John Young says CEV

It's a very nice vehicle and there are only a couple of problems with
it," Young told a group of 50 community leaders and Apollo program
veterans gathered on the esplanade of a new city park where the
monument is being erected.

"One, it's too large. Two, it's too heavy. And three, there's no money
to build it," he joked. "But other than that, it's okay."

this from florida todays flame trench

wrote:

It's a very nice vehicle and there are only a couple of problems with
it," Young told a group of 50 community leaders and Apollo program
veterans gathered on the esplanade of a new city park where the
monument is being erected.

"One, it's too large. Two, it's too heavy. And three, there's no money
to build it," he joked. "But other than that, it's okay."

this from florida todays flame trench

Dude! We are not worthy.

Hey, wasn't that thing on Jimmy Carter's watch?

--
Get A Free Orbiter Space Flight Simulator :
http://orbit.medphys.ucl.ac.uk/orbit.html

..
..

I've said from nov/dic 2005 (on an, unfortunately famous, space forum)
that the CEV was (and still is) "too big, too heavy and too
expensive" (receiving TONS of insults from some fanatic forum's users)

but, now, the legendary astronauts (and space expert) John Young
claims that Orion (really) IS "too big, too heavy and too expensive":

http://www.floridatoday.com/floridat...-monument.html

I hope that no one will insult him (or CENSOR again his claims...)

however, from my early posts, I've written articles, open forums'
threads and posted dozens comments on space blogs with my suggestions
to built a smaller, lighter and (maybe) cheaper Orion

like...

the "eggCEV": http://www.gaetanomarano.it/articles/012eggCEV.html

the "BigelowOrion": http://www.gaetanomarano.it/articles...elowOrion.html

how to design a lighter Orion: http://www.gaetanomarano.it/articles/019orionlight.html

the (much lighter) "underside-LAS": http://www.gaetanomarano.it/articles/020newLAS.html

etc.

of course, I'm aware that my ideas and proposals will NEVER be
applied... but I'm HAPPY to know that John Young AGREE with me...

..
..

On May 24, 7:09?pm, gaetanomarano wrote:
.
.

I've said from nov/dic 2005 (on an, unfortunately famous, space forum)
that the CEV was (and still is) "too big, too heavy and too
expensive" (receiving TONS of insults from some fanatic forum's users)

but, now, the legendary astronauts (and space expert) John Young
claims that Orion (really) IS "too big, too heavy and too expensive":

http://www.floridatoday.com/floridat...m/2007/05/moon...

I hope that no one will insult him (or CENSOR again his claims...)

however, from my early posts, I've written articles, open forums'
threads and posted dozens comments on space blogs with my suggestions
to built a smaller, lighter and (maybe) cheaper Orion

like...

the "eggCEV":http://www.gaetanomarano.it/articles/012eggCEV.html

the "BigelowOrion":http://www.gaetanomarano.it/articles...elowOrion.html

how to design a lighter Orion:http://www.gaetanomarano.it/articles/019orionlight.html

the (much lighter) "underside-LAS":http://www.gaetanomarano.it/articles/020newLAS.html

etc.

of course, I'm aware that my ideas and proposals will NEVER be
applied... but I'm HAPPY to know that John Young AGREE with me...

.
.

you never know bush will be out of office soon, and his CEV may go to
the trash bin of history with him..............

wrote:
On May 24, 7:09?pm, gaetanomarano wrote:
.
.

I've said from nov/dic 2005 (on an, unfortunately famous, space forum)
that the CEV was (and still is) "too big, too heavy and too
expensive" (receiving TONS of insults from some fanatic forum's users)

but, now, the legendary astronauts (and space expert) John Young
claims that Orion (really) IS "too big, too heavy and too expensive":

http://www.floridatoday.com/floridat...m/2007/05/moon...

I hope that no one will insult him (or CENSOR again his claims...)

however, from my early posts, I've written articles, open forums'
threads and posted dozens comments on space blogs with my suggestions
to built a smaller, lighter and (maybe) cheaper Orion

like...

the "eggCEV":http://www.gaetanomarano.it/articles/012eggCEV.html

the "BigelowOrion":http://www.gaetanomarano.it/articles...elowOrion.html

how to design a lighter Orion:http://www.gaetanomarano.it/articles/019orionlight.html

the (much lighter) "underside-LAS":http://www.gaetanomarano.it/articles/020newLAS.html

So, are you flying your craft in Orbiter yet?

I'm flying mine, every day, sometimes hundreds of times.

of course, I'm aware that my ideas and proposals will NEVER be
applied... but I'm HAPPY to know that John Young AGREE with me...

you never know bush will be out of office soon, and his CEV may go to
the trash bin of history with him..............

Guaranteed it will, which is why many have been working on Plan B :

http://cosmic.lifeform.org/?p=302

--
Get A Free Orbiter Space Flight Simulator :
http://orbit.medphys.ucl.ac.uk/orbit.html

In article . com,
wrote:
you never know bush will be out of office soon, and his CEV may go to
the trash bin of history with him...

Unlikely. It appears you haven't been paying attention -- CEV has fairly
broad and strong bipartisan support, as a shuttle replacement.

The more interesting question is whether anything will happen about the
return-to-the-Moon part, and more importantly, on *what schedule*. It too
has bipartisan support... but not as broad and not nearly as strong. The
fun comes about three years from now, when the shuttle-operations budget
item starts to plummet towards zero -- will NASA get to keep that money
and redirect it toward lunar hardware development, as is now planned?
Some schedule slip, at the very least, is not at all unlikely.

I continue to think that NASA is making a grievous strategic error in not
seizing the opportunity to dump the White Cane (aka Ares I) and go
straight to the White Elephant (Ares V) as the CEV launch vehicle. If
they've *got* to build their own launchers, it makes a whole lot of sense
to build only one kind, and the idea that the White Cane would be quick
and easy to do was quietly discarded some time ago. Developing the White
Elephant now instead would be unlikely to add significant cost or delay,
would greatly increase margins for weight growth in the hardware... and
would avoid needing a second big lump of launcher-development money before
any lunar operations could take place. The White Cane has had enough
problems in the last year or two to make a perfect excuse for dumping it,
but the window of opportunity for doing so is rapidly closing.

The single likeliest way for the return to the Moon -- or at least, the
government's version of it -- to get seriously delayed is for Congress to
postpone funding White Elephant development, on the grounds that it costs
too much and there is no near-term need for it. That's especially likely
if the White Cane overruns its budget and schedule, which is all too
probable. Nobody's going to balk at funding the launcher that's part of
the shuttle replacement, but an expensive followon is another story.
--
spsystems.net is temporarily off the air; | Henry Spencer
mail to henry at zoo.utoronto.ca instead. |

Henry Spencer wrote:
In article . com,
wrote:
you never know bush will be out of office soon, and his CEV may go to
the trash bin of history with him...

Unlikely. It appears you haven't been paying attention -- CEV has fairly
broad and strong bipartisan support, as a shuttle replacement.

The more interesting question is whether anything will happen about the
return-to-the-Moon part, and more importantly, on *what schedule*. It too
has bipartisan support... but not as broad and not nearly as strong. The
fun comes about three years from now, when the shuttle-operations budget
item starts to plummet towards zero -- will NASA get to keep that money
and redirect it toward lunar hardware development, as is now planned?
Some schedule slip, at the very least, is not at all unlikely.

I continue to think that NASA is making a grievous strategic error in not
seizing the opportunity to dump the White Cane (aka Ares I) and go
straight to the White Elephant (Ares V) as the CEV launch vehicle. If
they've *got* to build their own launchers, it makes a whole lot of sense
to build only one kind, and the idea that the White Cane would be quick
and easy to do was quietly discarded some time ago. Developing the White
Elephant now instead would be unlikely to add significant cost or delay,
would greatly increase margins for weight growth in the hardware... and
would avoid needing a second big lump of launcher-development money before
any lunar operations could take place. The White Cane has had enough
problems in the last year or two to make a perfect excuse for dumping it,
but the window of opportunity for doing so is rapidly closing.

The single likeliest way for the return to the Moon -- or at least, the
government's version of it -- to get seriously delayed is for Congress to
postpone funding White Elephant development, on the grounds that it costs
too much and there is no near-term need for it. That's especially likely
if the White Cane overruns its budget and schedule, which is all too
probable. Nobody's going to balk at funding the launcher that's part of
the shuttle replacement, but an expensive follow on is another story.

That's all fine and dandy but you're delusional. All of this will
evaporate in a puff of smoke because America is headed for serious
ruination because of the debt and the war. The crash is coming.

A strong president would **** can the entire idea, which was just an ATK
feeding frenzy to begin with, and tie the entire institutional assets of
the United States (NOAA, NASA, NSF, NWS, NHC, geological services, etc,
into a real live 'Manhattan' style project to confront global warming,
which as its basis would necessarily include cryogenic liquid propulsion
development and manned space flight, just not as envisioned by VSE/ESAS.

We are not opposed to manned space flight, we are simply opposed to the
SRBs, the VSE and ESAS. They don't solve the true problems and they
greatly hinder the development of the true solutions to the problems.
Not only that, the whole destinations thing of VSE is completely wrong.
It's completely ironic they couldn't have known that without the Hubble
and the unmanned robotic missions they've been flying so successfully.

Ceres - the goddess of agriculture.

--
Get A Free Orbiter Space Flight Simulator :
http://orbit.medphys.ucl.ac.uk/orbit.html

"Henry Spencer" wrote in message
...
In article . com,
wrote:
you never know bush will be out of office soon, and his CEV may go to
the trash bin of history with him...

Unlikely. It appears you haven't been paying attention -- CEV has fairly
broad and strong bipartisan support, as a shuttle replacement.

Unlikely? More like a sure thing, we have to have a replacement
for the shuttle, that's a given.



The more interesting question is whether anything will happen about the
return-to-the-Moon part, and more importantly, on *what schedule*. It too
has bipartisan support... but not as broad and not nearly as strong.


Initially that was true, it had some bipartisan support. But that
support has steadily diminished. The President doesn't even
publicly discuss the Vision aside from a rare press release
or two some staffer wrote. When the primary sponsor stops
pumping something that was weak to begin with it, it's all
but over. This is politics 101.


The
fun comes about three years from now, when the shuttle-operations budget
item starts to plummet towards zero -- will NASA get to keep that money
and redirect it toward lunar hardware development, as is now planned?


Not a chance. The first time this was announced by the elder President
Bush, he immediately recognized the lack of support and let
everyone forget about it. George W is the decider, he doesn't
listen to anyone. He states the policy and that's it.
So this time we have to wait until he goes, when he does
the Vision will suddenly evaporate, just like the first time.

What you guys don't get is this. When that time comes
if nothing else better/worthwhile is not ready to take the
place of the Vision. Then the entire manned space program
is all but finished from a lack of interest and purpose.

Space Solar Power is the alternative, an ambitious one, but
it's the far better choice by ...any... reasonable standard!!!
Especially from a political perspective. It resonates
from one end of the partisan spectrum to the other.
Energy/environment/economy/security/ to name a
few, and a way of jump-starting commercial spaceflight
and spaceports which the Vision is destoying.

I don't mean to be insulting, but doesn anyone here
follow politics at all? Can't you tell that the only
supporters of the Vision anymore are in-house.
The only reason the Vision gets any support
at all is that it's better than doing nothing at all.
But given a real choice, the Vision is gone in
sixty seconds flat.


Some schedule slip, at the very least, is not at all unlikely.

I continue to think that NASA is making a grievous strategic error in not
seizing the opportunity to dump the White Cane (aka Ares I) and go
straight to the White Elephant (Ares V) as the CEV launch vehicle. If
they've *got* to build their own launchers, it makes a whole lot of sense
to build only one kind, and the idea that the White Cane would be quick
and easy to do was quietly discarded some time ago. Developing the White
Elephant now instead would be unlikely to add significant cost or delay,
would greatly increase margins for weight growth in the hardware... and
would avoid needing a second big lump of launcher-development money before
any lunar operations could take place. The White Cane has had enough
problems in the last year or two to make a perfect excuse for dumping it,
but the window of opportunity for doing so is rapidly closing.




The single likeliest way for the return to the Moon -- or at least, the
government's version of it -- to get seriously delayed is for Congress to
postpone funding White Elephant development, on the grounds that it costs
too much and there is no near-term need for it. That's especially likely
if the White Cane overruns its budget and schedule, which is all too
probable. Nobody's going to balk at funding the launcher that's part of
the shuttle replacement, but an expensive followon is another story.


You've written a nice epitaph for the Vision. They won't be able
to justify a heavy lift also unless there's something very
worthwhile to use it for. You guys have had over 30 years
to justify returning to the moon and have failed to convince
the public. Three more years won't change that, in fact, the
longer they think about it, the less they think of the idea.

While concerns over global warming, being dependent
on the Middle Eastern oil, and the march of technology
make SSP more attractive all the time.


I mean, don't you want to see America become the energy
King of this century? Don't you want to see America
turn its greatest weakness into its greatest strength?
Don't you want to see America prosper? Or do you
prefer we fight even more wars over oil while shipping
our standard of living to the Middle Eastern extremists
that wish our deaths?

Almost any good politician could easily paint a critic
of SSP into an undesirable corner with all kinds
of questions ...like that.

SSP would make NASA relevant again, it would become
a budget priority. The Vision is a luxury.



--
spsystems.net is temporarily off the air; | Henry Spencer
mail to henry at zoo.utoronto.ca instead. |

"kT" wrote in message
...



A strong president would **** can the entire idea, which was just an ATK
feeding frenzy to begin with, and tie the entire institutional assets of
the United States (NOAA, NASA, NSF, NWS, NHC, geological services, etc,
into a real live 'Manhattan' style project to confront global warming,


Exactly! A grand purpose is worth the effort. The larger and more
ambitious the goal, the greater chance for success. Provided every
aspect of the goal stretches, but doesn't break, the realm of
possibility. And can be accomplished within a couple of
political cycles.



which as its basis would necessarily include cryogenic liquid propulsion
development and manned space flight, just not as envisioned by VSE/ESAS.

We are not opposed to manned space flight, we are simply opposed to the
SRBs, the VSE and ESAS. They don't solve the true problems and they
greatly hinder the development of the true solutions to the problems.
Not only that, the whole destinations thing of VSE is completely wrong.
It's completely ironic they couldn't have known that without the Hubble
and the unmanned robotic missions they've been flying so successfully.

Ceres - the goddess of agriculture.

--
Get A Free Orbiter Space Flight Simulator :
http://orbit.medphys.ucl.ac.uk/orbit.html

Jonathan wrote:

you never know bush will be out of office soon, and his CEV may go to
the trash bin of history with him...

Unlikely. It appears you haven't been paying attention -- CEV has fairly
broad and strong bipartisan support, as a shuttle replacement.


Unlikely?

Yes, it is unlikely Bush's CEV will go the trash bin of history with Bush.

More like a sure thing, we have to have a replacement
for the shuttle, that's a given.

You are contending it's a sure thing that the CEV will bite the dust?
How does the need for a shuttle replacement make the CEV's demise a sure
thing?

Evidently you have misread Hallerb's statement and Henry's reply. Please
reread them more carefully.

Hop