CEV history

Brian Thorn wrote:

So that's how we got Constellation (although I'd prefer EELV-derived
launch systems, that's really just a small detail in the big picture).

A small detail in the big picture, perhaps, but a very large one in
the current budget mess. When first proposed, the VSE came with a
$1 billion / year plus-up to the NASA budget. That's enough to pay
for the $5 billion CEV in five years, which is the amount of time NASA
had until the Shuttle would be retired.

What the VSE didn't come with was a big enough plus-up to fund the Stick.
That extra $5 billion development is what is blasting holes in the aero-
nautics, science, Shuttle, and Station budgets. Without the Stick there
wouldn't be nearly the opposition in Washington that there is now.

Mike

-----
Michael Kent Apple II Forever!!
St. Peters, MO

"Michael Kent" wrote in message
...
Brian Thorn wrote:

So that's how we got Constellation (although I'd prefer EELV-derived
launch systems, that's really just a small detail in the big picture).

A small detail in the big picture, perhaps, but a very large one in
the current budget mess. When first proposed, the VSE came with a
$1 billion / year plus-up to the NASA budget. That's enough to pay
for the $5 billion CEV in five years, which is the amount of time NASA
had until the Shuttle would be retired.

What the VSE didn't come with was a big enough plus-up to fund the Stick.
That extra $5 billion development is what is blasting holes in the aero-
nautics, science, Shuttle, and Station budgets. Without the Stick there
wouldn't be nearly the opposition in Washington that there is now.


You hit the nail on the head.

Not only was it originally supposed to be EELV based but take to 2014.
At the very least the EELVs could have handled the unmanned tests unchanged.
With the compressed schedule this would have saved millions if not billions
over the next several years.

The Stick IMO has the potential to kill or seriously harm this whole
program.
Even more then before since it now needs both an unflown larger solid
and a brand new upper stage of which the largest part is an engine
that has yet to be built or tested.

All the while NASA keeps saying the reason to use it is that it is
a proven system. It is this kind of logic that can kill astronauts.

"Douglas Holmes" wrote in message
news:jz1Kf.3005$GQ.2768@trnddc03...
The Stick IMO has the potential to kill or seriously harm this whole
program.
Even more then before since it now needs both an unflown larger solid
and a brand new upper stage of which the largest part is an engine
that has yet to be built or tested.

To be fair, the J-2S has been built and tested, but that was literally
decades ago:

http://www.astronautix.com/engines/j2s.htm

The most recent notes (from the above web page) on this engine a

It was estimated by ATK Thiokol in 2005 that restarting the J-2S
program,
including engine fabrication, design and reliability verification,
certification, and production, would require four years. Although no
J-2S
tooling was known to exist, modern soft tooling could be developed
quickly and less expensively than the original hard tooling. There was
an
existing manufacturing and supplier network in place to support a J-2S
restart.
All the while NASA keeps saying the reason to use it is that it is
a proven system. It is this kind of logic that can kill astronauts.

I doubt that, given the J-2S lineage, but it certainly has the potential to
increase development time and cost for The Stick if any development problems
are encountered.

Jeff
--
Remove icky phrase from email address to get a valid address.