Orion Max Launch Abort test vehicle

[Pat Flannery]

Little Joe 3?
Looks like something out of the 1930s - sort of the BIS moon ship with
eight Saturn I fins hung on it:
http://www.onorbit.com/node/1105
Design would be a good subject for a flying model rocket.

Pat

[Pat Flannery]

OM wrote:
> On Fri, 12 Jun 2009 10:30:28 -0500, Pat Flannery >
> wrote:
>
>
>> http://www.onorbit.com/node/1105
>>
>
> ...Is this another Keith Cowing site?
>
Damned if I know.
Can't link to this one either, huh?
I saved the page, and will send it to you.


Pat

[Pat Flannery]

OM wrote:
> ...It's a SpaceRef spinoff site. The more this **** happens, the
> closer I am to setting up Tor so Keith can't block me ever again.
> That'll stick in his craw more than NASA releasing his HR file showing
> the proof of what we already know about his justifiable termination.
>

I can see blocking someone from posting comments to a website, but not
even letting them see it seems strange, rather like picking up a copy of
AW&ST at a newsstand and being told you can't buy it.
You weren't leaking stuff from those websites to the _commies_ were you,
son?
"OM"?
"Our Mao"?
Have to keep an eye on you, won't we?
What's that next to your mouth...SOY SAUCE?! :-D

Pat

[Pat Flannery]

OM wrote:
> ...As I've been informed, it's all related to being banned from NSF,
> which Keith had a significant portion of blame. He quite simply hates
> my guts because I've been a detractor of his for years, having no
> qualms in pointing out that his anti-NASA bias is all based on his
> having been jusfitably terminated by NASA, something most of us
> regulars have been aware of for quite some time.
>
>

From what I remember, he got ditched from NASA during Goldin's
downsizing and tossing the aging brain trust out in favor of the new
young Turks who would owe fealty to him.
Which of course led to disasters under the "better, faster, cheaper"
approach when really basic mistakes were made (particularly in regard to
the Mars probes) because the people that worked on the Mariner and
Viking missions weren't there to consult with anymore.
Even one of those missions fails, and you could have paid a lot of NASA
employees for several years on the amount of investment that just got
wasted.
Frankly, I can't figure out his fixation on things like doing polar
simulations of Mars bases, living in underwater habitats to simulate
long-duration spaceflight, or what the hell the space mission
relationship to climbing Mt. Everest is, but considering what a
egotistical nut case Goldin turned out to be, I can easily see why he's
****ed off about what NASA became after his time there.

Pat

[BradGuth]

On Jun 12, 8:30*am, Pat Flannery > wrote:
> Little Joe 3?
> Looks like something out of the 1930s - sort of the BIS moon ship with
> eight Saturn I fins hung on it:http://www.onorbit.com/node/1105
> Design would be a good subject for a flying model rocket.
>
> Pat

Why not save all the inert mass and expense, by simply using the 100%
reliable Saturn 5, that our our trusty Zionist Nazis created for us?

If their mostly solid rocket below explodes as quickly and violently
as by rights it should, perhaps nothing is going to save their butts.
So why add the inert payload mass (6150 kg) of whatever LAS?

We're talking about their tower LAS or heavier MLAS upgrade needing at
least 100 meters per second acceleration (10+g), and that's going to
take some extra special fly-by-rocket doings.
~ BG

[Jeff Findley]

"OM" > wrote in message
...
> On Sat, 13 Jun 2009 00:12:07 -0500, Pat Flannery >
> wrote:
>
>> From what I remember, he got ditched from NASA during Goldin's
>>downsizing and tossing the aging brain trust out in favor of the new
>>young Turks who would owe fealty to him.
>
> ...That may have been NASA's public justification at the time, but
> from what I've gathered from various sources - two of them are former
> regulars from around here - Keith got rather ****y about some new
> programming language he was championing being rejected in favor of one
> that was, in his words, "nowhere near as robust or stable". The
> language that was selected, however, had been proven in tests to be
> easier to code and debug, and was actually far more stable than
> Keith's language was. If the stories are correct, one of Keith's
> supervisors simply got tired of Keith whining about it, and he was
> told to shut up or leave. He didn't shut up, so they kicked him out
> the door. He's been on the anti-NASA vendetta ever since.

There's no shortage of engineers who will complain about decisions that are
made. In my experience, often times, the "whining" is absolutely justified.

I recall a time (at a company who shall remain nameless) when there were
three options that were to be investigated for their technical merits. The
top technical leads investigated the three options rather thoroughly (more
than a man-year of effort). But it was all for nothing. Ultimately,
management overruled and the least technically appealing solution was
chosen. Apparently management wanted a rubber stamp for a decision that was
already made and was quite upset when the option they picked wasn't #1 on
the list. Also, the technical leads weren't happy that they had blown over
a man year of effort for nothing.

Now, I'm not saying Keith was right or wrong on the technical merits of the
decision in question. However, ultimately, you need to STFU or GTFO. In my
story, the tech leads were split between STFU and GTFO. Apparently Keith
didn't know how to do either.

Jeff
--
"Take heart amid the deepening gloom
that your dog is finally getting enough cheese" - Deteriorata - National
Lampoon