Griffin bye-bye at NASA?

OM wrote in
:

The non-NASA gift shop up the road from JSC had a lot of
worm items for sale after that which had been marked up a bit because
they were now "collector's items".

Yay, capitalism!!!!
** Posted from http://www.teranews.com **

Alan Erskine wrote:

That's a constant worry; but perhaps that's why they say "...designed for 90
days, but it could be more..." - to ensure that funding isn't lowered on the
next programme.


I think they are very conservative in regards to their expected
lifetimes, just to be on the safe side...although I doubt that they had
any idea that the MERs would last this long.
The Mars Science Laboratory rover is slated for a two-year operational
mission, but its RTG will produce power for at least 14 years:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mars_Science_Laboratory
....so lord knows how long it will be crawling around on Mars. :-)

Pat

On Nov 15, 6:41*am, John Doe wrote:
Alan Erskine wrote:
Ares 1 is dead? *

Would it be realistic at this point in time for NASA to modify the
Ares-1 concept to look much more like a delta-4 rocket ?

I like the Aries V design (it's about bloody time NASA got off its
arse and got a Saturn V class launcher-cancelling the Saturn-V was an
extremely foolish and short-sighted decision) and its Aries IV
derivative. But I don't like the current Aries I design (in particular
its Shuttle derived first stage), but I do think the J-2X powered
upper stage is a good idea. But for the first stage, what NASA really
needs to do is get sensible, bite the bullet and use a man-rated Delta-
IV and/or Atlas-V for a first stage. You'd already be using a proven
existing design, and because of the mandated changes to their design
and production required for man-rating, it'd drive down the insurance
premiums for the Delta-IVs and/or Atlas-Vs used to launch satellites.
I mean hell, look at the Russians with their Soyuz booster, it's used
both for satellite and Soyuz spacecraft launches; as a result they've
made close to two thousand of these launchers-just think of the
benefits that mass production would introduce, they are as a result
amongst the most reliable launch rockets around.

On an another unrelated (and pedantic note): the Delta II and IV are
very inaccurate names. Strictly speaking the Delta is the second
stage; the first stage is a transformed (basically beyond recognition)
Thor stage. They really should be called Long-Tank,Thrust-Augmented,
Thor-Delta-II and -IV respectively.

On Sat, 15 Nov 2008 02:09:01 -0800 (PST), in a place far, far away,
made the phosphor on my monitor glow in such a way
as to indicate that:

On Nov 15, 6:41*am, John Doe wrote:
Alan Erskine wrote:
Ares 1 is dead? *

Would it be realistic at this point in time for NASA to modify the
Ares-1 concept to look much more like a delta-4 rocket ?

I like the Aries V design (it's about bloody time NASA got off its
arse and got a Saturn V class launcher-cancelling the Saturn-V was an
extremely foolish and short-sighted decision) and its Aries IV
derivative. But I don't like the current Aries I design (in particular
its Shuttle derived first stage), but I do think the J-2X powered
upper stage is a good idea. But for the first stage, what NASA really
needs to do is get sensible, bite the bullet and use a man-rated Delta-
IV and/or Atlas-V for a first stage. You'd already be using a proven
existing design, and because of the mandated changes to their design
and production required for man-rating, it'd drive down the insurance
premiums for the Delta-IVs and/or Atlas-Vs used to launch satellites.

"Man rating" (which really doesn't mean much of anything these days)
will not make the EELVs more reliable. All it will do is provide
failure onset detection for aborts.

And what payloads are screaming out for just a huge launcher?

Just because you build a big launcher doesn't mean the payloads will
magically appear.


wrote in message
...
On Nov 15, 6:41 am, John Doe wrote:
Alan Erskine wrote:
Ares 1 is dead?

Would it be realistic at this point in time for NASA to modify the
Ares-1 concept to look much more like a delta-4 rocket ?

I like the Aries V design (it's about bloody time NASA got off its
arse and got a Saturn V class launcher-cancelling the Saturn-V was an
extremely foolish and short-sighted decision) and its Aries IV
derivative. But I don't like the current Aries I design (in particular
its Shuttle derived first stage), but I do think the J-2X powered
upper stage is a good idea. But for the first stage, what NASA really
needs to do is get sensible, bite the bullet and use a man-rated Delta-
IV and/or Atlas-V for a first stage. You'd already be using a proven
existing design, and because of the mandated changes to their design
and production required for man-rating, it'd drive down the insurance
premiums for the Delta-IVs and/or Atlas-Vs used to launch satellites.
I mean hell, look at the Russians with their Soyuz booster, it's used
both for satellite and Soyuz spacecraft launches; as a result they've
made close to two thousand of these launchers-just think of the
benefits that mass production would introduce, they are as a result
amongst the most reliable launch rockets around.

On an another unrelated (and pedantic note): the Delta II and IV are
very inaccurate names. Strictly speaking the Delta is the second
stage; the first stage is a transformed (basically beyond recognition)
Thor stage. They really should be called Long-Tank,Thrust-Augmented,
Thor-Delta-II and -IV respectively.

wrote in message
...

I like the Aries V design (it's about bloody time NASA got off its
arse and got a Saturn V class launcher-cancelling the Saturn-V was an
extremely foolish and short-sighted decision)

One word: "Budget" (sometimes, it's a dirty word too).

wrote:
On Nov 15, 6:41 am, John Doe wrote:
Alan Erskine wrote:
Ares 1 is dead?
Would it be realistic at this point in time for NASA to modify the
Ares-1 concept to look much more like a delta-4 rocket ?

I like the Aries V design (it's about bloody time NASA got off its
arse and got a Saturn V class launcher-cancelling the Saturn-V was an
extremely foolish and short-sighted decision) and its Aries IV
derivative. But I don't like the current Aries I design (in particular
its Shuttle derived first stage), but I do think the J-2X powered
upper stage is a good idea. But for the first stage, what NASA really
needs to do is get sensible, bite the bullet and use a man-rated Delta-
IV and/or Atlas-V for a first stage. You'd already be using a proven
existing design, and because of the mandated changes to their design
and production required for man-rating, it'd drive down the insurance
premiums for the Delta-IVs and/or Atlas-Vs used to launch satellites.
I mean hell, look at the Russians with their Soyuz booster, it's used
both for satellite and Soyuz spacecraft launches; as a result they've
made close to two thousand of these launchers-just think of the
benefits that mass production would introduce, they are as a result
amongst the most reliable launch rockets around.

On an another unrelated (and pedantic note): the Delta II and IV are
very inaccurate names. Strictly speaking the Delta is the second
stage; the first stage is a transformed (basically beyond recognition)
Thor stage. They really should be called Long-Tank,Thrust-Augmented,
Thor-Delta-II and -IV respectively.


Hey look, it's a know it all.

The Atlas and Delta can't be used for the Ares I upper stage, the stage
is too heavy. The Ares I upper stages, suitably stretched and re-engined
with an SSME, would also make a fairly decent core stage all by itself.

http://webpages.charter.net/tsiolkovsky/IPO.doc

Alan Erskine wrote:

I like the Aries V design

You are an ignorant fool.

Let me guess you are an Amurkan, no?

And when are you going to learn to spell what you admire?

"OM" wrote in message
...
On Sat, 15 Nov 2008 14:20:14 GMT, "Alan Erskine"
wrote:

One word: "Budget" (sometimes, it's a dirty word too).

...Alan, you've got to work on your quotes. That reply without the 's
made you look as if you were going schitzo :-P

OM

I didn't notice it. I'll keep an eye on it from now on.

bob haller safety advocate wrote in
:

I wonder when we'll see that report promised 5 years ago showing that, had
NASA held the meetings that protocol said should have been held, but that
management said would have been pointless, events surrounding Columbia
*would have* been different, as opposed to simply might be.
** Posted from http://www.teranews.com **