| Science Forum Index » Space Forum » EELVs Are A Bad Deal |
|
Page 1 of 4 Goto page 1, 2, 3, 4 Next |
|
| Author |
Message |
| Ed Kyle |
 Posted: Mon Feb 07, 2005 11:59 am |
|
|
|
Guest
|
So says Jeff Wright.
"http://www.spacedaily.com/news/oped-05za.html"
- Ed Kyle |
|
|
| Back to top |
|
|
|
| Damon Hill |
| Posted: Mon Feb 07, 2005 1:48 pm |
|
|
|
Guest
|
"Ed Kyle" <edkyle99@hotmail.com> wrote in news:1107795542.650249.123320
@c13g2000cwb.googlegroups.com:
[quote:b06330bc74]http://www.spacedaily.com/news/oped-05za.html
[/quote:b06330bc74]
Gosh, he spent so much time bashing the Delta IV Heavy
(and not making much sense in the process), that
he completely overlooks Atlas V, and all of Delta
IV's previously successful flights.
So the Heavy got a little blackened at liftoff.
So what? 20+ G acceleration? Huh? Yes, it takes
off vertically; don't most rockets? Yes, once in
a great while something goes boom, which is why
there are large expanses of empty land (and ocean)
around the launch pad.
100 tons to orbit with a three RS-68 ET? Unless
it's with the SRBs, I don't think so.
Most of his objections make little or no sense.
Typical Space Daily op-ed piece, completely one-dimensional
in its myopia. Disgusting!
--Damon |
|
|
| Back to top |
|
|
|
| Ed Kyle |
| Posted: Mon Feb 07, 2005 4:50 pm |
|
|
|
Guest
|
Iain Young wrote:
[quote:ba85a83b3e]On 2005-02-07, Damon Hill <damon1six1@comcast.not> wrote:
Must admit, wasnt suprised when I read it myself. SpaceDaily appears
to like "controversial" pieces.
[/quote:ba85a83b3e]
It has to be the tabloid rag of space web sites.
- Ed Kyle |
|
|
| Back to top |
|
|
|
| Alex Terrell |
| Posted: Mon Feb 07, 2005 5:04 pm |
|
|
|
Guest
|
I get the impression that proposals for Shuttle Derived vehicles are
about keeping NASA in the launch business.
We had a long discussion about 6 - 12 months back about how much it
would cost, and it would depend mostly on how many of the 10,000s of
staff would need to come with it. How about NASA issues a launch
manifest, and then the proponents of shuttle Derived Heavy lift can go
to the venture capitalists and suggest they buy the equipment and make
lots of money?
Interesting quote: Griffin also said that ... he takes a 'dim view' of
approaches that would rely on orbital staging and assembly operations,"
and how he doesn't "'think EELV is a competitive option...'"
What does he mean by "orbital assembly". This implies astronauts going
out and doing complex building stuff. All that would be needed is for
two vehicles to dock and head off. Docking is hardly complex - these
days you wouldn't even need any solid data links. |
|
|
| Back to top |
|
|
|
| Ed Kyle |
| Posted: Mon Feb 07, 2005 5:19 pm |
|
|
|
Guest
|
One would think that NASA would like the orbital
assembly concept. It requires steady funding and
management of a repetitive process. It shares
many traits of the current shuttle/ISS program.
It involves the running of continuous production
lines for space flight hardware. That's where the
real money will be spent anyway, rather than in
launch vehicles.
- Ed Kyle |
|
|
| Back to top |
|
|
|
| Alex Terrell |
| Posted: Mon Feb 07, 2005 5:40 pm |
|
|
|
Guest
|
By orbital assembly, do they mean real assembly? Surely you'd just need
orbital rendezvous. |
|
|
| Back to top |
|
|
|
| Andrew Nowicki |
| Posted: Mon Feb 07, 2005 7:25 pm |
|
|
|
Guest
|
Throwaway rocket launchers make as much sense
as throwaway airliners. Perfectly reusable first
stage of the rocket launcher can be made of
aluminum alloy rather than unobtanium.
Telerobotic orbital assembly is a great idea.
This is why astronauts spent so much effort
lobbying against it.
PS. Have you noticed the proliferation of
acronyms among NASA and its contractors?
HLLV = Heavy Lift Launch Vehicle
Maybe a scramjet?
EELV = Evolved Expendable Launch Vehicle
Perhaps a big cannon projectile?
These guys cannot invent anything except
new acronyms. They actually need lots of
mysterious acronyms to hide their incompetence. |
|
|
| Back to top |
|
|
|
| Douglas Holmes |
| Posted: Mon Feb 07, 2005 7:45 pm |
|
|
|
Guest
|
"Ed Kyle" <edkyle99@hotmail.com> wrote in message
news:1107795542.650249.123320@c13g2000cwb.googlegroups.com...
[quote:f95d5ad2cd]So says Jeff Wright.
"http://www.spacedaily.com/news/oped-05za.html"
About the only thing he got right IMO was engine out.[/quote:f95d5ad2cd]
How in the world does he get 25Gs?
Plus Boeing already has minor improvements taking the Delta to over
40 tons to LEO and I am sure Lockheed is not far behind. |
|
|
| Back to top |
|
|
|
| Murray Anderson |
| Posted: Mon Feb 07, 2005 8:12 pm |
|
|
|
Guest
|
"Douglas Holmes" <noholmesdgspam@verizon.net> wrote in message
news:EYTNd.13976$uc.12480@trnddc02...
[quote:ebb4d6471c]
"Ed Kyle" <edkyle99@hotmail.com> wrote in message
news:1107795542.650249.123320@c13g2000cwb.googlegroups.com...
So says Jeff Wright.
"http://www.spacedaily.com/news/oped-05za.html"
About the only thing he got right IMO was engine out.
How in the world does he get 25Gs?
[/quote:ebb4d6471c]
He is probably referring to re-entry deceleration of the CEV in abort modes
from the very steep ascent of Delta IVH. But the writing is so appallingly
bad, who can know?
[quote:ebb4d6471c]Plus Boeing already has minor improvements taking the Delta to over
40 tons to LEO and I am sure Lockheed is not far behind.
[/quote:ebb4d6471c]
Lockheed has their proposed upgrades path in their latest Atlas manual at
the ILS website. Here's the link to the relevant section:
http://www.ilslaunch.com/missionplanner/pdf/AMPG10_Sec_8.pdf (about 1 Meg)
They have a proposal for a fat Centaur, combined with a fat lower stage with
two RD-180's, about 25 tons to LEO, which is probably their intended entry
for the CEV launcher. No schedule given, though.
Murray Anderson |
|
|
| Back to top |
|
|
|
| Douglas Holmes |
| Posted: Mon Feb 07, 2005 8:48 pm |
|
|
|
Guest
|
"Murray Anderson" <murraya@k1ngst0n.net> wrote in message
news:110g4a6s75g8e7c@corp.supernews.com...
[quote:49c7628d14]
"Douglas Holmes" <noholmesdgspam@verizon.net> wrote in message
news:EYTNd.13976$uc.12480@trnddc02...
"Ed Kyle" <edkyle99@hotmail.com> wrote in message
news:1107795542.650249.123320@c13g2000cwb.googlegroups.com...
So says Jeff Wright.
"http://www.spacedaily.com/news/oped-05za.html"
About the only thing he got right IMO was engine out.
How in the world does he get 25Gs?
He is probably referring to re-entry deceleration of the CEV in abort
modes
from the very steep ascent of Delta IVH. But the writing is so appallingly
bad, who can know?
Plus Boeing already has minor improvements taking the Delta to over
40 tons to LEO and I am sure Lockheed is not far behind.
Lockheed has their proposed upgrades path in their latest Atlas manual at
the ILS website. Here's the link to the relevant section:
http://www.ilslaunch.com/missionplanner/pdf/AMPG10_Sec_8.pdf (about 1 Meg)
They have a proposal for a fat Centaur, combined with a fat lower stage
with
two RD-180's, about 25 tons to LEO, which is probably their intended entry
for the CEV launcher. No schedule given, though.
First readable proposal I have seen for expanding the Atlas.[/quote:49c7628d14]
They really seem to love using multiple RL-10s!
4 RL-10s for a single engine first stage really adds a big boost to LEO from
1.
Now if only someone could convince Boeing to follow the same methods.
Then we would have two killer rockets with engine out capability. |
|
|
| Back to top |
|
|
|
| Damon Hill |
| Posted: Mon Feb 07, 2005 8:48 pm |
|
|
|
Guest
|
"Murray Anderson" <murraya@k1ngst0n.net> wrote in
news:110g4a6s75g8e7c@corp.supernews.com:
[quote:48aa768964]http://www.ilslaunch.com/missionplanner/pdf/AMPG10_Sec_8.pdf
[/quote:48aa768964]
Interesting that RL-10 engines are proposed for the new
wide-body Centaur, and the RL-60 engines with more than double
the thrust are not mentioned.
The RL-60 was supposed to have gone to full assembly and
test firing in late 1993, but I've heard nothing about it
since then.
This new version of Centaur, still with balloon tanks, is
starting to resemble the S-II stage--which had six RL-10s,
albeit the early lower-thrust design--and only barely wider
tanks.
--Damon |
|
|
| Back to top |
|
|
|
| Neil Halelamien |
| Posted: Mon Feb 07, 2005 9:13 pm |
|
|
|
Guest
|
|
| Back to top |
|
|
|
| George William Herbert |
| Posted: Mon Feb 07, 2005 9:41 pm |
|
|
|
Guest
|
Douglas Holmes <noholmesdgspam@verizon.net> wrote:
[quote:e33892ed26]How in the world does he get 25Gs?
[/quote:e33892ed26]
Hypothesis: worst case abort re-entry loads on the
returning capsule, due to Delta-IV Heavy trajectory
design constraints.
-george william herbert
gherbert@retro.com |
|
|
| Back to top |
|
|
|
| Rand Simberg |
| Posted: Mon Feb 07, 2005 10:32 pm |
|
|
|
Guest
|
On 08 Feb 2005 02:41:18 GMT, in a place far, far away,
gherbert@retro.com (George William Herbert) made the phosphor on my
monitor glow in such a way as to indicate that:
[quote:57bce3972b]Douglas Holmes <noholmesdgspam@verizon.net> wrote:
How in the world does he get 25Gs?
Hypothesis: worst case abort re-entry loads on the
returning capsule, due to Delta-IV Heavy trajectory
design constraints.
[/quote:57bce3972b]
I wonder where he got those, and if they're applicable to a
low-inclination launch, where you don't have to worry about a north
Atlantic abort? |
|
|
| Back to top |
|
|
|
| Neil Halelamien |
| Posted: Tue Feb 08, 2005 5:18 am |
|
|
|
Guest
|
[quote:8cdee40ba6]They actually need lots of mysterious acronyms to hide their
incompetence.[/quote:8cdee40ba6]
What would you prefer they use instead? |
|
|
| Back to top |
|
|
|
|
