A Space & astronomy forum. SpaceBanter.com

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

NASA Announces SLS/Orion Flight Slide



 
 
Thread Tools Display Modes
  #21  
Old May 4th 17, 01:58 AM posted to sci.space.policy
Fred J. McCall[_3_]
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 10,018
Default NASA Announces SLS/Orion Flight Slide

JF Mezei wrote:

On 2017-05-03 13:15, Fred J. McCall wrote:

It takes a lot longer to get back if you lose pressure on the way to
the Moon. It's not like you can just turn around and come back.


Fair enough. What if first flight was a spin around the Earth where in a
catastrophy, you can basically re-enter in less than 90 minutes?

Would a manned flight around earth have more value than unnamed flight
around the moon from an "experienced gained" point of view (forgetting
schedule).

The trip around the moon does give the higher re-entry speeds to test
heat shield, which you don't get from earth orbit.


This is why EM-1 was originally planned as a Moon loop unmanned. You
get to test everything and you don't NEED people on board for that.
But these things are so crazy expensive and launches will be so
infrequent that there's a push to fly them crewed too early.


--
"Rule Number One for Slayers - Don't die."
-- Buffy, the Vampire Slayer
  #22  
Old May 4th 17, 11:03 AM posted to sci.space.policy
Fred J. McCall[_3_]
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 10,018
Default NASA Announces SLS/Orion Flight Slide

JF Mezei wrote:

On 2017-05-03 20:58, Fred J. McCall wrote:

But these things are so crazy expensive and launches will be so
infrequent that there's a push to fly them crewed too early.


They've got 16 SSMEs to work with or 4 flights. So eventually, they will
have to fund actual production and delivery of 4 SSMEs per year if they
wish to fly once a year.


I'm going to have to start calling you 'Mayfly' Mezei. How many times
have I pointed out to you that there is already a contract in place
with a value of over a BILLION (with a 'B') dollars to restart engine
production. Said contract includes an option to buy six additional
engines (for an added $340 million or so). I'll ask the same thing I
always ask you at this juncture. DO YOU SERIOUSLY BELIEVE THAT NASA
IS GOING TO SINK $1.16 BILLION INTO RESTARTING ENGINE PRODUCTION AND
THEN BE UNABLE TO COME UP WITH THE (RELATIVE) CHUMP CHANGE REQUIRED TO
ACTUALLY BUY ENGINES?

Get that tattooed on your ****ing hand. I'm tired of repeating it to
you.


By the time SLS has its first flight, SpaceX will have demonstrated its
Falcon Heavy and it may turn out much cheaper to do multiple launches of
FH than that SLS thing.


It almost certain will prove to be cheaper, but it suffers from NIH.


NASA claims that first flight will go further than any man rated vehicle
has gone before. Wouldn't first flight almost identically mimic what
Apollo 13 did ?


Oh, Jesus H Christ! Just believe them.


In order to return to Earth, won't the capsule and SM have to pass
around the moon at same altitude as Apollo 13 did ?


No.


If they pass higher, won't the moon send the vehicle out in space and
not back to Earth?


No.


In fact, wouldn't nominal Apollo missions have gone further because the
Apollo and SM would be in higher orbit around moon than the low pass
Apollo 13 did to swing around?


No.


--
"Ignorance is preferable to error, and he is less remote from the
truth who believes nothing than he who believes what is wrong."
-- Thomas Jefferson
  #23  
Old May 5th 17, 02:42 PM posted to sci.space.policy
Fred J. McCall[_3_]
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 10,018
Default NASA Announces SLS/Orion Flight Slide

JF Mezei wrote:

On 2017-05-04 06:03, Fred J. McCall wrote:

have I pointed out to you that there is already a contract in place
with a value of over a BILLION (with a 'B') dollars to restart engine
production. Said contract includes an option to buy six additional
engines (for an added $340 million or so).


"added $340 million" means that the contract is to make preparations
for, but not produce those 6 engines which means that NASA would need to
get additional funding to authorize that second portion to actuually
produce those 6 engines.

The NASA web siote states they have 16 engines to work with. It does not
mention that 6 more are under way.


The way I see it, NASA signed a firm order for 0 engines with an option
for 6 more. If NASA exercises those options, the manufacturer has
laready built all the tooling etc and can start spinnting them out.


So then, you ARE actually so stupid as to think that NASA would spend
$1.16 BILLION dollars and then not be able to find an additional $57
million or so per engine to actually buy some. I'm not surprised
you're that dumb, but it is rather surprising that you proclaim it so
publicly.


--
"Some people get lost in thought because it's such unfamiliar
territory."
--G. Behn
  #24  
Old May 6th 17, 09:11 AM posted to sci.space.policy
Fred J. McCall[_3_]
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 10,018
Default NASA Announces SLS/Orion Flight Slide

JF Mezei wrote:

On 2017-05-05 09:42, Fred J. McCall wrote:

So then, you ARE actually so stupid as to think that NASA would spend
$1.16 BILLION dollars and then not be able to find an additional $57
million or so per engine to actually buy some.


You're the one who claims those 6 engines are getting built. Unless
congress has approved funding for them, they don't get built.


You really don't know how this works, do you? Congress doesn't
micromanage this stuff. They allocate X dollars for SLS and the
option language in the contract is called out. You don't exercise the
option for the engines until you need the engines.


Congress must have had its reasons for not funding those 6 engines and
only funding pork to Rocketdyne for "virtual" work of planning for their
construction.


Jesus, but you're stupid. Do you know what 'virtual' means? It seems
not. Doing designs, setting up production lines, and planning and
equipping test programs is not 'virtual'. That is what is called
'long lead time' work toward buying engines. You don't actually
exercise the 'short lead time' option of buying engines until you need
engines.


--
"Ignorance is preferable to error, and he is less remote from the
truth who believes nothing than he who believes what is wrong."
-- Thomas Jefferson
  #25  
Old May 8th 17, 02:08 AM posted to sci.space.policy
Fred J. McCall[_3_]
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 10,018
Default NASA Announces SLS/Orion Flight Slide

JF Mezei wrote:

On 2017-05-06 04:11, Fred J. McCall wrote:

You really don't know how this works, do you? Congress doesn't
micromanage this stuff. They allocate X dollars for SLS and the
option language in the contract is called out.


So you are saying the option to actially build the 6 engines is already
funded and approved and NASA wouldn't need to justify that cost to Congress?


I'm saying what I said. Learn to read.


I was ubder the impression that CPngress couldn't alloacte funds so far
in advance and that it expects NASA to come back to it to get that $340
million approved if/when it is ready to convert the option for 6 engines
into firm orders.


You seem to frequently be under the wrong impression.


Jesus, but you're stupid. Do you know what 'virtual' means? It seems
not. Doing designs, setting up production lines, and planning and
equipping test programs is not 'virtual'.


I know they have redesigned the electronics for the engine. But that is
work already done and tested. Would they re-open pandora's box and
modify the actual design of the engine?

I woudl have expected them to re-use the current engine designs with no
internal modifications since that is a proven design and starting to
change the design would mean major testing before the "new design" could
be used.


What you expect and what reality delivers seem to frequently be at
odds.


--
"Ordinarily he is insane. But he has lucid moments when he is
only stupid."
-- Heinrich Heine
  #26  
Old May 8th 17, 12:30 PM posted to sci.space.policy
Bob Haller
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 3,197
Default NASA Announces SLS/Orion Flight Slide

On Sunday, May 7, 2017 at 9:08:52 PM UTC-4, Fred J. McCall wrote:
JF Mezei wrote:

On 2017-05-06 04:11, Fred J. McCall wrote:

You really don't know how this works, do you? Congress doesn't
micromanage this stuff. They allocate X dollars for SLS and the
option language in the contract is called out.


So you are saying the option to actially build the 6 engines is already
funded and approved and NASA wouldn't need to justify that cost to Congress?


I'm saying what I said. Learn to read.


I was ubder the impression that CPngress couldn't alloacte funds so far
in advance and that it expects NASA to come back to it to get that $340
million approved if/when it is ready to convert the option for 6 engines
into firm orders.


You seem to frequently be under the wrong impression.


Jesus, but you're stupid. Do you know what 'virtual' means? It seems
not. Doing designs, setting up production lines, and planning and
equipping test programs is not 'virtual'.


I know they have redesigned the electronics for the engine. But that is
work already done and tested. Would they re-open pandora's box and
modify the actual design of the engine?

I woudl have expected them to re-use the current engine designs with no
internal modifications since that is a proven design and starting to
change the design would mean major testing before the "new design" could
be used.


What you expect and what reality delivers seem to frequently be at
odds.


--
"Ordinarily he is insane. But he has lucid moments when he is
only stupid."
-- Heinrich Heine


fred at his best.......

which is really bad.

in the past congressb dicates things they shouldnt........

like ordering nasa to not spend money m on transhab, the inflatable modules
  #27  
Old May 10th 17, 02:20 AM posted to sci.space.policy
Allen Meece
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 4
Default NASA Announces SLS/Orion Flight Slide


So then, you ARE actually so stupid as to think that NASA would spend
$1.16 BILLION dollars and then not be able to find an additional $57
million or so per engine to actually buy some.


Nasa stands for Nearly Always Stupid-Acting. No stupidity is beyond them. After you've been around awhile you;ll come to realize they have a secret mandate to keep ppl OUT of space, which is actually the domain of the Air Force, for whom nasa works.
that's why they always cancel good cheap effective projects and push the goofy ones that waste our space access dollars on military industrial profits.
Grow up. this aint ding dong school. Believe ur eyes, not the propaganda. ;=]
  #28  
Old May 12th 17, 10:12 PM posted to sci.space.policy
Fred J. McCall[_3_]
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 10,018
Default NASA Announces SLS/Orion Flight Slide

JF Mezei wrote:


https://www.nasa.gov/feature/nasa-af...n-of-sls-orion


NASA confirms it is dropping plans to make first SLS flight crewed.


A bit tough for them to drop plans that they never had.


--
"It's always different. It's always complex. But at some point,
somebody has to draw the line. And that somebody is always me....
I am the law."
-- Buffy, The Vampire Slayer
  #29  
Old May 12th 17, 10:15 PM posted to sci.space.policy
Fred J. McCall[_3_]
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 10,018
Default NASA Announces SLS/Orion Flight Slide

JF Mezei wrote:

Of interest in the press release:

##
“We’re considering additional ground testing of the heat shield prior to
EM-1 as well as the possibility of advancing the ascent abort test for
the Orion launch abort system based on findings from the study,”
##


Is that PR speak for "these systems aren't quite debugged and and need
more work" ?


No, it's PR speak for "We have to slide the real test flight because
of the delivery date of the Service Module and we need to do something
other than sit on our hands in the 'empty time' while we're waiting
for integration and testing of the full up vehicle to complete."


EM-1 slips to 2019. NASA now working to set some date within 2019.


How far it slides will tell you just how late the Europeans are with
the Service Module and whether other parts are also late or not.


--
"Insisting on perfect safety is for people who don't have the balls to
live in the real world."
-- Mary Shafer, NASA Dryden
 




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
NASA ANNOUNCES ACCREDITATION DEADLINE FOR NEXT SHUTTLE FLIGHT Jacques van Oene Space Shuttle 0 May 16th 06 09:45 PM
NASA Announces Virtual Space Flight! Thomas Lee Elifritz Policy 0 September 17th 04 03:48 PM
NASA announces press conference for Hyper X flight Jacques van Oene Space Shuttle 0 March 17th 04 05:44 PM
NASA announces next return to flight briefing Jacques van Oene Space Shuttle 0 November 13th 03 04:32 PM
NASA announces next return to flight briefing Jacques van Oene Space Station 0 November 13th 03 04:32 PM


All times are GMT +1. The time now is 07:17 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.