Comments on: More calls in Senate for investigation of Hanley reassignment

By: vulture4

vulture4 — Mon, 31 May 2010 20:52:18 +0000

The central problem with Constellation is that it has a relatively high operating cost. It requires maintaining the VAB, MLPs, crawlers, and LC-39, and SRB recovery and refurbishment facilities, and assembly of the SRBs is hazardous and requires numerous crane operations. With all this, it’s flight rate will be only two per year initially and is unlikely ever to exceed four. Considering the amount of R&D still needed, Orion will require additional spending per flight greater than the cost of continuing to operate Shuttle even though Shuttle carries nearly twice the crew and ten times the cargo.

By: Rhyolite

Rhyolite — Mon, 31 May 2010 20:46:41 +0000

Gary Church wrote @ May 30th, 2010 at 12:22 pm

Sigh.

A question was asked about the 9 engine cluster on Falcon 9. See: Ben Joshua wrote @ May 28th, 2010 at 9:12 pm. I answered it with facts.

Both of your replies to my comments obsess on Falcon 9H, which is not germane to the original question. This just confirms my point that you didn’t read the question.

By: Rand Simberg

Rand Simberg — Sun, 30 May 2010 18:27:15 +0000

Why doesnâ€™t that gasbag Obama recite the fact that weâ€™ve been to LEO LOTS & LOTS of times as well??!

Because you have to go through LEO in order to get anywhere else. The moon is not necessarily on the path.

Do you ever think?

By: Gary Church

Gary Church — Sun, 30 May 2010 16:22:40 +0000

“Did you even bother to read the question I was responding to?”
“The answer is that there is lots of successful experience with eight engine clusters. Nine engines is not a great extrapolation. Those are the facts.”

Falcon 9H; 27 engines. Not 9. It is not just a cluster, it is a clusterf*ck.

By: common sense

common sense — Sun, 30 May 2010 15:04:22 +0000

@ Chris Castro wrote @ May 30th, 2010 at 1:04 am

You seem to really have a problem. It is not about the destination it is about what you do there. LEO requires a lot less complex system to go there develop the technologies for BEO than the Moon. Going to the Moon as it was, yes WAS, planned with Constellation would bring nothing for BEO exploration… beyond the Moon. Not even anything for ISRU as proposed by say Dennis Wingo. The overall architecture would not have permitted it, not with the predicted budget anyway. So why would you spend $100Bs to go to the Moon? Because of the Chinese??? Is that it?

By: Chris Castro

Chris Castro — Sun, 30 May 2010 05:04:29 +0000

When I say: Low Earth Orbit, we’ve been there already; I am being sarcastic. Why is it that we can’t do the Moon, “because we’ve been there”, and then carry on OVER & OVER & OVER AGAIN with LEO flights & space station stays??! Why doesn’t that gasbag Obama recite the fact that we’ve been to LEO LOTS & LOTS of times as well??!

By: Gary Church

Gary Church — Sun, 30 May 2010 04:11:11 +0000

“Kero-Lox engine technology has come a long way since the 1950s.”

No, the numbers have not changed much because you can only get so much out of the fuels and materials. A few tricks have raised efficiencies a few ISP and lowered weight a few percent.

“The early F-1 design blew up at least once”

No kidding? And as I stated, they finally engineered it so well they could and did set off bombs in the thrust chamber while it was running and it did not even hiccup. You want to start from scratch trying to accomplish that instead of the comparatively simple method of copying it?

By: Gary Church

Gary Church — Sun, 30 May 2010 04:03:50 +0000

“It seems that SpaceX agrees that the number of engines on F-9H is a problem. Or, rather, they have determined that potential customers are not particularly keen on it. From recent comments made by their representatives, it seems that â€˜Falcon-9Hâ€™ in the form we all know it probably wonâ€™t happen. They are supposedly planning to develop a large 1Mlbf+ kerolox engine to replace the Merlin-1c cluster, reducing the number of engines on the F-9H to three on the core and one on the upper stage.”

Can you cluster’s last stand people read? Or are you blind to anything that does not fit into your cheaper is better BS business plan? Ignorant assertions are ones that state we can do BEO manned exploration with cheap rockets with cheap engines using substandard propellants by use of “tugs” and “fuel depots”. Considering the mind boggling numbers involved with any chemical stages that send a crew BEO, you are the one being ignorant.

By: Rand Simberg

Rand Simberg — Sun, 30 May 2010 00:36:21 +0000

Just to clarify, they are available in fiche (or were, last time I checked). I don’t think the original blueprints still exist.

By: Ben Joshua

Ben Joshua — Sun, 30 May 2010 00:34:03 +0000

Thank you for the correction, Rand Simberg. If only for historical and educational value, it’s good to know the F-1 design documentation exists, hopefully available to grad students for reference and study. I have to think there’s value in that. Appreciate the heads up.