|
|
Thread Tools | Display Modes |
#101
|
|||
|
|||
MSNBC (JimO) - Hubble debate -- a lot of sound and fury
"John" wrote in
news:0kTbc.167$ox4.68@newsfe1-win: Is Congress really to blame for NASA's illogical obsession with space planes? SSTOs and TSTOs are much better odds for reusable launch vehicles. Yet NASA seems to ignore these completely. It shut down the delta-clipper project. Was this under pressure from Congress? Indirectly, yes. NASA took over DC-XA when SDIO cancelled it. When it came time for the next phase, which would have been DC-Y. NASA re-competed the contract under the name X-33 rather than sole-sourcing it to MDAC. Procurement law sets out specific circumstances under which sole-sourcing is allowed (small contracts or lack of other suppliers in the market), and the circumstances of DC-X did not fit: the contract was too large and there were other suppliers in the market. Had NASA sole-sourced it anyway, it would have invited legal challenges from other potential suppliers and a lot of scrutiny from Congress. MDAC bid on the re-competed contract but lost to LockMart. We can debate the relative merits of the X-33 competitors (personally I preferred MDAC and Rockwell's designs over LockMart's), but not the necessity of re-competing the contract. As I understand it Hubble was always intended to be serviced periodically, yet there seems no easy way to physically grab it. You misunderstood. HST is quite easy for a trained human to grab with the RMS. That is because HST's capture aids are all visual, and the human eye- brain combination is highly evolved to make sense out of visual patterns. All existing automated rendezvous/capture solutions require that the target have aids for machine sensors (RF, laser, etc). HST was not designed to be easy for a machine to grab because all HST servicing missions were to be done with the space shuttle. It is not impossible to design a machine- vision system to cope with this, but it is seriously pushing the envelope of the current state-of-the art. -- JRF Reply-to address spam-proofed - to reply by E-mail, check "Organization" (I am not assimilated) and think one step ahead of IBM. |
#102
|
|||
|
|||
MSNBC (JimO) - Hubble debate -- a lot of sound and fury
On Sun, 4 Apr 2004 13:40:43 +0100, in a place far, far away, "John"
made the phosphor on my monitor glow in such a way as to indicate that: "Herb Schaltegger" wrote ... Were you involved, in any conceivable way, with the space station program in those days, to speak with such authority? Don't misquote me. I was referring to NASA operations in general, rather than any specific problem or project. But if you want to talk about the station, was it really Congress's idea to make one big super-station that would be the dream answer for all scientists and engineers who wanted to study everything to do with space? It was Congress' idea that they would only fund one station. Once that became clear, politically it made sense to make it do everything to garner as much political support for it as possible (the same thing that happened to Shuttle). This is why govenment space programs are a bad idea, if your goal is accomplishment in space, as opposed to jobs. Is Congress really to blame for NASA's illogical obsession with space planes? SSTOs and TSTOs are much better odds for reusable launch vehicles. Yet NASA seems to ignore these completely. It shut down the delta-clipper project. Was this under pressure from Congress? In the sense that NASA can only do what Congress funds it to do. There was no appropriation for a follow-on to the Delta Clipper program (other than X-33, of course, but NASA chose the Lockmart design instead). NASA still has done some pretty silly things over it's existance. And it really should take the fall for some of them. Few would dispute that. |
#103
|
|||
|
|||
MSNBC (JimO) - Hubble debate -- a lot of sound and fury
On 04 Apr 2004 16:06:04 GMT, "Jorge R. Frank"
wrote: Indirectly, yes. NASA took over DC-XA when SDIO cancelled it. When it came time for the next phase, which would have been DC-Y. NASA re-competed the contract under the name X-33 rather than sole-sourcing it to MDAC. Procurement law sets out specific circumstances under which sole-sourcing is allowed (small contracts or lack of other suppliers in the market), and the circumstances of DC-X did not fit: the contract was too large and there were other suppliers in the market. Had NASA sole-sourced it anyway, it would have invited legal challenges from other potential suppliers and a lot of scrutiny from Congress. MDAC bid on the re-competed contract but lost to LockMart. We can debate the relative merits of the X-33 competitors (personally I preferred MDAC and Rockwell's designs over LockMart's), but not the necessity of re-competing the contract. The X-33 RFP called for an _innovative_ vehicle, but the MDAC bid the DC-Y and RI bid what was essentially a modernized Orbiter. Nothing new in either of them. At least Lockheed-Martin bid something innovative, with the aerospike engine on a lifting body. It deserved to win and the other two didn't. When NASA (or any other government agency) wants a specific company or specific proposal to win the competitive bid process, it writes the RFP to be sure that happens. It doesn't specify "innovative" for a warmed-over SDIO concept or an Orbiter retread. Mary -- Mary Shafer Retired aerospace research engineer |
#104
|
|||
|
|||
MSNBC (JimO) - Hubble debate -- a lot of sound and fury
On Mon, 05 Apr 2004 07:49:37 -0700, in a place far, far away, Mary
Shafer made the phosphor on my monitor glow in such a way as to indicate that: The X-33 RFP called for an _innovative_ vehicle, but the MDAC bid the DC-Y and RI bid what was essentially a modernized Orbiter. Nothing new in either of them. At least Lockheed-Martin bid something innovative, with the aerospike engine on a lifting body. It deserved to win and the other two didn't. The goal wasn't just to be innovative--it was also to come up with something that offered promise of reducing costs of launch, and having a business plan to implement it. NASA fell in love with the technology for technology's sake, and ignored the practical aspects. When NASA (or any other government agency) wants a specific company or specific proposal to win the competitive bid process, it writes the RFP to be sure that happens. It doesn't specify "innovative" for a warmed-over SDIO concept or an Orbiter retread. Any SSTO concept would be innovative, Mary, and all three contractors submitted one. |
#105
|
|||
|
|||
MSNBC (JimO) - Hubble debate -- a lot of sound and fury
Mary Shafer writes:
The X-33 RFP called for an _innovative_ vehicle, but the MDAC bid the DC-Y and RI bid what was essentially a modernized Orbiter. Nothing new in either of them. At least Lockheed-Martin bid something innovative, with the aerospike engine on a lifting body. It deserved to win and the other two didn't. If your only metric is innovation. Unfortunately, when you have a fixed budget (which X-33 essentially had), there is an inverse relationship between innovation and successfully completing a flight test program. In other words, the entire program was shut down before all of the bugs could be worked out in the innovative areas. When NASA (or any other government agency) wants a specific company or specific proposal to win the competitive bid process, it writes the RFP to be sure that happens. It doesn't specify "innovative" for a warmed-over SDIO concept or an Orbiter retread. Innovative gets specified when there is more of a desire to play in a technological sandbox than there is to do real work towards lowering the costs of access to space. In the end, NASA's official position is that X-33 failed because we do not yet have the technology to produce a workable SSTO. In the end, this program did more harm than good, especially when NASA refuses to admit any guilt as it relates to the program's failure. If DC-Y wasn't innovative, I'd like to know if you think DC-X was innovative. Jeff -- Remove "no" and "spam" from email address to reply. If it says "This is not spam!", it's surely a lie. |
#106
|
|||
|
|||
MSNBC (JimO) - Hubble debate -- a lot of sound and fury
On 05 Apr 2004 14:59:15 -0400, jeff findley
wrote: Mary Shafer writes: The X-33 RFP called for an _innovative_ vehicle, but the MDAC bid the DC-Y and RI bid what was essentially a modernized Orbiter. Nothing new in either of them. At least Lockheed-Martin bid something innovative, with the aerospike engine on a lifting body. It deserved to win and the other two didn't. If your only metric is innovation. Unfortunately, when you have a fixed budget (which X-33 essentially had), there is an inverse relationship between innovation and successfully completing a flight test program. In other words, the entire program was shut down before all of the bugs could be worked out in the innovative areas. That's not inevitable, though. "Innovative" is not an excuse for throwing money down a rat hole. Have you noticed that we have opposing metaphors here? Throwing good money after bad versus in for a penny, in for a pound, for example. When NASA (or any other government agency) wants a specific company or specific proposal to win the competitive bid process, it writes the RFP to be sure that happens. It doesn't specify "innovative" for a warmed-over SDIO concept or an Orbiter retread. Innovative gets specified when there is more of a desire to play in a technological sandbox than there is to do real work towards lowering the costs of access to space. That's not part of NASA's charter for X-vehicles. X-vehicles are flown to explore new flight regimes or get new flight data or demonstrate new technology. The X-29 wasn't built to demonstrate cheaper access to flight, for example, although a lot of it was COTS, like the F-16 landing gear and the F-5 cockpits and forebodies. In the end, NASA's official position is that X-33 failed because we do not yet have the technology to produce a workable SSTO. In the end, this program did more harm than good, especially when NASA refuses to admit any guilt as it relates to the program's failure. I personally don't think we ever will have that technology because I think the physics are against it. It was an X-vehicle, though, so failure is an option. I just wish it had come later in the program. If DC-Y wasn't innovative, I'd like to know if you think DC-X was innovative. I thought it was very innovative, from the day I went to the early team meeting long before the program was formalized. I would have liked to have worked on it, not just advised at the beginning. Mary -- Mary Shafer Retired aerospace research engineer |
#107
|
|||
|
|||
MSNBC (JimO) - Hubble debate -- a lot of sound and fury
On Mon, 05 Apr 2004 12:52:07 -0700, in a place far, far away, Mary
Shafer made the phosphor on my monitor glow in such a way as to indicate that: Innovative gets specified when there is more of a desire to play in a technological sandbox than there is to do real work towards lowering the costs of access to space. That's not part of NASA's charter for X-vehicles. It was for that particular one. At least that's what the CAN said. I think you're confusing X-33 with well-conceived and managed X programs. In the end, NASA's official position is that X-33 failed because we do not yet have the technology to produce a workable SSTO. In the end, this program did more harm than good, especially when NASA refuses to admit any guilt as it relates to the program's failure. I personally don't think we ever will have that technology because I think the physics are against it. It was an X-vehicle, though, so failure is an option. I just wish it had come later in the program. I don't know what you mean by "that technology." If you mean the technologies (and one of the problems with the program was trying to insert to many into a single program) in the X-33, none of them were necessary for low-cost launchers, regardless of Marshall spin. If by "that technology," you mean the technology needed for low-cost space transports, we already have it (though SSTO is disputable)--we have just never funded an implementation of it. |
#108
|
|||
|
|||
MSNBC (JimO) - Hubble debate -- a lot of sound and fury
Mary Shafer wrote in message . ..
RI bid what was essentially a modernized Orbiter. Nothing new in either of them. How do you figure? The Rockwell X-33 looked vaguely like the Orbiter (with emphasis on vaguely), probably had somewhat similar aerodynamics, and used a modified SSME. I can't think of anything else that it had in common. It's certainly more of a departure from the Orbiter than any of the modified fighters that Dryden has used as experimental aircraft, and that's counting the F-16XLs, and maybe the X-29 as a modified F-20. -jake |
#109
|
|||
|
|||
MSNBC (JimO) - Hubble debate -- a lot of sound and fury
Mary Shafer wrote in
: The X-33 RFP called for an _innovative_ vehicle, but the MDAC bid the DC-Y and RI bid what was essentially a modernized Orbiter. Nothing new in either of them. At least Lockheed-Martin bid something innovative, with the aerospike engine on a lifting body. It deserved to win and the other two didn't. When NASA (or any other government agency) wants a specific company or specific proposal to win the competitive bid process, it writes the RFP to be sure that happens. It doesn't specify "innovative" for a warmed-over SDIO concept or an Orbiter retread. I'm not sure the DC-Y/Delta Clipper quite deserves the label "warmed-over", since it only got as far as the low-altitude, subsonic DC-X demonstrator. DC-Y/Delta Clipper would have been the first demonstrated SSTO and the first orbital VTVL vehicle. While not as technologically ambitious as X- 33/VentureStar, it was fairly innovative in its own right. -- JRF Reply-to address spam-proofed - to reply by E-mail, check "Organization" (I am not assimilated) and think one step ahead of IBM. |
#110
|
|||
|
|||
MSNBC (JimO) - Hubble debate -- a lot of sound and fury
jeff findley wrote: If your only metric is innovation. Unfortunately, when you have a fixed budget (which X-33 essentially had), there is an inverse relationship between innovation and successfully completing a flight test program. In other words, the entire program was shut down before all of the bugs could be worked out in the innovative areas. The Skunk Works broke one of its own rules on that project- one _and only one_ new breakthrough technology per project. They tried a linear plug nozzle motor, lightweight metallic TPS, and composite LH2 tanks all at once- that was just begging for failure. When NASA (or any other government agency) wants a specific company or specific proposal to win the competitive bid process, it writes the RFP to be sure that happens. It doesn't specify "innovative" for a warmed-over SDIO concept or an Orbiter retread. Innovative gets specified when there is more of a desire to play in a technological sandbox than there is to do real work towards lowering the costs of access to space. In the end, NASA's official position is that X-33 failed because we do not yet have the technology to produce a workable SSTO. Remember the Lockheed CL-400 Suntan though- it also was a complete flop, but taught a lot of lessons on how _not_ to do things that paid off in the A-12/SR-71 projects. In the end, this program did more harm than good, especially when NASA refuses to admit any guilt as it relates to the program's failure. I think NASA got sold a line of bull by Lockheed Martin, especially when Lockheed implied that a lot of the technology that they would be using was based on something classified that they did...and which they couldn't talk about (wink, wink). Whatever it was, it apparently didn't use composite LH2 tanks, did it? Pat |
Thread Tools | |
Display Modes | |
|
|