NASA criticism from departing employee
Pat Flannery
Are things really that screwed up down there?
Pat
Damon Hill
news:fs2dnUY6JoIRUC_V...@posted.northdakotatelephone:
> http://www.nasawatch.com/archives/2008/08/a_farewell_mess.html
>
> Are things really that screwed up down there?
It sure seems to have gotten very Dibertian (see "Dilbert", the comic
strip, for an acerbic treatment of corporate life).
That seems to be a general problem with big human institutions; the
workings get vague and increasingly incoherant, especially without
clear and rational leadership from the top.
I have a feeling we'll know a trend for sure by next year. I've got to
admit pessimism about NASA and national space policy. There just
doesn't seem to be a rational foundation for manned spaceflight any
more. That's partly internal, and partly forced by limited budgets
and external politics and economic realities.
I'm particularly dismayed by the current and increasingly unworkable
Ares I and V; not that Shuttle was a particularly great system, nor
that a sustained Apollo follow-on program might have been real progress,
either. There's a bigger picture here, but I'm not clearly grasping it
nor do I have much concept to suggest a better course. But I feel like
the retrenchment to smaller and less capable capsules isn't progress.
Unmanned space exploration is doing okay. Research...eh...
Maybe the next Administration will shake up things. If I were the
NASA administator, I'd keep my bags packed against a sudden departure.
--Damon
jonathan
"kT" <cos...@lifeform.org> wrote in message
news:QbAsk.9552$Ks1....@newsfe02.iad...
> Pat Flannery wrote:
>
>> http://www.nasawatch.com/archives/2008/08/a_farewell_mess.html
>>
>> Are things really that screwed up down there?
>
That's just the inevitable result of the Bush
administration habits. My way or the highway.
Bush feels all the important decisions should
come from the top, and everyone should do
as they're told. No discussion.
With NASA, the military has taken over the
manned program. Going back to the Moon is
all about missile defense, which is the number one
military priority of the Bush/Cheney administration.
Since the moon also suits Lockheed just fine also, the
president's favorite corporation, the Vision was
an obvious choice for Bush.
But like all top down or monopolistic systems, in the
end it all fails badly. Few believe this goal has the
public support to succeed. Few really believe it's worth
doing. So low morale and poor products are inevitable.
Folks over at NASA need to start thinking outside
the box. Design a long term goal for NASA as
carefully as they design a spacecraft. A goal
designed to be...as popular...as it is important.
So that not only NASA can get behind the goal.
But the American people and Congress also.
The goal needs to be as grandiose and visionary as
possible. Nothing less than changing the world.
Space Solar Power has ALL THOSE PROPERTIES.
As our global energy future effects EVERYONE
on the planet.
The manned program needs to start over from scratch
and with a worthy goal.
s
>
> A bit isolated out there in ND, are you?
Martha Adams
news:FxHsk.17451$Ep1....@bignews2.bellsouth.net...
I notice a survey of the Bush years ...accomplishments,
in the 2008 Sep 4 issue of Rolling Stone, #1060, nice
cover. By Sean Wilentz, who (interestingly) was nearly
killed shortly before he took in his final draft of
the work. The timeline of the Bush/Republican events
or whatever, is very imposing when seen as a whole.
I think something like this is relevant to the topic
here because Bush as President, sets a moral tone in
the whole country and much more so in closely
affiliated organizations. Like NASA.
I notice the appearance, again, of the idea that space
requires public approval. As a counter example, wars
seem not to. But public approval for space seems not
a thing to look for because so large a part of all the
public doesn't know, doesn't care to know, and besides,
is all wound up in survival and all the side issues
and distractions that come with being an American
citizen here.
Titeotwawki -- mha [sci.space.policy 2008 Aug 25]
David Lesher
>http://www.nasawatch.com/archives/2008/08/a_farewell_mess.html
>Are things really that screwed up down there?
And note the major Airbus FUBAR over different CAD versions that cost
them REALLY BIG BUC ^H^H^H Euros....
--
A host is a host from coast to coast.................wb8foz@nrk.com
& no one will talk to a host that's close........[v].(301) 56-LINUX
Unless the host (that isn't close).........................pob 1433
is busy, hung or dead....................................20915-1433
jonathan
"Martha Adams" <mh...@verizon.net> wrote in message
news:jAJsk.800$w51.143@trnddc01...
> "jonathan" <Ho...@write.instead.net> wrote in message
> news:FxHsk.17451$Ep1....@bignews2.bellsouth.net...
>>
>
> I think something like this is relevant to the topic
> here because Bush as President, sets a moral tone in
> the whole country and much more so in closely
> affiliated organizations. Like NASA.
>
> I notice the appearance, again, of the idea that space
> requires public approval. As a counter example, wars
> seem not to. But public approval for space seems not
> a thing to look for because so large a part of all the
> public doesn't know, doesn't care to know,
It wasn't all the long ago when the general public
cared quite a bit about what NASA was doing.
From keeping us out of a nuclear war to the agency
most likely to fulfill the promise of technology.
From our worst fears to our greatest hopes, NASA
was very relevant.
How can we get back to that?
How can we make people care again?
Let's simply find a goal for NASA that directly
solves the greatest fears of the planet, while
also inspiring the greatest dreams for a
brighter future.
What kind of goal can do that????
The elephants in the room are the energy future
and climate change. Two of the biggest problems
facing the planet which also should have a single
common solution. Plus a solution to those problems
would cascade everywhere, from wars over oil
to national security to our future prosperity.
And not just for us, but for the world.
So where does NASA and those elephants intersect?
Where can ....NASA.... find a clean and unlimited
supply of energy for the future?
Let's see, NASA deals with things in space.
AND The sun is the obvious long term answer
to our energy future.
Space Solar Power!
Even a third grader would immediately grasp the idea
see it's potential, and become inspired by the
possibilities.
Space Solar Power, before the oil runs out or global
warming becomes irreversible.
A very demanding goal, and an equally demanding timeline
that could solve our greatest problems...while inspiring
our greatest dreams.
J u s t l i k e A p o l l o
Jonathan
s
Pat Flannery
Pat Flannery
jonathan wrote:
>
> Bush feels all the important decisions should
> come from the top, and everyone should do
> as they're told. No discussion.
>
Oh, if it only worked like that... it doesn't; no one is in charge at
the top so a group of top rankers heads off in ten directions at once,
most of them at odds with each other.
We just found out our ambassador to the UN was helping set up a new
Pakistani government without telling anyone in the State Department:
http://www.nytimes.com/2008/08/26/washington/26diplo.html?hp
Pat
Brian Gaff
those above that the new stuff is crap, in cast the whole house of cards
comes down, so when someone actually jumps over them to say what they
passionately feel they themselves feel betrayed. Sadly, if he is right, then
a big problem is coming when, basically, nothing will work, so maybe it will
all end in tears, who knows. At the end of the day, this is one persons
frustrated view.
Have Nasa been away from new hardware design for so long they have forgotten
how to do it, or is it the politics of the employment contracts that is
driving the ngineering decisions.
We have seen this sort of thing here, when to support a dying computer
industry, Govenment commissioned them to do some huge contract, In the end,
it never worked as the engineers who left said it would not, and it was
scrapped after lots of wasted money. Also who remembers the TSR2 aircraft...
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
______________________________________________________________________________________________________________
"Pat Flannery" <fla...@daktel.com> wrote in message
news:fs2dnUY6JoIRUC_V...@posted.northdakotatelephone...
Brian Gaff
has always been 'why'. It really should be, because this is what the race
does best. After all, who really needs the arts, but money is spent on it.
Its surely cultural. The moon is still largely a mystery, after all.
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
______________________________________________________________________________________________________________
"jonathan" <Ho...@write.instead.net> wrote in message
news:FxHsk.17451$Ep1....@bignews2.bellsouth.net...
>
Jeff Findley
"Pat Flannery" <fla...@daktel.com> wrote in message
news:fs2dnUY6JoIRUC_V...@posted.northdakotatelephone...
>
> Are things really that screwed up down there?
You've got to read down through a lot of "responses" to the initial letter
before you find out that they're talking about PTC software (how awful it is
to work with).
http://www.nasawatch.com/archives/2008/08/a_farewell_mess.html
This doesn't surprise me, but I'm horribly biased since I've worked for a
different CAD/CAM/CAE/PDM vendor for nearly 20 years now. Most of the time,
I've worked on our CAE software, which makes heavy use of my engineering
degree.
Jeff
--
A clever person solves a problem.
A wise person avoids it. -- Einstein
Ian Parker
> http://www.nasawatch.com/archives/2008/08/a_farewell_mess.html
>
> Are things really that screwed up down there?
>
If you are in NASA you have to watch your step. Outside NASA you have
to judge by results. There is a gap in manned launcher capability
between the Shuttle and Orion. This is an OBJECTIVE fact not based on
disgruntled employees. Is the NASA malaise due to lack of funding? In
no way.
The NASA budget for 2008 was $17 billion. That of ESA €3 billion. Yet
with a far lower budget ESA seems to be managing to achieve as much is
not more. Ariane 5 BTW is now man rated.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/European_Space_Agency
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/NASA_budget
Why does Ares oscillate? How come Armstrong and Aldrin went to the
Moon in 1969 yet Ares can't fly? A lack of CAD expertise would fit. Is
money the object. In the year before the Moon landing expenditure
(inflation adjusted) was 26 billion, and the year before almost $30
billion. Absolute expenditure was just over 5 billion. Look at the
table in the reference. 1975 was the year of lowest expenditure. NASA
STILL has an extremely large budget when compared both with other
space agencies and with other big science projects. The LHC is costing
something around $7 billion if the infrastructure costs are taken into
account. This is a TOTAL budget.
No it is not total money it is focus and competance. Herbert Spencer
has spoken of engineers making decisions in the Apollo days whereas
today everything is referred up to an administrator.
Does the fact tat GWB understands nothing of science and is a self
confessed creationalist anything to do with it?Possibly. One cannot
help comparing NASA with the CPA in Iraq. What links Arabic and
stability theory? A - If you know either you will not get a job with
the US Govt. I talked about using Saturn instead of Ares. Perhaps
people are right one should not look back. It does however seem
strange that what was accumplished in 1969 cannot be replicated today.
- Ian Parker
BradGuth
> On 25 Aug, 16:18, Pat Flannery <flan...@daktel.com> wrote:>http://www.nasawatch.com/archives/2008/08/a_farewell_mess.html
>
> > Are things really that screwed up down there?
>
> Is it just a disgruntled employee or is it a symtom of a wide malaise.
> If you are in NASA you have to watch your step. Outside NASA you have
> to judge by results. There is a gap in manned launcher capability
> between the Shuttle and Orion. This is an OBJECTIVE fact not based on
> disgruntled employees. Is the NASA malaise due to lack of funding? In
> no way.
>
> The NASA budget for 2008 was $17 billion. That of ESA €3 billion. Yet
> with a far lower budget ESA seems to be managing to achieve as much is
> not more. Ariane 5 BTW is now man rated.
>
BradGuth
>
> > Are things really that screwed up down there?
>
> Is it just a disgruntled employee or is it a symtom of a wide malaise.
> If you are in NASA you have to watch your step. Outside NASA you have
> to judge by results. There is a gap in manned launcher capability
> between the Shuttle and Orion. This is an OBJECTIVE fact not based on
> disgruntled employees. Is the NASA malaise due to lack of funding? In
> no way.
>
> The NASA budget for 2008 was $17 billion. That of ESA €3 billion. Yet
> with a far lower budget ESA seems to be managing to achieve as much is
> not more. Ariane 5 BTW is now man rated.
>
>
> Why does Ares oscillate? How come Armstrong and Aldrin went to the
> Moon in 1969 yet Ares can't fly? A lack of CAD expertise would fit. Is
> money the object. In the year before the Moon landing expenditure
> (inflation adjusted) was 26 billion, and the year before almost $30
> billion. Absolute expenditure was just over 5 billion. Look at the
> table in the reference. 1975 was the year of lowest expenditure. NASA
> STILL has an extremely large budget when compared both with other
> space agencies and with other big science projects. The LHC is costing
> something around $7 billion if the infrastructure costs are taken into
> account. This is a TOTAL budget.
>
> No it is not total money it is focus and competance. Herbert Spencer
> has spoken of engineers making decisions in the Apollo days whereas
> today everything is referred up to an administrator.
>
> Does the fact tat GWB understands nothing of science and is a self
> confessed creationalist anything to do with it?Possibly. One cannot
> help comparing NASA with the CPA in Iraq. What links Arabic and
> stability theory? A - If you know either you will not get a job with
> the US Govt. I talked about using Saturn instead of Ares. Perhaps
> people are right one should not look back. It does however seem
> strange that what was accumplished in 1969 cannot be replicated today.
>
> - Ian Parker
>
> http://www.lhc.ac.uk/about-the-lhc/who-is-involved.html
There is the strong faith-based considerations and subsequent policy
or mandate that wants all of DARPA/NASA to respect their Earth only
policy, of everything off-world being of inert eye-candy according to
their one and only published interpretation. Perhaps their employee
Finckenor had inadvertently let it slip that he believes otherwise.
On Aug 25, 8:18 am, Pat Flannery <flan...@daktel.com> wrote:
> http://www.nasawatch.com/archives/2008/08/a_farewell_mess.html
>
> Are things really that screwed up down there?
>
> Pat
Yes lord all-knowing Pat, and it's not that such public funded
agencies as NASA and their vendors are not capable of making honest
mistakes, but it's their seemingly endless capability to accommodate
special interest groups and to otherwise cover their butts whenever
things turn out poorly, spendy or lethal. Seems impossible to learn
from mistakes if information is suppressed or getting wrongly
published for PR damage-control.
Quote:
At the highest levels, there seems to be a belief that you can
mandate reality, followed by a refusal to accept any information that
runs counter to that mandate. I'm sure you can all think of multiple
examples (having nothing to do with CAD) without trying very hard.
This reminds me of Clark's law: "Sufficiently advanced cluelessness is
indistinguishable from malice" (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Clark
%27s_Law). I've heard others use terms like "arrogance combined with
ignorance".
end quote:
Clearly insider/incest formulated job and retirement benefit security
is their priority No.1
Their need-to-know and otherwise taboo/nondisclosure policy on just
about everything that truly matters is what goes hand and hand, along
with their impressive truth-lag.
It's folks like yourself that are acting as their public brown-nosed
clown in charge of mainstream damage-control, and apparently they have
a nearly unlimited army of such civil service and x-civil service
subcontracted clowns as their loyal minions that'll willingly follow
your lead.
Our DARPA/NASA is much like a collective swarm of Borg killer bees, as
individually unthinking and otherwise unwilling to ever change their
collective mindset, regardless of the consequences or impending doom
of whomever gets in their way, or dares to so much as question their
authority.
Good folks like Jeffrey L Finckenor are seemingly too few and far
between. It’s a shame they have to exit stage left, in order to
survive without losing whatever is left of their mind.
Quote:
Then between us workers and the highest levels of management another
problem exists. As one person put it: "Where does the bad news stop
going up?" Again, I'm sure you all know of situations where people are
trying to raise red flags, but somehow they never get addressed. It
reminds me of the old joke about promoting growth with powerful
effects.
http://www.thejokejukebox.com/jokes/817.php (S-word warning). One
group I know of is considered a success at the highest levels, not
because they've achieved anything, but only because they've voiced
problems. Program level management is so amazed at getting actual
input from workers that it doesn't matter that the news itself is bad.
And I regret that, despite mandatory "No Fear" training, retaliation
is real even if kept strictly legal. I've been here awhile, and am not
naive enough to expect much thanks for helping maintain the critical
path for the last 3 years. However I didn't expect a threat of
personnel actions that typically lead to firing. I didn't expect to be
personally badmouthed by an ED manager in public (when I was not
there) on more then one occasion. However I'm not surprised that the
fact that I talked to the IG was relevant in determining if I would
get the one job that might have kept me at NASA. When I first started
arguing that MSFC had made a bad decision it was with the sure
knowledge that it might cost me my job. For the past 3 years I've
wondered if I'd still be here 6 months later, and now that time has
come - despite the fact that things are arguably worse then we
predicted 3 years ago.
end quote:
Sadly, without investing trillions of our hard earned loot to fix most
everything, it’s only going to get worse, and the next presidential
administration that’s starting off in the hole by some $54 trillion
isn’t likely to fork over that kind of public loot, much less take
advisements from outsiders as to what could resolve many issues.
~ Brad Guth Brad_Guth Brad.Guth BradGuth
Derek Lyons
>http://www.nasawatch.com/archives/2008/08/a_farewell_mess.html
>
>Are things really that screwed up down there?
Kieth never met an anti-NASA rant he didn't like.
D.
--
Touch-twice life. Eat. Drink. Laugh.
http://derekl1963.livejournal.com/
-Resolved: To be more temperate in my postings.
Oct 5th, 2004 JDL
Derek Lyons
>It wasn't all the long ago when the general public
>cared quite a bit about what NASA was doing.
Spot on - except for the bit about the general public caring about
NASA.
eyeball
> On Aug 26, 5:50 am, Ian Parker <ianpark...@gmail.com> wrote:
>
>
>
> > On 25 Aug, 16:18, Pat Flannery <flan...@daktel.com> wrote:>http://www.nasawatch.com/archives/2008/08/a_farewell_mess.html
>
> > > Are things really that screwed up down there?
>
> > Is it just a disgruntled employee or is it a symtom of a wide malaise.
> > If you are in NASA you have to watch your step. Outside NASA you have
> > to judge by results. There is a gap in manned launcher capability
> > between the Shuttle and Orion. This is an OBJECTIVE fact not based on
> > disgruntled employees. Is the NASA malaise due to lack of funding? In
> > no way.
>
> > The NASA budget for 2008 was $17 billion. That of ESA €3 billion. Yet
> > with a far lower budget ESA seems to be managing to achieve as much is
> > not more. Ariane 5 BTW is now man rated.
>
Incredible! That makes so much sense why can't any of our fellow
posters get it. You should offer your services as a consultant to NASA
or even the POTUS!
jonathan
Since Bush became a lame duck we've seen several thinks like
this, for instance with global warming. People just aren't as afraid
of the consequences of speaking out now I think.
But what I meant was more about advice on policy from the
various agencies. Bush doesn't really seek out advice from
the professional (non-political) staffers like he's supposed to.
Especially on scientific areas like EPA and NASA and such.
He sets policy and puts in yes men to carry it out.
There's a reason why so many agencies now are run by
administrators no one ever heard of before. Because someone
with a respected track record won't just follow orders if
they feel the policy is wrong, they'll quit. Someone plucked
from the jr ranks are so happy to have the job they'll do
anything to keep it....yes-men. Start with Congi Rice for
instance.
I'm sure both sides do that, but Bush has taken it to another level.
I'm convinced that with the Vision Bush listened to Lockheed
and the military. And we ended up with a goal that serves
their interests only. And leaves the general public high and dry.
Leading to poor public support and more half assed
funding and programs that reflect all that.
It just bugs me because I think NASA could be so much
more. I hate seeing all this happen.
>
> Pat
jonathan
"Derek Lyons" <fair...@gmail.com> wrote in message
news:48b65c43....@news.supernews.com...
> "jonathan" <Ho...@write.instead.net> wrote:
>
>>It wasn't all the long ago when the general public
>>cared quite a bit about what NASA was doing.
>
> Spot on - except for the bit about the general public caring about
> NASA.
Oh come on....just click here will ya, and give NASA it's due.
http://www.amazon.com/Great-Events-20th-Century-Magazine/dp/1883013151
jonathan
>
>>It wasn't all the long ago when the general public
>>cared quite a bit about what NASA was doing.
>
> Spot on - except for the bit about the general public caring about
> NASA.
Read it and weep~
The Gallup Poll. Nov. 4-7, 1999. N=500 adults nationwide. MoE +/- 5.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------
ABC News Poll. August 16-22, 1999. N=506 adults nationwide. MoE +/- 4.5.
Field work by TNS Intersearch.
.
"With the year 2000 approaching, we're interested in knowing what people
think of when they think about the greatest human accomplishments, anywhere in
the world, in the last hundred years, since 1900. What comes to mind when you
think about the greatest human accomplishment of the century?
Take your time and think about it."
Top responses %
Moon landing/Space travel 33
Advancements in medicine 11
Computer technology 8
Flight/Invention of the airplane 3
Civil rights movement 3
Technology 3
Electricity 3
.
"Thinking of historical figures worldwide, who would you say is the
greatest historical figure of the century?"
Top responses %
John F. Kennedy 11
Franklin D. Roosevelt 8
Martin Luther King Jr. 7
Winston Churchill 5
Mother Theresa 5
Gandhi 4
Albert Einstein 4
Abraham Lincoln 3
.
"Now let's go back further, thinking of the last one thousand years, from
the year 1000 right up to the present time. What comes to mind when you think
about the one or two greatest human accomplishments of the millennium?"
Top responses %
Medical advances 9
Space travel/Going to the moon 8
Columbus/American discovery/Exploration 7
Electricity/Electric power 4
Declaration of Independence/American Revolution 4
The automobile 4
Aviation/flight 4
Telephone/Telecommunications 3
Inventing the printing press 3
.
"Who do you feel is the greatest figure in the last thousand years, from
anywhere in the world, specifically in the field of politics or government?"
Top responses %
John F. Kennedy 13
Abraham Lincoln 12
Franklin D. Roosevelt 7
George Washington 6
Thomas Jefferson 5
Bill Clinton 4
Ronald Reagan 4
.
"Who do you feel is the greatest figure in the last thousand years, from
anywhere in the world, specifically in the field of exploration?"
Top responses %
Christopher Columbus 21
Lewis and Clark 7
Jacques Cousteau 7
Neil Armstrong 6
Admiral Byrd 4
John Glenn 3
Ferdinand Magellan 3
.
Brian Thorn
<ianpa...@gmail.com> wrote:
>The NASA budget for 2008 was $17 billion. That of ESA €3 billion. Yet
>with a far lower budget ESA seems to be managing to achieve as much is
>not more.
"Seems" is the operative word, and is only true with a cursory look.
The United States launched 21 people into orbit this year. How many
did Europe launch again?
The United States is operating five spacecraft at Mars, one at Saturn,
has probes enroute to Mercury, Pluto, and Ceres, and is still
monitoring the Voyagers at the outskirts of the solar system. How many
is Europe operating again?
The U.S. has ten astronomy satellites in service (Chandra, CHIPS,
GALEX, Fermi GLAST, HETE2, Rossi XTE, Spitzer, SWAS, Swift, and WMAP,
in addition to Hubble with the Europeans.) How many does Europe have
again?
Brian
eyeball
>
> That alone says a lot about your character.
It's as deep as anything you spew out, sugar.
Derek Lyons
"Drooling over spectacular photographs" != "interested in what NASA is
doing". The general public masturbates over the gatefolds, they don't
even pretend that they read the articles.
Ian Parker
> On Tue, 26 Aug 2008 05:50:06 -0700 (PDT), Ian Parker
>
Gives ESA spacecraft. However it is manned spacecraft which cost the
big money. You are right in saying that NASA has sent far more people
into orbit. However there is the Shuttle - Orion gap. Nothing like
that in ESA.
- Ian Parker
Fred J. McCall
:
:Gives ESA spacecraft. However it is manned spacecraft which cost the
:big money. You are right in saying that NASA has sent far more people
:into orbit. However there is the Shuttle - Orion gap. Nothing like
:that in ESA.
Certainly nothing like that in ESA, since you first have to HAVE
manned flight on your own vehicles in order to have a GAP in manned
flight capability.
So far, ESA is all gap...
--
"Some people get lost in thought because it's such unfamiliar
territory."
--G. Behn
BradGuth
Ian Parker and even the likes of William Mook would be far superior to
what I alone would do with our DARPA / NASA. However, as a
contributing team effort I do believe that much of our NASA can be
salvaged, even if becomes another part of our USAF.
It's not that future mistakes and mishaps will not happen. It's about
not allowing cover-ups or special interest groups (aka cabals) to run
the show.
Jeff Findley
> Pat Flannery <fla...@daktel.com> wrote:
>
>>http://www.nasawatch.com/archives/2008/08/a_farewell_mess.html
>>
>>Are things really that screwed up down there?
>
> Kieth never met an anti-NASA rant he didn't like.
Make that an anti-NASA management rant. In my opinion, Ares I is the
biggest NASA cluster to date, shoved down everyone's throat by top level
NASA management.
Jeff Findley
> "jonathan" <Ho...@write.instead.net> wrote:
>
>>It wasn't all the long ago when the general public
>>cared quite a bit about what NASA was doing.
>
> Spot on - except for the bit about the general public caring about
> NASA.
The American public (i.e. the media) doesn't care what their astronauts do,
as long as they don't die doing it. But if it's another NASA employee who
dies on the job, you hardly hear anything about it in the media.
BradGuth
wrote:
> "Derek Lyons" <fairwa...@gmail.com> wrote in message
>
> news:48b55bca....@news.supernews.com...
>
> > Pat Flannery <flan...@daktel.com> wrote:
>
> >>http://www.nasawatch.com/archives/2008/08/a_farewell_mess.html
>
> >>Are things really that screwed up down there?
>
> > Kieth never met an anti-NASA rant he didn't like.
>
> Make that an anti-NASA management rant. In my opinion, Ares I is the
> biggest NASA cluster to date, shoved down everyone's throat by top level
> NASA management.
It's just the tip of a very dirty iceberg that's AGW melting before
our snookered and dumbfounded eyes.
Perhaps if our DARPA/NASA could use even bigger and spendier cluster
bombs like the last one, at least it'll put on a really nifty blooper
show.
btw, why hasn't the Ares I and their Orion fiasco showed up on prime
time media televised news? (in HDTV none the less, along with command
center audio)
Brian Thorn
<ianpa...@gmail.com> wrote:
>However it is manned spacecraft which cost the
>big money. You are right in saying that NASA has sent far more people
>into orbit. However there is the Shuttle - Orion gap. Nothing like
>that in ESA.
NASA will be in the exact same boat as ESA during the gap. Both
dependent on rides to ISS by the Russians.
Brian
eyeball
> On Wed, 27 Aug 2008 02:46:29 -0700 (PDT), Ian Parker
>
> >However it is manned spacecraft which cost the
> >big money. You are right in saying that NASA has sent far more people
> >into orbit. However there is the Shuttle - Orion gap. Nothing like
> >that in ESA.
>
> NASA will be in the exact same boat as ESA during the gap. Both
> dependent on rides to ISS by the Russians.
>
> Brian
That's assuming the next administration doesn't decide to extend the
use of the shuttles. All this talk won't amount to anything after the
election. Who knows what current projects will be funded and what will
be discarded. Maybe Cold War II will cause another space race.
Jan Vorbrüggen
> use of the shuttles.
My impression from Jorge was that, with the termination of several
supply contracts, the die have already been cast - there is no way back,
at least not for more than a very few missions.
Jan
Ian Parker
> That's assuming the next administration doesn't decide to extend the
> use of the shuttles. All this talk won't amount to anything after the
> election. Who knows what current projects will be funded and what will
> be discarded. Maybe Cold War II will cause another space race.
CW 2 means that it might be unwise to rely on the Russians for
transport to LEO.
- Ian Parker
eyeball
I think it's unwise to rely on anyone but ourselves.
Jorge R. Frank
We are close, but not quite, to the point of no return; if my prior
posts gave a different impression that's my error.
jonathan
"Jeff Findley" <jeff.f...@ugs.nojunk.com> wrote in message
news:89621$48b5437a$927a2cda$25...@FUSE.NET...
>
> "Derek Lyons" <fair...@gmail.com> wrote in message
> news:48b65c43....@news.supernews.com...
>> "jonathan" <Ho...@write.instead.net> wrote:
>>
>>>It wasn't all the long ago when the general public
>>>cared quite a bit about what NASA was doing.
>>
>> Spot on - except for the bit about the general public caring about
>> NASA.
>
> The American public (i.e. the media) doesn't care what their astronauts do, as
> long as they don't die doing it. But if it's another NASA employee who dies
> on the job, you hardly hear anything about it in the media.
One is a national symbol, the other isn't
Greg D. Moore (Strider)
news:ruidnZRfisVSeijV...@giganews.com...
And note that McCain has asked the White House not to make any decisions for
now that cast things in stone.
I expect Obama to follow suit.
I highly suspect the White House will quietly continue the contracts at
least until early next year (just let them fall under the continuing
resolutions and no one takes the political heat.)
--
Greg Moore
SQL Server DBA Consulting Remote and Onsite available!
Email: sql (at) greenms.com http://www.greenms.com/sqlserver.html
Jeff Findley
"Greg D. Moore (Strider)" <mooregr_d...@greenms.com> wrote in message
news:PoSdne73y5iWmyvV...@earthlink.com...
> And note that McCain has asked the White House not to make any decisions
> for now that cast things in stone.
>
> I expect Obama to follow suit.
>
> I highly suspect the White House will quietly continue the contracts at
> least until early next year (just let them fall under the continuing
> resolutions and no one takes the political heat.)
Florida is going to be a very important state in this election, so I suspect
that both candidates will support continuing shuttle operations until this
mess (the gap) get straightened out.
That and both candidates seem to be condemning Russia's actions in Georgia,
so depending on the Russians to support ISS isn't going to go over very well
this election year.
Jan Vorbrüggen
> least until early next year (just let them fall under the continuing
> resolutions and no one takes the political heat.)
However, it would need to be the _current_ rentor of the White House to
do that, which means to be active. For the next one, it will very likely
be too late, as he will have other issues taking up all his intentions
until at least October 2009.
Jan
Jeff Findley
"jonathan" <Ho...@write.instead.net> wrote in message
news:Lrmtk.17322$rD2....@bignews4.bellsouth.net...
>
> "Jeff Findley" <jeff.f...@ugs.nojunk.com> wrote in message
> news:89621$48b5437a$927a2cda$25...@FUSE.NET...
>> do, as long as they don't die doing it. But if it's another NASA
>> employee who dies on the job, you hardly hear anything about it in the
>> media.
>
>
> One is a national symbol, the other isn't
True, but it's odd that no one seems to care about that them unless they die
on the job. Astronauts don't have the celebrity status they once had in the
60's, but the public still looks up to them.
Ian Parker
> "Greg D. Moore (Strider)" <mooregr_deletet...@greenms.com> wrote in messagenews:PoSdne73y5iWmyvV...@earthlink.com...
>
> > And note that McCain has asked the White House not to make any decisions
> > for now that cast things in stone.
>
> > I expect Obama to follow suit.
>
> > I highly suspect the White House will quietly continue the contracts at
> > least until early next year (just let them fall under the continuing
> > resolutions and no one takes the political heat.)
>
> Florida is going to be a very important state in this election, so I suspect
> that both candidates will support continuing shuttle operations until this
> mess (the gap) get straightened out.
>
> That and both candidates seem to be condemning Russia's actions in Georgia,
> so depending on the Russians to support ISS isn't going to go over very well
> this election year.
>
cannot be as usual. There have been a number of other things too like
the murder of Alexander Litvinenko + the harrassment of BP executives.
No, the unthinkable which I am posing is "Do we need the ISS at all?"
It was essentially POLITICAL. If you ask yourself the question what
has the ISS achieved scientifically the answer is very little. But for
the politics and the need to keep Russia on board and for the West to
be regarded as a reliable partner I would have said chop it a long
time ago. I think some earlier postings of mine have made this clear.
With Russia showing she is NOT a reliable partner I can see no
justification for the continuation of the project. Care has to be
taken that large chunks do not come down on inhabited areas. That is
the only real proviso.
The ISS is totally the wrong environment for doing modern scientific
experiments where an ultrastable platform is needed. Scientifically
LISA is far far more important than ever the ISS is.
- Ian Parker
Jochem Huhmann
> With Russia showing she is NOT a reliable partner I can see no
> justification for the continuation of the project. Care has to be
> taken that large chunks do not come down on inhabited areas. That is
> the only real proviso.
Well, what's with Europe, Japan, Canada and so on? And I'm quite sure
those could pull the ISS through for a few years longer (they did that
without the US for quite a time already). Still, there are contracts.
> The ISS is totally the wrong environment for doing modern scientific
> experiments where an ultrastable platform is needed. Scientifically
> LISA is far far more important than ever the ISS is.
Flying people to the moon doesn't seem to be really important, too.
Jochem
--
"A designer knows he has arrived at perfection not when there is no
longer anything to add, but when there is no longer anything to take away."
- Antoine de Saint-Exupery
Greg D. Moore (Strider)
news:g9658h$c3a$1...@s1.news.oleane.net...
If only he were a renter.
In any case, I'm not sure what 2009 has to do with it.
I suspect you mean 2008.
In any event, my guess is the WH will quietly let the contracts continue by
default by not doing anything required to terminate them.
Brian Thorn
<Jan.Vor...@not-thomson.net> wrote:
>For the next one, it will very likely
>be too late, as he will have other issues taking up all his intentions
>until at least October 2009.
Nonsense. Reagan appointed Beggs as NASA Administrator six months
after taking office, and that included the period he was recovering
from the assassination attempt. Bush 41 appointed Truly as NASA
Administrator in May, 1989, four months after taking office. Both of
those were in a generally stable period for NASA, unlike the current
period of transition which demands more attention. NASA will be fairly
high on the 44th President's to-do list.
Brian
Derek Lyons
Jan Vorbrüggen
>> be too late, as he will have other issues taking up all his intentions
>> until at least October 2009.
>
> Nonsense. Reagan appointed Beggs as NASA Administrator six months
> after taking office, and that included the period he was recovering
> from the assassination attempt. Bush 41 appointed Truly as NASA
> Administrator in May, 1989, four months after taking office. Both of
> those were in a generally stable period for NASA, unlike the current
> period of transition which demands more attention. NASA will be fairly
> high on the 44th President's to-do list.
I think you are deluding yourself. But we will see.
Jan
Jan Vorbrüggen
That was clearly tongue-in-cheek.
> In any case, I'm not sure what 2009 has to do with it.
> I suspect you mean 2008.
No, I mean 2009. He start work end of January 2009, and first order of
business is the budget for 2010, the US economy and Iraq. Almost
everything else has to wait until the new fiscal year.
> In any event, my guess is the WH will quietly let the contracts continue by
> default by not doing anything required to terminate them.
My point was that the White House has to take action to have those
contracts continued, as currently NASA is under mandate to terminate
them as soon as possible.
Jan
Ian Parker
> Ian Parker <ianpark...@gmail.com> writes:
> > With Russia showing she is NOT a reliable partner I can see no
> > justification for the continuation of the project. Care has to be
> > taken that large chunks do not come down on inhabited areas. That is
> > the only real proviso.
>
> Well, what's with Europe, Japan, Canada and so on? And I'm quite sure
> those could pull the ISS through for a few years longer (they did that
> without the US for quite a time already). Still, there are contracts.
>
> > The ISS is totally the wrong environment for doing modern scientific
> > experiments where an ultrastable platform is needed. Scientifically
> > LISA is far far more important than ever the ISS is.
>
> Flying people to the moon doesn't seem to be really important, too.
>
well known. I think that quite a number of people probably feel that
way too.
To repeat the ISS was for POLITICAL not scientific purposes. It was to
combine the world in a "struugle" if you like to explore space rather
than invading Georgia. To me Georgia has demonstrated the failure of
the ISS to achieve its political purposes. There never were any good
scientific ones.
An extremely large number, if not the majority of scientists in all
the countries you have mentioned would endorse this view. What we need
is a new objective. This new objective will be couched in AI terms.
If CW2 is averted the ISS can still be served by Russian rockets. If,
as seems likely, CW2 takes off the only rational thing to do is to
pull the plug completely.
- Ian Parker
BradGuth
I agree.
The Selene/moon L1 is a much better robotic science platform location,
and Venus L2 is by far a better ISS (aka POOF City) location.
BradGuth
But look at what happened to JFK when he tried to pull the DARPA/
Apollo plug.
~ BG
Pat Flannery
Derek Lyons wrote:
>> Administrator in May, 1989, four months after taking office. Both of
>> those were in a generally stable period for NASA, unlike the current
>> period of transition which demands more attention. NASA will be fairly
>> high on the 44th President's to-do list.
>>
>
> Assuming he can find someone to take the job.
>
Boy, ain't that the truth...being NASA administrator is about as close
to committing professional suicide as one can get based on the last few.
Pat
Alan Erskine
news:49Cdnf5Us4mv7yTV...@posted.northdakotatelephone...
> Boy, ain't that the truth...being NASA administrator is about as close to
> committing professional suicide as one can get based on the last few.
People keep saying this, but is it true?
Pat Flannery
If you look at the list of them and their active dates:
http://history.nasa.gov/prsnnl.htm
...you will not that "(Acting)" starts to appear after the Challenger
disaster.
That's not a good sign, as it shows the lack of a smooth transition from
one administrator to the next.
I suspect that Griffin's tenure probably ends soon after the next
election if the Orion/Ares problems continue.
Pat
Pat Flannery
Jeff Findley wrote:
> Astronauts don't have the celebrity status they once had in the
> 60's, but the public still looks up to them.
>
Well, that's inevitable when they are in orbit. Look down on them and
all you see is the ground. :-)
Pat
BradGuth
> "Pat Flannery" <flan...@daktel.com> wrote in message
It's the best that any civil service cabal can muster, and it's only
going to get worse because of all the lies upon lies that each acting
administrator has to cope with. No honest soul in their right mind
wants the job, so that means someone dubious or under-qualified but
totally loyal to the DARPA policy has to be appointed, and they must
accept that assignment or else.
Alan Erskine
> If you look at the list of them and their active dates:
> http://history.nasa.gov/prsnnl.htm
> ...you will not that "(Acting)" starts to appear after the Challenger
> disaster.
> That's not a good sign, as it shows the lack of a smooth transition from
> one administrator to the next.
> I suspect that Griffin's tenure probably ends soon after the next election
> if the Orion/Ares problems continue.
But what happens to them after they leave NASA? It's not career suicide at
all; just the end of one job (for which Many, including Mike Griffin, are
ill-equipped, I'll grant).
BradGuth
> "Pat Flannery" <flan...@daktel.com> wrote in message
Being "ill-equiped" seems standard policy. How else can so much get
delayed and spent for so little return on the investment?
Pat Flannery
Alan Erskine wrote:
> But what happens to them after they leave NASA? It's not career suicide at
> all; just the end of one job (for which Many, including Mike Griffin, are
> ill-equipped, I'll grant).
>
>
Yeah, but where do they go from there? Let's take a look at where all
the Shuttle-era NASA admins ended up:
Dr. Robert A. Frosch - Went from NASA to GM, and from there to Harvard
where he is doing work on various engineering concepts:
http://www.hks.harvard.edu/sed/people/rfrosch.htm
James M. Beggs - Had to leave NASA due to a indictment related to his
pre-NASA work with General Dynamics (I've got a whole book about this
little scandal and the Los Angles class subs) Now is a free-lance
consultant and did work for The Potomac Institute For Policy Studies:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/James_M._Beggs
...although he's not listed on their current roster of members:
http://www.sourcewatch.org/index.php?title=Potomac_Institute_for_Policy_Studies
William R. Graham - Was acting administrator when Challenger blew up.
Got kicked upstairs to become director of Reagan's White House Office of
Science And Technology Policy.
Later worked on BMD ideas:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/William_Robert_Graham
http://rightweb.irc-online.org/profile/1211.html
Dr. James C. Fletcher - has distinction of being twice chief
administrator of NASA, first during the design phase of the STS, later
after Challenger loss and Graham's departure:
http://www.hq.nasa.gov/office/pao/History/Biographies/fletcher.html
Later became a independent consultant and died in 1991.
Vice Admiral Richard H. Truly - "After leaving NASA, Adm. Truly became
Vice President and Director of the Georgia Tech Research Institute, part
of the Georgia Institute of Technology, in Atlanta, Georgia. He served
in this role from 1992 - 1997. Then he served as Director of the
Department of Energy's National Renewable Energy Laboratory and as
Executive Vice President of Midwest Research Institute from 1997-2005.
In May 2007, Retired Vice Admiral Richard Truly testified before the US
Senate Committee on Foreign Relations as a member of a military advisory
board on the subject of the threats to U.S. national security posed by
global climate change."
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Richard_H._Truly
Daniel S. Goldin - Apparently doing robotics research of some sort;
although recently seen wearing placard that read: "Will Lecture For
Food". ;-)
Gets more than one Wikipedia page even:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Daniel_Goldin
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Daniel_Goldin_presidency_of_Boston_University
Maybe working on some sort of worm destroying robot?
Gone, but certainly not forgotten.
Daniel R. Mulville - Is a granddad. Last major act at NASA was
performing a exorcism on Goldin's office prior the O'Keefe's arrival, to
drive "Ego Monster" from it created by Goldin's tampering with Krell
machinery recovered from 1947 Roswell crash.
Sean O'Keefe - Things were going well; then Columbia went down, and so
did O'Keefe's career after he made the shocking and unwarranted
statement that the Shuttle might not be completely safe...and the Hubble
repair mission should be canceled.
Tried to get into politics, then served as LSU Chancellor, now works
secretly with cabal of Bohemian Club Satanic Owl Worshipers to overthrow
Christianity and replace it with Freemasonic Devil-Worship as part of
Illuminati New World Order:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sean_O%27Keefe
Michael D. Griffin - Time will tell, but no friend of Satanic Owl
Worshipers, much preferring the strict tenants of the Opus Dei and
self-flagellation to strange nocturnal ceremonies in forest glades. :-)
Pat
BradGuth
> Alan Erskine wrote:
> > But what happens to them after they leave NASA? It's not career suicide at
> > all; just the end of one job (for which Many, including Mike Griffin, are
> > ill-equipped, I'll grant).
>
> Yeah, but where do they go from there? Let's take a look at where all
> the Shuttle-era NASA admins ended up:
>
> Dr. Robert A. Frosch - Went from NASA to GM, and from there to Harvard
> where he is doing work on various engineering concepts:http://www.hks.harvard.edu/sed/people/rfrosch.htm
>
> James M. Beggs - Had to leave NASA due to a indictment related to his
> pre-NASA work with General Dynamics (I've got a whole book about this
> little scandal and the Los Angles class subs) Now is a free-lance
> consultant and did work for The Potomac Institute For Policy Studies:http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/James_M._Beggs
>
> William R. Graham - Was acting administrator when Challenger blew up.
> Got kicked upstairs to become director of Reagan's White House Office of
> Science And Technology Policy.
>
> Dr. James C. Fletcher - has distinction of being twice chief
> administrator of NASA, first during the design phase of the STS, later
> after Challenger loss and Graham's departure:http://www.hq.nasa.gov/office/pao/History/Biographies/fletcher.html
> Later became a independent consultant and died in 1991.
>
> Vice Admiral Richard H. Truly - "After leaving NASA, Adm. Truly became
> Vice President and Director of the Georgia Tech Research Institute, part
> of the Georgia Institute of Technology, in Atlanta, Georgia. He served
> in this role from 1992 - 1997. Then he served as Director of the
> Department of Energy's National Renewable Energy Laboratory and as
> Executive Vice President of Midwest Research Institute from 1997-2005.
> In May 2007, Retired Vice Admiral Richard Truly testified before the US
> Senate Committee on Foreign Relations as a member of a military advisory
> board on the subject of the threats to U.S. national security posed by
> global climate change."http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Richard_H._Truly
>
> Daniel S. Goldin - Apparently doing robotics research of some sort;
> although recently seen wearing placard that read: "Will Lecture For
> Food". ;-)
> Maybe working on some sort of worm destroying robot?
> Gone, but certainly not forgotten.
>
> Daniel R. Mulville - Is a granddad. Last major act at NASA was
> performing a exorcism on Goldin's office prior the O'Keefe's arrival, to
> drive "Ego Monster" from it created by Goldin's tampering with Krell
> machinery recovered from 1947 Roswell crash.
>
> Sean O'Keefe - Things were going well; then Columbia went down, and so
> did O'Keefe's career after he made the shocking and unwarranted
> statement that the Shuttle might not be completely safe...and the Hubble
> repair mission should be canceled.
> Tried to get into politics, then served as LSU Chancellor, now works
> secretly with cabal of Bohemian Club Satanic Owl Worshipers to overthrow
> Christianity and replace it with Freemasonic Devil-Worship as part of
> Illuminati New World Order:http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sean_O%27Keefe
>
> Michael D. Griffin - Time will tell, but no friend of Satanic Owl
> Worshipers, much preferring the strict tenants of the Opus Dei and
> self-flagellation to strange nocturnal ceremonies in forest glades. :-)
>
> Pat
They should try out William Mook, as he's got no place to go but up.
~ BG
Rand Simberg
Hill <damon...@comcast.netnet> made the phosphor on my monitor glow
in such a way as to indicate that:
>Pat Flannery <fla...@daktel.com> wrote in
>news:fs2dnUY6JoIRUC_V...@posted.northdakotatelephone:
>
>> http://www.nasawatch.com/archives/2008/08/a_farewell_mess.html
>>
>> Are things really that screwed up down there?
>
>It sure seems to have gotten very Dibertian (see "Dilbert", the comic
>strip, for an acerbic treatment of corporate life).
>
>That seems to be a general problem with big human institutions; the
>workings get vague and increasingly incoherant, especially without
>clear and rational leadership from the top.
>
>I have a feeling we'll know a trend for sure by next year. I've got to
>admit pessimism about NASA and national space policy. There just
>doesn't seem to be a rational foundation for manned spaceflight any
>more.
As opposed to when?
Rand Simberg
Findley" <jeff.f...@ugs.nojunk.com> made the phosphor on my monitor
glow in such a way as to indicate that:
>
>"Greg D. Moore (Strider)" <mooregr_d...@greenms.com> wrote in message
>news:PoSdne73y5iWmyvV...@earthlink.com...
>> And note that McCain has asked the White House not to make any decisions
>> for now that cast things in stone.
>>
>> I expect Obama to follow suit.
>>
>> I highly suspect the White House will quietly continue the contracts at
>> least until early next year (just let them fall under the continuing
>> resolutions and no one takes the political heat.)
>
>Florida is going to be a very important state in this election, so I suspect
>that both candidates will support continuing shuttle operations until this
>mess (the gap) get straightened out.
Except extending Shuttle doesn't close the gap. It only allows us
access to station--it doesn't allow us to stay there. For that, we
need Soyuz, and it's unlikely that INKSNA will be waived again given
Russia's recent behavior.
Rand Simberg
Moore \(Strider\)" <mooregr_d...@greenms.com> made the phosphor
on my monitor glow in such a way as to indicate that:
>"Jan Vorbrüggen" <Jan.Vor...@not-thomson.net> wrote in message
>news:g9658h$c3a$1...@s1.news.oleane.net...
>>> I highly suspect the White House will quietly continue the contracts at
>>> least until early next year (just let them fall under the continuing
>>> resolutions and no one takes the political heat.)
>>
>> However, it would need to be the _current_ rentor of the White House to do
>> that, which means to be active. For the next one, it will very likely be
>> too late, as he will have other issues taking up all his intentions until
>> at least October 2009.
>>
>> Jan
>
>If only he were a renter.
>
>In any case, I'm not sure what 2009 has to do with it.
>I suspect you mean 2008.
>
>In any event, my guess is the WH will quietly let the contracts continue by
>default by not doing anything required to terminate them.
Termination *is* the current default. The WH has no direct control
over contracts. The die is cast unless the WH directs NASA otherwise.
Rand Simberg
Flannery <fla...@daktel.com> made the phosphor on my monitor glow in
such a way as to indicate that:
>Daniel R. Mulville - Is a granddad. Last major act at NASA was
>performing a exorcism on Goldin's office prior the O'Keefe's arrival, to
>drive "Ego Monster" from it created by Goldin's tampering with Krell
>machinery recovered from 1947 Roswell crash.
Mulville was never administrator.
Damon Hill
news:48d7440d....@news.giganews.com:
Oh, maybe back in the mid-60s. Back when there were some clear goals
and funding, and political enthusiasm. Didn't last long, of course.
My crystal ball's Future setting seems to be broken.
--Damon
Jorge R. Frank
The mid-60's was a cock-measuring contest against the Soviets. You call
that rational?
Damon Hill
news:c6mdnaZ4G5yd4F7V...@giganews.com:
More constructive than nuclear war. It was fun, too.
--Damon
Ian Parker
> simberg.interglo...@org.trash (Rand Simberg) wrote innews:48d7440d....@news.giganews.com:
>
>
>
>
>
> > On Mon, 25 Aug 2008 11:31:39 -0500, in a place far, far away, Damon
> > in such a way as to indicate that:
>
> >>news:fs2dnUY6JoIRUC_V...@posted.northdakotatelephone:
>
> >>>http://www.nasawatch.com/archives/2008/08/a_farewell_mess.html
>
> >>> Are things really that screwed up down there?
>
> >>It sure seems to have gotten very Dibertian (see "Dilbert", the comic
> >>strip, for an acerbic treatment of corporate life).
>
> >>That seems to be a general problem with big human institutions; the
> >>workings get vague and increasingly incoherant, especially without
> >>clear and rational leadership from the top.
>
> >>I have a feeling we'll know a trend for sure by next year. I've got to
> >>admit pessimism about NASA and national space policy. There just
> >>doesn't seem to be a rational foundation for manned spaceflight any
> >>more.
>
> > As opposed to when?
>
> Oh, maybe back in the mid-60s. Back when there were some clear goals
> and funding, and political enthusiasm. Didn't last long, of course.
>
> My crystal ball's Future setting seems to be broken.
>
opposed to unmanned spaceflight. However decisions at that level are
not really NASA's to make. NASA was asked to go to the Moon and
prepare a plan for Mars. It was asked to get something like Ares
flying.
You may indeed say :-
1) Manned soaceflight is not cost effective.
2) If you DO want a manned trup to Mars the Moon is not the right
place to start.
Point "1" is not really in NASA's remit. NASA has been instructed to
proceed with "1". Point 2 should indeeed n spotted by NASA. NASA could
have got Ares to work. That was TOTALLY in their court.
- Ian Parker
BradGuth
Problem is that it's all based upon our highly hocus-pocus and cloak
and dagger DARPA of our mutually perpetrated cold-war era that used
every smoke and mirror trick in the book, and then they either burned
their own book or having lost all the important records. If we
couldn't do it then, what makes you think we can do it now?
Stop making up excuses for these bastards. They should all be fired
and their retirements retroactively terminated, because they are worse
than criminals.
Rand Simberg
Hill <damon...@comcast.netnet> made the phosphor on my monitor glow
in such a way as to indicate that:
>simberg.i...@org.trash (Rand Simberg) wrote in
>news:48d7440d....@news.giganews.com:
>
>> On Mon, 25 Aug 2008 11:31:39 -0500, in a place far, far away, Damon
>> Hill <damon...@comcast.netnet> made the phosphor on my monitor glow
>> in such a way as to indicate that:
>>>I have a feeling we'll know a trend for sure by next year. I've got to
>>>admit pessimism about NASA and national space policy. There just
>>>doesn't seem to be a rational foundation for manned spaceflight any
>>>more.
>>
>> As opposed to when?
>>
>
>Oh, maybe back in the mid-60s. Back when there were some clear goals
>and funding, and political enthusiasm. Didn't last long, of course.
That wasn't a rational foundation for manned spaceflight. It was just
a field of battle that was convenient for a technical competition with
the Soviet Union. Had it been "rational" in terms of manned
spaceflight, it wouldn't have evaporated after we beat them to the
moon.
Jorge R. Frank
Do you really think that was the only alternative?
> It was fun, too.
Doesn't make it rational.
bob haller safety advocate
FIRED for the political stick launchger, waste of $$ and time., No
doubt the decision to payoff existing contractors originated above
him.......... still a bad decision
Look ISS accomplishes NOTHING but burn bucks::(
Although the current workforce would be decimated a abandon and
deorbit ISS NOW could be made along with a abrupt end of shuttle.and
russian cooperation
this would free up billions for a new manned capsule on a expendable,
along with a rich show the russians who gets to mars first:) and
hopefully a moon base.
John Doe
> opposed to unmanned spaceflight. However decisions at that level are
> not really NASA's to make. NASA was asked to go to the Moon and
> prepare a plan for Mars. It was asked to get something like Ares
> flying.
NASA must not allow politicians to make decisions in a vacuum. The
drive should come from NASA.
Fact is that NASA tried many different things in the last decades (those
X vehicles) and for one reason or another, they didn't result in usable
products. Politicians see those as failures instead of accepting that
much was learned from those projects. (or accepting that funding for a
particular project was cut too soon).
So, politicians probably went to NASA and told it to come up with some
project that would ensure some deliverables. NASA may have responded
with: "We could always go back to the moon, we think we now have enough
technology to do it". And politicians made it so.
Was it politicians who imposed restrictions on technology in order to
preserve jobs in certain areas (tanks, SRBs), or did those decisions
really come from within NASA ?
Prior to those announcements, the saying was that NASA should have total
freedom to design a new vehicle, but all of a sudden, restrictions were
imposed to force it to use certain technologies. And this may turn out
like another X vehicle programme and fail.
Damon Hill
Has the FSU/Russia ever had a rational manned space program? Well,
sorta. But they blew large resources on Energia/Buran and wound up with
a powerful launch system with almost no missions because there was
little money for the payloads. (We'll pretend to ignore the N1 and
Soviet lunar program, since that largely failed.) And then the
political system and economy imploded. Russia did well to string along
on Soyuz and Mir for as long as it did.
So, what's a rational foundation going to be, and how likely is it to be
achieved? I'm not sanguine about the present approach, which is going
more and more off-target every year. Only a complete abandonment of Ares
and retrenchment to Shuttle in the short term and Direct architure is
going to save it.
I'm not sure China really has a rational approach because I don't think
they can spare the resources to do more than a token version of
Soyuz/Mir. Can their political climate support anything more ambitious,
because it'll be a big jump in resources and money?
Russia's current political aggressiveness threatens to spike everything
that they're in cooperative ventures with. I can see supporting ISS and
follow-ons with Soyuz and then ACTS plus new modules, but they'll have to
hone their technology to keep it cost-effective.
Commercial? Who knows? Where's the money coming from? SpaceX and COTS
might be a stepping stone to a continued US manned presence in space,
but unless it starts to look profitable that's not going to go far.
Manned spaceflight continues to be expensive enough that we can only
afford to play, not to get serious. Even "free" launches won't fix that.
I >think< I see a technological breakthrough that may make manned flight
to Mars and asteriods more doable, but I also doubt I'll live long enough
to see it implemented.
The future's going to be for the generations born in the most recent
decades, one that's mostly peaceful and can afford to spend the money.
--Damon
BradGuth
Mars and Selene are not exactly desirable destinations for human DNA.
Even Einstein's DNA couldn't survive the solar and cosmic gauntlet of
such off-world destinations.
Venus on the other hand seems perfectly doable, even if you weren't a
tenth as smart as Einstein.
BradGuth
> the pleasure of the president, who implements NASA policy by executive
> order. That pretty much qualifies everything you propose as nonsense.
>
> Congress you say? Don't make us laugh any harder than we already are.
Our DARPA / NASA is more or less MI5/CIA, and otherwise having been
more of a faith-based cabal than you think. Notice how they
continually go for the inert eye-candy, while avoiding the best
available science and evidence pertaining to intelligent other life
existing/coexisting on Venus.
Pat Flannery
Jorge R. Frank wrote:
>>
>> Oh, maybe back in the mid-60s. Back when there were some clear goals
>> and funding, and political enthusiasm. Didn't last long, of course.
>
> The mid-60's was a cock-measuring contest against the Soviets. You
> call that rational?
No, of course not.
But nothing political ever is.
You want to know when we really, hands-down, won the space race?
About the time Voyager 2 started sending back images of the ice
geysers on Triton as she passed Neptune.
The Soviets couldn't even get Mars probes to work right; we could send
probes to the outer edge of the solar system, and see dozens of moons
orbiting giant planets in detail, most of which were inherently far more
interesting than our own Moon.
"Look! Venera has shown us the superheated lifeless surface of Venus!"
"Look...Voyager has shown us Europa, which has a water ocean that may be
a hundred miles deep inside of it, and could harbor life. Oh, and BTW,
want to see some mighty big erupting volcanos on Io throwing lava a
hundred or so miles into the sky? How about those moons that shift
orbits as they pass each other when they rotate inside of Saturn's rings?"
Then of, course, there are the MERs showing us films of dust devils
traveling across the surface of Mars, and Phobos and Deimos traversing
the nighttime sky of Barsoom.
Somehow the Russian work seems pretty minor after that, doesn't it? :-D
Pat
Pat Flannery
Damon Hill wrote:
> More constructive than nuclear war. It was fun, too.
>
Not terribly monetarily efficient in regards to what was spent versus
what was actually learned.
But, as you say, it beat a nuclear war.
On the other hand, it's very doubtful that the war would ever have
happened if there had not been a space race.
We figured out what that would have been like in October of 1962, and
both backed away from the concept.
Let's see if I can pull off a prophecy here: In recent weeks President
Sarkozy of France seems to be everywhere; trouble in Georgia? Sarkozy
shows up and negotiates a peace deal.
Israel and Syria have a problem regarding a peace deal?
Guess who shows up.
Russian troops don't leave Georgia according to schedule?
Sarkozy must talk to them.
I think that Europe might be getting a bit nervous about having the
ex-Warsaw Pact members as NATO members, and what that means in regards
to their oil and natural gas supplies from Russia...and if the US keeps
pushing it, you are going to see the Western Europian members of NATO
drop out of the alliance, and form a united defense organization of
their own, which France wants to be the leader of.
You'd then have the oddball situation of the North Atlantic Treaty
Organization with none of its members having a border on the North Atlantic.
Well, it's happened before.
Whoever thought that Turkey was a Europian power? :-D
Pat
Pat Flannery
Jorge R. Frank wrote:
>>
>> More constructive than nuclear war.
>
> Do you really think that was the only alternative?
>
> > It was fun, too.
>
> Doesn't make it rational.
Watch it Frank, it will be bye-bye to NASA with talk like that, and next
thing you know you will be slinging back Yukon Jacks with Keith Cowing
while climbing up Mount Everest.
Cowing: "God-Damned NASA!"
Frank: "Fucking Right!"
Yeti: "GRRRR...B...L...E...E...C...H."
Cowing: "Absoulutly Fukin' Right! Puke on the Fukin' Bastards!"
Frank: "Yeah...what you said..."
Don't let it end like that, Jorge... don't let it end up like that. :-)
Pat
Jeff Findley
"Rand Simberg" <simberg.i...@org.trash> wrote in message
news:48d844a1....@news.giganews.com...
> On Thu, 28 Aug 2008 09:19:20 -0400, in a place far, far away, "Jeff
> Findley" <jeff.f...@ugs.nojunk.com> made the phosphor on my monitor
> glow in such a way as to indicate that:
>>suspect
>>that both candidates will support continuing shuttle operations until this
>>mess (the gap) get straightened out.
>
> Except extending Shuttle doesn't close the gap. It only allows us
> access to station--it doesn't allow us to stay there. For that, we
> need Soyuz, and it's unlikely that INKSNA will be waived again given
> Russia's recent behavior.
I agree. Extending the shuttle program beyond 2010 just postpones the
inevitable. Without a major influx of cash, the gap won't go away,
especially if the Ares/Orion program continues along the path it's taking
now.
The bigger problem is that without Soyuz, US astronauts can only visit ISS
with the shuttle for a week or two at a time.
I'm still hoping that Griffin will be canned along with Ares I/V. I want to
see the final nail in the coffin for large segmented solids on US launch
vehicles.
Jeff
--
A clever person solves a problem.
A wise person avoids it. -- Einstein
John Doe
> I'm still hoping that Griffin will be canned along with Ares I/V. I want to
> see the final nail in the coffin for large segmented solids on US launch
> vehicles.
At this point in time, how solid at the designs and technology decisions ?
Could NASA continue with the Bush "CEV" plans, and just revisit how the
capsules are to be launched ? (aka: ditch the 5 segment SRBs that seem
to be causing so much trouble). If design work has slowed to a crawl
because of the SRB vibration issue, would they lose that much if they
made a major rethink of the launchers ?
Was it political pressure that prevented the use of existing launchers
that are so often mentioned here ? (Delta IV for instance).
Damon Hill
news:a5b37$48c5280b$927a2cda$30...@FUSE.NET:
>
> I'm still hoping that Griffin will be canned along with Ares I/V. I
> want to see the final nail in the coffin for large segmented solids on
> US launch vehicles.
The alternative being either EELV (almost certainly Heavy, to stay away
from solid motors), or the unflown Falcon 9 (almost certainly Heavy).
That's somewhat a leap of faith, especially for Falcon. We'll still be
dependent on Russia for RD-180 engines, so the choice may lean away from
Atlas V. A Plan B for the RD-180 is seriously needed. Should also
force further development of the EELVs.
SpaceX and their Falcon/Dragon are the dark horse, albeit interesting
(27 engines, geez...) They really need a Big(ger?) Merlin to at least
cut the number down to 15 or less; that many engines doesn't make for a
more reliable launch vehicle.
Direct still does not look like a bad choice at all, but it'll cost
more than EELV; will the quick Heavy capability be that useful? It
would make heavy upgrades and repairs to ISS at least possible.
Any thoughts on the manned spacecraft? Any degree of reusability?
I still want a mini-Shuttle with runway landings, not splashdowns.
But a capsule is the only practical choice for lunar/Mars flights.
--Damon
Jochem Huhmann
> The alternative being either EELV (almost certainly Heavy, to stay away
> from solid motors), or the unflown Falcon 9 (almost certainly Heavy).
> That's somewhat a leap of faith, especially for Falcon.
Well, Falcon 9 seems to be in at least the same stage of development as
Ares I, uses the same (already proven) engine in both stages and looks
much more straight-forward... And Falcon 9 Heavy will just add two more
first stages as boosters, which surely looks somewhat low-risk
development-wise. Although relying on it to be available in time
wouldn't be really clever, as SpaceX has yet to orbit *anything*.
> SpaceX and their Falcon/Dragon are the dark horse, albeit interesting
> (27 engines, geez...) They really need a Big(ger?) Merlin to at least
> cut the number down to 15 or less; that many engines doesn't make for a
> more reliable launch vehicle.
It will have full engine-out capability (at least for one engine) --
Ares I certainly hasn't. I'm not sure if that "many engines make an
unreliable launcher" is more than a prejudice. Sojuz launches with 20
engines running. The N1 was a nightmare, but it had never an all-up test
before the first launch and was more than rushed.
I have to say that Falcon 9 looks very much like a quite sanely designed
launcher to me, even with 9 engines per core (and per booster in the
Heavy variant).
Jochem
--
"A designer knows he has arrived at perfection not when there is no
longer anything to add, but when there is no longer anything to take away."
- Antoine de Saint-Exupery
Damon Hill
news:m2y7229...@marvin.revier.com:
> Sojuz launches with 20 engines running.
Five, actually; each cluster of nozzles is powered by a single
turbopump. Add 12 steerable vernier nozzles (most likely propellants
are tapped off the main turbopumps) for 32 nozzles at liftoff, but still
five engines in practice. I think they could have engineered a single
combustion chamber engine (and apparently plan to), but obviously haven't.
N1 had thirty turbopumps (and questionable quality control overall), and
the theoretical engine-out capability failed on all launch attempts.
Might have worked eventually, except that there never was an
eventuality.
A Falcon 9 Heavy might prove to be very reliable, but the sheer
complexity works against it. There are reasons launchers have
trended towards a minimum number of engines; fewer things to go wrong
and fewer parts make for a cheaper launcher. I think the majority
of launch failures in recent years have tended to be mostly multi-start
upper stage issues.
> I have to say that Falcon 9 looks very much like a quite sanely
> designed launcher to me, even with 9 engines per core (and per booster
> in the Heavy variant).
I wonder if all the nine engines per core are gimbaled. I'd be happier
with a five engine core, but we'll see if the strategy works. It should
be exciting.
--Damon
Rick Jones
> I wonder if all the nine engines per core are gimbaled.
While I cannot find a reference, my recollection is that a subset of
the engines gimbal on the falcon-9 core.
> I'd be happier with a five engine core, but we'll see if the
> strategy works.
S-1B used 8 H-1's yes?
> It should be exciting.
I'd probably say interesting. Exciting requires a fireball :)
rick jones
--
oxymoron n, Hummer H2 with California Save Our Coasts and Oceans plates
these opinions are mine, all mine; HP might not want them anyway... :)
feel free to post, OR email to rick.jones2 in hp.com but NOT BOTH...
Jochem Huhmann
> Jochem Huhmann <j...@gmx.net> wrote in
> news:m2y7229...@marvin.revier.com:
>
>> Sojuz launches with 20 engines running.
>
> Five, actually; each cluster of nozzles is powered by a single
> turbopump. Add 12 steerable vernier nozzles (most likely propellants
> are tapped off the main turbopumps) for 32 nozzles at liftoff, but still
> five engines in practice. I think they could have engineered a single
> combustion chamber engine (and apparently plan to), but obviously
> haven't.
That ambiguity of what makes an engine is actually a soviet invention...
the clusters have a single turbopump, but of course several chambers and
nozzles. I think one lesson you can learn from the Soyuz is that the
most efficient way does not always have to be the best way to build an
engine.
> N1 had thirty turbopumps (and questionable quality control overall), and
> the theoretical engine-out capability failed on all launch attempts.
> Might have worked eventually, except that there never was an
> eventuality.
The N1 was more or less built on the pad or shortly before and never
tested in flight configuration, there was obviously a lot of ad-hoc work
going on there and all the plumbing was *never* tested (which proved to
be fatal). The Falcon 9 engines have already run in full flight
configuration on the test stand. I think it would be unfair to compare
Falcon 9 with the N1.
> A Falcon 9 Heavy might prove to be very reliable, but the sheer
> complexity works against it. There are reasons launchers have
> trended towards a minimum number of engines; fewer things to go wrong
> and fewer parts make for a cheaper launcher. I think the majority
> of launch failures in recent years have tended to be mostly multi-start
> upper stage issues.
On the other hand, building lots of identical small engines may easily
prove to be both cheaper and more reliable, especically if you use the
very same engine in both (of two) stages. Using the same engine on your
upper stage is not a bad idea, I think. And it's certainly much cheaper
to do it this way. Having half a dozen different engines in your
boosters, first, second and maybe third stage is economically much
worse.
>> I have to say that Falcon 9 looks very much like a quite sanely
>> designed launcher to me, even with 9 engines per core (and per booster
>> in the Heavy variant).
>
> I wonder if all the nine engines per core are gimbaled. I'd be happier
> with a five engine core, but we'll see if the strategy works. It should
> be exciting.
While the real test will be if the thing reaches orbit (as always), the
Falcon 9 (Heavy) looks really good to me, at least on paper. All the
same engines on both stages and boosters, the upper stage a shortened
version of the first stage and the boosters, all using the same tooling,
materials and processes -- compared with all other large launchers that
thing actually makes sense.
Don't know if all engines are gimbaled, although I'd assume that you
could get away with only some engines gimbaling. I hope they get their
numbers right with that from the start and don't push it as they did
with the staging delay with the latest Falcon 1 ;-) Still, I even liked
*that*. A straight-forward design being wrecked by daring staging feels
so much more exciting than an over-complicated vehicle being wrecked by
complexity, and is much easier (and cheaper) to correct.
I wouldn't be at all surprised if Falcon 9 flies earlier than Ares 1 and
I even wouldn't be surprised if SpaceX delivered a crew to the ISS with
Dragon earlier than NASA with Orion. Well, the race is on.
Anthony Frost
Rick Jones <rick....@hp.com> wrote:
> In sci.space.history Damon Hill <damon...@comcast.netnet> wrote:
> > I wonder if all the nine engines per core are gimbaled.
Black Arrow gimballed its 8 engines in pairs but only along the axis
through each pair. That's one simplification you can get with multiple
engines.
Anthony
Eric Chomko
> Damon Hill wrote:
> > simberg.interglo...@org.trash (Rand Simberg) wrote in
> >news:48d7440d....@news.giganews.com:
>
> >> On Mon, 25 Aug 2008 11:31:39 -0500, in a place far, far away, Damon
> >> in such a way as to indicate that:
>
> >>>news:fs2dnUY6JoIRUC_V...@posted.northdakotatelephone:
>
> >>>>http://www.nasawatch.com/archives/2008/08/a_farewell_mess.html
>
> >>>> Are things really that screwed up down there?
> >>> It sure seems to have gotten very Dibertian (see "Dilbert", the comic
> >>> strip, for an acerbic treatment of corporate life).
>
> >>> That seems to be a general problem with big human institutions; the
> >>> workings get vague and increasingly incoherant, especially without
> >>> clear and rational leadership from the top.
>
> >>> I have a feeling we'll know a trend for sure by next year. I've got to
> >>> admit pessimism about NASA and national space policy. There just
> >>> doesn't seem to be a rational foundation for manned spaceflight any
> >>> more.
> >> As opposed to when?
>
> > Oh, maybe back in the mid-60s. Back when there were some clear goals
> > and funding, and political enthusiasm. Didn't last long, of course.
>
> The mid-60's was a cock-measuring contest against the Soviets. You call
> that rational?
Compared to suicide bombers who seem willing to try to get and use a
nuke against us, yes!
And according to many GOPers, Reagan's was bigger than Gorby's...
Eric Chomko
> Damon Hill wrote:
> >>>news:48d7440d....@news.giganews.com:
>
> >>>> On Mon, 25 Aug 2008 11:31:39 -0500, in a place far, far away, Damon
> >>>> glow in such a way as to indicate that:
>
> >>>>>news:fs2dnUY6JoIRUC_V...@posted.northdakotatelephone:
>
> >>>>>>http://www.nasawatch.com/archives/2008/08/a_farewell_mess.html
>
> >>>>>> Are things really that screwed up down there?
> >>>>> It sure seems to have gotten very Dibertian (see "Dilbert", the
> >>>>> comic strip, for an acerbic treatment of corporate life).
>
> >>>>> That seems to be a general problem with big human institutions; the
> >>>>> workings get vague and increasingly incoherant, especially without
> >>>>> clear and rational leadership from the top.
>
> >>>>> I have a feeling we'll know a trend for sure by next year. I've
> >>>>> got to admit pessimism about NASA and national space policy. There
> >>>>> just doesn't seem to be a rational foundation for manned
> >>>>> spaceflight any more.
> >>>> As opposed to when?
>
> >>> Oh, maybe back in the mid-60s. Back when there were some clear goals
> >>> and funding, and political enthusiasm. Didn't last long, of course.
> >> The mid-60's was a cock-measuring contest against the Soviets. You
> >> call that rational?
>
> > More constructive than nuclear war.
>
> Do you really think that was the only alternative?
>
> > It was fun, too.
>
> Doesn't make it rational.
Is politics really ever rational?
Eric Chomko
wrote:
> On Sat, 06 Sep 2008 22:59:25 -0500, in a place far, far away, Damon
> in such a way as to indicate that:
>
>
>
>
>
> >news:48d7440d....@news.giganews.com:
>
> >> On Mon, 25 Aug 2008 11:31:39 -0500, in a place far, far away, Damon
> >> in such a way as to indicate that:
> >>>I have a feeling we'll know a trend for sure by next year. I've got to
> >>>admit pessimism about NASA and national space policy. There just
> >>>doesn't seem to be a rational foundation for manned spaceflight any
> >>>more.
>
> >> As opposed to when?
>
> >Oh, maybe back in the mid-60s. Back when there were some clear goals
> >and funding, and political enthusiasm. Didn't last long, of course.
>
> That wasn't a rational foundation for manned spaceflight. It was just
> a field of battle that was convenient for a technical competition with
> the Soviet Union. Had it been "rational" in terms of manned
> spaceflight, it wouldn't have evaporated after we beat them to the
> moon.
So economic success equals being rational in Simberg-world?
Hell, then WWII was rational because we continue to have wars based
upon lessons learned from WWII and the economic gains therein. WWII
was so rational in fact that we have wars based more upon the calnedar
and economic need that fighting any real foe.
Pat Flannery
Damon Hill wrote:
> Five, actually; each cluster of nozzles is powered by a single
> turbopump. Add 12 steerable vernier nozzles (most likely propellants
> are tapped off the main turbopumps) for 32 nozzles at liftoff, but still
> five engines in practice. I think they could have engineered a single
> combustion chamber engine (and apparently plan to), but obviously haven't.
>
The RD-107/108 engines are odd beasts, owing a lot to V-2 technology.
Besides running the turbopump off of steam derived from hydrogen
peroxide decomposition and using hypergolic "starter slugs" of
propellants to start the engine ignition process, I recently found out
that also use some sort of system employing combustion chamber heat to
vaporize liquid nitrogen for some reason, possibly to activate pneumatic
pistons that swivel the vernier engines from side-to-side.
The vernier engines do indeed have separate LOX and kerosene feeds to them.
> N1 had thirty turbopumps (and questionable quality control overall), and
> the theoretical engine-out capability failed on all launch attempts.
> Might have worked eventually, except that there never was an
> eventuality.
>
Plumbing of the monster was a real mess both in regards to complexity
and weight, particularly in getting the kerosene past the big spherical
LOX tank that sat below the sphere that housed the kerosene in all three
main stages.
Pat
Pat Flannery
Jochem Huhmann wrote:
> That ambiguity of what makes an engine is actually a soviet invention...
> the clusters have a single turbopump, but of course several chambers and
> nozzles. I think one lesson you can learn from the Soyuz is that the
> most efficient way does not always have to be the best way to build an
> engine.
>
I use the car engine analogy, a car engine can have several cylinders
and still be one engine, just as a rocket engine can have several
combustion chambers and still be a single engine.
Our Titan I and II first stages both used twin combustion chambers on
what was designated a single engine.
The Soviets tried to make a large single combustion chamber engine
before the RD-107 by basically scaling up a V-2 engine, but combustion
instability thwarted their efforts.
Pat
Pat Flannery
Pat Flannery wrote:
>
> The Soviets tried to make a large single combustion chamber engine
> before the RD-107 by basically scaling up a V-2 engine, but combustion
> instability thwarted their efforts.
Here's a photo of the failed engine BTW; it was the RD-105:
http://www.russianspaceweb.com/rd105_r7_2.jpg
The shape of the combustion chamber and engine nozzle looks like
something out of the 1930's.
This is also interesting from a WW II perspective; the Germans that went
to Russia designed a two-stage IRBM using basically stock V-2 engines:
http://www.astronautix.com/lvs/g2.htm
Pat
BradGuth
Rabbi Simberg knows all there is to know.
~ BG
Jeff Findley
"Rick Jones" <rick....@hp.com> wrote in message
news:ga4c8u$i0b$1...@usenet01.boi.hp.com...
> In sci.space.history Damon Hill <damon...@comcast.netnet> wrote:
>> I wonder if all the nine engines per core are gimbaled.
>
> While I cannot find a reference, my recollection is that a subset of
> the engines gimbal on the falcon-9 core.
>
>> I'd be happier with a five engine core, but we'll see if the
>> strategy works.
>
> S-1B used 8 H-1's yes?
Yes and only the outer four engines were gimballed.
http://www.apollosaturn.com/s126txt.htm
The Saturn IB flight manual contains lots of info:
http://ntrs.nasa.gov/archive/nasa/casi.ntrs.nasa.gov/19740021163_1974021163.pdf
BradGuth
wrote:
> "Rick Jones" <rick.jon...@hp.com> wrote in message
>
> news:ga4c8u$i0b$1...@usenet01.boi.hp.com...
>
> > In sci.space.history Damon Hill <damon1S...@comcast.netnet> wrote:
> >> I wonder if all the nine engines per core are gimbaled.
>
> > While I cannot find a reference, my recollection is that a subset of
> > the engines gimbal on the falcon-9 core.
>
> >> I'd be happier with a five engine core, but we'll see if the
> >> strategy works.
>
> > S-1B used 8 H-1's yes?
>
> Yes and only the outer four engines were gimballed.
>
> http://www.apollosaturn.com/s126txt.htm
>
> The Saturn IB flight manual contains lots of info:
>
>
> Jeff
> --
> A clever person solves a problem.
> A wise person avoids it. -- Einstein
What was the all-inclusive inert GLOW of a given Apollo mission?
Be sure to include their ice loading and mass of unusable fuel.
Compare that inert GLOW factor with more recent unmanned missions to
our moon, taking into account the amount of time taken in order that
these newer missions having arrived into their respective lunar orbit.
~ Brad Guth Brad_Guth Brad.Guth BradGuth BG
Fred J. McCall
:In message <ga4c8u$i0b$1...@usenet01.boi.hp.com>
:
But can you really? Four launches with a single success and then
cancelled.
The UK achieved a singular achievement by being the only nation on the
planet to actually develop the capability to launch satellites ... and
then abandoning that capability.
--
"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