A Space & astronomy forum. SpaceBanter.com

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

Keith Cowing Makes His Move



 
 
Thread Tools Display Modes
  #21  
Old January 16th 08, 08:48 AM posted to sci.space.policy,sci.space.history,sci.space.shuttle,sci.space.station
kT
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 5,032
Default Keith Cowing Makes His Move

Revision wrote:

"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.


The government is going bankrupt because of corruption, cronyism and
incompetence, and you are worried about what the name of the government
organization entrusted with investigating itself should actually be?

Right. Got it. Thanks!
  #22  
Old January 16th 08, 04:09 PM posted to sci.space.policy,sci.space.history,sci.space.shuttle,sci.space.station
Jeff Findley
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 5,012
Default Keith Cowing Makes His Move


"Len" wrote in message
...
On Jan 15, 2:15 pm, "Jeff Findley"
wrote:
"Len" wrote in message

...

On Jan 15, 11:47 am, wrote:
That isn't an architecture. just a bunch of engines


Actually, engines are where most aerospace
designers have started for over a 100 years.


A lot of home built aircraft used to use air cooled VW engines, but a
used
Beetle is still a *long* way from a finished home built aircraft.


Yes, and "long" way includes the engine itself. The
potential advantages of converted auto engines seems
to evaporate quite quickly in the face of reality.


That's part of my point. The same can be true when designing a launch
vehicle around existing engines. A particularly problematic one that
springs immediately to mind is a launch vehicle which was intended to be
based on the 4 segment shuttle SRB topped by an air started SSME powered
upper stage. It was supposed to be "safe, simple, soon". It didn't work
out when it was placed under close scrutiny.

In other cases, existing engines have been tweaked to produce new variants
for new launch vehicles. The above example morphed into Ares I, which is
currently based on a new 5 segment SRB topped by a J-2 derived engine for
the upper stage. It's now a new vehicle based on new engines.

Jeff
--
A clever person solves a problem.
A wise person avoids it. -- Einstein


  #23  
Old January 17th 08, 11:41 PM posted to sci.space.policy,sci.space.history,sci.space.shuttle,sci.space.station
Pat Flannery
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 18,465
Default Keith Cowing Makes His Move



Pat Flannery wrote:

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


And here's their reply: http://www.spaceref.com/news/viewnews.html?id=1266

Pat
  #24  
Old January 18th 08, 04:07 AM posted to sci.space.policy,sci.space.history,sci.space.shuttle,sci.space.station
Jim Kingdon
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 185
Default Keith Cowing Makes His Move

And here's their reply: http://www.spaceref.com/news/viewnews.html?id=1266

They didn't answer all of Cowing's questions, but they answered many
of them.
  #25  
Old January 18th 08, 04:13 AM posted to sci.space.policy,sci.space.history,sci.space.shuttle,sci.space.station
Rand Simberg[_1_]
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 8,311
Default Keith Cowing Makes His Move

On 17 Jan 2008 22:07:15 -0500, in a place far, far away, Jim Kingdon
made the phosphor on my monitor glow in such a way
as to indicate that:

And here's their reply: http://www.spaceref.com/news/viewnews.html?id=1266


They didn't answer all of Cowing's questions, but they answered many
of them.


Not very well, in my opinion:

http://www.transterrestrial.com/arch...96.html#010396
  #26  
Old January 18th 08, 01:29 PM posted to sci.space.policy,sci.space.history,sci.space.shuttle,sci.space.station
Jeff Findley
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 5,012
Default Keith Cowing Makes His Move


"Pat Flannery" wrote in message
...


Pat Flannery wrote:

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


And here's their reply: http://www.spaceref.com/news/viewnews.html?id=1266


From their reply, "These longitudinal forces may increase the loads
experienced by the Ares I during flight, and may exceed allowable loads on
various portions of the vehicle and allowable forces on the astronaut crew.
", followed later by, "Thrust oscillation forces may be reduced by vehicle
structures, as is the case with the space shuttle and Titan IV", and later
by, "The Orion and Ares teams are holding detailed discussions and
developing a plan to fully characterize Ares I thrust oscillation, assess
any design changes that may be proposed, and manage sensitive design
parameters with additional tests, trade studies and analyses".
So they're still trying to characterize the thrust oscillation and see how
it impacts the design. Unfortunately, experience from Titan IV and shuttle
isn't quite directly applicable since both of those use twin SRB's side
mounted to a central, liquid, core. Ares I is a distinct departure from
this design with only one SRB and one upper stage on top of the SRB.

And I absolutely love this little gem from near the end of the NASA
response, "Thrust oscillation is a new engineering challenge to the
developers of Ares". Maybe this is new to upper management, but I'm sure
that there are a few propulsion engineers at Thiokol and NASA who saw this
one coming. It's a problem that would have manifested itself with any
inline design using a shuttle derived SRB for the first stage.

Considering the weight issues associated with Ares I and Orion, there isn't
much in the way of excess mass which can be spared to throw at this problem.

It's starting to look like Ares I is a real pig of a design. Large
segmented SRB's ought not be used on any new launch vehicle. Their
drawbacks aren't worth their perceived advantages.

Jeff
--
A clever person solves a problem.
A wise person avoids it. -- Einstein


  #27  
Old January 18th 08, 03:45 PM posted to sci.space.policy,sci.space.history,sci.space.shuttle,sci.space.station
kT
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 5,032
Default Keith Cowing Makes His Move

Jeff Findley wrote:
"Pat Flannery" wrote in message
...

Pat Flannery wrote:
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

And here's their reply: http://www.spaceref.com/news/viewnews.html?id=1266


From their reply, "These longitudinal forces may increase the loads
experienced by the Ares I during flight, and may exceed allowable loads on
various portions of the vehicle and allowable forces on the astronaut crew.
", followed later by, "Thrust oscillation forces may be reduced by vehicle
structures, as is the case with the space shuttle and Titan IV", and later
by, "The Orion and Ares teams are holding detailed discussions and
developing a plan to fully characterize Ares I thrust oscillation, assess
any design changes that may be proposed, and manage sensitive design
parameters with additional tests, trade studies and analyses".
So they're still trying to characterize the thrust oscillation and see how
it impacts the design. Unfortunately, experience from Titan IV and shuttle
isn't quite directly applicable since both of those use twin SRB's side
mounted to a central, liquid, core. Ares I is a distinct departure from
this design with only one SRB and one upper stage on top of the SRB.

And I absolutely love this little gem from near the end of the NASA
response, "Thrust oscillation is a new engineering challenge to the
developers of Ares". Maybe this is new to upper management, but I'm sure
that there are a few propulsion engineers at Thiokol and NASA who saw this
one coming. It's a problem that would have manifested itself with any
inline design using a shuttle derived SRB for the first stage.

Considering the weight issues associated with Ares I and Orion, there isn't
much in the way of excess mass which can be spared to throw at this problem.

It's starting to look like Ares I is a real pig of a design. Large
segmented SRB's ought not be used on any new launch vehicle. Their
drawbacks aren't worth their perceived advantages.


Wow, and it only took you two and a half years to figure that out.

I left for the Bahamas in the spring of 2005 confident that not only
would Griffin not be confirmed, but that this vehicle would be excluded
on first principles physics arguments alone. Was I ever surprised and
horrified after I dragged my sorry ass back to the states after the two
worst hurricane seasons I have ever experienced, and the ensuing two and
a half years have been just one nightmare after another with this thing.

At least the hurricanes have been cooperating since then.

I'm surprised it took Cowing so long to figure this out.
 




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
Keith Cowing Makes His Move kT Space Shuttle 35 January 18th 08 03:45 PM
Rand pisses off Keith Cowing Jeff Findley Policy 6 August 20th 07 02:42 PM
Keith Cowing on microgravity research Jeff Findley Policy 18 June 30th 06 07:11 PM
Keith Cowing tells it how it is . . . Tom Merkle Policy 6 February 3rd 04 03:24 PM
A really great essay by Keith Cowing Al Jackson Policy 429 December 22nd 03 03:30 PM


All times are GMT +1. The time now is 02:32 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.