| Science Forum Index » Space Forum » Rocket design up in air, says Marshall chief |
|
Page 1 of 3 Goto page 1, 2, 3 Next |
|
| Author |
Message |
| Ed Kyle |
 Posted: Fri Jan 28, 2005 9:55 am |
|
|
|
Guest
|
Huntsville Times story at:
"http://www.al.com/news/huntsvilletimes/index.ssf?/base/news/1106907466249010.xml"
"...Marshall Space Flight Center Director Dave King said ..."
"We are looking at all concepts from a heavy-lift, Saturn V-like
vehicle, to a shuttle-type vehicle, to using expendable rockets," King
said. "The truth is that we've got to pick what type of crew vehicle
that's best for the exploration (plan), and then design a vehicle to
lift it.
"This is a multiyear exploration plan and we've got a couple of years
before we have to make that decision." ...
"We just don't know yet," King said. "I expect that within the next
year the design (plan) will take shape and we will work toward that
goal."
....
- Ed Kyle |
|
|
| Back to top |
|
|
|
| Mike Rhino |
| Posted: Sat Jan 29, 2005 5:36 am |
|
|
|
Guest
|
"Ed Kyle" <edkyle99@hotmail.com> wrote in message
news:1106924149.402018.44150@z14g2000cwz.googlegroups.com...
[quote:b60c6a6a7a]Huntsville Times story at:
"http://www.al.com/news/huntsvilletimes/index.ssf?/base/news/110690746624901[/quote:b60c6a6a7a]
0.xml"
[quote:b60c6a6a7a]
"...Marshall Space Flight Center Director Dave King said ..."
"We are looking at all concepts from a heavy-lift, Saturn V-like
vehicle, to a shuttle-type vehicle, to using expendable rockets," King
said. "The truth is that we've got to pick what type of crew vehicle
that's best for the exploration (plan), and then design a vehicle to
lift it.
"This is a multiyear exploration plan and we've got a couple of years
before we have to make that decision." ...
"We just don't know yet," King said. "I expect that within the next
year the design (plan) will take shape and we will work toward that
goal."
[/quote:b60c6a6a7a]
The ideal design depends somewhat on how many flights to the moon are
planned -- 1 or 100. If you are planning a single flight, you want to keep
development costs as low as possible. If you are planning lots of flights,
you want to keep the marginal cost per astronaut as low as possible. If we
are ever going to have a viable lunar tourist or energy business, we need to
get the cost per flight down. Spending a lot of money on development to get
the cost per flight down makes sense. |
|
|
| Back to top |
|
|
|
| Ed Kyle |
| Posted: Sat Jan 29, 2005 10:30 am |
|
|
|
Guest
|
Mike Rhino wrote:
[quote:13030784a1]"Ed Kyle" <edkyle99@hotmail.com> wrote in message
news:1106924149.402018.44150@z14g2000cwz.googlegroups.com...
Huntsville Times story at:
"http://www.al.com/news/huntsvilletimes/index.ssf?/base/news/110690746624901
0.xml"
The ideal design depends somewhat on how many flights to the moon are
planned -- 1 or 100. If you are planning a single flight, you want
to keep
development costs as low as possible. If you are planning lots of
flights,
you want to keep the marginal cost per astronaut as low as possible.
If we
are ever going to have a viable lunar tourist or energy business, we
need to
get the cost per flight down. Spending a lot of money on development
to get
the cost per flight down makes sense.
[/quote:13030784a1]
True. But there is an unknown limit to what the
public and Congress can accept for development
costs. If the up front costs are too breathtaking,
the number of flights to the moon will decrease
irregardless of the per-mission cost! At least
that is what happened during Apollo. Saturn V
funding for production was stopped even before
Apollo 8, the first manned Saturn V launch.
It seems that the initial plans for Project
Constellation attempt to take this into account.
The program seems to have been designed to dance
as close as possible to the fine line of public
acceptance. The true test will be when the
inevitable cost overruns appear.
- Ed Kyle |
|
|
| Back to top |
|
|
|
| Allen Thomson |
| Posted: Sat Jan 29, 2005 6:58 pm |
|
|
|
Guest
|
Ed Kyle wrote:
[quote:84881e469e]Huntsville Times story at:
"http://www.al.com/news/huntsvilletimes/index.ssf?/base/news/1106907466249010.xml"
"...Marshall Space Flight Center Director Dave King said ..."
"We are looking at all concepts from a heavy-lift, Saturn V-like
vehicle, to a shuttle-type vehicle, to using expendable rockets,"
King
said. "The truth is that we've got to pick what type of crew vehicle
that's best for the exploration (plan), and then design a vehicle to
lift it.
"This is a multiyear exploration plan and we've got a couple of years
before we have to make that decision." ...
"We just don't know yet," King said. "I expect that within the next
year the design (plan) will take shape and we will work toward that
goal."
[/quote:84881e469e]
Isn't there a bit of a chicken-and-egg problem implicit in what Mr.
King is saying? Is CEV design going to proceed completely independently
of SLV characteristics? After which they'll come up with a suitable
SLV? |
|
|
| Back to top |
|
|
|
| Ed Kyle |
| Posted: Sun Jan 30, 2005 2:10 am |
|
|
|
Guest
|
Allen Thomson wrote:
[quote:9c8232b703]Ed Kyle wrote:
Huntsville Times story at:
"http://www.al.com/news/huntsvilletimes/index.ssf?/base/news/1106907466249010.xml"
Isn't there a bit of a chicken-and-egg problem implicit in what Mr.
King is saying? Is CEV design going to proceed completely
independently
of SLV characteristics? After which they'll come up with a suitable
SLV?
[/quote:9c8232b703]
It seems to me that the 20 ton limit for CEV
was clearly meant to put the thing into the
EELV medium (plus some) payload range. The
only other apparent option would be SRB-based,
but that would require a new upper stage and
a lot more money than an EELV-based design.
But the method for launching the uncrewed
payloads (the Earth Departure Stage, the
landers, the propellants, etc) seems to be up
for grabs. It seems clear that various
interests are going to push hard for a
shuttle-derived method for launching the
big-mass stuff.
But the big-mass requirements are all Spiral 2
anyway, which is more than a decade away and
might not ever happen. Even if it does, the
longer into the future it gets deferred, the
less likely it will be that a shuttle-derived
vehicle could be made to happen.
- Ed Kyle |
|
|
| Back to top |
|
|
|
| Alex Terrell |
| Posted: Sun Jan 30, 2005 7:39 am |
|
|
|
Guest
|
I disagree with King's statement. He should have said:
"The truth is that we've got to pick what type of crew vehicle
that's best for the exploration (plan), and then PROCURE a PROGRAM OF
LAUNCHES to lift it. "
Why is NASA duplicating Boeing and LM and others? Launchers capable of
putting 40 tons into LEO are hardly rocket science anymore (forgive
intentional pun). |
|
|
| Back to top |
|
|
|
| Alex Terrell |
| Posted: Sun Jan 30, 2005 7:45 am |
|
|
|
Guest
|
To expand on my early comment, NASA should procure the CEV for each
spiral, and then tender a programme of launches - perhaps not for the
entire spiral, but at least a dozen at a time (or more relevant for
lunar base support, 800 tons of LEO capability at a time).
If the Space Shuttle HLV concept has any merit in it, someone will buy
the appropriate hardware rights (ET, SRB, SME - but not the standing
army) for $1, and come up with something to rival LM. Boeing, Proton,
Arianne HLV variants.
But NASA shouldn't be worrying about developing HLV. They just need to
provide a big enough market and a competive environment. |
|
|
| Back to top |
|
|
|
| Ed Kyle |
| Posted: Mon Jan 31, 2005 10:45 am |
|
|
|
Guest
|
Alex Terrell wrote:
[quote:69e4978b1b]I disagree with King's statement. He should have said:
"The truth is that we've got to pick what type of crew vehicle
that's best for the exploration (plan), and then PROCURE a PROGRAM OF
LAUNCHES to lift it. "
Why is NASA duplicating Boeing and LM and others? Launchers capable
of
putting 40 tons into LEO are hardly rocket science anymore (forgive
intentional pun).
[/quote:69e4978b1b]
I agree that NASA should not be in the rocket building
business. But NASA can substantially control design,
even through a mere procurement specification, in the
same way that the U.S. Air Force specs led to Atlas V
and Delta IV.
NASA can write specs that will allow use of existing
launch capability (Atlas V, Delta IV, etc) with minimal
modifications, or it can write specs that will pit
all-new designs, which would require multi-billions of
dollars of development effort, against shuttle-derived
designs.
- Ed Kyle |
|
|
| Back to top |
|
|
|
| Joann Evans |
| Posted: Mon Jan 31, 2005 8:59 pm |
|
|
|
Guest
|
Ed Kyle wrote:
[quote:9577fef25a]
Mike Rhino wrote:
"Ed Kyle" <edkyle99@hotmail.com> wrote in message
news:1106924149.402018.44150@z14g2000cwz.googlegroups.com...
Huntsville Times story at:
"http://www.al.com/news/huntsvilletimes/index.ssf?/base/news/110690746624901
0.xml"
The ideal design depends somewhat on how many flights to the moon are
planned -- 1 or 100. If you are planning a single flight, you want
to keep
development costs as low as possible. If you are planning lots of
flights,
you want to keep the marginal cost per astronaut as low as possible.
If we
are ever going to have a viable lunar tourist or energy business, we
need to
get the cost per flight down. Spending a lot of money on development
to get
the cost per flight down makes sense.
True. But there is an unknown limit to what the
public and Congress can accept for development
costs.
[/quote:9577fef25a]
As evidenced by the shuttle design we ended up with...
--
You know what to remove, to reply.... |
|
|
| Back to top |
|
|
|
| Guest |
| Posted: Mon Jan 31, 2005 11:20 pm |
|
|
|
|
January 31, 2005
[quote:b8f4b20d32]Launchers capable of putting 40 tons into LEO
are hardly rocket science anymore.
[/quote:b8f4b20d32]
-----
Name one that can do it now.
Talk about denialism.
Thomas Lee Elifritz
http://elifritz.members.atlantic.net |
|
|
| Back to top |
|
|
|
| Sander Vesik |
| Posted: Wed Feb 02, 2005 1:31 pm |
|
|
|
Guest
|
Mike Rhino <october2003@alexanderpics.com> wrote:
[quote:41ea26e184]
The ideal design depends somewhat on how many flights to the moon are
planned -- 1 or 100. If you are planning a single flight, you want to keep
development costs as low as possible. If you are planning lots of flights,
you want to keep the marginal cost per astronaut as low as possible. If we
are ever going to have a viable lunar tourist or energy business, we need to
get the cost per flight down. Spending a lot of money on development to get
the cost per flight down makes sense.
[/quote:41ea26e184]
The key to which - or at least one keys - is a space-based tug.
--
Sander
+++ Out of cheese error +++ |
|
|
| Back to top |
|
|
|
| kert |
| Posted: Thu Feb 03, 2005 5:46 pm |
|
|
|
Guest
|
lifeform1@atlantic.net wrote:
[quote:55d9e79a44]January 31, 2005
Launchers capable of putting 40 tons into LEO
are hardly rocket science anymore.
-----
Name one that can do it now.
[/quote:55d9e79a44]
Any operational one. In appropriately sized chunks.
-kert |
|
|
| Back to top |
|
|
|
| Alex Terrell |
| Posted: Fri Feb 04, 2005 10:15 am |
|
|
|
Guest
|
None in one go now, but
http://www.boeing.com/defense-space/space/bls/d4heavy/docs/delta_growth_options.pdf
They're just upgrades, not even derivatives.
For Delta to go to 40 tons is a major project, but the uncertainties
are limited. so I'd say it's not "Rocket Science"*, even if it's a
little bit of Rocket Science.
*I am assuming the phrase "it's not rocket science" has a meaning in
the American version of English. Is this correct? |
|
|
| Back to top |
|
|
|
| Alex Terrell |
| Posted: Fri Feb 04, 2005 10:23 am |
|
|
|
Guest
|
Agreed, and this is inevitable to some extent. But the procrement spec
should be loose enough to allow multiple suppliers to bid with existing
and new systems.
NASA's rocket procurement spec should fit on 1 page.
Dear prospective supplier
We would like to buy rocket launches.
1. It must carry X tons, Y1 metres in diamter and Y2m high to an orbit
at Z
2. It must be Man Rated (by a team not involved in the procurement
process)
Please provide prices for a batch of 12 launches at these dates.....
Please note that price will be the main selection criteria.
Yours Faithfully,
NASA Procurement Office. |
|
|
| Back to top |
|
|
|
| Rand Simberg |
| Posted: Fri Feb 04, 2005 10:29 am |
|
|
|
Guest
|
On 4 Feb 2005 07:15:57 -0800, in a place far, far away, "Alex Terrell"
<alexterrell@yahoo.com> made the phosphor on my monitor glow in such a
way as to indicate that:
[quote:beed08126d]For Delta to go to 40 tons is a major project, but the uncertainties
are limited. so I'd say it's not "Rocket Science"*, even if it's a
little bit of Rocket Science.
*I am assuming the phrase "it's not rocket science" has a meaning in
the American version of English. Is this correct?
[/quote:beed08126d]
Yes, though these days, even rocket science isn't rocket science.
It's mostly rocket engineering. |
|
|
| Back to top |
|
|
|
|
