Air Force Signs Off on SRB-CEV

Kim Keller wrote:


The EELV builders were very anxious to pursue NASA as a customer for VSE
missions. They want business and don't care whether it's DOD or NASA - or,
in the case of LM, commercial. Had NASA chosen EELV to support the tunnel
vision, USAF would've had no choice but to grin and bear it, per White House
space .


And how about commercial custoners? Would the EELVs be provided in two
forms... a commercial, affordable version and a NASA man-rated version
that would require a complete overhaul of all their processes? Or would
there just be the expensive version? Woudl there be two sets of pads?



--
"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

On Sat, 13 Aug 2005 05:13:16 GMT, in a place far, far away, Scott
Lowther made the phosphor on my
monitor glow in such a way as to indicate that:

The EELV builders were very anxious to pursue NASA as a customer for VSE
missions. They want business and don't care whether it's DOD or NASA - or,
in the case of LM, commercial. Had NASA chosen EELV to support the tunnel
vision, USAF would've had no choice but to grin and bear it, per White House
space .


And how about commercial custoners? Would the EELVs be provided in two
forms... a commercial, affordable version and a NASA man-rated version
that would require a complete overhaul of all their processes? Or would
there just be the expensive version?

That would just be the expensive version.

Though there might be a different version if by "man rated" one means
acceleration limits, and FOSD. But reliability wouldn't likely be
much different.

"Rand Simberg" wrote in message
...
On 12 Aug 2005 07:48:14 -0700, in a place far, far away,
made the phosphor on my monitor glow in such a
way as to indicate that:
Why should NASA need an Air Force okay?

Because the recent revision of national Space Transportation Policy
says it does.

Which misses the point. A) Why do we need a Space Transportation Policy and
B) why should it make this a requirement.

"Scott Lowther" wrote in message
...
And how about commercial custoners? Would the EELVs be provided in two
forms... a commercial, affordable version and a NASA man-rated version
that would require a complete overhaul of all their processes? Or would
there just be the expensive version? Woudl there be two sets of pads?

The approach in OSP was to use a mission-unique "kit" that would provide the
necessary instrumentation for abort sensing. There were also some different
components that would be installed on crewed rockets. Commercial and DOD
customers wouldn't be required to purchase those parts, though they could if
they wanted.

The pads would've seen the addition of a crew access tower/escape system,
and that's about it.

On Sat, 13 Aug 2005 16:15:34 GMT, "Greg D. Moore \(Strider\)"
wrote:


Which misses the point. A) Why do we need a Space Transportation Policy and
B) why should it make this a requirement.

Ostensibly, to avoid duplication of effort (and hence waste of
taxpayer dollars) on the part of the government. They still like to
throw money down the LockMart/Boeing hole, but the general idea (in
principle) is to not throw money down both holes.

Of course, EELV utterly ruined this concept. As soon as the Air Force
decided it wanted *both* EELVs, their "but we're trying to save money,
so NASA shouldn't build its own launcher!" stand was made ridiculous.

I suspect there is a letter from NASA to the Air Force somewhere whose
first draft goes something like this...

Dear General xxxx,

In 1986, you bailed out of our Shuttle program just when we needed you
the most. Now, your EELV program is hopeless overbudget because of
your own stupidity and you want us to bail you out. Go f*** yourself.

Sincerely,
NASA

That's why we need a Space Transportation Policy.

Brian

Pat Flannery wrote:
Ed Kyle wrote:

Most strikingly, the letter also says that NASA
is agreeing to consider phasing out Delta 2 in
favor of EELV. This means that long-running
Thor-Delta, probably the world's most reliable
active launch vehicle - the launcher that has
boosted all of NASA's recent Mars missions - is
in danger of being abandoned.

That sucks; that's our workhorse rocket.

It would also mean the end of the RS-27A,
(and probably of the Rocketdyne name) the
last hydrocarbon booster engine made in the
U.S. that produces more than 100 tonnes of
thrust. This engine has been around since
its precursor was developed for Navaho in
the early 1950s. Variants of this basic
powerplant were used by Atlas and Saturn I/IB.

It would mean that the SpaceX Merlin engine,
at only 40-some tonnes of thrust, would be
the most powerful hydrocarbon rocket engine
made in the U.S., the same country that built
the 680 tonne thrust F-1.

- Ed Kyle

Kim Keller wrote:

"Scott Lowther" wrote in message
...


And how about commercial custoners? Would the EELVs be provided in two
forms... a commercial, affordable version and a NASA man-rated version
that would require a complete overhaul of all their processes? Or would
there just be the expensive version? Woudl there be two sets of pads?



The approach in OSP was to use a mission-unique "kit" that would provide the
necessary instrumentation for abort sensing.


So the approach to "human rating" was simply to have a big-ass abort
system? That's pretty lame. It's also contrary to NASA "human rating"
procedures.

The pads would've seen the addition of a crew access tower/escape system,
and that's about it.



Seems like somethign NASA would be unwilling to go along with...

--
"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 message
...
So the approach to "human rating" was simply to have a big-ass abort
system? That's pretty lame. It's also contrary to NASA "human rating"
procedures.

And that's the Scott Lowther approach to responding to a post? Throw away
the words you don't like? That's pretty lame. Go back and read what I wrote.
No, the answer was NOT a "big-ass abort system".

The pads would've seen the addition of a crew access tower/escape system,
and that's about it.

Seems like somethign NASA would be unwilling to go along with...

Since I was part of that process, I can say with confidence that they were.

Kim Keller wrote:

"Scott Lowther" wrote in message
...


So the approach to "human rating" was simply to have a big-ass abort
system? That's pretty lame. It's also contrary to NASA "human rating"
procedures.



And that's the Scott Lowther approach to responding to a post? Throw away
the words you don't like? That's pretty lame. Go back and read what I wrote.
No, the answer was NOT a "big-ass abort system".


Wow, Kim. Time for you to calm the hell down. You wrote: "The approach
in OSP was to use a mission-unique "kit" that would provide the
necessary instrumentation for abort sensing. There were also some
different components that would be installed on crewed rockets.
Commercial and DOD customers wouldn't be required to purchase those
parts, though they could if they wanted."

So what else was done apart from "abort sensing" (which would, of
course, be entirely useless without an abort *system*? Or are you saying
that the EELV launchers woudl have substantially *less* than a "big ass
abort system?"


The pads would've seen the addition of a crew access tower/escape system,
and that's about it.


Seems like somethign NASA would be unwilling to go along with...



Since I was part of that process, I can say with confidence that they were.


I've been on the contractor end of NASA requirements for about 10 years,
and they have *never* been that accomodating. Christ, you should have
seen the bull**** that CSD had to go through because of a minor pressure
blip in a single BSM igniter open-air test. NASA crawls up your ass and
takes you over like a Goa'uld for even trivial things. That they would
permit *astonishingly* limited changes and oversight for an entire
manned vehicle seems quite out of character.




--
"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

On Sat, 13 Aug 2005 16:15:34 GMT, in a place far, far away, "Greg D.
Moore \(Strider\)" made the phosphor
on my monitor glow in such a way as to indicate that:


"Rand Simberg" wrote in message
.. .
On 12 Aug 2005 07:48:14 -0700, in a place far, far away,
made the phosphor on my monitor glow in such a
way as to indicate that:
Why should NASA need an Air Force okay?

Because the recent revision of national Space Transportation Policy
says it does.

Which misses the point. A) Why do we need a Space Transportation Policy and
B) why should it make this a requirement.

We need a space transportation policy (at least in theory) because we
spend billions of taxpayer dollars per year on space transportation.
The reason for the Air Force OK is to ensure that the policy is
coordinated, and that we aren't wasting money on parallel
developments.