Comments on: A gap money can’t fill

By: Vladislaw

Vladislaw — Mon, 14 Jul 2008 19:30:02 +0000

well gosh ME, gm is all about saving money, so we will just toss a few billion at it and have gm build us a NEW flame trench… see how easy he solves problems.

By: Me

Me — Thu, 10 Jul 2008 15:14:06 +0000

Clueless gm,
The flame trench at the launch pad can’t accommodate the spacing of the 3 SRB’s.

By: The Daily Links - July 9th « The Four Part Land

The Daily Links - July 9th « The Four Part Land — Thu, 10 Jul 2008 12:02:06 +0000

[…] Space Politics Â» A gap money canâ€™t fill […]

By: Space Politics » Martinez: “find a way to shrink that gap”

Space Politics » Martinez: “find a way to shrink that gap” — Thu, 10 Jul 2008 11:54:25 +0000

[…] During his remarks, and a brief question-and-answer session that followed, he expressed his concerns about the gap between the retirement of the shuttle and the introduction of Constellation and the several thousand jobs predicted to be lost at the Kennedy Space Center. “As a nation, a five-year gap in spaceflight is just too long,” he said. “It isn’t right, is isn’t what America’s about. So I would love for us to somehow find a way to shrink that gap.” He didn’t specify how that gap should be shortened, but did say, “if we were to add a billion dollars to the NASA budget, we could substantially shorten the gap.” (He may want to check with Jeff Hanley about that.) […]

By: gm

gm — Thu, 10 Jul 2008 07:55:43 +0000

“3 SRBâ€™s will never fly. They canâ€™t fit on the pad and they canâ€™t be attached to the tank.”
.
“Me”,
your problem is that you like/want/hope that Ares-1/5 and EVERY other alternative will NEVER work so your loved Direct hobby-lobby can sell its flawed design to NASA…
but, unfortunately for you and the Direct-guys, the ONLY design that is SURE will FAIL (or ALREADY failed, according to the NASA study) is your Direct….
it’s to understand that (both) “problem” you claim are unexisting since the pad will be modified to hold two 5.5 (or 6) segments SRBs (then, it’s easy to modify for three standard SRBs that have a similar weight) and much more easy will be to attach the standard SRB to the new core stage’s tank, since, the latter doesn’t exist now, so, it can be designed AS REQUIRED (no matter if the choice will be for two SRB5.5, two SRB6, three SRB4, etc.)

By: me

me — Thu, 10 Jul 2008 02:22:16 +0000

â€œAlso 3 SRBâ€™s are not workable.â€
.
“youâ€™ll see itâ€™s workable when it will FLY”

3 SRB’s will never fly. They can’t fit on the pad and they can’t be attached to the tank.
Only a fool would propose such a vehicle.

By: gm

gm — Wed, 09 Jul 2008 17:17:34 +0000

sorry wrong link posed, this is the right link: ghostnasa.blogspot.com/2006/09/decision-005-use-only-ready-available.html

By: Exawatt

Exawatt — Wed, 09 Jul 2008 15:28:00 +0000

Of course money can fill the gap. Just a lot more money than Congress would ever consider adding.

By: gm

gm — Wed, 09 Jul 2008 15:26:23 +0000

post edit: “CHEAPER” (not chaeper) of course…

By: gm

gm — Wed, 09 Jul 2008 15:25:14 +0000

“Also 3 SRBâ€™s are not workable.”
.
you’ll see it’s workable when it will FLY… since it’s the BEST, FASTER and CHAEPER solutions for the Ares-5