MKremer - 2/9/2006 3:05 AM
Please define "vintage technology" as it applies to anything other than the outer shape of the CEV.
SRB's and other expendable launch vehicle hardware, primarily. And it sounds like the "Orion" capsule might not even be reusable.
(Adopts Irish accent) "'Twill be a fine ship, this O'Ryan. 'Tis a fine name for a ship of the heavens, to be sure, to be sure!!"
SpaceCat - 2/9/2006 12:08 AM
A little historical perspective.... Without going into the books for absolute time hacks- from the time the first major Apollo contracts were awarded until the '11' landing roughly 8 years passed. Granted, there was alot more money to play with then; but at that point we had essentially no infrasturcture for construction or launch, and little more than 15 minutes worth of spaceflight experience. We now have the industrial capabilities in place, we have a launch complex which will need modifictions- but it's not like we have to build a VAB and LC39 from scratch- and we have an incredible number of hours logged in space. Yet- the best guess for a moon landing is THIRTEEN years away! This tells me a number of things, including:
1) We are not as smart as we used to be.
2) We can anticipate a good dose of 'milking.'
3) I find myself idolizing people like Rocco Petrone even more.
But.... I hope it works even if I probably won't be alive to see it! 
It is the stretchout of the $
Jim - 2/9/2006 3:05 PM
SpaceCat - 2/9/2006 12:08 AM
A little historical perspective.... Without going into the books for absolute time hacks- from the time the first major Apollo contracts were awarded until the '11' landing roughly 8 years passed. Granted, there was alot more money to play with then; but at that point we had essentially no infrasturcture for construction or launch, and little more than 15 minutes worth of spaceflight experience. We now have the industrial capabilities in place, we have a launch complex which will need modifictions- but it's not like we have to build a VAB and LC39 from scratch- and we have an incredible number of hours logged in space. Yet- the best guess for a moon landing is THIRTEEN years away! This tells me a number of things, including:
1) We are not as smart as we used to be.
2) We can anticipate a good dose of 'milking.'
3) I find myself idolizing people like Rocco Petrone even more.
But.... I hope it works even if I probably won't be alive to see it!
It is the stretchout of the $
I think it has more to do with having to complete the ISS and retire the SST in the same time frame as developing some elements of Constellation.
PlanetStorm - 2/9/2006 10:46 AM
I think it has more to do with having to complete the ISS and retire the SST in the same time frame as developing some elements of Constellation.
The SST is already retired! Sadly, STS isn't far behind.
"I think it has more to do with having to complete the ISS and retire the SST in the same time frame as developing some elements of Constellation."
No - it was made quite clear at the last two Constellation press conferences that if there was unlimited funds, we could do this notably faster.
Jim - 1/9/2006 7:08 AM
Avron - 31/8/2006 11:39 PM
LM has the relationship with NASA
So does Boeing: USA, ISS, Shuttle and Delta
No Jim... sorry but I am not talking about "had" the relationship.. I am talking "Has" "The" relationship... Boeing clearly will still have "A' relationship with NASA, until Boeing makes the move to either take it back they will have "A" relationship or choose not to have one at all...
Now for the US.. based on what we have seen in the last four years when the pressure was on, it seems like MSFC/MAF have a great relaitionship with LM.. I see no change .. its all about sales and corperate relationships.
None of this should be taken as negitive in terms of the workforce.. but it will impact the workforce.. and to some degree that is the Sad part..
Avron - 2/9/2006 4:08 PM
1. No Jim... sorry but I am not talking about "had" the relationship.. I am talking "Has" "The" relationship... Boeing clearly will still have "A' relationship with NASA, until Boeing makes the move to either take it back they will have "A" relationship or choose not to have one at all...
2. Now for the US.. based on what we have seen in the last four years when the pressure was on, it seems like MSFC/MAF have a great relaitionship with LM.. I see no change .. its all about sales and corperate relationships.
1. You are trying to see something that isn't there. LM isn't the "in" and Boeing is on the "outs" LM just won the next contract. That is all. LM has losts other, but that didn't mean they were on the "out"
2. You are trying to see something that isn't there. LM is just a resident contractor. Others can work in the same facility. MAF doesn't equate to LM. It is just like Air Force Plant 42 in Palmdale. NG made the B-2, Boeing the B-1 and shuttle, and LM the X-33 all in the same facility. MAF is a place for contractors to build items for NASA
