Griffin Wants Inline SDLV and 5 Segment SRB/CEV

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.

cuddihy

"Tom Cuddihy" wrote in
oups.com:

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

We are SO screwed. So much for sustainability and national
launch policy.

Boeing and Lockmart will exit the commercial launch business,
leaving it to SpaceX and others to try to grab the lower
end of the market. If they're lucky.

Congress will take one look at the price of that heavy SDV
white elephant and send the whole thing back to Griffin with
a nasty note.

--Damon

I think we might see humans on the moon again with this plan. But just
for how long? The article notes that NASA wants 2 new rockets, each
requiring a heavy investment. The "stick" -- a new upper stage, and
the 120 tonne in-line SDHLV -- heavy capital investment in the launch
infrastructure. I look at the NASA's budget and have no idea how
Griffin is going to pull off a "... sustainable and permanent space
exploration" (as per Bush's directives) with this plan. What exactly
is he going to launch with them when all is said and done, and costing
what? So far it appears that he's sinking NASA's money (and my taxes)
into his old pet project (The FLO, etc...)

"Any plan is better than no plan"? OK. But damn, isn't it shooting
too low?

I think we might see humans on the moon again with this plan. But just
for how long? The article notes that NASA wants 2 new rockets, each
requiring a heavy investment. The "stick" -- a new upper stage, and
the 120 tonne in-line SDHLV -- heavy capital investment in the launch
infrastructure. I look at the NASA's budget and have no idea how
Griffin is going to pull off a "... sustainable and permanent space
exploration" (as per Bush's directives) with this plan. What exactly
is he going to launch with them when all is said and done, and costing
what? So far it appears that he's sinking NASA's money (and my taxes)
into his old pet project (The FLO, etc...)

"Any plan is better than no plan"? OK. But damn, isn't it shooting
too low?

Damon Hill wrote:

Boeing and Lockmart will exit the commercial launch business,
leaving it to SpaceX and others to try to grab the lower
end of the market.

You say that like it's a bad thing.


Congress will take one look at the price of that heavy SDV
white elephant and send the whole thing back to Griffin with
a nasty note.


They haven't yet sent the War On Poverty packing, so obviously expense
is not an issue for Congress.

--
"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

Damon Hill wrote:
"Tom Cuddihy" wrote in
oups.com:

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

We are SO screwed. So much for sustainability and national
launch policy.

Boeing and Lockmart will exit the commercial launch business,
leaving it to SpaceX and others to try to grab the lower
end of the market. If they're lucky.

That battle has already been lost. Boeing and
Lockheed have already abandoned the low-rent
commercial launch market for all intents and
purposes.

There is no competing with the low-cost Russo-
Ukrainian rockets for commerical launches today.
Even Arianespace has largely succumbed. Proton
and Zenit have boosted seven commercial or domestic
satellites so far this year, but only one U.S.
launch vehicle (and it a Russian-engined rocket)
has orbited a commerical payload in 2005. No other
U.S. launches of commercial satellites are scheduled
for the next year at least. Together, the Proton
and Zenit launch total is equal to the total number
of *all* U.S. space launches performed so far
this year. All by itself, Sea Launch platform
Odyssey has hosted nearly as many Ukrainian rocket
launches as all of Cape Canaveral's pads combined
in 2005.

Congress will take one look at the price of that heavy SDV
white elephant and send the whole thing back to Griffin with
a nasty note.

Griffin will argue that SDV heavy lift will save
money compared to salvo-launching EELV heavies.
He will argue that SDV heavy lift will cost a
fraction of what it cost to build ISS (or what it
will cost to conduct the lunar program altogether).

If the U.S. can't afford to build an SDV heavy-
lifter, then it can't afford to go back to the
moon.

- Ed Kyle

"Damon Hill" wrote in message
6...
"Tom Cuddihy" wrote in
oups.com:

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

We are SO screwed. So much for sustainability and national
launch policy.

Pretty much goes directly against the stated objective of buying from the
commercial sector.

Boeing and Lockmart will exit the commercial launch business,
leaving it to SpaceX and others to try to grab the lower
end of the market. If they're lucky.

The Stick is a direct attack by NASA on the commercial launch services.
With the Stick NASA will no longer need to buy almost any launch services.
Even the Delta II and Falcon could be treatened since NASA will need to
maximize launches to lower costs.


Congress will take one look at the price of that heavy SDV
white elephant and send the whole thing back to Griffin with
a nasty note.

I do not see the HSDV as half as much a problem as the Stick.

The HSDV will not even really start until after 2010 and will not fly until
at least the 2013-2015 time period and probably later.
The Stick would need a crash program to fly near 2010.

NASA during this time period needs to develop the CEV, run the Shuttle
and finish ISS. This is when the funds will be stretched the tightest.
Only when the Shuttle is retired do they have any additional funds.

NASA is going to be stretched trying to get the CEV on line by 2010.
If they put funds towards the Stick then they will not have funds to
develop the CEV. If they wait they would already be launching on either
the Atlas or the Delta. Totally negating any need for the stick.

I would imagine that the Stick's upper stage would be the same as the
escape stage for the HLV that Griffin is planning, much as the role of
the S-IVB.

"Tom Cuddihy" wrote in message
oups.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. Nice boner, Griffin. Congress is gonna puke when they see
the bill for this jobs program.

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").

On 2 Jul 2005 08:19:31 -0700, "Explorer"
wrote:

I would imagine that the Stick's upper stage would be the same as the
escape stage for the HLV that Griffin is planning, much as the role of
the S-IVB.

No, I doubt it. S-IVB on the Saturn V was a workaround to save time
and money in the rush to land men on the moon by 1970. A far more
efficient third stage would have been the same diameter as the first
and second stages of Saturn V. A shorter, squatter S-IVC perhaps.

Putting the narrow Stick Stage II on top of an In-Line SDLV needlessly
limits the diameter of the payload on top.

Brian