Orion's first crewed flight announced

The entire SLS orion project should of been cancelled before it was ever created..............

congress demanded pork to be handed out. nasa demanded a new expensive program.

so we end up with near nothing and forced dependence on russia.

nasa could of used a existing atlas or delta heavy on a lighter weight capsule holding 3 astronauts max. with no downtime when the shuttle ended..........

bob haller wrote:

The entire SLS orion project should of been cancelled before it was ever created..............


The entire project before it (Ares) WAS cancelled.


congress demanded pork to be handed out.


So you keep saying, but you never provide any evidence for this
opinion. If true, why didn't we just keep Ares?


nasa demanded a new expensive program.


Again no evidence. Again, if true, why didn't we just keep Ares?


so we end up with near nothing and forced dependence on russia.


Which we would have ended up with no matter what we did.


nasa could of used a existing atlas or delta heavy


No, they couldn't, because neither was man-rated.


on a lighter weight capsule holding 3 astronauts max.


Which would have cost as much to do as Orion to get less capability.


with no downtime when the shuttle ended..........


Bull****.


--
"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

In article ,
says...

bob haller wrote:

The entire SLS orion project should of been cancelled before it was ever created..............


The entire project before it (Ares) WAS cancelled.


congress demanded pork to be handed out.


So you keep saying, but you never provide any evidence for this
opinion. If true, why didn't we just keep Ares?

On top of the mounting issues with the Ares I/CEV combination, because
Ares I plus Ares V was monstrously, hideously expensive. SLS at least
combined these into one launch vehicle and brought costs down to merely
hideously expensive.


nasa demanded a new expensive program.


Again no evidence. Again, if true, why didn't we just keep Ares?

Congress (and the Senate) wanted SLS. That's why some people online
were calling it the "Senate Launch System" when it was created. This is
despite the fact that they have not allocated any money for missions or
payloads (beyond a pittance for studying a HAB module). They're also
lukewarm on the ARM mission that NASA proposed precisely because it
wouldn't require much in the way of new hardware for the "manned"
portion of the mission.


so we end up with near nothing and forced dependence on russia.


Which we would have ended up with no matter what we did.

Agreed. Neither Ares/CEV nor Orion/SLS are intended to solve that
problem.


nasa could of used a existing atlas or delta heavy


No, they couldn't, because neither was man-rated.

But Atlas V will be for Boeing's CST-100/Starliner, so it's not like
such a thing is impossible. But the bigger problem is that Orion is far
too big with a fully fueled service module to be launched on anything
but SLS.


on a lighter weight capsule holding 3 astronauts max.


Which would have cost as much to do as Orion to get less capability.

If done using the same procurement methods, I agree. The problem isn't
so much the specifications, but how they're being met.


with no downtime when the shuttle ended..........


Bull****.

Agreed. There simply wasn't enough money allocated or time available to
realistically field a replacement before the shuttle program ended.

Jeff
--
All opinions posted by me on Usenet News are mine, and mine alone.
These posts do not reflect the opinions of my family, friends,
employer, or any organization that I am a member of.

Jeff Findley wrote:

In article ,
says...

bob haller wrote:

The entire SLS orion project should of been cancelled before it was ever created..............


The entire project before it (Ares) WAS cancelled.


congress demanded pork to be handed out.


So you keep saying, but you never provide any evidence for this
opinion. If true, why didn't we just keep Ares?

On top of the mounting issues with the Ares I/CEV combination, because
Ares I plus Ares V was monstrously, hideously expensive. SLS at least
combined these into one launch vehicle and brought costs down to merely
hideously expensive.


But if pork is the goal, the more expensive the better, so they would
have kept the Constellation program.


nasa demanded a new expensive program.


Again no evidence. Again, if true, why didn't we just keep Ares?

Congress (and the Senate) wanted SLS. That's why some people online
were calling it the "Senate Launch System" when it was created. This is
despite the fact that they have not allocated any money for missions or
payloads (beyond a pittance for studying a HAB module). They're also
lukewarm on the ARM mission that NASA proposed precisely because it
wouldn't require much in the way of new hardware for the "manned"
portion of the mission.


While I think both Ares and SLS are deeply flawed vehicles, I don't
think they exist because of a desire for pork and to spend big money.
I think they exist because there is a 'push' to use big solids
(because this keeps the solid rocket ICBM folks staffed and running)
and because NASA no longer seems to have the imagination to do really
innovative things (so we wound up with a bigger version of Apollo and
rehashed Shuttle technologies).


so we end up with near nothing and forced dependence on russia.


Which we would have ended up with no matter what we did.

Agreed. Neither Ares/CEV nor Orion/SLS are intended to solve that
problem.


Right. The goal all along was to redevelop some deep space capability
and let commercial companies take over the low orbit niche until ISS
is decommissioned.


nasa could of used a existing atlas or delta heavy


No, they couldn't, because neither was man-rated.

But Atlas V will be for Boeing's CST-100/Starliner, so it's not like
such a thing is impossible. But the bigger problem is that Orion is far
too big with a fully fueled service module to be launched on anything
but SLS.


True, but that takes time. No way either was going to get man-rated
that early in their careers.


on a lighter weight capsule holding 3 astronauts max.


Which would have cost as much to do as Orion to get less capability.

If done using the same procurement methods, I agree. The problem isn't
so much the specifications, but how they're being met.


Orion is actually cheaper than what was spent to develop Apollo.


with no downtime when the shuttle ended..........


Bull****.

Agreed. There simply wasn't enough money allocated or time available to
realistically field a replacement before the shuttle program ended.


That's the problem. there was funding to either fly the Shuttle or
develop a replacement, but not both. So there was going to be a gap,
regardless.


--
"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

nasa specked a capsule too big to go on any existing expendabe. man rating isnt really a issue. with the very high costs of the delta heavy they are basically man rated just needing launch boost escape

the ares couldld of never been used for people, the solids made it shake so much the astronauts would of been killed, there spleens and livers turned to liquid.

sls was sold as a cost cutter but it actually would cost more than the shuttle

bob haller wrote:


nasa specked a capsule too big to go on any existing expendabe. man rating isnt really a issue. with the very high costs of the delta heavy they are basically man rated just needing launch boost escape


There is more to man-rating a vehicle than "it's expensive", Bob.


the ares couldld of never been used for people, the solids made it shake so much the astronauts would of been killed, there spleens and livers turned to liquid.


Shuttle used solids. SLS uses solids. Solids indeed have higher
vibration, but not like you describe. There are good reasons not to
launch people on solids, but liquified internal organs is not one of
them.


sls was sold as a cost cutter but it actually would cost more than the shuttle


Nope.


--
"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

In article ,
says...

bob haller wrote:

sls was sold as a cost cutter but it actually would cost more than the shuttle


Nope.

http://arstechnica.com/science/2016/...nd-orion-cost-
to-fly-finally-some-answers/

From above, the "goal" is to get SLS/Orion funding below $2 billion a
year. Even at that level, if it only flies once per year it will be
more expensive than the space shuttle. This is because the flight rate
will be limited to once per year (at most) by production limitations.
More realistically, once every other year is to be expected.

SLS/Orion might become cheaper than the shuttle. But this will happen
only if it is given even more money to build new production facilities
to increase the flight rate to something that is actually useful.

But, an increase in funding of that magnitude has not happened yet, so
I'm leery of comparing such a "paper" production rate with the current
reality which is limited by today's funding. That and the above
accounting is very generous to SLS/Orion by ignoring its development
costs, which should include a portion of Ares development costs since
SLS used some Ares "leftover" development as a starting point.

Include all of those development costs, and it's extremely hard to argue
that SLS/Orion will ever be cheaper than the space shuttle.

Jeff
--
All opinions posted by me on Usenet News are mine, and mine alone.
These posts do not reflect the opinions of my family, friends,
employer, or any organization that I am a member of.

On Wednesday, December 14, 2016 at 2:47:59 AM UTC-5, Fred J. McCall wrote:
bob haller wrote:


nasa specked a capsule too big to go on any existing expendabe. man rating isnt really a issue. with the very high costs of the delta heavy they are basically man rated just needing launch boost escape


There is more to man-rating a vehicle than "it's expensive", Bob.


the ares couldld of never been used for people, the solids made it shake so much the astronauts would of been killed, there spleens and livers turned to liquid.


Shuttle used solids. SLS uses solids. Solids indeed have higher
vibration, but not like you describe. There are good reasons not to
launch people on solids, but liquified internal organs is not one of
them.
obviously you didntt follow the ares news ..........

the reason that ares was so bad, shuttle and sls both had liquid engines too, which damped out the solids vibration

bob haller wrote:

On Wednesday, December 14, 2016 at 2:47:59 AM UTC-5, Fred J. McCall wrote:
bob haller wrote:


nasa specked a capsule too big to go on any existing expendabe. man rating isnt really a issue. with the very high costs of the delta heavy they are basically man rated just needing launch boost escape


There is more to man-rating a vehicle than "it's expensive", Bob.


the ares couldld of never been used for people, the solids made it shake so much the astronauts would of been killed, there spleens and livers turned to liquid.


Shuttle used solids. SLS uses solids. Solids indeed have higher
vibration, but not like you describe. There are good reasons not to
launch people on solids, but liquified internal organs is not one of
them.
obviously you didntt follow the ares news ..........

the reason that ares was so bad, shuttle and sls both had liquid engines too, which damped out the solids vibration


How's that work again? I have a liquid engine that produces some
vibe. I have a solid engine that produces even more vibe. Somehow
the two of them together have less vibe? No, that doesn't make any
sense...


--
"Some people get lost in thought because it's such unfamiliar
territory."
--G. Behn

On Wednesday, December 14, 2016 at 5:25:45 PM UTC-5, JF Mezei wrote:
On 2016-12-14 14:08, Fred J. McCall wrote:

How's that work again? I have a liquid engine that produces some
vibe. I have a solid engine that produces even more vibe. Somehow
the two of them together have less vibe? No, that doesn't make any
sense...


If you manage to get them with the right phase, one engine could act as
noise cancelling headphones and make the rocket totally silent at take
off with no vibrations :-)

i doubt that would work for solids, they burn randomly.....

its not even