesign of the jettisonable panels is another.
GD engineers were the prinicipal architects of the jettisonable panel redesign. The whole concept of jettisonable panels came about years before NASA was even born. Bossart proved the concept on MX-774 in the early 50's.
GD did the analysis as well as the design. Prgram offices deal with the money and the program, they do not concur, approve, or buy-off the design that is left to the Design and Analysis groups. NASA established criteria or requirements and the GD engineers met them and "sold" them to NASA engineeers who bought them. NASA ONLY accepted engineering on the Centaur PERIOD. What did NASA do on the panels? GD redeisgned them from flat to the "spring" in house, GD also came up with the teflon on the tank side to prevent the panels from sticking, so what did NASA do? And ADDJUST was Richard Brusch GENERAL DYNAMICS, SAN DIEGO, CA, the work was performed for NASA
[PDF] Trajectory Optimization for the Atlas/Centaur Launch VehicleFile Format: PDF/Adobe Acrobat
The work reported here was performed for the NASA ... Swanson, D.C., "ADDJUST—An Automated System for ... Trajectories," NASA TN D-3189, Jan. 1966. ...
pdf.aiaa.org/GetFileGoogle.cfm?gID=27983&gTable=japaperimportPre97 - Similar pages
Trajectory optimization for the Atlas/Centaur launch vehicle
BRUSCH, R. G. (General Dynamics Corp., Convair Div., San Diego, Calif.)
JOURNAL OF SPACECRAFT AND ROCKETS 1977
0022-4650 vol.14 no.9 (550-555)
skywalker - 6/4/2007 12:30 PM
GD did the analysis as well as the design. Prgram offices deal with the money and the program, they do not concur, approve, or buy-off the design that is left to the Design and Analysis groups. NASA established criteria or requirements and the GD engineers met them and "sold" them to NASA engineeers who bought them. NASA ONLY accepted engineering on the Centaur PERIOD. What did NASA do on the panels? GD redeisgned them from flat to the "spring" in house, GD also came up with the teflon on the tank side to prevent the panels from sticking, so what did NASA do? And ADDJUST was Richard Brusch GENERAL DYNAMICS, SAN DIEGO, CA, the work was performed for NASA
[PDF] Trajectory Optimization for the Atlas/Centaur Launch VehicleFile Format: PDF/Adobe Acrobat
The work reported here was performed for the NASA ... Swanson, D.C., "ADDJUST—An Automated System for ... Trajectories," NASA TN D-3189, Jan. 1966. ...
pdf.aiaa.org/GetFileGoogle.cfm?gID=27983&gTable=japaperimportPre97 - Similar pages
Trajectory optimization for the Atlas/Centaur launch vehicle
BRUSCH, R. G. (General Dynamics Corp., Convair Div., San Diego, Calif.)
JOURNAL OF SPACECRAFT AND ROCKETS 1977
0022-4650 vol.14 no.9 (550-555)
Now you are way offbase
All program offices concur, approve, andbuy-off the designs. Maybe not piece parts.
I know former NASA Engineers that did do engineering on Centaur and I even know one of them that helped develop ADJJUST
There is a difference between design and system engineering. Granted NASA didn't design the Centaur, but NASA engineers did analyses, tests, etc that changed the Centaur design.
There was a difference between the way a USAF program office was run vs a NASA one. USAF was hands off. NASA was more integral in the system engineering process
The first ADDJUST publications is a NASA author
Jim - 6/4/2007 11:59 AM
skywalker - 6/4/2007 12:30 PM
GD did the analysis as well as the design. Prgram offices deal with the money and the program, they do not concur, approve, or buy-off the design that is left to the Design and Analysis groups. NASA established criteria or requirements and the GD engineers met them and "sold" them to NASA engineeers who bought them. NASA ONLY accepted engineering on the Centaur PERIOD. What did NASA do on the panels? GD redeisgned them from flat to the "spring" in house, GD also came up with the teflon on the tank side to prevent the panels from sticking, so what did NASA do? And ADDJUST was Richard Brusch GENERAL DYNAMICS, SAN DIEGO, CA, the work was performed for NASA
[PDF] Trajectory Optimization for the Atlas/Centaur Launch VehicleFile Format: PDF/Adobe Acrobat
The work reported here was performed for the NASA ... Swanson, D.C., "ADDJUST—An Automated System for ... Trajectories," NASA TN D-3189, Jan. 1966. ...
pdf.aiaa.org/GetFileGoogle.cfm?gID=27983&gTable=japaperimportPre97 - Similar pages
Trajectory optimization for the Atlas/Centaur launch vehicle
BRUSCH, R. G. (General Dynamics Corp., Convair Div., San Diego, Calif.)
JOURNAL OF SPACECRAFT AND ROCKETS 1977
0022-4650 vol.14 no.9 (550-555)
Now you are way offbase
All program offices concur, approve, andbuy-off the designs. Maybe not piece parts.
I know former NASA Engineers that did do engineering on Centaur and I even know one of them that helped develop ADJJUST
There is a difference between design and system engineering. Granted NASA didn't design the Centaur, but NASA engineers did analyses, tests, etc that changed the Centaur design.
There was a difference between the way a USAF program office was run vs a NASA one. USAF was hands off. NASA was more integral in the system engineering process
The first ADDJUST publications is a NASA author
The people that are responsible are the people with their names on it. I beg you to find me one piece of anything to do with the design or analysis of the Centaur that has a NASA logo or name on it. YOU CAN NOT because it does not exist. Centaur was designed and analyzed FOR NASA. NASA and Program Offices are users and reviewers, they are not creators, creation is done by the designers. All NASA did was buy a product and prior to accepting the product they reviewed the product and the paper that build the product. After the fact analysis is not design or creation. That was done buy the Engineers that worked/work for GD/ULA
System Engineering is different than product Design and Analysis.
Can you Name the Author and give reference to the Publication? Once again unsubstantiated claims simply making statements as you tend to do does not make it true. Look it up I think were your words to someone else. Well the reference I gave above was from a google search using NASA ADDJUST
I see you backed off the Insulation Panels as well you should have.
skywalker - 6/4/2007 2:41 PM
Jim - 6/4/2007 11:59 AM
skywalker - 6/4/2007 12:30 PM
GD did the analysis as well as the design. Prgram offices deal with the money and the program, they do not concur, approve, or buy-off the design that is left to the Design and Analysis groups. NASA established criteria or requirements and the GD engineers met them and "sold" them to NASA engineeers who bought them. NASA ONLY accepted engineering on the Centaur PERIOD. What did NASA do on the panels? GD redeisgned them from flat to the "spring" in house, GD also came up with the teflon on the tank side to prevent the panels from sticking, so what did NASA do? And ADDJUST was Richard Brusch GENERAL DYNAMICS, SAN DIEGO, CA, the work was performed for NASA
[PDF] Trajectory Optimization for the Atlas/Centaur Launch VehicleFile Format: PDF/Adobe Acrobat
The work reported here was performed for the NASA ... Swanson, D.C., "ADDJUST—An Automated System for ... Trajectories," NASA TN D-3189, Jan. 1966. ...
pdf.aiaa.org/GetFileGoogle.cfm?gID=27983&gTable=japaperimportPre97 - Similar pages
Trajectory optimization for the Atlas/Centaur launch vehicle
BRUSCH, R. G. (General Dynamics Corp., Convair Div., San Diego, Calif.)
JOURNAL OF SPACECRAFT AND ROCKETS 1977
0022-4650 vol.14 no.9 (550-555)
Now you are way offbase
All program offices concur, approve, andbuy-off the designs. Maybe not piece parts.
I know former NASA Engineers that did do engineering on Centaur and I even know one of them that helped develop ADJJUST
There is a difference between design and system engineering. Granted NASA didn't design the Centaur, but NASA engineers did analyses, tests, etc that changed the Centaur design.
There was a difference between the way a USAF program office was run vs a NASA one. USAF was hands off. NASA was more integral in the system engineering process
The first ADDJUST publications is a NASA author
The people that are responsible are the people with their names on it. I beg you to find me one piece of anything to do with the design or analysis of the Centaur that has a NASA logo or name on it. YOU CAN NOT because it does not exist. Centaur was designed and analyzed FOR NASA. NASA and Program Offices are users and reviewers, they are not creators, creation is done by the designers. All NASA did was buy a product and prior to accepting the product they reviewed the product and the paper that build the product. After the fact analysis is not design or creation. That was done buy the Engineers that worked/work for GD/ULA
System Engineering is different than product Design and Analysis.
Can you Name the Author and give reference to the Publication? Once again unsubstantiated claims simply making statements as you tend to do does not make it true. Look it up I think were your words to someone else. Well the reference I gave above was from a google search using NASA ADDJUST
I see you backed off the Insulation Panels as well you should have.
I did not back off the panels. Helium purging of the panels was due to LERC
Swanson, D.C., "ADDJUST—An Automated System for ... Trajectories," NASA TN D-3189, Jan. 1966. Swanson is NASA.
Go to
http://ntrs.nasa.gov and search on Centaur. There are 100's of NASA analyses and tests on Centaur
At a celebration of 50 years of Centaur, Lockheed honored two former NASA employees (the only people honored) as significant contributors to the Centaur program. They were engineers and not managers or program office workers,
Jim - 6/4/2007 2:26 PM
skywalker - 6/4/2007 2:41 PM
Jim - 6/4/2007 11:59 AM
skywalker - 6/4/2007 12:30 PM
GD did the analysis as well as the design. Prgram offices deal with the money and the program, they do not concur, approve, or buy-off the design that is left to the Design and Analysis groups. NASA established criteria or requirements and the GD engineers met them and "sold" them to NASA engineeers who bought them. NASA ONLY accepted engineering on the Centaur PERIOD. What did NASA do on the panels? GD redeisgned them from flat to the "spring" in house, GD also came up with the teflon on the tank side to prevent the panels from sticking, so what did NASA do? And ADDJUST was Richard Brusch GENERAL DYNAMICS, SAN DIEGO, CA, the work was performed for NASA
[PDF] Trajectory Optimization for the Atlas/Centaur Launch VehicleFile Format: PDF/Adobe Acrobat
The work reported here was performed for the NASA ... Swanson, D.C., "ADDJUST—An Automated System for ... Trajectories," NASA TN D-3189, Jan. 1966. ...
pdf.aiaa.org/GetFileGoogle.cfm?gID=27983&gTable=japaperimportPre97 - Similar pages
Trajectory optimization for the Atlas/Centaur launch vehicle
BRUSCH, R. G. (General Dynamics Corp., Convair Div., San Diego, Calif.)
JOURNAL OF SPACECRAFT AND ROCKETS 1977
0022-4650 vol.14 no.9 (550-555)
Now you are way offbase
All program offices concur, approve, andbuy-off the designs. Maybe not piece parts.
I know former NASA Engineers that did do engineering on Centaur and I even know one of them that helped develop ADJJUST
There is a difference between design and system engineering. Granted NASA didn't design the Centaur, but NASA engineers did analyses, tests, etc that changed the Centaur design.
There was a difference between the way a USAF program office was run vs a NASA one. USAF was hands off. NASA was more integral in the system engineering process
The first ADDJUST publications is a NASA author
The people that are responsible are the people with their names on it. I beg you to find me one piece of anything to do with the design or analysis of the Centaur that has a NASA logo or name on it. YOU CAN NOT because it does not exist. Centaur was designed and analyzed FOR NASA. NASA and Program Offices are users and reviewers, they are not creators, creation is done by the designers. All NASA did was buy a product and prior to accepting the product they reviewed the product and the paper that build the product. After the fact analysis is not design or creation. That was done buy the Engineers that worked/work for GD/ULA
System Engineering is different than product Design and Analysis.
Can you Name the Author and give reference to the Publication? Once again unsubstantiated claims simply making statements as you tend to do does not make it true. Look it up I think were your words to someone else. Well the reference I gave above was from a google search using NASA ADDJUST
I see you backed off the Insulation Panels as well you should have.
I did not back off the panels. Helium purging of the panels was due to LERC
Swanson, D.C., "ADDJUST—An Automated System for ... Trajectories," NASA TN D-3189, Jan. 1966. Swanson is NASA.
Go to http://ntrs.nasa.gov and search on Centaur. There are 100's of NASA analyses and tests on Centaur
At a celebration of 50 years of Centaur, Lockheed honored two former NASA employees (the only people honored) as significant contributors to the Centaur program. They were engineers and not managers or program office workers,
Wow, Lockheed recognized the customer, that is a very nice gesture.
Search on Centaur Development you get 118 docs, but as you know some are Centaur only and some are development only. One was both the first one "Test of improved ignitor for first stage separation rockets for the Atlas-Centaur launch vehicle". The problem with this site is you can not tell where the author is from, I did notice on some of the Centaur articles the authors were ULA employees (I know their names) when I searched just Centaur. Most of the Articles appeared to be after the fact, not development stuff until I ran across the one mentioned above. The authors are Heath, R. W.; Schmiedlin, R. F.; Synor, H., I do not know who they worked for. Additionally just because the test was done at LeRC does not mean it was done totally by NASA or totally by anyone else. GD and others used LeRC.
Finally a good post by you with some meat. By the way you should do this all the time, do not just make statements of "wrong", "not true", "incorrect", etc.
Jim - 6/4/2007 12:59 PM
Now you are way offbase
All program offices concur, approve, andbuy-off the designs. Maybe not piece parts.
I know former NASA Engineers that did do engineering on Centaur and I even know one of them that helped develop ADJJUST
There is a difference between design and system engineering. Granted NASA didn't design the Centaur, but NASA engineers did analyses, tests, etc that changed the Centaur design.
There was a difference between the way a USAF program office was run vs a NASA one. USAF was hands off. NASA was more integral in the system engineering process
USAF is more hands-off than NASA, but Aerospace does have its own analysis and (limited) test capability, not just a program office. A couple of significant pieces of EELV were designed based on analysis and testing done at Aerospace. They are even more heavily involved in satellite concept design. Aerospace created some widely used analysis codes, like SAAS. Contrary to what skywalker seems to be implying, there is more to engineering than just cutting drawings and test plans.
skywalker - 6/4/2007 4:09 PM
Search on Centaur Development you get 118 docs,
Search on "Centaur", there is over 1000.
That remark about the "customer" was a cheap shot. As I said they weren't "part" of the program office.. They were honored as engineering contributors to the Centaur program
Even at a much reduced level, NASA still has "engineering" influence on Atlas. During an IV&V effort on Atlas vehicle loads, it was discovered that LM modeled the ATS wrong. They subsequently updated the model for future flights.
Jim - 7/4/2007 8:12 AM
skywalker - 6/4/2007 4:09 PM
Search on Centaur Development you get 118 docs,
Search on "Centaur", there is over 1000.
That remark about the "customer" was a cheap shot. As I said they weren't "part" of the program office.. They were honored as engineering contributors to the Centaur program
Even at a much reduced level, NASA still has "engineering" influence on Atlas. During an IV&V effort on Atlas vehicle loads, it was discovered that LM modeled the ATS wrong. They subsequently updated the model for future flights.
Modelling is not absolute and it never will be. NASA and Aerospace engineers often question "assumptions" that are an integral part of any model. It's perfectly within their right to do so, since assumptions are subjective.
LM and Boeing engineers will more often than not adjust their model or analysis to incorporate a NASA or Aerospace concern rather than go to war with them over what should or shouldn't be taken into consideration. It's often the easiest path to follow and doesn't suggest that the NASA or Aerospace input was actually relevant.
bombay - 7/4/2007 1:55 PM
Jim - 7/4/2007 8:12 AM
skywalker - 6/4/2007 4:09 PM
Search on Centaur Development you get 118 docs,
Search on "Centaur", there is over 1000.
That remark about the "customer" was a cheap shot. As I said they weren't "part" of the program office.. They were honored as engineering contributors to the Centaur program
Even at a much reduced level, NASA still has "engineering" influence on Atlas. During an IV&V effort on Atlas vehicle loads, it was discovered that LM modeled the ATS wrong. They subsequently updated the model for future flights.
Modelling is not absolute and it never will be. NASA and Aerospace engineers often question "assumptions" that are an integral part of any model. It's perfectly within their right to do so, since assumptions are subjective.
LM and Boeing engineers will more often than not adjust their model or analysis to incorporate a NASA or Aerospace concern rather than go to war with them over what should or shouldn't be taken into consideration. It's often the easiest path to follow and doesn't suggest that the NASA or Aerospace input was actually relevant.
It was an error and LM corrected it.
bombay - 7/4/2007 1:55 PM
Modelling is not absolute and it never will be. NASA and Aerospace engineers often question "assumptions" that are an integral part of any model. It's perfectly within their right to do so, since assumptions are subjective.
LM and Boeing engineers will more often than not adjust their model or analysis to incorporate a NASA or Aerospace concern rather than go to war with them over what should or shouldn't be taken into consideration. It's often the easiest path to follow and doesn't suggest that the NASA or Aerospace input was actually relevant.
It doesn't matter whether an assumption is "subjective" or "absolute". I am not even sure I understand the distinction. The only thing that matters is whether the assumption affects the results. If my analysis requires a value for x, and I can only pin it down to 3 < x < 5, and my analysis gives totally different answers for x=3 compared to x=5, then my analysis is useless and I will need to revise my methodology or try to measure the real value of x.
The situation you describe in the second paragraph doesn't happen very often, for the following reason: no competent engineer is going to arbitrarily change an analysis input even if the Secretary of Defense tells him to, unless he can prove the change doesn't affect the results. And if he can do that, there's no longer any reason to ask for a change. The way you put it makes the government engineers look unreasonable or easily manipulated, which they are not. Usually.
Gov't Seagull - 10/4/2007 9:37 PM
The situation you describe in the second paragraph doesn't happen very often, for the following reason: no competent engineer is going to arbitrarily change an analysis input even if the Secretary of Defense tells him to, unless he can prove the change doesn't affect the results. And if he can do that, there's no longer any reason to ask for a change. The way you put it makes the government engineers look unreasonable or easily manipulated, which they are not. Usually.
Which means (in the current Administration) that the engineers' data will be discarded in favor of the outcome the politicians appointed by this Administration prefer.
Also, if you are outraged enough to disagree/publicly discount with their conclusions, you'll be either demoted or outright fired from your job.
porthos - 2/4/2007 6:29 PM
bombay - 2/4/2007 7:55 PM
Dexter - 30/3/2007 11:57 PM
Gus - 30/3/2007 11:37 PM
bombay - 29/3/2007 7:55 PM
"I don't know enough about each shop to talk about the techs - good workmanship on both sides. I can only hope enough tribal knowledge moves to Decatur."
I've pondered the above partial quote by Antares about retention of tribal knowledge in Decatur. I've concluded that the ULA has made a decision that will take years, at great expense and risk, to overcome.
What is tribal knowledge? In the manufacturing world it's knowing what it takes to actually build a quality product that's not covered on a blue print, CAD model, planning instructions, or any other form of documentation. It's knowledge gained through years of experience of trial and error.
In the case of Centaur where the entire rocket is built in house from pulling raw material to completion, what can Decatur personnel provide to build a Centaur should, as anticipated, the critical Centaur production engineers and mechanics, those with all of the tribal knowledge refuse to go to Decatur? Who else knows how to build a thin guage stainless balloon without crumpling the thing up like a prune?
Was there even one iota of thought that went into the decision to move all production to Decatur?
This is a very good point because in all of the ULA factories, the metal of choice is Aluminum except in San Diego where it is stainless steel. Here, in Denver and Harlingen as well, there is more reliance on machined aluminum isogrid panels bought from suppliers with less internal fabrication and more assembly of bolted on components. In San Diego, the process starts out with raw material and fabricates the balloon tank with resistance welding and is extremely labor intensive. A lack of tribal knowledge transfer from there would put us in deep do-do.
So what happens when only 10% relocate like the HB acceptance?
You could argue that Atlas engineering personnel could absorb Delta engineering deficiencies in personnel based on the fact that common rules/laws of engineering will apply to either rocket.
The same can't be said for Centaur manufacturing. There's nothing in common between Centaur manufacturing and Atlas/Delta booster or Delta upperstage, absolutely nothing! There's no answer to what the ULA will do if the right people don't follow Centaur to Decatur.
I am a new watcher and contributor. I have read the 60+ pages of this thread, it is very interesting. Bombay makes a good point here. Centaur manufacturing is different, very different not only in the process of starting with raw material, but also with the welding. San Diego site is a world class welding facility, I have met the weld engineers from their and all of us (well at least the people I know) in the Welding world realize they do what no one else does, it is top notch. So if the weld engineers do not move to Decatur, Centaur manufacturing will struggle. I am not even sure of the other processes, but just ensuring the weld quality will be very difficult.
Rumor coming out of a recent ULA management summit here in Denver has Centaur tank fabrication staying in San Diego for now because it is expensive and risky to move.
Gus - 12/5/2007 6:32 PM
Rumor coming out of a recent ULA management summit here in Denver has Centaur tank fabrication staying in San Diego for now because it is expensive and risky to move.
The wonders of 40-year-old legacy systems...
Simon
simonbp - 14/5/2007 6:24 AM
Gus - 12/5/2007 6:32 PM
Rumor coming out of a recent ULA management summit here in Denver has Centaur tank fabrication staying in San Diego for now because it is expensive and risky to move.
The wonders of 40-year-old legacy systems...
Simon
Yeah.. the Techs are probably MILLIONAIRES just from the price of their houses alone !
Propforce - 14/5/2007 3:48 PM
Yeah.. the Techs are probably MILLIONAIRES just from the price of their houses alone !
And mostly likely use half of each pay check to pay the property taxxes
kevin-rf - 15/5/2007 5:42 AM
Propforce - 14/5/2007 3:48 PM
Yeah.. the Techs are probably MILLIONAIRES just from the price of their houses alone !
And mostly likely use half of each pay check to pay the property taxxes
Hah Hah :laugh:
That's probably what would be in other states/ nations but not in California !!
We have proposition-13 that limits our property tax to the original purchased price which, in these techs case,
VERY VERY LOW ! :laugh:
simonbp - 14/5/2007 6:24 AM
Gus - 12/5/2007 6:32 PM
Rumor coming out of a recent ULA management summit here in Denver has Centaur tank fabrication staying in San Diego for now because it is expensive and risky to move.
The wonders of 40-year-old legacy systems...
Simon
I am not sure how to interpret this but in defense of the 45 year old Centaur design, I would like to point out that the Ares 1 upper stage spec looks like a scaled up version of the Centaur. A study using the Delta IV upper stage, a much newer design, on an Atlas V actually has a loss of performance. The 747 is approaching 40 years of age. The wonders of a brilliant innovative design that has stood the test of time and the brilliant men that designed it...
Gus - 12/5/2007 6:32 PM
Rumor coming out of a recent ULA management summit here in Denver has Centaur tank fabrication staying in San Diego for now because it is expensive and risky to move.
What does "staying for now" mean?
Will the expense and risk of a move decrease in the near future when it hasn't done so for 45 years?
Gus - 19/5/2007 11:59 AM
...I would like to point out that the Ares 1 upper stage spec looks like a scaled up version of the Centaur. A study using the Delta IV upper stage, a much newer design, on an Atlas V actually has a loss of performance.
I would argue that the Ares I upper stage looks a LOT like the S-IV or S-IVB during the Apollo program. It's the same diameter as S-IV, uses common propellant bulkheads like S-IV & S-IVB, and uses a J-2 derived engine (like S-IVB.) The difference is that the Ares I upper stage is significantly longer, to make up for the weak performance of the solid first stage.
It has been noted that the upper stage of Jupiter in the DIRECT 2.0 proposal looks like a scaled-up Centaur. Even if NASA sticks with Ares I&V, they can hopefully apply the pressure-stabilized structural concept from Centaur to the Ares V upper stage (EDS) to increase its performance. Structures like the Delta IV upper stage have lower performance than Centaur due to their heavier, more rigid construction.
Perhaps Centaur production is staying put, at least for the time being. Stay classy, San Diego!
