|
|
|
Thread Tools | Display Modes |
#11
|
|||
|
|||
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
|
|||
|
|||
U.S. wants boots on the Moon by 2024
|
#13
|
|||
|
|||
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
|
|||
|
|||
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
|
|||
|
|||
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
|
|||
|
|||
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
|
|||
|
|||
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 |
#18
|
|||
|
|||
U.S. wants boots on the Moon by 2024
|
#19
|
|||
|
|||
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 | |
|
|
Similar Threads | ||||
Thread | Thread Starter | Forum | Replies | Last Post |
ISS mission extended to 2024 | Greg \(Strider\) Moore | Space Station | 7 | January 13th 14 12:27 PM |
Pac boots | John Nichols | Amateur Astronomy | 11 | November 21st 09 04:38 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 03:30 PM |
Thermal boots | Ed | UK Astronomy | 5 | December 16th 05 10:00 PM |