A Space & astronomy forum. SpaceBanter.com

Go Back   Home » SpaceBanter.com forum » Space Science » History
Site Map Home Authors List Search Today's Posts Mark Forums Read Web Partners

Griffin and F-1



 
 
Thread Tools Display Modes
  #1  
Old September 16th 09, 08:39 PM posted to sci.space.history
[email protected]
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 224
Default Griffin and F-1


http://www.spaceflightnow.com/news/n0909/15augustine/

Griffin:

"With the budget in front of us, we're poised to behave not like
the Kennedy administration but the Nixon administration where,
after spending literally a fortune to develop the spaceships for
Apollo, we threw them away," Griffin said. "We spent 80 percent of
the money building them, 20 percent of the money using them and
they're gone. So, do today's leaders want to be remembered like
John Kennedy or Richard nixon? That's the choice before us."

Griffins critic on the threw away of the Apollo hardware has a point. But
he himself put off the most crucial piece. Some years ago, early in the
Constellation program, he said there was an investigation to use the F1
engines of Apollo again for Ares-V. But they found it not worth the cost,
they had cheaper engines available.

But in the next years the payload projections for the Ares V almost doubled
in weight. That may not be Griffins fault, but a good manager avoids the
resulting dead end they faced now. With the partly radiation cooled engines
they had in mind that new payload was impossible, because one cant much
cluster them.

Had he chosen the F1, that would not be a problem. Now they are on the
way to use a modified Shuttle main engine. Only 1/3 the thrust of the F1,
but may in the same price class per engine. Griffin did not see that the
F1 gave more flexibility and margine to an evolving project.

Had he realy the costs in mind, he would have chosen the RD-170 or its
offsprings (like used by Atlas V). To get F1 power from the shelve by a
fraction of the F1 costs and even more flexibility.


The main problem of Ares-1 and 5 is the lack of suitable US engines.
To go in big rockets again, they had to go back in liquid engine
development or revival. ATKs solids are only a poor derouting.


## CrossPoint v3.12d R ##
  #2  
Old September 17th 09, 01:32 PM posted to sci.space.history
Jeff Findley
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 5,012
Default Griffin and F-1


wrote in message
...

http://www.spaceflightnow.com/news/n0909/15augustine/

Griffin:

"With the budget in front of us, we're poised to behave not like
the Kennedy administration but the Nixon administration where,
after spending literally a fortune to develop the spaceships for
Apollo, we threw them away," Griffin said. "We spent 80 percent of
the money building them, 20 percent of the money using them and
they're gone. So, do today's leaders want to be remembered like
John Kennedy or Richard nixon? That's the choice before us."

Griffins critic on the threw away of the Apollo hardware has a point. But
he himself put off the most crucial piece. Some years ago, early in the
Constellation program, he said there was an investigation to use the F1
engines of Apollo again for Ares-V. But they found it not worth the cost,
they had cheaper engines available.


This is true. Unfortunately, those "cheaper engines" included the shuttle
SRB. :-P

But in the next years the payload projections for the Ares V almost
doubled
in weight. That may not be Griffins fault, but a good manager avoids the
resulting dead end they faced now. With the partly radiation cooled
engines
they had in mind that new payload was impossible, because one cant much
cluster them.


Worse than that, from what I've heard, you can't use the RS-68 *at all* on
Ares V due to base heating issues. Regeneratively cooled engines, like the
SSME, don't have any trouble operating in that environment.

Had he chosen the F1, that would not be a problem.


Had the F1 been chosen, there would have been no need for the shuttle SRB,
so no political support from ATK (and the politicians that support it).
Also, the F-1 can't simply be built anymore. It would essentially be a new
engine development program because so many things have changed over the
years. Certainly the electronics would need updated. The materials and
processes used to make the engine would likely need to be updated as well.
Since these are new things, the engine would have to be re-qualified just
like a new engine. Not a cheap proposition...

Now they are on the
way to use a modified Shuttle main engine. Only 1/3 the thrust of the F1,
but may in the same price class per engine. Griffin did not see that the
F1 gave more flexibility and margine to an evolving project.

Had he realy the costs in mind, he would have chosen the RD-170 or its
offsprings (like used by Atlas V). To get F1 power from the shelve by a
fraction of the F1 costs and even more flexibility.


The RD-170 is a Russian engine. No way in #@!! that the RD-170 would have
been chosen for a NASA design.

The main problem of Ares-1 and 5 is the lack of suitable US engines.
To go in big rockets again, they had to go back in liquid engine
development or revival. ATKs solids are only a poor derouting.


Actually, the real problem with Ares is that it's NASA designed. The EELV's
currently flying are a better starting point, technologically, than shuttle
heritage hardware. ULA has been designing and flying real launch vehicles
much more recently than NASA (most of the shuttle was designed in the 70's).
The downside to the EELV route is the lack of political support (it kills
jobs at ATK, Michoud, KSC, and etc).

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


 




Thread Tools
Display Modes

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

vB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off
Forum Jump

Similar Threads
Thread Thread Starter Forum Replies Last Post
If Mike Griffin Had Been Columbus Rand Simberg[_1_] History 36 December 26th 08 08:05 AM
Griffin bye-bye at NASA? Pat Flannery Policy 101 November 26th 08 08:40 AM
Griffin bye-bye at NASA? Pat Flannery Space Shuttle 99 November 25th 08 10:22 AM
Griffin bye-bye at NASA? Pat Flannery History 104 November 25th 08 10:22 AM
Griffin again, it gets better Ray Vingnutte Misc 6 October 18th 05 07:41 PM


All times are GMT +1. The time now is 01:54 PM.


Powered by vBulletin® Version 3.6.4
Copyright ©2000 - 2024, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.
Copyright ©2004-2024 SpaceBanter.com.
The comments are property of their posters.