|
|
|
Thread Tools | Display Modes |
#1
|
|||
|
|||
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.......... |
#2
|
|||
|
|||
Orion's first crewed flight announced
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 |
#3
|
|||
|
|||
Orion's first crewed flight announced
|
#4
|
|||
|
|||
Orion's first crewed flight announced
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 |
#5
|
|||
|
|||
Orion's first crewed flight announced
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 |
#6
|
|||
|
|||
Orion's first crewed flight announced
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 |
#7
|
|||
|
|||
Orion's first crewed flight announced
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. |
#8
|
|||
|
|||
Orion's first crewed flight announced
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 |
#9
|
|||
|
|||
Orion's first crewed flight announced
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 |
#10
|
|||
|
|||
Orion's first crewed flight announced
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 |
|
Thread Tools | |
Display Modes | |
|
|
Similar Threads | ||||
Thread | Thread Starter | Forum | Replies | Last Post |
Orion's first crewed flight announced | bob haller | Policy | 7 | December 11th 16 04:24 PM |
NASA Number schemes for crewed flight | Greg \(Strider\) Moore | History | 9 | December 1st 11 05:19 AM |
The first manned CEV flight will be Orion 5 in September 2014. | Jeff Findley | Policy | 22 | October 29th 06 01:06 AM |
Return To Flight Task Group Public Meeting Announced | Ron Baalke | Space Shuttle | 0 | December 1st 03 04:05 PM |
Cheap Crewed Mars Mission | Mike Rhino | Policy | 6 | August 25th 03 03:55 AM |