That quote was from the same blog, the sentinel... I'm sure it was taken out of context as "journalists" are prone to do.
Either way,
Read the middle of this page/thread <url:http://forum.nasaspaceflight.com/index.php?topic=14928.msg343718#msg343718>
People who were actually at this so called event were Griffin lashed out at the transition team. They state that nothing out of the ordinary happened and no yelling.
If anyone bothered to read this far, this is a comment on the NSF forums from someone who was at the event where Griffin apparently "yelled" at the transition team:
http://forum.nasaspaceflight.com/index.php?topic=14928.msg343718#msg343718/
Note that forum is filled with NASA and Aerospace people.
This whole thing is a smear campaign from someone who has an Agenda against Ares and Griffin... The fact that it made it to national news outlets is a shame.
What do you think is a primary requirement of lunar rover/colony design?
Let me give you a hint, clean renewable energy.
A lot of the technology that NASA will be developing for Moon/Mars missions will be directly applicable to real world problems we face now.
Healthcare/Nutrition/Poverty will always be problems. Some people are born lazy and stupid, throwing money at them won't fix it.
Right, because so many companies out there are willing to invest billions into Space and not get any sort of profit back from it for decades right?
Long term R&D is something that corporations know nothing of in this day and age, only government can support long term R&D.
It's not just about cost or technology, it's also that NASA has committed to the Constellation program.
There is ALWAYS the next best thing around the corner, and if you keep abandoning your current project for it, you will never get anything accomplished.
The point is, if you do that, then every engineer will be advocating their idea of what the program should be, because everyone has a different opinion.
Heck, if you put me in charge of NASA I would abandon constellation completely and start implementing nuclear thermal rockets! Even though I agree with constellations direction.
Today, Griffin replied, calling the charges "simply wrong."
"I am appalled by any accusations of intimidation, and encourage a free and open exchange of information with the contractor community," Griffin said. "I would like to reiterate what I have stated in a previous email to all NASA Officials: we must make every effort to 'lean forward,' to answer questions promptly, openly and accurately."
Today, Griffin replied, calling the charges "simply wrong."
"I am appalled by any accusations of intimidation, and encourage a free and open exchange of information with the contractor community," Griffin said. "I would like to reiterate what I have stated in a previous email to all NASA Officials: we must make every effort to 'lean forward,' to answer questions promptly, openly and accurately."
But mainly the lack of a heat shield would prevent them from ever achieving orbit and coming back in one piece.
Never mind the fact that it basically looks like a commercial private jet "re engineered for orbital travel" AKA just a bunch of snake oil. Where are the technical details besides the marketing jumbo?
Of course you can reach orbit with a single stage. However SSTO generally refers to resuable single stage to orbit vehicles. Not to mention a single stage is inefficient compared to a multi-stage rocket for heavy payloads.
Well that and the military had forced their hand in the Shuttle Development. The original design was very different from what eventually ended up being produced. Not to mention the shuttle architecture was supposed to have dozens of launches a year, that's where the economy of scale was supposed to kick in.
SSTO vehicles are not practical with our current level of material science and engine technology.
I know it sounds like a cop-out excuse, but it's how it is.
As Launch Vehicles are currently designed, a majority of the fuel is used to lift the fuel itself. This isn't going to change anytime soon, the laws of physics prevent that. To lift a vehicle of any meaningful size into orbit, a lot of fuel is needed. Just look at the shuttle, the fuel tank is gigantic! Not to mention the strap on boosters that are required to achieve orbit.
Take this for example, http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mass_fraction/ 95.7% of the weight in the Saturn V is fuel/engine/structures, and only 4.3% is actually what is being sent into space! But then consider that the Saturn V was multistaged which increases the mass fraction considerably!
An SSTO Vehicle requires a very large fuel tank, which becomes a deadweight once one gets closer and closer to achieving orbital velocity and reduces overall efficiency. You might argue using solid rocket boosters to help out, but you no longer have an SSTO vehicle and now you have to manufacture those big dumb boosters.
The only way with our current technology to realistically lower launch costs, is to launch a lot in my opinion. The more launches you can procure for a rocket, the more you can benefit from the economy of scale in regards to manufacturing processes used. The fuel itself isn't that expensive. The expensive part is hiring 50 manufacturing engineers and another 100 technicians to build only 3 rockets a year when you could be capable of hiring another 100 technicians and a few robots to produce 30 rockets a year! Salaries for the employees is by far one of the largest expenses in the space industry.
CAD Operators are nothing more than glorified draftsmen. Except CAD requires much less skill. However it is significantly more useful and powerful than drafting. Not to mention it makes transferring designs from concepts into real products significantly quicker, easier, and more precise.
The Saturn V costed $2.4-$3.5billion per launch versus $500 million for a shuttle in 2007 dollars.
The Shuttle launches ~ 59,000lbs into LEO while the Saturn V launched ~260,000lbs.
Going by the low estimate of $2.5billion per launch, it costs $9320/lb into LEO for the Saturn V. For the shuttle it costs $8474/lb into LEO. Of course those are amortized costs which include the cost of the whole program itself, but that's the only way you can realistically justify a program.
But then consider that the shuttle weighs around 240,000lbs itself. A heavy lift architecture based on the shuttle could concievably lift over ~250,000lbs into LEO at a price point cheaper than the Saturn V. Not to mention the shuttl architecure has had a buttload of analysis done on it by NASA engineers and the manufacturing facilities currently exist to manufacture shuttle components, it becomes a no brainer.
Are you serious? Do you think the entire aerospace industry has been sitting around doing nothing since the 60s?
There are HUGE differences. With the advent of CNC Machinery, Computational Fluid Dynamics,Finite Element Analysis, Computer Aided Design, etc... designs can be realized with extremely high accuracy and safety compared to what was possible in the 60s.
Slashdot Mirror
That quote was from the same blog, the sentinel... I'm sure it was taken out of context as "journalists" are prone to do.
Either way,
Read the middle of this page/thread <url:http://forum.nasaspaceflight.com/index.php?topic=14928.msg343718#msg343718>
People who were actually at this so called event were Griffin lashed out at the transition team. They state that nothing out of the ordinary happened and no yelling.
If anyone bothered to read this far, this is a comment on the NSF forums from someone who was at the event where Griffin apparently "yelled" at the transition team: http://forum.nasaspaceflight.com/index.php?topic=14928.msg343718#msg343718/ Note that forum is filled with NASA and Aerospace people. This whole thing is a smear campaign from someone who has an Agenda against Ares and Griffin... The fact that it made it to national news outlets is a shame.
What do you think is a primary requirement of lunar rover/colony design? Let me give you a hint, clean renewable energy. A lot of the technology that NASA will be developing for Moon/Mars missions will be directly applicable to real world problems we face now. Healthcare/Nutrition/Poverty will always be problems. Some people are born lazy and stupid, throwing money at them won't fix it.
Right, because so many companies out there are willing to invest billions into Space and not get any sort of profit back from it for decades right? Long term R&D is something that corporations know nothing of in this day and age, only government can support long term R&D.
It's not just about cost or technology, it's also that NASA has committed to the Constellation program. There is ALWAYS the next best thing around the corner, and if you keep abandoning your current project for it, you will never get anything accomplished. The point is, if you do that, then every engineer will be advocating their idea of what the program should be, because everyone has a different opinion. Heck, if you put me in charge of NASA I would abandon constellation completely and start implementing nuclear thermal rockets! Even though I agree with constellations direction.
Griffins Reply:
Today, Griffin replied, calling the charges "simply wrong."
"I am appalled by any accusations of intimidation, and encourage a free and open exchange of information with the contractor community," Griffin said. "I would like to reiterate what I have stated in a previous email to all NASA Officials: we must make every effort to 'lean forward,' to answer questions promptly, openly and accurately."
http://www.space.com/news/081211-nasa-obama-transition.html
Are you people really so gullible to believe a BLOG? Sounds to me like someone has an Agenda in that blog...
RS68s are being used because they have 80% fewer parts, meaning less things to go wrong.
Also using direct for LEO is a waste of resources. Ares 1 is a much better solution for reaching the ISS and sending crews into space.
And Griffins Reply:
Today, Griffin replied, calling the charges "simply wrong."
"I am appalled by any accusations of intimidation, and encourage a free and open exchange of information with the contractor community," Griffin said. "I would like to reiterate what I have stated in a previous email to all NASA Officials: we must make every effort to 'lean forward,' to answer questions promptly, openly and accurately."
This article is pure flame bait, Neither Griffin nor the Transition team have stated that any infighting has been occuring.
In fact the transition team has NASA's full attention, read Griffins Response before you make your kneejerk reactions slashdot:
http://www.space.com/news/081211-nasa-obama-transition.html
By calling yourself a "Windows Power User", you have lost all credibility.
It makes perfect sense if you consider that when he says "power" he wasn't referring to power consumption, but processing speed.
aka Heat consumption increases faster than power does.
I know, my comments are filled with wisdom.
But mainly the lack of a heat shield would prevent them from ever achieving orbit and coming back in one piece.
Never mind the fact that it basically looks like a commercial private jet "re engineered for orbital travel" AKA just a bunch of snake oil. Where are the technical details besides the marketing jumbo?
Trust me, that vehicle isn't getting into orbit any time this century.
Looks more like a hack job to me.
Steam is more than just DRM, it also provides cheating protection which is why the older games now require it for online play.
Of course you can reach orbit with a single stage. However SSTO generally refers to resuable single stage to orbit vehicles. Not to mention a single stage is inefficient compared to a multi-stage rocket for heavy payloads.
an SSTO being cheap? Hah! I had my laugh for the day I guess.
SSTO is far from cheap, and very inefficient despite what you may think with our current level of technology.
Well that and the military had forced their hand in the Shuttle Development. The original design was very different from what eventually ended up being produced. Not to mention the shuttle architecture was supposed to have dozens of launches a year, that's where the economy of scale was supposed to kick in.
SSTO vehicles are not practical with our current level of material science and engine technology.
I know it sounds like a cop-out excuse, but it's how it is.
As Launch Vehicles are currently designed, a majority of the fuel is used to lift the fuel itself. This isn't going to change anytime soon, the laws of physics prevent that. To lift a vehicle of any meaningful size into orbit, a lot of fuel is needed. Just look at the shuttle, the fuel tank is gigantic! Not to mention the strap on boosters that are required to achieve orbit.
Take this for example, http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mass_fraction/
95.7% of the weight in the Saturn V is fuel/engine/structures, and only 4.3% is actually what is being sent into space! But then consider that the Saturn V was multistaged which increases the mass fraction considerably!
An SSTO Vehicle requires a very large fuel tank, which becomes a deadweight once one gets closer and closer to achieving orbital velocity and reduces overall efficiency. You might argue using solid rocket boosters to help out, but you no longer have an SSTO vehicle and now you have to manufacture those big dumb boosters.
The only way with our current technology to realistically lower launch costs, is to launch a lot in my opinion. The more launches you can procure for a rocket, the more you can benefit from the economy of scale in regards to manufacturing processes used. The fuel itself isn't that expensive. The expensive part is hiring 50 manufacturing engineers and another 100 technicians to build only 3 rockets a year when you could be capable of hiring another 100 technicians and a few robots to produce 30 rockets a year! Salaries for the employees is by far one of the largest expenses in the space industry.
CAD Operators are nothing more than glorified draftsmen. Except CAD requires much less skill. However it is significantly more useful and powerful than drafting. Not to mention it makes transferring designs from concepts into real products significantly quicker, easier, and more precise.
With current material science, a cheaply manufacturable capsule design has a lower overall cost than developing a resuable spacecraft that won't work.
Not to mention the new capsule is designed to be resuable vai replacement of the heat shield.
Are you serious?
You do realize that if you have two craft have the delta-v to lift 250,000 lbs into LEO, they will put the same amount into a lunar orbit right?
NASA Spending is .5% of overall government spending and produces a heck of a lot more for this country than other programs do.
The shuttle itself weights ~240,000lbs so the whole system is lifting over 290,000lbs into LEO.
Manufacturing facilities exist for the shuttle components, none exist for Saturn V.
Shuttle components are in CAD and have had FEA/CFD/Cost/Safety analysis done on them, Saturn V not really.
Engineers at Nasa have years of experience with shuttle components. Find me someone who has any experience with the Saturn V who isn't retired.
You think about it!
You're facts are quite simply wrong.
The Saturn V costed $2.4-$3.5billion per launch versus $500 million for a shuttle in 2007 dollars.
The Shuttle launches ~ 59,000lbs into LEO while the Saturn V launched ~260,000lbs.
Going by the low estimate of $2.5billion per launch, it costs $9320/lb into LEO for the Saturn V.
For the shuttle it costs $8474/lb into LEO.
Of course those are amortized costs which include the cost of the whole program itself, but that's the only way you can realistically justify a program.
But then consider that the shuttle weighs around 240,000lbs itself. A heavy lift architecture based on the shuttle could concievably lift over ~250,000lbs into LEO at a price point cheaper than the Saturn V. Not to mention the shuttl architecure has had a buttload of analysis done on it by NASA engineers and the manufacturing facilities currently exist to manufacture shuttle components, it becomes a no brainer.
Are you serious? Do you think the entire aerospace industry has been sitting around doing nothing since the 60s?
There are HUGE differences. With the advent of CNC Machinery, Computational Fluid Dynamics,Finite Element Analysis, Computer Aided Design, etc... designs can be realized with extremely high accuracy and safety compared to what was possible in the 60s.