A Space & astronomy forum. SpaceBanter.com

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

U.S. wants boots on the Moon by 2024



 
 
Thread Tools Display Modes
  #11  
Old April 2nd 19, 02:11 PM posted to sci.space.policy
Fred J. McCall[_3_]
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 10,018
Default U.S. wants boots on the Moon by 2024

Jeff Findley wrote on Tue, 2 Apr 2019
07:08:32 -0400:

In article ,
says...
It surely could be solved, with enough money. The devil is in the
details though. I've been told Orion and its service module can't be
horizontally integrated. Doubly so for the monster of an escape tower
(which wouldn't be needed if you launch Orion uncrewed).


I still don't see the problem. You integrate it like every other
payload on Falcon Heavy; vertically on the center core.


No payloads have ever been integrated vertically on Falcon 9 or Falcon
Heavy. All of their launch sites have horizontal integration
facilities. The vehicle with payload attached is then (horizontally)
rolled out to the pad on a transporter-erector. At the pad, the vehicle
is put into the vertical position by the transporter-erector. They
chose to do things this way because it's faster and cheaper.


Ah. It just finally penetrated what you're actually talking about.
Why would Orion have to be done differently?


Sure, SpaceX likely could do vertical integration of the payload if
given money to develop the facilities necessary. But I've never heard
anything coming out of SpaceX or even Elon Musk (Tweets) that says
they're going to do this.


And I see no reason why they would have to.


--
"Some people get lost in thought because it's such unfamiliar
territory."
--G. Behn
  #12  
Old April 3rd 19, 11:01 AM posted to sci.space.policy
Jeff Findley[_6_]
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 2,307
Default U.S. wants boots on the Moon by 2024

In article ,
says...

Jeff Findley wrote on Tue, 2 Apr 2019
07:08:32 -0400:

In article ,
says...
It surely could be solved, with enough money. The devil is in the
details though. I've been told Orion and its service module can't be
horizontally integrated. Doubly so for the monster of an escape tower
(which wouldn't be needed if you launch Orion uncrewed).


I still don't see the problem. You integrate it like every other
payload on Falcon Heavy; vertically on the center core.


No payloads have ever been integrated vertically on Falcon 9 or Falcon
Heavy. All of their launch sites have horizontal integration
facilities. The vehicle with payload attached is then (horizontally)
rolled out to the pad on a transporter-erector. At the pad, the vehicle
is put into the vertical position by the transporter-erector. They
chose to do things this way because it's faster and cheaper.


Ah. It just finally penetrated what you're actually talking about.
Why would Orion have to be done differently?


From what I've read, Orion's European built service module must be
vertical to be fueled and launched. Something about the structure not
being designed to handle the loads when the tanks are fully loaded.
Makes sense when you consider it's derived from their ATV which was
vertically integrated.

Some talk online yesterday of stacking Orion on the pad, but then you
have to fuel the service module at the pad which would necessitate a
clean room at the pad. This is all possible, but kind of a p.i.t.a.
since 39A is scheduled for Falcon Heavy launches for other customers
(commercial and USAF).

Might be better just to take over one of the MLPs, and launch from 39B,
but that would require lots of other changes as well. You could roll
over a fully assembled Falcon Heavy on its TEL then use a crane in the
VAB to stack that on an MLP, then stack Orion on top.

There just aren't many good solutions here. That's what happens when
you design a big, heavy capsule to only launch on Ares I using
international partners who only do vertical integration.

Sure, SpaceX likely could do vertical integration of the payload if
given money to develop the facilities necessary. But I've never heard
anything coming out of SpaceX or even Elon Musk (Tweets) that says
they're going to do this.


And I see no reason why they would have to.


True, since it looks like this option was only studied and isn't really
being taken very seriously by the SLS mafia, IMHO. We'll see what
happens to the SLS schedule from here on out. I doubt they'll
accelerate the schedule like they've talked about, but perhaps they can
stem further slips.

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.
  #13  
Old April 3rd 19, 04:37 PM posted to sci.space.policy
Fred J. McCall[_3_]
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 10,018
Default U.S. wants boots on the Moon by 2024

Jeff Findley wrote on Wed, 3 Apr 2019
06:01:13 -0400:

In article ,
says...

Jeff Findley wrote on Tue, 2 Apr 2019
07:08:32 -0400:

In article ,
says...
It surely could be solved, with enough money. The devil is in the
details though. I've been told Orion and its service module can't be
horizontally integrated. Doubly so for the monster of an escape tower
(which wouldn't be needed if you launch Orion uncrewed).


I still don't see the problem. You integrate it like every other
payload on Falcon Heavy; vertically on the center core.


No payloads have ever been integrated vertically on Falcon 9 or Falcon
Heavy. All of their launch sites have horizontal integration
facilities. The vehicle with payload attached is then (horizontally)
rolled out to the pad on a transporter-erector. At the pad, the vehicle
is put into the vertical position by the transporter-erector. They
chose to do things this way because it's faster and cheaper.


Ah. It just finally penetrated what you're actually talking about.
Why would Orion have to be done differently?


From what I've read, Orion's European built service module must be
vertical to be fueled and launched. Something about the structure not
being designed to handle the loads when the tanks are fully loaded.
Makes sense when you consider it's derived from their ATV which was
vertically integrated.


Perhaps an issue, but there's lots of way around it. Since it carries
twice the fuel it needs, how about just partially fuel it?


Some talk online yesterday of stacking Orion on the pad, but then you
have to fuel the service module at the pad which would necessitate a
clean room at the pad. This is all possible, but kind of a p.i.t.a.
since 39A is scheduled for Falcon Heavy launches for other customers
(commercial and USAF).


You can make a 'clean room' out of some tenting and filtered blowers.
Not THAT big a PITA and it's a long way from PITA to "too hard to do".

Might be better just to take over one of the MLPs, and launch from 39B,
but that would require lots of other changes as well. You could roll
over a fully assembled Falcon Heavy on its TEL then use a crane in the
VAB to stack that on an MLP, then stack Orion on top.

There just aren't many good solutions here. That's what happens when
you design a big, heavy capsule to only launch on Ares I using
international partners who only do vertical integration.


I just don't see this as the huge barrier that you apparently do.

Sure, SpaceX likely could do vertical integration of the payload if
given money to develop the facilities necessary. But I've never heard
anything coming out of SpaceX or even Elon Musk (Tweets) that says
they're going to do this.


And I see no reason why they would have to.


True, since it looks like this option was only studied and isn't really
being taken very seriously by the SLS mafia, IMHO. We'll see what
happens to the SLS schedule from here on out. I doubt they'll
accelerate the schedule like they've talked about, but perhaps they can
stem further slips.


The only way the SLS Mafia will ever take anything seriously is when
the cancellation notice comes through. SLS claims they can pull their
schedule way to the right, but so far I haven't seen a list of what
they plan on doing differently to make that happen.


--
"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
  #14  
Old April 3rd 19, 06:12 PM posted to sci.space.policy
Greg \(Strider\) Moore
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 752
Default U.S. wants boots on the Moon by 2024

"Jeff Findley" wrote in message
...

In article ,
says...

Jeff Findley wrote on Tue, 2 Apr 2019
07:08:32 -0400:

In article ,
says...
It surely could be solved, with enough money. The devil is in the
details though. I've been told Orion and its service module can't be
horizontally integrated. Doubly so for the monster of an escape
tower
(which wouldn't be needed if you launch Orion uncrewed).


I still don't see the problem. You integrate it like every other
payload on Falcon Heavy; vertically on the center core.


No payloads have ever been integrated vertically on Falcon 9 or Falcon
Heavy. All of their launch sites have horizontal integration
facilities. The vehicle with payload attached is then (horizontally)
rolled out to the pad on a transporter-erector. At the pad, the vehicle
is put into the vertical position by the transporter-erector. They
chose to do things this way because it's faster and cheaper.


Ah. It just finally penetrated what you're actually talking about.
Why would Orion have to be done differently?


From what I've read, Orion's European built service module must be
vertical to be fueled and launched. Something about the structure not
being designed to handle the loads when the tanks are fully loaded.
Makes sense when you consider it's derived from their ATV which was
vertically integrated.

Some talk online yesterday of stacking Orion on the pad, but then you
have to fuel the service module at the pad which would necessitate a
clean room at the pad. This is all possible, but kind of a p.i.t.a.
since 39A is scheduled for Falcon Heavy launches for other customers
(commercial and USAF).

Might be better just to take over one of the MLPs, and launch from 39B,
but that would require lots of other changes as well. You could roll
over a fully assembled Falcon Heavy on its TEL then use a crane in the
VAB to stack that on an MLP, then stack Orion on top.

There just aren't many good solutions here. That's what happens when
you design a big, heavy capsule to only launch on Ares I using
international partners who only do vertical integration.


I hate to say it, but this is a case where Bobert may have been on to
something (I'm not going to say "right" since I don't think he was).
But permitting crawler/transporter/MLP access to 39A might have been a
smarter move for SpaceX.
Simply set back their integration building further so it wasn't directly on
the tracks and you could still have left access.

That said, for this edge case, still probably not worth it.


Sure, SpaceX likely could do vertical integration of the payload if
given money to develop the facilities necessary. But I've never heard
anything coming out of SpaceX or even Elon Musk (Tweets) that says
they're going to do this.


And I see no reason why they would have to.


True, since it looks like this option was only studied and isn't really
being taken very seriously by the SLS mafia, IMHO. We'll see what
happens to the SLS schedule from here on out. I doubt they'll
accelerate the schedule like they've talked about, but perhaps they can
stem further slips.

Jeff


--
Greg D. Moore http://greenmountainsoftware.wordpress.com/
CEO QuiCR: Quick, Crowdsourced Responses. http://www.quicr.net
IT Disaster Response -
https://www.amazon.com/Disaster-Resp...dp/1484221834/

  #15  
Old April 4th 19, 04:53 AM posted to sci.space.policy
Fred J. McCall[_3_]
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 10,018
Default U.S. wants boots on the Moon by 2024

Fred J. McCall wrote on Wed, 03 Apr 2019 08:37:27
-0700:

Jeff Findley wrote on Wed, 3 Apr 2019
06:01:13 -0400:

In article ,
says...

Jeff Findley wrote on Tue, 2 Apr 2019
07:08:32 -0400:

In article ,
says...
It surely could be solved, with enough money. The devil is in the
details though. I've been told Orion and its service module can't be
horizontally integrated. Doubly so for the monster of an escape tower
(which wouldn't be needed if you launch Orion uncrewed).


I still don't see the problem. You integrate it like every other
payload on Falcon Heavy; vertically on the center core.


No payloads have ever been integrated vertically on Falcon 9 or Falcon
Heavy. All of their launch sites have horizontal integration
facilities. The vehicle with payload attached is then (horizontally)
rolled out to the pad on a transporter-erector. At the pad, the vehicle
is put into the vertical position by the transporter-erector. They
chose to do things this way because it's faster and cheaper.


Ah. It just finally penetrated what you're actually talking about.
Why would Orion have to be done differently?


From what I've read, Orion's European built service module must be
vertical to be fueled and launched. Something about the structure not
being designed to handle the loads when the tanks are fully loaded.
Makes sense when you consider it's derived from their ATV which was
vertically integrated.


Perhaps an issue, but there's lots of way around it. Since it carries
twice the fuel it needs, how about just partially fuel it?


Some talk online yesterday of stacking Orion on the pad, but then you
have to fuel the service module at the pad which would necessitate a
clean room at the pad. This is all possible, but kind of a p.i.t.a.
since 39A is scheduled for Falcon Heavy launches for other customers
(commercial and USAF).


You can make a 'clean room' out of some tenting and filtered blowers.
Not THAT big a PITA and it's a long way from PITA to "too hard to do".

Might be better just to take over one of the MLPs, and launch from 39B,
but that would require lots of other changes as well. You could roll
over a fully assembled Falcon Heavy on its TEL then use a crane in the
VAB to stack that on an MLP, then stack Orion on top.

There just aren't many good solutions here. That's what happens when
you design a big, heavy capsule to only launch on Ares I using
international partners who only do vertical integration.


I just don't see this as the huge barrier that you apparently do.

Sure, SpaceX likely could do vertical integration of the payload if
given money to develop the facilities necessary. But I've never heard
anything coming out of SpaceX or even Elon Musk (Tweets) that says
they're going to do this.


And I see no reason why they would have to.


True, since it looks like this option was only studied and isn't really
being taken very seriously by the SLS mafia, IMHO. We'll see what
happens to the SLS schedule from here on out. I doubt they'll
accelerate the schedule like they've talked about, but perhaps they can
stem further slips.


The only way the SLS Mafia will ever take anything seriously is when
the cancellation notice comes through. SLS claims they can pull their
schedule way to the right, but so far I haven't seen a list of what
they plan on doing differently to make that happen.


Sorry, that should have read "way to the left".


--
"It's always different. It's always complex. But at some point,
somebody has to draw the line. And that somebody is always me....
I am the law."
-- Buffy, The Vampire Slayer
  #16  
Old April 10th 19, 01:16 AM posted to sci.space.policy
Fred J. McCall[_3_]
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 10,018
Default U.S. wants boots on the Moon by 2024

JF Mezei wrote on Tue, 9 Apr 2019
18:18:28 -0400:

On 2019-04-03 06:01, Jeff Findley wrote:

Some talk online yesterday of stacking Orion on the pad, but then you
have to fuel the service module at the pad which would necessitate a
clean room at the pad.


Why would it *require* a clean room?. I know it is traditional to use a
clean room, which was the whole point of RSS for shuttle, but if they
raise Orion/Sm and put a fairing on right away, they wouldn't have to
fear birds mesting inside, would they?


Please go look up the purpose of a 'clean room'.


Shuttle had its payload doors opened for a very long time, so needed
protection.


Having them open AT ALL needs protection.


With BFR/BFS, what are Musk's needs in terms of the launch tower?
Perhaps the contract to launch Orion could pay for the launch tower
modifications to handle both Orion and BFR/BFS and SpaceX then gets
"free" launch tower for BFR/BFS.


Uh, do you know what 'fraud' is? In the contracting world, what you
describe is part of it.


--
"Some people get lost in thought because it's such unfamiliar
territory."
--G. Behn
  #17  
Old April 10th 19, 01:19 AM posted to sci.space.policy
Fred J. McCall[_3_]
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 10,018
Default U.S. wants boots on the Moon by 2024

JF Mezei wrote on Tue, 9 Apr 2019
18:21:59 -0400:

On 2019-04-03 11:37, Fred J. McCall wrote:

The only way the SLS Mafia will ever take anything seriously is when
the cancellation notice comes through.


I've seen ATK (Now Grunman) mentioned often as the group that lobbied
for the SLS $$$ continuing.


They're certainly one member of the SLS Mafia.


Or all the delays to SLS, do they benefit
since they aren't really producing SRBs for SLS as NASA just spends time
testing the SSMEs now and then, and dropping Orion in a pool a couple of
times.


They'll also fire a solid rocket now and then.


Who actually benefits for SLS/Orion project lumbering on forever without
actual launches ?


Anyone involved, since contracts have to cover fixed costs whether you
actually build anything or not. But the idea is that they will
eventually build something and shoot it off once a year or so.


--
"Some people get lost in thought because it's such unfamiliar
territory."
--G. Behn
  #19  
Old April 23rd 19, 09:54 PM posted to sci.space.policy
Fred J. McCall[_3_]
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 10,018
Default U.S. wants boots on the Moon by 2024

JF Mezei wrote on Mon, 22 Apr 2019
20:11:07 -0400:

On 2019-04-10 12:08, Jeff Findley wrote:

In general, SLS is a cost plus contract. $2+ billion a year. They all
get paid regardless if it ever flies or not.


So they can theoretically extend development of SLS by 25 years and
their costs+ get paid every year despite having no deliverables ?


Of course. The bulk of the profit is generally in the hardware, but
if the government wants to continue the program they need to pay all
the fixed and RDT&E costs.


--
"Millions for defense, but not one cent for tribute."
-- Charles Pinckney
 




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
ISS mission extended to 2024 Greg \(Strider\) Moore Space Station 7 January 13th 14 01:27 PM
Pac boots John Nichols Amateur Astronomy 11 November 21st 09 05:38 PM
ASTRO: NGC 2024, the Flame Nebula in Orion George Normandin[_1_] Astro Pictures 6 April 14th 08 04:56 PM
Proximity boots stephen Space Shuttle 0 March 18th 07 04:30 PM
Thermal boots Ed UK Astronomy 5 December 16th 05 11:00 PM


All times are GMT +1. The time now is 05:03 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.