FlaSoxxJim Posted August 9, 2005 Share Posted August 9, 2005 QUOTE(Steff @ Aug 9, 2005 -> 11:59 AM) Excellent. The foam issue apparently can't be resolved and while the "fix" in space was a success by definition, the risk of them having to do repairs in space is high. IMO, there is a good chance of more tragedy with this current fleet. The good news is the new birds are pretty close to production. It's just the funding that seems to be an issue. If they got the $$ I think it would be closer to '07.. but who knows. No way, absolutely not, even under the bast scenarios. There are still several competing designes for the CEV (Crew Exploration Vehicle) - none of which is going to try to utilize the scramjet technology that they were goping for. Unmanned tests flights might start on a prototype CEV by 2008, but that's pretty unlikely. As early as January of this year, they were saying 2015 would be the earliest for a manned launch. To give an idea of how far behind the 8-ball designers are on this, consider that in 2002-2003 there was only a $17 million R&D investment in next-gen shuttle designs. Compared to the more than $400 million it costs to put the shuttles up each time, that was peanuts. And this was after Bush announced the mission to Mars plans. Apparently, we were waiting for the new vehicle to build itself. To be fair, the 2015 target was in place at the time we thought the current fleet would be servicable until 2010. The 5 year gap in manned flights seems to be bad planning, but that was what they thought they could manage. And most of the leading plans go back to putting a manned capsule on top of the boosters ala' Apollo/Gemini/Mercury, and having the capsule land via parachute like the historic manned missions as well. The upside of returninbh to thet design is that the capsule will be out of the way of any debris that breaks off the rockets, but the down-side is that we've pretty much given up on the reusable vehicle model. Not that I fault that stance, given that reusability never came close to being cost effective (let alone safe) with the current fleet. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Steff Posted August 9, 2005 Author Share Posted August 9, 2005 QUOTE(FlaSoxxJim @ Aug 9, 2005 -> 03:50 PM) No way, absolutely not, even under the bast scenarios. According to my uncle who works for NASA via a general contractor who has hands in the new development (going on since 1998) they are much closer than is reported. When the last one blew up the firm he works for logged 80+ hour work weeks to get them a design that they could take to the government with the possibility of being in production in 2005. That obviously didn't work out so well. Don't kill the messenger... Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
FlaSoxxJim Posted August 9, 2005 Share Posted August 9, 2005 QUOTE(Steff @ Aug 9, 2005 -> 04:29 PM) According to my uncle who works for NASA via a general contractor who has hands in the new development (going on since 1998) they are much closer than is reported. When the last one blew up the firm he works for logged 80+ hour work weeks to get them a design that they could take to the government with the possibility of being in production in 2005. That obviously didn't work out so well. Don't kill the messenger... I'd love to believe that was a realistic timeline, but I just highly doubt it. I read a story that ran just a week ago that indicated they had not even picked a final design from among the competing firms, and a bunch of insiders were outright calling Lockheed's leading plan stupid. If they picked a plan and awarded a contract today, I'd still say 2007-2008 for unmanned flights was very optimistic, let alone manned flights. I just wish the scramjet technology had been realized. Bringing the cost of getting a vehicle into orbit down to $100 per pound instead of $1,000 a pound would have been huge. Hopefully it will happen in the next next generation. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Steff Posted August 9, 2005 Author Share Posted August 9, 2005 QUOTE(FlaSoxxJim @ Aug 9, 2005 -> 04:55 PM) I'd love to believe that was a realistic timeline, but I just highly doubt it. I read a story that ran just a week ago that indicated they had not even picked a final design from among the competing firms, and a bunch of insiders were outright calling Lockheed's leading plan stupid. If they picked a plan and awarded a contract today, I'd still say 2007-2008 for unmanned flights was very optimistic, let alone manned flights. I just wish the scramjet technology had been realized. Bringing the cost of getting a vehicle into orbit down to $100 per pound instead of $1,000 a pound would have been huge. Hopefully it will happen in the next next generation. I'm sorry Jim... I didn't mean to inferr they'd be up by then. I meant get started production. Lockheed Martin and Litton Laser are driving hard to get them to move faster but you are right, they are dragging their feet. My other uncle works for Lockheed.. do you know folks there? Small world if you knew him. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
FlaSoxxJim Posted August 10, 2005 Share Posted August 10, 2005 QUOTE(Steff @ Aug 9, 2005 -> 05:48 PM) I'm sorry Jim... I didn't mean to inferr they'd be up by then. I meant get started production. Lockheed Martin and Litton Laser are driving hard to get them to move faster but you are right, they are dragging their feet. My other uncle works for Lockheed.. do you know folks there? Small world if you knew him. No, nobody at Lockheed. I had a friend who worked fro EG&G but he's been gone from there for a few years. Most of my Space center gossip comes from some friends who work at KSC in Dynamac - the environmental arm of on-site operations. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Join the conversation
You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.