Griffin Wants Inline SDLV and 5 Segment SRB/CEV

Kim Keller wrote:

Oh well, it was interesting while it lasted. We now return you to the same
ol' NASA, the National Aerospace Study Administration. (our motto,
"powerpoint never killed anyone").

LOL!

I laughed. I cried. I laughed because it was funny. I cried because it
was true.

Mike

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

Reed Snellenberger wrote:

Congress has made it pretty clear that they want the schedule for CEV to be
accelerated so that it's available for crew launches by 2010.

Close. They want to close the gap between Shuttle and CEV. But they're
beginning to come together around an amendment that would extend Shuttle
flights until CEV is ready, not move CEV up.

They also
make it pretty clear that they trust Griffin's technical judgement.

They did until they started seeing its pricetag. That will change. Just
watch.

It wouldn't entirely surprise me to see the first qualification launche of
the 5-segment stick booster (no upper stage) by late 2006, using Pad 39B
and the third MLP as infrastructure.

This from an agency (NASA) and a center (Marshall) that took *six years*
to get X-37 from viewgraph to captive carry test? I think you over-
estimate their chances.

Mike

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

On Sat, 02 Jul 2005 19:54:05 GMT,
(Michael Kent) wrote:

Close. They want to close the gap between Shuttle and CEV. But they're
beginning to come together around an amendment that would extend Shuttle
flights until CEV is ready, not move CEV up.

Actually, it looks like Congress wants *both*. Move CEV up to 2012 and
extend Shuttle ops through 2011 or 2012. That's not such a bad idea,
really. That artificial "the Station has to be finished by 2010"
schedule pressure is exactly what led to the Columbia disaster. Lift
the mandatory retirement *date* and instead retire the Shuttle after
STS-141 is home (or -142 if they reinstate Hubble SM4.) In the
meantime, there's less pressure to get a quick-and-dirty CEV to the
pad and less chance for design errors slipping through in the name of
expediency.

They also
make it pretty clear that they trust Griffin's technical judgement.

They did until they started seeing its pricetag. That will change. Just
watch.

Yeah, to a degree. But I don't think anyone on the Hill is fooling
themselves that VSE is going to be cheap. It's going to come down to
the actual price tag. "Big budget" might be okay with Congress, but
"massively big budget" won't be. I don't see anything in the Stick/CEV
concept that is going to cause outrageous sticker shock on the Hill.
The in-line might, but it will be a few more years before we start
spending big money on it. And NASA can always fall back on the
much-cheaper Shuttle-C-like SDV for heavy lift later if the in-line is
looking to be too expensive. We could do a helluva lot with a
Shuttle-C and a Stick.

This from an agency (NASA) and a center (Marshall) that took *six years*
to get X-37 from viewgraph to captive carry test? I think you over-
estimate their chances.

I think there's a little more urgency for Stick/CEV than there was for
X-37.

Brian

"Scott Lowther" wrote in message
...
Kim Keller wrote:





It wouldn't entirely surprise me to see the first qualification launche
of
the 5-segment stick booster (no upper stage) by late 2006, using Pad 39B
and the third MLP as infrastructure.



There's no way the avionics and the TVC system will be ready for test by
then.

Errrrrmmmm... the TVC system is available *now.* However, the likelihood
of another 5-segment test by the end of 2006 is... really low. Much less
a *flight.*


2008, and I am being generous.

Rand Simberg wrote:
On Sat, 02 Jul 2005 15:56:06 -0500, in a place far, far away, Brian
Thorn made the phosphor on my monitor glow in such
a way as to indicate that:

Actually, it looks like Congress wants *both*. Move CEV up to 2012 and
extend Shuttle ops through 2011 or 2012. That's not such a bad idea,
really. That artificial "the Station has to be finished by 2010"
schedule pressure is exactly what led to the Columbia disaster. Lift
the mandatory retirement *date* and instead retire the Shuttle after
STS-141 is home (or -142 if they reinstate Hubble SM4.) In the
meantime, there's less pressure to get a quick-and-dirty CEV to the
pad and less chance for design errors slipping through in the name of
expediency.

Well, since Griffin is determined to maintain the Shuttle
infrastructure, there's now no forcing function to retire the Orbiter,
since production will continue on ETs and SRBs ad infinitum. Had they
only procured enough for the final STS flights, ending it at that date
(or at least after that number of flights) would have been a
certainty.

griffen does appear determined to keep the shuttle infrastructure going
for now--which probably has more to do with Griffen's political acumen
than his technical judgment. The shuttle infrastructure was going to
'keep going' until Congress thought the CEV was ready anyway, and if
there had been any slip-ups in CEV schedule, it would have been a
justification for maintaining the full shuttle architecture. This gives
Congressmen and women something positive to take back to their
constituents. Instead of "we're cutting your program to pay for the
VSE", it's "we're using your program to get the VSE done," which will
make constituents happy and be more likely to open Congress's purse and
prevent cancellation or downscaling in the out years.

Look, the reality is no matter what scheme NASA chose, EELV based or
SDLV, it was not going to 'sustainable.' That's the nature of
government programs. The US Navy's been running McMurdo in Antarctica
for years. It's a huge installation, it'll continue to operate for the
next century probably, and it WILL NEVER EVER BE SUSTAINABLE. That's
not the point. The point of the VSE is to act as the 'icebreakers' to
get humanity into space on a regular basis. As long as no
Antarctic-like treaty is agreed to, commercial exploration and
exploitation of off world resources will take over when it is
financially feasible.

cuddihy

On Sat, 02 Jul 2005 15:56:06 -0500, in a place far, far away, Brian
Thorn made the phosphor on my monitor glow in such
a way as to indicate that:

Actually, it looks like Congress wants *both*. Move CEV up to 2012 and
extend Shuttle ops through 2011 or 2012. That's not such a bad idea,
really. That artificial "the Station has to be finished by 2010"
schedule pressure is exactly what led to the Columbia disaster. Lift
the mandatory retirement *date* and instead retire the Shuttle after
STS-141 is home (or -142 if they reinstate Hubble SM4.) In the
meantime, there's less pressure to get a quick-and-dirty CEV to the
pad and less chance for design errors slipping through in the name of
expediency.

Well, since Griffin is determined to maintain the Shuttle
infrastructure, there's now no forcing function to retire the Orbiter,
since production will continue on ETs and SRBs ad infinitum. Had they
only procured enough for the final STS flights, ending it at that date
(or at least after that number of flights) would have been a
certainty.

Kim Keller wrote:

"Scott Lowther" wrote in message
...


Errrrrmmmm... the TVC system is available *now.* However, the likelihood
of another 5-segment test by the end of 2006 is... really low. Much less a
*flight.*



Oh? You've already developed, tested and qualified a TVC with enough control
authority to handle your schtick? "Cause I was told the current STS system
doesn't have the 'nads to handle der schtick.



I've been told otherwise.


--
"The only thing that galls me about someone burning the American flag is how unoriginal it is. I mean if you're going to pull the Freedom-of-speech card, don't be a hack, come up with something interesting. Fashion Old Glory into a wisecracking puppet and blister the system with a scathing ventriloquism act, or better yet, drape the flag over your head and desecrate it with a large caliber bullet hole." Dennis Miller

Jorge R. Frank wrote:

Scott Lowther wrote in
:



Kim Keller wrote:



It wouldn't entirely surprise me to see the first qualification
launche of the 5-segment stick booster (no upper stage) by late 2006,
using Pad 39B and the third MLP as infrastructure.


There's no way the avionics and the TVC system will be ready for test
by then.



Errrrrmmmm... the TVC system is available *now.*



In two axes (pitch and yaw, or more precisely rock and tilt) only. A single
SRB has no roll control.


Yes, the roll control system will need development. But that's not
"thrust vector control."


--
"The only thing that galls me about someone burning the American flag is how unoriginal it is. I mean if you're going to pull the Freedom-of-speech card, don't be a hack, come up with something interesting. Fashion Old Glory into a wisecracking puppet and blister the system with a scathing ventriloquism act, or better yet, drape the flag over your head and desecrate it with a large caliber bullet hole." Dennis Miller

Scott Lowther wrote in
:

Jorge R. Frank wrote:

Scott Lowther wrote in
:

Kim Keller wrote:

It wouldn't entirely surprise me to see the first qualification
launche of the 5-segment stick booster (no upper stage) by late
2006, using Pad 39B and the third MLP as infrastructure.

There's no way the avionics and the TVC system will be ready for
test by then.

Errrrrmmmm... the TVC system is available *now.*

In two axes (pitch and yaw, or more precisely rock and tilt) only. A
single SRB has no roll control.

Yes, the roll control system will need development. But that's not
"thrust vector control."

Technically, yes, you are correct. Pitch and yaw is adequate to determine
the direction of the thrust vector, while roll is just the rotation about
the thrust vector. Kim and I should have been more precise in our
terminology.

However, that does not change Kim's basic point: without roll control,
there is no way in hell that The Stick will be ready for qualification
flights by late 2006. And honestly, I'd be pleasantly surprised if ATK was
ready to demonstrate SRB roll control *in ground test*, let alone flight
test, by the end of *2008*.

--
JRF

Reply-to address spam-proofed - to reply by E-mail,
check "Organization" (I am not assimilated) and
think one step ahead of IBM.

Michael Kent wrote:
Reed Snellenberger wrote:

They also
make it pretty clear that they trust Griffin's technical judgement.

They did until they started seeing its pricetag. That will change. Just
watch.

Not if Bush supports it (uncertain at present) and
*leads*.

JFK eightupled NASA's budget in one year, so that the
agency could develop not one, but three different
Saturn launch vehicles while also developing four
different manned spacecraft. He did it by saying,
about going to the moon,

"I think we're going to do it, and I think that we must
pay what needs to be paid. I don't think we ought to
waste any money, but I think we ought to do the job."

- Ed Kyle