Keith Cowing Makes His Move

Len wrote:
On Jan 15, 11:47 am, wrote:
On Jan 15, 11:22 am, kT wrote:



What we have, Jim, are 14 SSMEs and a couple of dozen NK-33s.
These are the two most efficient engines in existence.
It's a launch vehicle architecture. It works for me.
That isn't an architecture. just a bunch of engines

Actually, engines are where most aerospace
designers have started for over a 100 years.
That's where I always start, whether it's for an
airplane or a space transport. I am no great fan
of the SSME, but I am a great fan of the NK-33/
AJ26. BTW, not including Russia, there are 35 just
in Sacramento. Our architecture doesn't need or
use the SSMEs. Rather our architecture uses
either RL10s or RD-0124s--along with an AJ26
in the orbiter--plus a pair of AJ26s in the carrier.

Of course, there is a lot more to architecture than
a space transport. However, the key is the space
transport. With low-cost, safe, reliable, frequent
access to LEO, the rest of the architecture falls
into place very naturally and economically.

Indeed, which is precisely why 'Len Cormier' in on my vessel list when
we finally do fly. Do I have the spelling right? You can pick the style
too, I want it to look great when it leaves the pad.

kT wrote:

This happens to be a position paper that is going to be read by
both the Government Accountability Office (GAO) and congress, in
the near future.

I'm afraid you're kidding yourself, Thomas.

You'll be lucky if this "position paper" is even read by *NASA*. A
quick skim is all that will neccessary before it can be tossed aside
as non-responsive. You'll receive a letter to that effect eventually.

The GAO and Congress will never see it.

Jim Davis

By the way, that's General *Accounting* Office.

Jim Davis wrote:
kT wrote:

This happens to be a position paper that is going to be read by
both the Government Accountability Office (GAO) and congress, in
the near future.

I'm afraid you're kidding yourself, Thomas.

You'll be lucky if this "position paper" is even read by *NASA*. A
quick skim is all that will neccessary before it can be tossed aside
as non-responsive. You'll receive a letter to that effect eventually.

The GAO and Congress will never see it.

Jim Davis

By the way, that's General *Accounting* Office.

It was, until 2004.

http://www.gao.gov/about/rollcall07192004.pdf

Elifritz isn't correct very often, but even a stopped clock is right
twice a day.

Jim Davis wrote:

kT wrote:

This happens to be a position paper that is going to be read by
both the Government Accountability Office (GAO) and congress, in
the near future.

I'm afraid you're kidding yourself, Thomas.

Of course I am, this is America, not some space faring nation.

You'll be lucky if this "position paper" is even read by *NASA*. A
quick skim is all that will neccessary before it can be tossed aside
as non-responsive. You'll receive a letter to that effect eventually.

Will they claim that rockets can't function in a vacuum?

Or will they claim that mankind is arrogant if they think they can do
anything about global warming, and it isn't humanity's place to try.

The GAO and Congress will never see it.

Jim Davis

By the way, that's General *Accounting* Office.

Whatever. I call it bankruptcy :

http://www.brillig.com/debt_clock/

Maybe I can pick up Stennis and Michoud at fire sale rates.

Len wrote:
On Jan 15, 3:10 pm, kT wrote:
Len wrote:
On Jan 15, 11:47 am, wrote:
On Jan 15, 11:22 am, kT wrote:
What we have, Jim, are 14 SSMEs and a couple of dozen NK-33s.
These are the two most efficient engines in existence.
It's a launch vehicle architecture. It works for me.
That isn't an architecture. just a bunch of engines
Actually, engines are where most aerospace
designers have started for over a 100 years.
That's where I always start, whether it's for an
airplane or a space transport. I am no great fan
of the SSME, but I am a great fan of the NK-33/
AJ26. BTW, not including Russia, there are 35 just
in Sacramento. Our architecture doesn't need or
use the SSMEs. Rather our architecture uses
either RL10s or RD-0124s--along with an AJ26
in the orbiter--plus a pair of AJ26s in the carrier.
Of course, there is a lot more to architecture than
a space transport. However, the key is the space
transport. With low-cost, safe, reliable, frequent
access to LEO, the rest of the architecture falls
into place very naturally and economically.
Indeed, which is precisely why 'Len Cormier' in on my vessel list when
we finally do fly. Do I have the spelling right? You can pick the style
too, I want it to look great when it leaves the pad.

You got the spelling right.

I agree there are many good architectures. I just
think that a capability for getting 4 tonnes to LEO
reliably and safely at $500 to $1000 / kg will permit
a total architecture that will be hard to beat in the
near future. In the longer term, I think the traffic
demand will support both smaller and larger launch
vehicles.

If heavy lift in the near term actually turns out
to be the way to go, I shall welcome it.

I don't know if you read the proposal yet, I was very careful that you
got honorable mention, if not by name, then at least by architecture.

I'm more interested in developing a conventional TPS testbed right now.

Jorge R. Frank wrote:

By the way, that's General *Accounting* Office.

It was, until 2004.

http://www.gao.gov/about/rollcall07192004.pdf

Elifritz isn't correct very often, but even a stopped clock is
right twice a day.

I'll be damned.

Jim Davis

Jorge R. Frank wrote:
Jim Davis wrote:
kT wrote:

This happens to be a position paper that is going to be read by
both the Government Accountability Office (GAO) and congress, in
the near future.

I'm afraid you're kidding yourself, Thomas.

You'll be lucky if this "position paper" is even read by *NASA*. A
quick skim is all that will neccessary before it can be tossed aside
as non-responsive. You'll receive a letter to that effect eventually.

The GAO and Congress will never see it.

Jim Davis

By the way, that's General *Accounting* Office.

It was, until 2004.

http://www.gao.gov/about/rollcall07192004.pdf

Elifritz isn't correct very often, but even a stopped clock is right
twice a day.

Of course not, I make mistakes and I am dead wrong all the time.

For instance, we all know now that there is no such thing as an
*electronic* Bose-Einstein condensate. Coulomb repulsion and all that.

Interesting show on NOVA tonight. Those were the days.

Jim Davis wrote:
:
:By the way, that's General *Accounting* Office.
:

Actually, they've changed the name. It really is the Government
Accountability Office now.

I thought the old name made more sense.


--
"The reasonable man adapts himself to the world; the unreasonable
man persists in trying to adapt the world to himself. Therefore,
all progress depends on the unreasonable man."
--George Bernard Shaw

Jim Davis wrote:
kT wrote:


This happens to be a position paper that is going to be read by
both the Government Accountability Office (GAO) and congress, in
the near future.


I'm afraid you're kidding yourself, Thomas.

You'll be lucky if this "position paper" is even read by *NASA*. A
quick skim is all that will neccessary before it can be tossed aside
as non-responsive. You'll receive a letter to that effect eventually.

The GAO and Congress will never see it.


Over at NASA Watch, the ESMD PAO has said they are reviewing Cowing's
questions and expect to get a reply to him within 48 hours.

Pat

"Jim Davis"

I'll be damned.

That's what I thought. One of the bigger dumb ass moves the govt ever made.
G Accounting O made sense. Accountability is a completely different
meaning.


--
Posted via a free Usenet account from http://www.teranews.com