Griffin Wants Inline SDLV and 5 Segment SRB/CEV

Kim Keller wrote:

"Tom Cuddihy" wrote in message
roups.com...


http://www.nasawatch.com/archives/20...n_wants_i.html

Wauughhhh ha ha ha......

Safe, simple, soon--but not cheap!

Oh well. At least it's not better, faster, cheaper, and dead.

The fact that Mike Griffen apparently already knows what he wants and
how he wants to do it is tremendously encouraging to me. I might
actually see humans on the moon again before I die. hallejulah.



Not with this plan. Griffin just shot the VSE in the foot. There's no way he
can afford to develop SDLV, the "schtick", AND the CEV on the budget
available to him.


Then there'll be no going back to the moon for VSE, since EELV is
*clearly* the wrong approach, and Space-X, T-space and the rest, nice as
they are (I've invested enough friggin' money in this area...), are just
too damned small. All that's left are Russians and the French. Do you
*really* want to hang another major space program on their reliability?


Oh well, it was interesting while it lasted. We now return you to the same
ol' NASA, the National Aerospace Study Administration. (our motto,
"powerpoint never killed anyone").



Of course, NASA isn't designing these vehicles.


--
"The only thing that galls me about someone burning the American flag is how unoriginal it is. I mean if you're going to pull the Freedom-of-speech card, don't be a hack, come up with something interesting. Fashion Old Glory into a wisecracking puppet and blister the system with a scathing ventriloquism act, or better yet, drape the flag over your head and desecrate it with a large caliber bullet hole." Dennis Miller

"Kim Keller" wrote in
m:


"Tom Cuddihy" wrote in message
oups.com...
The fact that Mike Griffen apparently already knows what he wants and
how he wants to do it is tremendously encouraging to me. I might
actually see humans on the moon again before I die. hallejulah.

Not with this plan. Griffin just shot the VSE in the foot. There's no
way he can afford to develop SDLV, the "schtick", AND the CEV on the
budget available to him. Nice boner, Griffin. Congress is gonna puke
when they see the bill for this jobs program.


Congress has made it pretty clear that they want the schedule for CEV to be
accelerated so that it's available for crew launches by 2010. They also
make it pretty clear that they trust Griffin's technical judgement. I
don't suspect funding will be too big of an issue.

It wouldn't entirely surprise me to see the first qualification launche of
the 5-segment stick booster (no upper stage) by late 2006, using Pad 39B
and the third MLP as infrastructure.



--
I was punching a text message into my | Reed Snellenberger
phone yesterday and thought, "they need | GPG KeyID: 5A978843
to make a phone that you can just talk | rsnellenberger
into." Major Thomb | -at-houston.rr.com

"Scott Lowther" wrote in message
...
Then there'll be no going back to the moon for VSE, since EELV is
*clearly* the wrong approach, and Space-X, T-space and the rest, nice as
they are (I've invested enough friggin' money in this area...), are just
too damned small. All that's left are Russians and the French. Do you
*really* want to hang another major space program on their reliability?

No, I don't. Neither do I want to see NASA try to develop and own/operate
TWO exclusive NASA launch systems, while trying to run an exploration
program on other worlds at the same time. NASA simply does not have the
budget, nor will it receive it in the years to come. VSE will go the way of
Apollo under this scheme, flying a few missions, then collapsing under the
fiscal weight of the architecture.

EELV may be "clearly" the wrong approach to you, but at least it offered the
promise of reduced launch costs through higher production rates and a
diverse customer base.

Of course, NASA isn't designing these vehicles.

Their fingers will be all over this pie, and since MSFC will be the lead
center I don't hold out much hope of seeing it successfully completed.

"The only thing that galls me about someone burning the American flag is
how unoriginal it is. I mean if you're going to pull the Freedom-of-speech
card, don't be a hack, come up with something interesting. Fashion Old
Glory into a wisecracking puppet and blister the system with a scathing
ventriloquism act, or better yet, drape the flag over your head and
desecrate it with a large caliber bullet hole." Dennis Miller

Ironically, burning the flag is one of the recommended methods of flag
disposal (with respect, of course).

"Reed Snellenberger" wrote in message
.121...
Congress has made it pretty clear that they want the schedule for CEV to
be
accelerated so that it's available for crew launches by 2010. They also
make it pretty clear that they trust Griffin's technical judgement. I
don't suspect funding will be too big of an issue.

I haven't seen what you seem to see. I see Griffin's choices being
questioned, and i see resolutions being floated to *extend* STS operations
until CEV is available.

It wouldn't entirely surprise me to see the first qualification launche of
the 5-segment stick booster (no upper stage) by late 2006, using Pad 39B
and the third MLP as infrastructure.

There's no way the avionics and the TVC system will be ready for test by
then.

Kim Keller wrote:

"Scott Lowther" wrote in message
...


Then there'll be no going back to the moon for VSE, since EELV is
*clearly* the wrong approach, and Space-X, T-space and the rest, nice as
they are (I've invested enough friggin' money in this area...), are just
too damned small. All that's left are Russians and the French. Do you
*really* want to hang another major space program on their reliability?



No, I don't. Neither do I want to see NASA try to develop and own/operate
TWO exclusive NASA launch systems, while trying to run an exploration
program on other worlds at the same time. NASA simply does not have the
budget,

I disagree. Half a billion a year would be more than adequate,
especially if Griffin goes through the hallways with a machien gun that
shoots pink slips.


nor will it receive it in the years to come. VSE will go the way of
Apollo under this scheme, flying a few missions, then collapsing under the
fiscal weight of the architecture.


Apollo didn't end because of the infrastructure; it ended for entirely
exterior political reasons.


EELV may be "clearly" the wrong approach to you, but at least it offered the
promise of reduced launch costs through higher production rates and a
diverse customer base.


And it pretty much faield there. EELV was *not* designed to launch
people, but satellites... satellites that didn't show up.



--
"The only thing that galls me about someone burning the American flag is how unoriginal it is. I mean if you're going to pull the Freedom-of-speech card, don't be a hack, come up with something interesting. Fashion Old Glory into a wisecracking puppet and blister the system with a scathing ventriloquism act, or better yet, drape the flag over your head and desecrate it with a large caliber bullet hole." Dennis Miller

Kim Keller wrote:





It wouldn't entirely surprise me to see the first qualification launche of
the 5-segment stick booster (no upper stage) by late 2006, using Pad 39B
and the third MLP as infrastructure.



There's no way the avionics and the TVC system will be ready for test by
then.

Errrrrmmmm... the TVC system is available *now.* However, the likelihood
of another 5-segment test by the end of 2006 is... really low. Much less
a *flight.*


--
"The only thing that galls me about someone burning the American flag is how unoriginal it is. I mean if you're going to pull the Freedom-of-speech card, don't be a hack, come up with something interesting. Fashion Old Glory into a wisecracking puppet and blister the system with a scathing ventriloquism act, or better yet, drape the flag over your head and desecrate it with a large caliber bullet hole." Dennis Miller

"Scott Lowther" wrote in message
...
Errrrrmmmm... the TVC system is available *now.* However, the likelihood
of another 5-segment test by the end of 2006 is... really low. Much less a
*flight.*

Oh? You've already developed, tested and qualified a TVC with enough control
authority to handle your schtick? "Cause I was told the current STS system
doesn't have the 'nads to handle der schtick.

"Scott Lowther" wrote in message
...
Apollo didn't end because of the infrastructure; it ended for entirely
exterior political reasons.

Budget was definitely a contributory factor. Read Space Policy Digest's
recent two-parter on LBJ's down-scaling of Apollo.

And it pretty much faield there. EELV was *not* designed to launch
people, but satellites... satellites that didn't show up.

The rockets haven't failed, the market has. Just because the EELVs weren't
designed from the outset to launch people doesn't mean they can't. ICBMs
weren't designed to carry people, either, but they did. SRBs weren't
designed to have cryo upper stages stacked on them, either. Or a crewed
capsule.

Scott Lowther wrote in
:

Kim Keller wrote:

It wouldn't entirely surprise me to see the first qualification
launche of the 5-segment stick booster (no upper stage) by late 2006,
using Pad 39B and the third MLP as infrastructure.

There's no way the avionics and the TVC system will be ready for test
by then.

Errrrrmmmm... the TVC system is available *now.*

In two axes (pitch and yaw, or more precisely rock and tilt) only. A single
SRB has no roll control.


--
JRF

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

Tom Cuddihy wrote:

The fact that Mike Griffen apparently already knows what he wants and
how he wants to do it is tremendously encouraging to me. I might
actually see humans on the moon again before I die. hallejulah.

Maybe a half dozen / dozen flights or so, but don't count on even that.
The cost of the hardware Griffin's lining up way, way exceeds his budget.
Chances are most of it will never fly.

Mike

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