#1
|
|||
|
|||
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
|
|||
|
|||
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 | |
|
|
Similar Threads | ||||
Thread | Thread Starter | Forum | Replies | Last Post |
If Mike Griffin Had Been Columbus | Rand Simberg[_1_] | History | 36 | December 26th 08 07:05 AM |
Griffin bye-bye at NASA? | Pat Flannery | Policy | 101 | November 26th 08 07:40 AM |
Griffin bye-bye at NASA? | Pat Flannery | Space Shuttle | 99 | November 25th 08 09:22 AM |
Griffin bye-bye at NASA? | Pat Flannery | History | 104 | November 25th 08 09:22 AM |
Griffin again, it gets better | Ray Vingnutte | Misc | 6 | October 18th 05 07:41 PM |