Plotting A New Course for NASA

On 11/29/2011 12:26 PM, Matt Wiser wrote:
On Nov 29, 3:07 am, bob wrote:
He did by authorizing ET-122 be restored from Katrina damage and using
ET-138 on an actual flight and not held in reserve for a rescue
flight. The only remaining complete, flightworthy tank is ET-94, the
last Light Weight Tank, heavier than the Super Light Weight Tanks
(ET-96 and up, ET-95 was never built, neither was ET-7) used for Space
Station missions, and thus not really suitable for Station work.

I believe there were 3 more in the works (I'd have to wiki/google it but my
browser is acting up right now.)

And ET-94 was usable, just limited the payload. Which for post construction
flights was less of an issue.

Brian

nasa stated publically the chance of a lost vehicle and crew was like
30% if it continued flying.

no one wanted to see another orbiter destroyed, and another flight
crew lost.......

the problem wasnt ending the shuttle program.

the problem was the **** poor political driven replacement choice.

if nasa had choosen to put a new capsule on top of a expendable atlas
or delta, and we would of been flying by now.

And this from someone who wants to end HSF? Btw, Bobbert, Orion wasn't
going to be flight-ready under CxP until 2013 under their original
plan, and not until 2015 under the final CxP plans. Again, being
naive, technologically ignorant, politically ignorant, and
disregarding anything that clashes with your fantasies won't get you
anywhere.

It depends on when the choice was made. If Griffin had chosen in 2005 to
design CEV to be flown on existing vehicles, and not develop Ares I, CEV
would probably be close to flight test by now.

On Nov 29, 6:48*pm, "Jorge R. Frank" wrote:
On 11/29/2011 12:26 PM, Matt Wiser wrote:





On Nov 29, 3:07 am, bob *wrote:
He did by authorizing ET-122 be restored from Katrina damage and using
ET-138 on an actual flight and not held in reserve for a rescue
flight. The only remaining complete, flightworthy tank is ET-94, the
last Light Weight Tank, heavier than the Super Light Weight Tanks
(ET-96 and up, ET-95 was never built, neither was ET-7) used for Space
Station missions, and thus not really suitable for Station work.

I believe there were 3 more in the works (I'd have to wiki/google it but my
browser is acting up right now.)

And ET-94 was usable, just limited the payload. *Which for post construction
flights was less of an issue.

Brian

nasa stated publically the chance of a lost vehicle and crew was like
30% if it continued flying.

no one wanted to see another orbiter destroyed, and another flight
crew lost.......

the problem wasnt ending the shuttle program.

the problem was the **** poor political driven replacement choice.

if nasa had choosen to put a new capsule on top of a expendable atlas
or delta, and we would of been flying by now.

And this from someone who wants to end HSF? Btw, Bobbert, Orion wasn't
going to be flight-ready under CxP until 2013 under their original
plan, and not until 2015 under the final CxP plans. Again, being
naive, technologically ignorant, politically ignorant, and
disregarding anything that clashes with your fantasies won't get you
anywhere.

It depends on when the choice was made. If Griffin had chosen in 2005 to
design CEV to be flown on existing vehicles, and not develop Ares I, CEV
would probably be close to flight test by now.- Hide quoted text -

- Show quoted text -

The original CxP plan had Ares I and CEV ready for flight test in
2013. Now we'll get Orion on EFT-1 in 2014 on a Delta IV Heavy. IF,
and I do mean if, NASA chose an EELV for Orion crew launches to LEO,
it'd still take three years to human-rate an existing vehicle.
Something the Bobbert doesn't seem to get-but then again, he's living
in his fantasy world anyway. He seems to think that all you need to do
is stick the capsule on the rocket and that's it. Wrong. But also, the
Bobbert's been against any HSF, so.....his general ignorance and naive
thinking show where he is.

In article cbfa807f-8ca7-44dd-92ee-f7bae5da7771
@o1g2000vbe.googlegroups.com, says...

On Nov 29, 6:48*pm, "Jorge R. Frank" wrote:

It depends on when the choice was made. If Griffin had chosen in 2005 to
design CEV to be flown on existing vehicles, and not develop Ares I, CEV
would probably be close to flight test by now.- Hide quoted text -

- Show quoted text -

The original CxP plan had Ares I and CEV ready for flight test in
2013. Now we'll get Orion on EFT-1 in 2014 on a Delta IV Heavy. IF,
and I do mean if, NASA chose an EELV for Orion crew launches to LEO,
it'd still take three years to human-rate an existing vehicle.
Something the Bobbert doesn't seem to get-but then again, he's living
in his fantasy world anyway. He seems to think that all you need to do
is stick the capsule on the rocket and that's it. Wrong. But also, the
Bobbert's been against any HSF, so.....his general ignorance and naive
thinking show where he is.

So if the decision was made in 2005 to go with EELV and the "man
rating" work took six years instead of three, we'd still have a "man
rated" EELV by now (nearly the beginning of 2012).


At this point it's also interesting to note that "man rating" means
anything that NASA says it means. They not only write the rules, but
they also write the waivers for when their favorite launch vehicle can't
meet the original specs. Because of this, the process can be as long
and expensive, or as short and as inexpensive, as NASA wants it to be.

Furthermore, "safety" at NASA is as driven by politics as much as their
choice of launch vehicles. In fact, it's obvious that they're tightly
coupled. The biggest example of this is the selection of Ares I for
crew launch on the basis of "safety". That was, and still is, one of
the biggest lies in recent NASA history. The original Ares I "design"
wasn't even workable, let alone "safe".

Paper rockets are *always* claimed to be safer than what's flying, but
reality is almost never as rosy as the original analysis would have you
think. Unfortunately at the paper rocket stage, engineers don't know
what they don't know (like just how big the dispersal field is for
flaming bits of SRB propellant after a case rupture). Openly admitting
that fact is political suicide while trying to "sell" the program to the
politicians, but those very same unknowns are what tend to cause
schedule slips and cost overruns.

Jeff
--
" Ares 1 is a prime example of the fact that NASA just can't get it
up anymore... and when they can, it doesn't stay up long. "
- tinker