CEV Mockup Pictures

That is the plan. Griffin cannot have too much on his plate--and he needs to concentrate on the Stick and building pro-HLLV advocacy. He is an engineer--and he and his folks know what they are doing--contrary to the naboobs at the Space Frontier Foundation and all the other backbiters.

Link inserted

Hello, Andy Hill,

in between I remember at least two articles reporting what you said - and it seems that the LOX/methane-propulsion has been dropped according to the recent article under www.space.com (the concrete link I will insert here later - the link is Methane Rocket Fuel: A Lot of Hot Gas and Nowhere to Blow).

That article says that they are doing something like a theater. And the reasons of the drop are supposed to be the producers Boeing, Lockheed Martin etc.. The producer of Saturn V's J-2 might be involved also.



Dipl.-Volkswirt (bdvb) Augustin (Political Economist)

NASA are heading backwards at an increasing rate. They've dropped the methane engine requirement and reduced the capsule size even before the EASA report has been officially released and certainly before I've managed to finish reading it.

Basically they're aren't doing anything that is going to contribute to establishing a permanent human presence in space as they're relying on old, expensive technology. and I include the STS in that statement. It's Apollo all over again and it's not even going to be 'Apollo on Steroids' and it's going to be another dead-end even if NASA do eventually fly someone to the Moon.

Yes I've read the blogs reminding us that space is hard and engineering wise it can be but the biggest hurdle is the political one. That's were there are large companies with large existing workforces relying on those old expensive technologies and putting lots and lots of pressure on their political representatives to maintain the status quo.

Griffin and his engineering mates may be doing the best they can but I suspect they're finding the politics intimidating to say the least and probably now (if not before) have some sympathy with O'Keefe.

O'Keefe was a dunce. Hypergolics and the J-2 are good enough. Do you want to stay in LEO? No--then support Griffin. He knows his business better than the Space Libertarian frauds. Spaceflight is hard--and I am very glad we have Mike. He is better than most space advocates deserve.

Don't get your knickers in a knot. I'm not saying that Griffin is not doing his best. I just think that he's being driven down a path that will end up being a dead-end. Not his fault because he can't really set the agenda. That's being done by the pollies. No, the real issue is that NASA just can't seem to get anything done that might lead to a sustainable space presence. As I said before, they're using old, expensive, dangerous technology and not trying to improve it in any real way. They're stuck with the old gigantic contractors and although trying hard, can't get out of that position.
I'd lay odds that they're not going to make it. Bush has enormous money wores and just yesterday and sworn to reduce his budget although it appears that there is a comittment to 18 or 19 more STS flights to finish the ISS and possible do a Hubble mission.
After that, who knows as the timeframe is too far out there to make realistic assessments given the nature of the political beast.

I'm not the only one with concerns over Wade and other bashing NASA/CEV:

http://forum.nasaspaceflight.com/forums ... 79&start=1

Many engineers frequent this site. I find their arguements against Wade, Gump and others convincing.

Secondly, this talk about "old, dangerous tech" false. The laws that govern aerodynamics DO NOT CHANGE. Even Gumps little craft is a Corona redeux. Capsule work best at exploration.

I find tried and true to best sexy and "new."

Well I guess that only time will tell. I sincerely hope that I'm wrong about NASA's human space effort as I want, as much as anyone, to see the human race throw off the shackles of gravity and time and become a truly peaceful space-faring species.

The only point that I will make is that NASA has had a lot of dead-ends to date and I guess that's what I'm looking at. In fact, NASA seems to be running into problems very similar to the Australian experience of the 50's and 60's and which lead to the demise of any decent space efforts here. Too expensive, too bureacratic, falling public interest, no well defined goals, nothing to get excited about, other more important things to worry about, and so on and on and on. Maybe that's why I'm coming over a trifle negative - sorry

On the bright side, however, there seems to be a very serious effort to get ordinary people into LEO by the private sector and NASA never considered that as part of their mission. Maybe that was their major mistake. There's rocket racing coming for the masses. Musk and Bigalow are pursuing their goals and a number of other smaller organisations like Armadillo, XCOR, JP, so the efforts continue despite governments. Then there's the left field efforts being made over at the Space Elevator front.

A recent article I noticed costed the Rutan effort for NASA at about $100 million and SpaceX's effort at $600 million. I don't know how accurate that might be but based on past efforts I'd say a little on the light side.

I notice that NASA is starting up a venture capital fund to try to get private industry investment into some of their problem areas. Reading a summary of the requirements for potential participants, I'd say this is another waste of time. The bureaucracy is simply mind-boggling. Sorry, slipped into the negative again.

So here's a good luck wish to SpaceX for their Friday launch. Stick it to the big guys Elon.

Good enough? Do you mean it is second best but we will settle for it?

The point is that they are not good enough. They're expensive and dangerous and more efficient and effective technologies are already available but NASA, for one reason or another, mainly money and vested interests of the big players, won't follow up.

A comparison is the airline industry. Now various people have dismissed this comparison as worthless however I don't believe that it is. Unlike the space industry, the airline industry had many players and was driven by private investment. What's interesting is that now government has effectively failed to achieve the expectations that the public have and private industry is starting to get involved. I wouldn't be at all surprised to see this continue and grow over the next decade such that NASA is relegated to a secondary role in human space activities.

It is politically untenable for any NASA Administrator to junk the entire Shuttle technology (and the thousands of manufacturing jobs that goes along). The Shuttle lobby would have fought tooth and nail on the Hill to get any new program canned.

So Griffin did his best to put together a solution that co-opts the existing technology and advance his goals. It ain a pretty sight and there is tremendous wastage.

But aleast we are going somewhere this time.

No, they (Hypergolics and the J-2) are cheap and reliable. I think that is the whole reason they want to use them. SSME is expensive and Methane/LOX has no proven safety record. But the advantage would be performance. Higher isp. More payload to the Moon.

That is what I mean by good enough. The methane can come later. Right now the SDLVs have to come first. Had Saturn stayed around--it too would have had modified payloads and or stages. Stick with what you know.

Better is not spelled N-E-W.

Well, if thats the case, then why not just keep working on the stick with the SSME? Afteral, we've flown that many more times

Well actually there's quite a bit about the 'stick' that's new. For example it was previously (and still is) attached to the side of another vehicle, now it's on it's own; it's going to 5 sections where it is currently only 4; the payload is going to sit on top where again the payload was attached to the side; it needs some form of steering - I don't think they currently have any but I might be wrong on this one; and I'm sure it doesn't end there. Oh it'll need new launch infrastructure and ground facilities.

Anyway, it's got a lot of new things about it which the ESAS Report talks about in considerable detail and they all carry risk associated with being 'new'.

All those issues with the stick are the same whether the upper stages use J2 or SSME. The issues with SSME are cost (it will be expended with each mission) and restart capability. J2 is cheaper and was designed for restart from the beginning.