Plotting A New Course for NASA

On Nov 29, 9:35*pm, Matt Wiser wrote:
On Nov 29, 11:37*am, bob haller wrote:





On Nov 29, 1:26*pm, Matt Wiser wrote:

On Nov 29, 3:07*am, bob haller wrote:

He did by authorizing ET-122 be restored from Katrina damage and using
ET-138 on an actual flight and not held in reserve for a rescue
flight. The only remaining complete, flightworthy tank is ET-94, the
last Light Weight Tank, heavier than the Super Light Weight Tanks
(ET-96 and up, ET-95 was never built, neither was ET-7) used for Space
Station missions, and thus not really suitable for Station work.

I believe there were 3 more in the works (I'd have to wiki/google it but my
browser is acting up right now.)

And ET-94 was usable, just limited the payload. *Which for post construction
flights was less of an issue.

Brian

nasa stated publically the chance of a lost vehicle and crew was like
30% if it continued flying.

no one wanted to see another orbiter destroyed, and another flight
crew lost.......

the problem wasnt ending the shuttle program.

the problem was the **** poor political driven replacement choice.

if nasa had choosen to put a new capsule on top of a expendable atlas
or delta, and we would of been flying by now.

And this from someone who wants to end HSF? Btw, Bobbert, Orion wasn't
going to be flight-ready under CxP until 2013 under their original
plan, and not until 2015 under the final CxP plans. Again, being
naive, technologically ignorant, politically ignorant, and
disregarding anything that clashes with your fantasies won't get you
anywhere.- Hide quoted text -

- Show quoted text -

nasa could of mated a new capsule and service module on a existing
expendable very quickly and not had to design a new booster at all.....- Hide quoted text -

- Show quoted text -

Oh? The hearings from Augustine mentioned EELVs. You know how long it
takes to human-rate an EELV? Three years, minimium. And that's without
politics getting involved. Need I remind you, Bobbert, that there's a
grand total of ONE member of Congress that's pushing that approach:
Rep. Dana Rohrabacher (R-CA), and he's not doing this out of the
goodness of his heart. There's several NewSpace (or Commercial Space,
or ObamaSpace, take your pick) companies in SoCal, and even if he's
got none of their facilities in his district, he probably has
constitutents who do work at those companies. IF he was Chair of House
Science and Technology Committee (which deals with NASA), he'd be in a
much better position to push that strategy (yeah, and untried and
unproven propellant depots, too-wait for the technology demonstrator
first before committing anything more to that approach), but he's not.
Got that?- Hide quoted text -

- Show quoted text -

Atlas were just reviewed for man rating a 3 month process, so quick
because of the high cost of payloads for atlas and delta heavies.
mostly building a fauilt detection system to activate launch boost
escape one patterned after apollo was choosen.....

even if man rating had taken 3 years we would of been flying by now,
if it wasnt for that stupid idea of ares launcher

Wasn't quite that bad. ET-94's structure was fine, it was the foam that was
sliced and diced. It would have needed an extensive respraying.

ET-139 was structurally complete, but needed final assembly and spraying..
Wouldn't have needed the whole assembly line to be brought back up.

ET-140 and 141 were structurally incomplete and would have needed major
portions of the production line to be restarted.

So maybe two more flights. *Still could have helped I think. Keep flight
controllers trained, more up/down cargo for another two years.

Oh well. *It's in the past.


shuttle C should of been built, with infrastructure supporting not
only the existing shuttle, used just for its unique abilities, in a
minimally manned capacity, but C cargo variant.

this would of allowed a smoth transistion and retention of lots of
abilties.....

all lost now

but the current path although disruptive, is likely better for the
long term.

private industry launchers, cutting costs dramatically.

if private industry can loft people and lower weight cargo theres no
reason they cant provide heavy lift too

In article cbfa807f-8ca7-44dd-92ee-f7bae5da7771
@o1g2000vbe.googlegroups.com, says...

On Nov 29, 6:48*pm, "Jorge R. Frank" wrote:

It depends on when the choice was made. If Griffin had chosen in 2005 to
design CEV to be flown on existing vehicles, and not develop Ares I, CEV
would probably be close to flight test by now.- Hide quoted text -

- Show quoted text -

The original CxP plan had Ares I and CEV ready for flight test in
2013. Now we'll get Orion on EFT-1 in 2014 on a Delta IV Heavy. IF,
and I do mean if, NASA chose an EELV for Orion crew launches to LEO,
it'd still take three years to human-rate an existing vehicle.
Something the Bobbert doesn't seem to get-but then again, he's living
in his fantasy world anyway. He seems to think that all you need to do
is stick the capsule on the rocket and that's it. Wrong. But also, the
Bobbert's been against any HSF, so.....his general ignorance and naive
thinking show where he is.

So if the decision was made in 2005 to go with EELV and the "man
rating" work took six years instead of three, we'd still have a "man
rated" EELV by now (nearly the beginning of 2012).


At this point it's also interesting to note that "man rating" means
anything that NASA says it means. They not only write the rules, but
they also write the waivers for when their favorite launch vehicle can't
meet the original specs. Because of this, the process can be as long
and expensive, or as short and as inexpensive, as NASA wants it to be.

Furthermore, "safety" at NASA is as driven by politics as much as their
choice of launch vehicles. In fact, it's obvious that they're tightly
coupled. The biggest example of this is the selection of Ares I for
crew launch on the basis of "safety". That was, and still is, one of
the biggest lies in recent NASA history. The original Ares I "design"
wasn't even workable, let alone "safe".

Paper rockets are *always* claimed to be safer than what's flying, but
reality is almost never as rosy as the original analysis would have you
think. Unfortunately at the paper rocket stage, engineers don't know
what they don't know (like just how big the dispersal field is for
flaming bits of SRB propellant after a case rupture). Openly admitting
that fact is political suicide while trying to "sell" the program to the
politicians, but those very same unknowns are what tend to cause
schedule slips and cost overruns.

Jeff
--
" Ares 1 is a prime example of the fact that NASA just can't get it
up anymore... and when they can, it doesn't stay up long. "
- tinker

On Nov 30, 4:15*am, bob haller wrote:
Wasn't quite that bad. ET-94's structure was fine, it was the foam that was
sliced and diced. It would have needed an extensive respraying.

ET-139 was structurally complete, but needed final assembly and spraying.
Wouldn't have needed the whole assembly line to be brought back up.

ET-140 and 141 were structurally incomplete and would have needed major
portions of the production line to be restarted.

So maybe two more flights. *Still could have helped I think. Keep flight
controllers trained, more up/down cargo for another two years.

Oh well. *It's in the past.

shuttle C should of been built, with infrastructure supporting not
only the existing shuttle, used just for its unique abilities, in a
minimally manned capacity, but C cargo variant.

this would of allowed a smoth transistion and retention of lots of
abilties.....

all lost now

but the current path although disruptive, is likely better for the
long term.

private industry *launchers, cutting costs dramatically.

if private industry can loft people and lower weight cargo theres no
reason they cant provide heavy lift too

Not politically possilbe at the moment: and YOU KNOW IT. In case
you've been living under a rock, Congress, while reluctantly agreeing
with Commercial Crew and Cargo, gave them only about 45% of the
requested funds in FY 12: and fully funded Orion and SLS. Guess what?
Congress is providing more direction to NASA than the current
Administration. You may now return to your cave.....

On Nov 30, 3:49*am, bob haller wrote:
On Nov 29, 9:35*pm, Matt Wiser wrote:





On Nov 29, 11:37*am, bob haller wrote:

On Nov 29, 1:26*pm, Matt Wiser wrote:

On Nov 29, 3:07*am, bob haller wrote:

He did by authorizing ET-122 be restored from Katrina damage and using
ET-138 on an actual flight and not held in reserve for a rescue
flight. The only remaining complete, flightworthy tank is ET-94, the
last Light Weight Tank, heavier than the Super Light Weight Tanks
(ET-96 and up, ET-95 was never built, neither was ET-7) used for Space
Station missions, and thus not really suitable for Station work.

I believe there were 3 more in the works (I'd have to wiki/google it but my
browser is acting up right now.)

And ET-94 was usable, just limited the payload. *Which for post construction
flights was less of an issue.

Brian

nasa stated publically the chance of a lost vehicle and crew was like
30% if it continued flying.

no one wanted to see another orbiter destroyed, and another flight
crew lost.......

the problem wasnt ending the shuttle program.

the problem was the **** poor political driven replacement choice..

if nasa had choosen to put a new capsule on top of a expendable atlas
or delta, and we would of been flying by now.

And this from someone who wants to end HSF? Btw, Bobbert, Orion wasn't
going to be flight-ready under CxP until 2013 under their original
plan, and not until 2015 under the final CxP plans. Again, being
naive, technologically ignorant, politically ignorant, and
disregarding anything that clashes with your fantasies won't get you
anywhere.- Hide quoted text -

- Show quoted text -

nasa could of mated a new capsule and service module on a existing
expendable very quickly and not had to design a new booster at all......- Hide quoted text -

- Show quoted text -

Oh? The hearings from Augustine mentioned EELVs. You know how long it
takes to human-rate an EELV? Three years, minimium. And that's without
politics getting involved. Need I remind you, Bobbert, that there's a
grand total of ONE member of Congress that's pushing that approach:
Rep. Dana Rohrabacher (R-CA), and he's not doing this out of the
goodness of his heart. There's several NewSpace (or Commercial Space,
or ObamaSpace, take your pick) companies in SoCal, and even if he's
got none of their facilities in his district, he probably has
constitutents who do work at those companies. IF he was Chair of House
Science and Technology Committee (which deals with NASA), he'd be in a
much better position to push that strategy (yeah, and untried and
unproven propellant depots, too-wait for the technology demonstrator
first before committing anything more to that approach), but he's not.
Got that?- Hide quoted text -

- Show quoted text -

Atlas were just reviewed for man rating a 3 month process, so quick
because of the high cost of payloads for atlas and delta heavies.
mostly building a fauilt detection system to activate launch boost
escape *one patterned after apollo was choosen.....

even if man rating had taken 3 years we would of been flying by now,
if it wasnt for that stupid idea of ares launcher- Hide quoted text -

- Show quoted text -

You'd have to have a different NASA chief back then-like Admiral
Steadle, who was considered for the job. But no, Dubya went for Mike
Griffin, and so..

On Nov 30, 6:52*am, Fred J. McCall wrote:
bob haller wrote:

Atlas were just reviewed for man rating a 3 month process, so quick
because of the high cost of payloads for atlas and delta heavies.
mostly building a fauilt detection system to activate launch boost
escape *one patterned after apollo was choosen.....

even if man rating had taken 3 years we would of been flying by now,
if it wasnt for that stupid idea of ares launcher

Yeah, we could just strap guys in lounge chairs to the nose of the
thing....

--
"Some people get lost in thought because it's such unfamiliar
*territory."
* * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * --G. Behn

Isn't that what the Bobbert is going by?

In article 77afbd3e-fed7-46a4-98e6-
, says...

On Nov 29, 1:26*pm, Matt Wiser wrote:
On Nov 29, 3:07*am, bob haller wrote:





He did by authorizing ET-122 be restored from Katrina damage and using
ET-138 on an actual flight and not held in reserve for a rescue
flight. The only remaining complete, flightworthy tank is ET-94, the
last Light Weight Tank, heavier than the Super Light Weight Tanks
(ET-96 and up, ET-95 was never built, neither was ET-7) used for Space
Station missions, and thus not really suitable for Station work.

I believe there were 3 more in the works (I'd have to wiki/google it but my
browser is acting up right now.)

And ET-94 was usable, just limited the payload. *Which for post construction
flights was less of an issue.

Brian

nasa stated publically the chance of a lost vehicle and crew was like
30% if it continued flying.

no one wanted to see another orbiter destroyed, and another flight
crew lost.......

the problem wasnt ending the shuttle program.

the problem was the **** poor political driven replacement choice.

if nasa had choosen to put a new capsule on top of a expendable atlas
or delta, and we would of been flying by now.

And this from someone who wants to end HSF? Btw, Bobbert, Orion wasn't
going to be flight-ready under CxP until 2013 under their original
plan, and not until 2015 under the final CxP plans. Again, being
naive, technologically ignorant, politically ignorant, and
disregarding anything that clashes with your fantasies won't get you
anywhere.- Hide quoted text -

- Show quoted text -

nasa could of mated a new capsule and service module on a existing
expendable very quickly and not had to design a new booster at all.....

Is there a man-rated expendable available other than Soyuz?

"J. Clarke" wrote in message
in.local...

Is there a man-rated expendable available other than Soyuz?



Yes. The Chinese booster. However, who knows what their standards are.


--
Greg D. Moore President Green Mountain Software
http://www.greenms.com
Help honor our WWII Veterans: http://www.honorflight.org/
Quidquid latine dictum sit, altum viditur.

In article ,
says...

"J. Clarke" wrote in message
in.local...

Is there a man-rated expendable available other than Soyuz?



Yes. The Chinese booster. However, who knows what their standards are.

There was much grumbling in this group over "man rating" when NASA
astronauts first rode on the Soyuz launcher.

The bottom line is that "man rating" for NASA astronauts means whatever
NASA says it means. NASA's standards have varied over the years. They
not only write the rules, they write the waivers as well.

Jeff
--
" Ares 1 is a prime example of the fact that NASA just can't get it
up anymore... and when they can, it doesn't stay up long. "
- tinker

In article ,
says...

In article ,
says...

"J. Clarke" wrote in message
in.local...

Is there a man-rated expendable available other than Soyuz?



Yes. The Chinese booster. However, who knows what their standards are.

There was much grumbling in this group over "man rating" when NASA
astronauts first rode on the Soyuz launcher.

The bottom line is that "man rating" for NASA astronauts means whatever
NASA says it means. NASA's standards have varied over the years. They
not only write the rules, they write the waivers as well.

Astronauts are not man-rated, boosters are man-rated. The US has
certain standards for boosters made by or purchased by NASA for manned
space operations. Soyuz boosters are Russian boosters, made, owned, and
operated by Russians and the Russian's don't give a tinker's damn what
NASA thinks. NASA has a choice, they can buy tickets on Soyuz or they
can simply abandon manned spaceflight altogether and they've chosen to
buy tickets. They have no more authority over the design or operation
of the spacecraft than a passenger on an airliner does over the design
or operation of the airliner.