<?xml version="1.0" encoding="UTF-8"?><rss version="2.0"
	xmlns:content="http://purl.org/rss/1.0/modules/content/"
	xmlns:dc="http://purl.org/dc/elements/1.1/"
	xmlns:atom="http://www.w3.org/2005/Atom"
	xmlns:sy="http://purl.org/rss/1.0/modules/syndication/"
	
	>
<channel>
	<title>Comments on: Hutchison: Progress failure underscores need for SLS</title>
	<atom:link href="http://www.spacepolitics.com/2011/08/25/hutchison-progress-failure-underscores-need-for-sls/feed/" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml" />
	<link>http://www.spacepolitics.com/2011/08/25/hutchison-progress-failure-underscores-need-for-sls/?utm_source=rss&#038;utm_medium=rss&#038;utm_campaign=hutchison-progress-failure-underscores-need-for-sls</link>
	<description>Because sometimes the most important orbit is the Beltway...</description>
	<lastBuildDate>Wed, 17 Sep 2014 13:35:41 +0000</lastBuildDate>
		<sy:updatePeriod>hourly</sy:updatePeriod>
		<sy:updateFrequency>1</sy:updateFrequency>
	<generator>https://wordpress.org/?v=4.0.38</generator>
	<item>
		<title>By: Vladislaw</title>
		<link>http://www.spacepolitics.com/2011/08/25/hutchison-progress-failure-underscores-need-for-sls/#comment-352805</link>
		<dc:creator><![CDATA[Vladislaw]]></dc:creator>
		<pubDate>Mon, 29 Aug 2011 17:48:12 +0000</pubDate>
		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://www.spacepolitics.com/?p=4957#comment-352805</guid>
		<description><![CDATA[Tom wrote:

&lt;I&gt;&quot;We solved Thrust Oscillation from the 1st stage (the LOX damper is genus) , developed a good 5 segment SRB, made a rather good upper stage, developing a J2-X engine that can fly for the next 100 years, used common systems /manufacturing between Ares I and V to cut cost and bring in reliability.&quot;&lt;/i&gt;

No tom, you are absolutely wrong on all counts.

A project is made to look easy when it comes in on schedule or faster and on budget or less. Constellation failed on ALL counts.

President Bush said in the VSE that we would land on the moon as soon as 2015 and no later than 2020. We would also launch to LEO by 2014. We would move to new systems requiring less personal like fuel depots and would build no new launchers.

Constellation made everything harder than it should be and escalated costs and it never came close to being made to look easy. It was a nightmare.]]></description>
		<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>Tom wrote:</p>
<p><i>&#8220;We solved Thrust Oscillation from the 1st stage (the LOX damper is genus) , developed a good 5 segment SRB, made a rather good upper stage, developing a J2-X engine that can fly for the next 100 years, used common systems /manufacturing between Ares I and V to cut cost and bring in reliability.&#8221;</i></p>
<p>No tom, you are absolutely wrong on all counts.</p>
<p>A project is made to look easy when it comes in on schedule or faster and on budget or less. Constellation failed on ALL counts.</p>
<p>President Bush said in the VSE that we would land on the moon as soon as 2015 and no later than 2020. We would also launch to LEO by 2014. We would move to new systems requiring less personal like fuel depots and would build no new launchers.</p>
<p>Constellation made everything harder than it should be and escalated costs and it never came close to being made to look easy. It was a nightmare.</p>
]]></content:encoded>
	</item>
	<item>
		<title>By: Rand Simberg</title>
		<link>http://www.spacepolitics.com/2011/08/25/hutchison-progress-failure-underscores-need-for-sls/#comment-352751</link>
		<dc:creator><![CDATA[Rand Simberg]]></dc:creator>
		<pubDate>Sun, 28 Aug 2011 16:53:08 +0000</pubDate>
		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://www.spacepolitics.com/?p=4957#comment-352751</guid>
		<description><![CDATA[Man, &quot;tom&quot; doesn&#039;t just drink that Constellation koolaid, he marinates in it.]]></description>
		<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>Man, &#8220;tom&#8221; doesn&#8217;t just drink that Constellation koolaid, he marinates in it.</p>
]]></content:encoded>
	</item>
	<item>
		<title>By: Coastal Ron</title>
		<link>http://www.spacepolitics.com/2011/08/25/hutchison-progress-failure-underscores-need-for-sls/#comment-352746</link>
		<dc:creator><![CDATA[Coastal Ron]]></dc:creator>
		<pubDate>Sun, 28 Aug 2011 15:56:52 +0000</pubDate>
		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://www.spacepolitics.com/?p=4957#comment-352746</guid>
		<description><![CDATA[tom wrote @ August 28th, 2011 at 8:36 am

&quot;&lt;i&gt;We solved Thrust Oscillation from the 1st stage (the LOX damper is genus)&lt;/i&gt;&quot;

How?

And just so everyone remembers, the thrust oscillations were still present in the SRM, but non-value added mass was added to the rocket to mitigate the effects of the vibration so that it wouldn&#039;t damage the payload and crew.

And when I say non-value added mass, that means that the vibration isolation structures were so heavy that they subtracted from the payload capability of the rocket, making it less efficient.

One has to wonder why anyone would think that an SRM-only rocket makes sense.  It certainly doesn&#039;t from a capability standpoint, nor a cost one.  What else is there besides political?

&quot;&lt;i&gt;In terms of unique cost Ares I was less than 1 billion from being operational.&lt;/i&gt;&quot;

No.  What you&#039;re describing would be like a Ponzi scheme.

The entire cost of the Ares I was unique to Ares I.  It was the follow-on Ares V that would have realized savings from reusing Ares I systems.  That being the case, Ares I still had about $20B left to go.]]></description>
		<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>tom wrote @ August 28th, 2011 at 8:36 am</p>
<p>&#8220;<i>We solved Thrust Oscillation from the 1st stage (the LOX damper is genus)</i>&#8221;</p>
<p>How?</p>
<p>And just so everyone remembers, the thrust oscillations were still present in the SRM, but non-value added mass was added to the rocket to mitigate the effects of the vibration so that it wouldn&#8217;t damage the payload and crew.</p>
<p>And when I say non-value added mass, that means that the vibration isolation structures were so heavy that they subtracted from the payload capability of the rocket, making it less efficient.</p>
<p>One has to wonder why anyone would think that an SRM-only rocket makes sense.  It certainly doesn&#8217;t from a capability standpoint, nor a cost one.  What else is there besides political?</p>
<p>&#8220;<i>In terms of unique cost Ares I was less than 1 billion from being operational.</i>&#8221;</p>
<p>No.  What you&#8217;re describing would be like a Ponzi scheme.</p>
<p>The entire cost of the Ares I was unique to Ares I.  It was the follow-on Ares V that would have realized savings from reusing Ares I systems.  That being the case, Ares I still had about $20B left to go.</p>
]]></content:encoded>
	</item>
	<item>
		<title>By: Martijn Meijering</title>
		<link>http://www.spacepolitics.com/2011/08/25/hutchison-progress-failure-underscores-need-for-sls/#comment-352733</link>
		<dc:creator><![CDATA[Martijn Meijering]]></dc:creator>
		<pubDate>Sun, 28 Aug 2011 13:05:04 +0000</pubDate>
		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://www.spacepolitics.com/?p=4957#comment-352733</guid>
		<description><![CDATA[No, you didn&#039;t develop a 5 segment SRB, there was no upper stage, the J2-X is far from finished, today is 2011 not 2013 so you have nothing ready. All promises and powerpoints. Meanwhile, SpaceX has developed and launched two types of launch vehicles, has built two launch sites and has launched and recovered a capsule and all this for an amount of money that&#039;s a rounding error compared to what was spent on Constellation. It also has a healthy slate of clients. You and your friends however have accomplished nothing but an admiral&#039;s test of a redundant and completely uneconomical rocket and you are absolutely right to be worried about your jobs.]]></description>
		<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>No, you didn&#8217;t develop a 5 segment SRB, there was no upper stage, the J2-X is far from finished, today is 2011 not 2013 so you have nothing ready. All promises and powerpoints. Meanwhile, SpaceX has developed and launched two types of launch vehicles, has built two launch sites and has launched and recovered a capsule and all this for an amount of money that&#8217;s a rounding error compared to what was spent on Constellation. It also has a healthy slate of clients. You and your friends however have accomplished nothing but an admiral&#8217;s test of a redundant and completely uneconomical rocket and you are absolutely right to be worried about your jobs.</p>
]]></content:encoded>
	</item>
	<item>
		<title>By: tom</title>
		<link>http://www.spacepolitics.com/2011/08/25/hutchison-progress-failure-underscores-need-for-sls/#comment-352731</link>
		<dc:creator><![CDATA[tom]]></dc:creator>
		<pubDate>Sun, 28 Aug 2011 12:36:50 +0000</pubDate>
		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://www.spacepolitics.com/?p=4957#comment-352731</guid>
		<description><![CDATA[&quot;Vladislaw wrote @ August 27th, 2011 at 3:52 pm 

NASA made the Constellation plan look easy?&quot;

We solved Thrust Oscillation from the 1st stage (the LOX damper is genus) , developed a good 5 segment SRB, made a rather good upper stage, developing a J2-X engine that can fly for the next 100 years, used common systems /manufacturing between Ares I and V to cut cost and bring in reliability. We had the Ares I-Y flight (full up â€“ none functioning J-2X) ready for 2013 and a follow on Ares I-Y prime (full up, Production Orion/ working J2-X) set for about 6-9 months later. We would be flying people by 2015. In terms of unique cost Ares I was less than 1 billion from being operational.]]></description>
		<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>&#8220;Vladislaw wrote @ August 27th, 2011 at 3:52 pm </p>
<p>NASA made the Constellation plan look easy?&#8221;</p>
<p>We solved Thrust Oscillation from the 1st stage (the LOX damper is genus) , developed a good 5 segment SRB, made a rather good upper stage, developing a J2-X engine that can fly for the next 100 years, used common systems /manufacturing between Ares I and V to cut cost and bring in reliability. We had the Ares I-Y flight (full up â€“ none functioning J-2X) ready for 2013 and a follow on Ares I-Y prime (full up, Production Orion/ working J2-X) set for about 6-9 months later. We would be flying people by 2015. In terms of unique cost Ares I was less than 1 billion from being operational.</p>
]]></content:encoded>
	</item>
	<item>
		<title>By: Coastal Ron</title>
		<link>http://www.spacepolitics.com/2011/08/25/hutchison-progress-failure-underscores-need-for-sls/#comment-352722</link>
		<dc:creator><![CDATA[Coastal Ron]]></dc:creator>
		<pubDate>Sun, 28 Aug 2011 07:14:10 +0000</pubDate>
		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://www.spacepolitics.com/?p=4957#comment-352722</guid>
		<description><![CDATA[tom wrote @ August 27th, 2011 at 11:41 pm

&quot;&lt;i&gt;that chart from many years ago shows ISS funding concluding in 2017. Got one that shows 2018? 2020? just not 2015.&lt;/i&gt;&quot;

Go look at the &quot;&lt;i&gt;National Aeronautics and Space Administration (NASA) Authorization Act of 2010&lt;/i&gt;&quot;.

Here is an article that confirms that the bill extends the life of the ISS through at least 2020.

http://www.foxnews.com/scitech/2010/10/12/president-obama-signs-nasa-space-exploration-act-law/

In the bill, Congress also directs NASA to do a study into what it would take to extend it&#039;s life even more.

The GAO has even had time to evaluate NASA&#039;s planning for the extension out to 2020, and here is their report, which says NASA is doing a good job:

http://www.gao.gov/products/GAO-11-519R

Just out of curiosity, are you incapable of doing internet searches like this yourself?  Here, I&#039;ll help you.  Just Google:

&quot;International Space Station 2020 extension&quot;

Now stop saying ignorant things.]]></description>
		<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>tom wrote @ August 27th, 2011 at 11:41 pm</p>
<p>&#8220;<i>that chart from many years ago shows ISS funding concluding in 2017. Got one that shows 2018? 2020? just not 2015.</i>&#8221;</p>
<p>Go look at the &#8220;<i>National Aeronautics and Space Administration (NASA) Authorization Act of 2010</i>&#8220;.</p>
<p>Here is an article that confirms that the bill extends the life of the ISS through at least 2020.</p>
<p><a href="http://www.foxnews.com/scitech/2010/10/12/president-obama-signs-nasa-space-exploration-act-law/" rel="nofollow">http://www.foxnews.com/scitech/2010/10/12/president-obama-signs-nasa-space-exploration-act-law/</a></p>
<p>In the bill, Congress also directs NASA to do a study into what it would take to extend it&#8217;s life even more.</p>
<p>The GAO has even had time to evaluate NASA&#8217;s planning for the extension out to 2020, and here is their report, which says NASA is doing a good job:</p>
<p><a href="http://www.gao.gov/products/GAO-11-519R" rel="nofollow">http://www.gao.gov/products/GAO-11-519R</a></p>
<p>Just out of curiosity, are you incapable of doing internet searches like this yourself?  Here, I&#8217;ll help you.  Just Google:</p>
<p>&#8220;International Space Station 2020 extension&#8221;</p>
<p>Now stop saying ignorant things.</p>
]]></content:encoded>
	</item>
	<item>
		<title>By: Rand Simberg</title>
		<link>http://www.spacepolitics.com/2011/08/25/hutchison-progress-failure-underscores-need-for-sls/#comment-352717</link>
		<dc:creator><![CDATA[Rand Simberg]]></dc:creator>
		<pubDate>Sun, 28 Aug 2011 04:00:18 +0000</pubDate>
		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://www.spacepolitics.com/?p=4957#comment-352717</guid>
		<description><![CDATA[&lt;em&gt;Youâ€™ve already established on this forum that hardware has more value than the crews that ride it so any perspective you have on HSF is quite devalued.&lt;/em&gt;

Only to moral midgets.]]></description>
		<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p><em>Youâ€™ve already established on this forum that hardware has more value than the crews that ride it so any perspective you have on HSF is quite devalued.</em></p>
<p>Only to moral midgets.</p>
]]></content:encoded>
	</item>
	<item>
		<title>By: tom</title>
		<link>http://www.spacepolitics.com/2011/08/25/hutchison-progress-failure-underscores-need-for-sls/#comment-352713</link>
		<dc:creator><![CDATA[tom]]></dc:creator>
		<pubDate>Sun, 28 Aug 2011 03:41:31 +0000</pubDate>
		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://www.spacepolitics.com/?p=4957#comment-352713</guid>
		<description><![CDATA[that chart from many years ago shows ISS funding concluding in 2017. Got one that shows 2018? 2020?  just not 2015..]]></description>
		<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>that chart from many years ago shows ISS funding concluding in 2017. Got one that shows 2018? 2020?  just not 2015..</p>
]]></content:encoded>
	</item>
	<item>
		<title>By: DCSCA</title>
		<link>http://www.spacepolitics.com/2011/08/25/hutchison-progress-failure-underscores-need-for-sls/#comment-352691</link>
		<dc:creator><![CDATA[DCSCA]]></dc:creator>
		<pubDate>Sat, 27 Aug 2011 22:49:14 +0000</pubDate>
		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://www.spacepolitics.com/?p=4957#comment-352691</guid>
		<description><![CDATA[@Rand Simberg wrote @ August 26th, 2011 at 1:57 pm
 
You&#039;ve already established on this forum that hardware has more value than the crews that ride it so any perspective you have on HSF is quite devalued.]]></description>
		<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>@Rand Simberg wrote @ August 26th, 2011 at 1:57 pm</p>
<p>You&#8217;ve already established on this forum that hardware has more value than the crews that ride it so any perspective you have on HSF is quite devalued.</p>
]]></content:encoded>
	</item>
	<item>
		<title>By: common sense</title>
		<link>http://www.spacepolitics.com/2011/08/25/hutchison-progress-failure-underscores-need-for-sls/#comment-352678</link>
		<dc:creator><![CDATA[common sense]]></dc:creator>
		<pubDate>Sat, 27 Aug 2011 20:27:54 +0000</pubDate>
		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://www.spacepolitics.com/?p=4957#comment-352678</guid>
		<description><![CDATA[@ Rand Simberg wrote @ August 27th, 2011 at 10:56 am

&quot;Bolden has had multiple opportunities since to prevent any more such â€œmistakesâ€ by Weiler (and Scolese), but hasnâ€™t availed himself of them.&quot;

This is government and politics. Not the private industry. Changes are happening but at a slower pace. I have no opinion about either but look at the new exploration directorate for example. Who is in charge? Why? For how long? Once shuttle is all but gone... I suspect that they will transition smoothly but in the end they will if necessary. AND then who can better replace them? If no one can then they will stay for a while longer. Unless our friend EP wants the job...]]></description>
		<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>@ Rand Simberg wrote @ August 27th, 2011 at 10:56 am</p>
<p>&#8220;Bolden has had multiple opportunities since to prevent any more such â€œmistakesâ€ by Weiler (and Scolese), but hasnâ€™t availed himself of them.&#8221;</p>
<p>This is government and politics. Not the private industry. Changes are happening but at a slower pace. I have no opinion about either but look at the new exploration directorate for example. Who is in charge? Why? For how long? Once shuttle is all but gone&#8230; I suspect that they will transition smoothly but in the end they will if necessary. AND then who can better replace them? If no one can then they will stay for a while longer. Unless our friend EP wants the job&#8230;</p>
]]></content:encoded>
	</item>
</channel>
</rss>
