OSP - any bets on what it'll look like?

Hang on, I'll just get a new tube of Evo-Stik and I'm sure we will have
something for the press in a couple of days....

:-)

Brian

--
Brian Gaff....
graphics are great, but the blind can't hear them
Email:
__________________________________________________ __________________________
__________________________________


"Terrence Daniels" wrote in
message news | Of course, I'm asking this because of the story that's all over the space
| rags today:
|
| http://www.spaceflightnow.com/news/n0307/23osp/
|
| I searched through old threads and found one about the HL-20 and HL-42.
This
| thing sounds practically half-designed already!
|
| http://www.astronautix.com/craft/hl20.htm
| http://www.astronautix.com/craft/hl42.htm
|
| But then NASA sounds like it's backing off on the "plane" part and actual
| requirements are far more general. What's the deal? Is this a budgetary
| issue? From where I sit it's money for a new capsule system or money to
| FINISH developing an old project.
|
| Who makes the final choice between "capsule" and "plane"? I suppose the
| contractors will build whatever the hell they get an order for, because
| business is business, so it would be up to...?
|
|


---
Outgoing mail is certified Virus Free.
Checked by AVG anti-virus system (http://www.grisoft.com).
Version: 6.0.502 / Virus Database: 300 - Release Date: 18/07/03

http://www.spaceflightnow.com/news/n0307/23osp/


After some contemplating I think it should be a capsule design that is designed
to land on land and water.

Easier, cheaper, more reliable. Have some components modular reusable and keep
it in low production indefinetely so incremental improvements can be made. For
maximum utility it should hold at least 7 and preferably 10 people. The added
capacity would help the cargo version.

They should get a mnove on and just do it!!!!

"Kim Keller" wrote in message
m...

"Terrence Daniels" wrote in
message news
But then NASA sounds like it's backing off on the "plane" part and
actual
requirements are far more general. What's the deal? Is this a budgetary
issue? From where I sit it's money for a new capsule system or money to
FINISH developing an old project.

I can't say much about the program (because I'm inside it) but NASA has
structured the requirements so that the contractors will tell NASA what is
the best way to do the mission. NASA is bending over backwards to make
sure
that it doesn't influence the contractors one way or another on what OSP
should look like.
You speak about "the contractors". Why were those three chosen ?

-kert

"Kim Keller" wrote in message
m...

"Terrence Daniels" wrote in
message news
But then NASA sounds like it's backing off on the "plane" part and
actual
requirements are far more general. What's the deal? Is this a budgetary
issue? From where I sit it's money for a new capsule system or money to
FINISH developing an old project.

I can't say much about the program (because I'm inside it) but NASA has
structured the requirements so that the contractors will tell NASA what is
the best way to do the mission. NASA is bending over backwards to make
sure
that it doesn't influence the contractors one way or another on what OSP
should look like.


Which is interesting, because the astronaut office is saying something entirely
different.

CB is advocating an idea that revolves around the concept of Simple, Safe, and
Soon. Apparently, a brief that was given to O'Keefe stipulated that NASA will
provide the detailed design requirements (e.g., essentially the blueprints!)
for [the] follow-on vehicle (whether OSP or not), as opposed to letting the
contractors load it up with non-essential capabilities. O'Keefe apparently
liked and approved the idea.

Andy


"Gee, I thought we'd be a lot higher at MECO!"
[Steve Hawley, STS 41-D pad abort, 1984]

"Andy" wrote in message

Which is interesting, because the astronaut office is saying something
entirely
different.

CB is advocating an idea that revolves around the concept of Simple, Safe,
and
Soon. Apparently, a brief that was given to O'Keefe stipulated that NASA
will
provide the detailed design requirements (e.g., essentially the
blueprints!)
for [the] follow-on vehicle (whether OSP or not), as opposed to letting
the
contractors load it up with non-essential capabilities. O'Keefe apparently
liked and approved the idea.

Andy

Form Follows Function.

What does it need to do? I've been reading articles about potential OSP
designs. I read one quote (I think it was from space.com).

"The other side is urging NASA to push the envelope and develop an Orbital
Space Plane that not only meets the needs of the space station program but
also puts the agency in position to move out beyond low Earth orbit."

Is it just me, or is that one of the stupidest things ever said? A space
"taxi" and a vehicle to go to the moon or Mars ... those all have very
different requirements.

I'm glad to hear what CB is supporting - it makes good sense.

Jon

-- Statements made here are my presented only as my own opinions, and do not
necessarily represent those of my employer or any other entity.

Form Follows Function.

Indeed, but taking an incremental approach to designing future vehicles may be
more productive than designing a vehicle to do just one thing.

For instance, why design a vehicle just to service station? Particularly when
that vehicle isn't going to come on-line until 5-6 years before the planned
end-of-life of the vehicle it is exclusively designed to support? Sounds like a
waste of time and money to me.

If you can design a block upgradeable vehicle around the concept that it will
not only support station but will provide the template for vehicles for
exploration beyond LEO, this might be more politically palatable than a one-off
program such as OSP is currently envisioned to be.

Since this is at least nominally an international project, I believe we should
be utilizing planned European and Japanese (ATV, HTV) vehicles to fulfill our
crew transfer needs; the whole "Buy American" idea is going to negatively
impact our ability to move beyond ISS. Need a CRV? Buy Soyuz, beyond the 11
planned (or "buy" them indirectly, through ESA).

OSP is a bad idea; there are plenty of viable alternatives, and hopefully the
Congress and the administrator will see the light before we waste another x
billion dollars on a dead-end program.

Andy



"Gee, I thought we'd be a lot higher at MECO!"
[Steve Hawley, STS 41-D pad abort, 1984]

I'm sure it will change completely at least three or four times before the
project is cancelled.

Dosco


"Terrence Daniels" wrote in
message news
Of course, I'm asking this because of the story that's all over the space
rags today:

http://www.spaceflightnow.com/news/n0307/23osp/

I searched through old threads and found one about the HL-20 and HL-42.
This
thing sounds practically half-designed already!

http://www.astronautix.com/craft/hl20.htm
http://www.astronautix.com/craft/hl42.htm

But then NASA sounds like it's backing off on the "plane" part and actual
requirements are far more general. What's the deal? Is this a budgetary
issue? From where I sit it's money for a new capsule system or money to
FINISH developing an old project.

Who makes the final choice between "capsule" and "plane"? I suppose the
contractors will build whatever the hell they get an order for, because
business is business, so it would be up to...?

"Brian Gaff" wrote in message
...
Hang on, I'll just get a new tube of Evo-Stik and I'm sure we will have
something for the press in a couple of days....

That's about the sum of things right now, isn't it!

I'm going to throw out the infamous Monty Python quote:

"It's only a model!"

I think right now the 3D people at various contractors are having the most
fun with this. Take the model of the OSP you built last week, load up the
file for the Delta IV from the archive, merge the files, stick one on top of
the other... Throw in a picture of the earth for the background and render.
Do that about ten times...

"Dosco Jones" wrote in message
arthlink.net...

I'm sure it will change completely at least three or four times before the
project is cancelled.

Indeed, that's the elephant in the room. I get the feeling that it's one of
the unspoken reasons for advocating a capsule system...

"Kim Keller" wrote in message
m...
I can't say much about the program (because I'm inside it) but NASA has
structured the requirements so that the contractors will tell NASA what is
the best way to do the mission.

Ah, OK, so that's what the level one requirements are for. They just said...
"We need a relatively simple & cheap ELV-riding machine to do X, Y, and Z"
and the contractors will get to work. Have they revised the requirements
any? In light of Columbia, I think it would be a plus if contractors could
add Shuttle rescue capability.

It's also
possible that the design for the CRV may be different from the CTV -
that's
how much flexibility the requirements allow.

I would imagine that modularity would play a big role in any design for this
system.

Personally, I think the program ought to be renamed - "Orbital Space
Plane"
has led everyone to believe that NASA has fixated on a winged vehicle and
is
steering the program in that direction. This is not the case.

That's what was confusing me, really. I was wondering why there was the
sudden shift to accepting a capsule-type option, when it was still called
"OSP." That almost implies indecision, or maybe even bias, which is not a
good thing.

I suggest something like "Rocket-Powered Body Hauler." Calling it "Meat
Wagon" has some bad connotations even though it's accurate.