display engines installed

[bob haller]

http://www.spaceflightnow.com/shuttle/sts133/111205rsme/

[Brian Gaff]

Are they worried somone will nick the real ones and flog them on Ebay as
with that old one the other day. Mind you I'd have my doubts if anyone would
actually do it that way, far more likely to just nick the drawings and make
their own.
Brian

--
Brian Gaff....Note, this account does not accept Bcc: email.
graphics are great, but the blind can't hear them
Email: bri...@blueyonder.co.uk
______________________________________________________________________________________________________________


"bob haller" <hal...@aol.com> wrote in message
news:db6a6cc4-1555-42f5...@32g2000yqp.googlegroups.com...
> http://www.spaceflightnow.com/shuttle/sts133/111205rsme/

[Brian Thorn]

On Wed, 7 Dec 2011 13:59:00 -0000, "Brian Gaff"
<Bri...@blueyonder.co.uk> wrote:

>Are they worried somone will nick the real ones and flog them on Ebay as
>with that old one the other day. Mind you I'd have my doubts if anyone would
>actually do it that way, far more likely to just nick the drawings and make
>their own.

The real ones willl be used by the SLS rocket.

Brian

[Brian Gaff]

So they are going to throw away reusable engines then, seems like a good
plan.. hmmm.

Brian

--
Brian Gaff - bri...@blueyonder.co.uk
Note:- In order to reduce spam, any email without 'Brian Gaff'
in the display name may be lost.
Blind user, so no pictures please!
"Brian Thorn" <btho...@suddenlink.net> wrote in message
news:8q0vd71mq08pjfvep...@4ax.com...

[Brian Thorn]

On Wed, 7 Dec 2011 19:08:38 -0000, "Brian Gaff"
<Bri...@blueyonder.co.uk> wrote:

>So they are going to throw away reusable engines then, seems like a good
>plan.. hmmm.

Better than sitting around rusting in museums. (And there are plenty
of the older model SSMEs for museums already.)

Brian

[Alan Erskine]

On 8/12/2011 6:08 AM, Brian Gaff wrote:
> So they are going to throw away reusable engines then, seems like a good
> plan.. hmmm.
>
> Brian
>

The RS-25 (that's their new designation) will be used once on the
prototype and then the non-reusuable version will be used on subsequent
SLS launches, should any actually occur.

[Jeff Findley]

In article <l7XDq.6863$NR2....@viwinnwfe01.internal.bigpond.com>,
alan.e...@bigpond.com says...

>
> On 8/12/2011 6:08 AM, Brian Gaff wrote:
> > So they are going to throw away reusable engines then, seems like a good
> > plan.. hmmm.
>

> The RS-25 (that's their new designation) will be used once on the
> prototype and then the non-reusuable version will be used on subsequent
> SLS launches, should any actually occur.

The politicians don't care much if anything flies, as long as it keeps
aerospace workers employed. It's starting to look like private
industry, and perhaps even the Air Force, will have cheap launch
vehicles long before NASA.

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

[Brian Thorn]

On Fri, 9 Dec 2011 08:17:16 -0500, Jeff Findley
<jeff.f...@nospam.ugs.com> wrote:


>> The RS-25 (that's their new designation) will be used once on the
>> prototype and then the non-reusuable version will be used on subsequent
>> SLS launches, should any actually occur.
>
>The politicians don't care much if anything flies, as long as it keeps
>aerospace workers employed. It's starting to look like private
>industry, and perhaps even the Air Force, will have cheap launch
>vehicles long before NASA.

Not today's Air Force. Not by a long shot. Today's Air Force can't
find its ass with both hands. EELV, JSF, FIA, KC-135 Replacement,
NPOESS, CSAR... Air Force development and procurement over the last
fifteen years or so has made NASA look efficient and competent.

Brian

[Jeff Findley]

In article <qpm5e7tl5vtadimqj...@4ax.com>, bthorn64
@suddenlink.net says...

If you think NASA is better off, you're sadly mistaken. Neither the
shuttle program nor the space station program was a shining example of
how to run a program efficiently. Luckily, at least in NASA's case, the
politicians didn't much care about results, they only cared about the
budget (not significantly increasing or decreasing).

It looks like SLS will lumber on, much in the same way that the shuttle
program lumbered on in the late 70's and early 80's, despite slipping
schedules, dismal turn-around rates, and higher than expected costs.

The only question is what will NASA be able to afford to fly on SLS?
Those future payloads are to SLS what the space station was to the space
shuttle.

[Brian Thorn]

On Mon, 12 Dec 2011 11:16:50 -0500, Jeff Findley
<jeff.f...@nospam.ugs.com> wrote:

>> >It's starting to look like private
>> >industry, and perhaps even the Air Force, will have cheap launch
>> >vehicles long before NASA.
>>
>> Not today's Air Force. Not by a long shot. Today's Air Force can't
>> find its ass with both hands. EELV, JSF, FIA, KC-135 Replacement,
>> NPOESS, CSAR... Air Force development and procurement over the last
>> fifteen years or so has made NASA look efficient and competent.
>
>If you think NASA is better off, you're sadly mistaken.

Not really. NASA does have quite a few success stories it can point
to... most of the Discovery class missions, most prominently. The New
Millenium flights, too (New Horizons and Juno) which generally
performed well on schedule and budget. Small Explorer, etc.

But name an Air Force program that has come remotely close to budget
and schedule since, say, 1995 (that's charitable, things get worse if
you go back to the 80s and have to include B-2, F-22, CV-22. C-17, and
Titan IV.)

But I do agree NASA should not be handed another big-budget program
any time soon, they simply can't do it. There is little evidence
anyone in the US government can. SLS and James Webb have to go. But
neither will, so there's no point complaining about them.

Brian