Spiral 1 is redundant

"Jorge R. Frank" wrote in message
...
Some people still believe that it will be, at least. The tea leaves I'm
reading say otherwise.

Everyone at the Space Exploration Conference, including Steidle, seems to
think Spiral 1 is an ETO transporter.

-Kim-

(George William Herbert) wrote in
:

Jorge R. Frank wrote:
"Kim Keller" wrote:
"Jorge R. Frank" wrote:
To reduce the technical and schedule risk for Spiral 2, by giving US
design teams more experience. Spiral 1 is not intended to result in an
"operational" vehicle.

Wellll, yeah, Spiral 1 is an operational ETO transport.

Some people still believe that it will be, at least. The tea leaves I'm
reading say otherwise.

The specification is reasonably clear. It has to be an operational
Earth to Orbit transport.

Whether it is intended to be *used* for operational Earth to Orbit
transport of people to say Space Station, is an open question.

That's my point. It doesn't matter what the specs say, or whether NASA
declares Spiral 1 "operational" at the end of some number of test flights.
If it has no operational roles or missions, it's not operational, at least
in my book.

I suspect that the ISS resupply / crew transport people and
Exporation Systems aren't seeing eye to eye on this.
Or, at least, haven't succeeded in requiring that CEV S-1
be The Station Transport.

I suspect at least part of that is that, while the 2010 retirement date for
the shuttle is flexible (can't allow schedule pressure to creep back in),
the 2016 date for US withdrawal from ISS is firm (gotta free up that
funding "wedge" for the next CEV spiral). That greatly narrows the "window"
for Spiral 1 to actually perform a useful role in ISS transport. Spiral 1
could wind up being Apollo Block 1 redux.

This is actually sort of annoying on one level, but it leaves
the map open for commercial transports as well.

Which of course is a Good Thing. I'm hearing rumors of concrete steps being
taken in that direction that would render Spiral 1 moot as an ISS transport
before it gets off the drawing board.

--
JRF

Reply-to address spam-proofed - to reply by E-mail,
check "Organization" (I am not assimilated) and
think one step ahead of IBM.

Jorge R. Frank wrote:
(George William Herbert) wrote:
[...]
This is actually sort of annoying on one level, but it leaves
the map open for commercial transports as well.

Which of course is a Good Thing. I'm hearing rumors of concrete steps being
taken in that direction that would render Spiral 1 moot as an ISS transport
before it gets off the drawing board.

A whole lot of people are Really Interested in Bigelow's $50 million.
Any vehicle which can do that can meet the Spiral 1 requirements
for earth to orbit, though perhaps not Spiral 2/3/n to Moon/Mars.
And the prize espires before the Spiral 1 estimated vehicle
completion date. And involves (by design) no government funding.

This is fairly obvious. I think it's safe to say that it's fairly
obvious to everyone involved in CEV, too.

As soon as the detailed Americas Space Price requirements have
actually shipped to the registered competitors, expect to see a
flurry of announcements. Retro will be making one of them.

The key remaining complicating factor is that the obvious US
launch vehicle is owned by someone who has expressed an interest
in winning the prize themselves (SpaceX). I am hopeful that
they will make Falcon V available on a nondiscriminatory basis
to all paying customers.


-george william herbert

"Jorge R. Frank" jrfrank wrote:

John Halpenny wrote in
:

If Lockheed gets the contract, they will buy Soyuz under a "technology
transfer" agreement, jack up the price and sell it as american.

If they put that in their bid, they lose the contract.

If they don't disclose that until after they win, they go to jail.

They won't take that chance.

You underestimate Lockheed. They did almost exactly this on the EELV
program. The original contract called for an American engine. Boeing
spent $1 billion of its own money developing the RS-68. Lockheed got
a waiver to temporarily use the RD-180. Then they got another waiver
to use it permanently. And another waiver to not build the Atlas V
heavy (which was also in the original contract), and another one to
not build a Vandenberg launch site (ditto), and then they got paid
$400 million to build the Vandenberg site when it was added back in.

They're doing the same thing on the Presidential helicopter program,
this time with an Italian helicopter, and they're expected to do the
same thing on the tanker program with an Airbus tanker.

No other contract could get away with it, but Lockheed can.

Mike

-----
Michael Kent Apple II Forever!!
St. Peters, MO

"Michael Kent" wrote in message
...
You underestimate Lockheed. They did almost exactly this on the EELV
program. The original contract called for an American engine. Boeing
spent $1 billion of its own money developing the RS-68. Lockheed got
a waiver to temporarily use the RD-180. Then they got another waiver
to use it permanently. And another waiver to not build the Atlas V
heavy (which was also in the original contract), and another one to
not build a Vandenberg launch site (ditto), and then they got paid
$400 million to build the Vandenberg site when it was added back in.

They're doing the same thing on the Presidential helicopter program,
this time with an Italian helicopter, and they're expected to do the
same thing on the tanker program with an Airbus tanker.

No other contract could get away with it, but Lockheed can.

You don't seem to understand - Soyuz does *not* meet the CEV requirements,
and can't meet them without significant redesign. They're not going to
change just so Lockheed can win, and waivers will not be forthcoming without
very messy legal battles from the other bidders.

BTW, LM's use of Russian-built RD-180s is not permanent. A US source is
being prepared.

-Kim-

Kim Keller wrote:
[snip]
BTW, LM's use of Russian-built RD-180s is not permanent. A US source is
being prepared.

I'm curious, a US source for RD-180s (licenced? clones?) or
for RD-180 equivalent engines of a new design?

In article ,
Christopher M. Jones wrote:
BTW, LM's use of Russian-built RD-180s is not permanent. A US source is
being prepared.

I'm curious, a US source for RD-180s (licenced? clones?) or
for RD-180 equivalent engines of a new design?

Licensed production of the RD-180.

This has been theoretically in the works for rather a while now, and I'll
believe actual US production when I see it. LockMart and its buddies
start chorusing "real soon now! real soon now!" whenever the USAF starts
grumbling about Atlas being dependent on Russian engines.
--
"Think outside the box -- the box isn't our friend." | Henry Spencer
-- George Herbert |

"Henry Spencer" wrote in message
...
In article ,
Christopher M. Jones wrote:
BTW, LM's use of Russian-built RD-180s is not permanent. A US source is
being prepared.

I'm curious, a US source for RD-180s (licenced? clones?) or
for RD-180 equivalent engines of a new design?

Licensed production of the RD-180.

This has been theoretically in the works for rather a while now, and I'll
believe actual US production when I see it. LockMart and its buddies
start chorusing "real soon now! real soon now!" whenever the USAF starts
grumbling about Atlas being dependent on Russian engines.

The term when Hell freezes over seems to apply to Lockheed actually building
engines in the U.S.

In reality the best chance will come after SpaceX builds a rocket capable of
competing.
Musk is not a wimp like Boeing. He will sue the Air Force for breaking the
rules.

"Christopher M. Jones" wrote in message
...
Kim Keller wrote:
[snip]
BTW, LM's use of Russian-built RD-180s is not permanent. A US source is
being prepared.

I'm curious, a US source for RD-180s (licenced? clones?) or
for RD-180 equivalent engines of a new design?

Pratt & Whitney is in the process of preparing an assembly line for them in
the US.

-Kim-

Douglas Holmes wrote:

The term when Hell freezes over seems to apply to Lockheed actually building
engines in the U.S.

In reality the best chance will come after SpaceX builds a rocket capable of
competing.
Musk is not a wimp like Boeing. He will sue the Air Force for breaking the
rules.

Boeing has already tried that (McDonnell Douglas sued the Navy after the
A-12 fiasco). Didn't work.

Luckily the Navy didn't hold it against them (the A-12 was essentially
replaced by the F/A-18E/F Super Hornet).

Mike

-----
Michael Kent Apple II Forever!!
St. Peters, MO