Saturday, December 8, 2007

Top 10 Holiday List

A list of the top ten things we're asking Santa for at RocketsAndSuch (please add your own wish lists in the comments!):

10. All of our troops, friends, and families stay safe.

9. All of the astronauts fly safely and avoid harm (including mental illness).

8. Alan Lindenmoyer gets a lot of toys and stays home to play with them for a very long time.

7. Shana Dale gets soft toilet paper for her executive rest room.

6. Sen. Shelby gets to make snowmen in his backyard and finds them jobs at MSFC.

5. Jeff Hanley takes a load off, gets on a shiny motorcycle, and heads anywhere west.

4. Doc Horowitz's jail cell is appropriately decorated.

3. Steve Cook's new employer lets him design the menus and table settings in powerpoint.

2. The Emperor gets a wardrobe gift card at his retirement party.

1. Marsha Ivins gets to fly on the very very first ARES/Orion.

12 comments:

kT said...

8. I hope Alan Lindenmoyer has a little fun with my holiday gift.

However, some assembly is required :

http://webpages.charter.net/tsiolkovsky/proposal/IPO.doc

Major said...

I agree with every wish on the list except Lindenmoyer. Given what little Lindenmoyer was given to work with, it's rather amazing that COTS has gotten this far. It's not Lindenmoyer's fault that Griffin keeps ruling out existing EELVs to avoid demonstrating the main competitor to Ares I. Or that Griffin allocated only $500 million to develop and demonstrate two new launch vehicles, two new pressurized in-space vehicles, two rendezvous and docking systems, and two reentry systems, when similar industry cost-sharing programs, like EELV, allocated $1 billion in federal (USAF) funding just for the two launch vehicles alone. One wonders if Griffin was ever serious about COTS to begin with...

In place of Lindenmoyer, add Congressman Weldon and the other idiot representatives and senators proposing legislation to extend Shuttle operations by another five years. Wasting billions of taxpayer dollars to push the gap out another five years into the future, increase the odds of another Shuttle failure and crew loss, and further build out an already underutilized space station has got to be the worst idea to hit the human space flight program since the Saturn V line was shut down. It boggles the mind that many of these legislators represent the very states that were in the path of the main Columbia debris field.

"However, some assembly is required"

Gah, is this a joke? Bearing SSME costs on a commercial vehicle?!?! What a crappy proposal!!!

kT said...

Bearing SSME costs on a commercial vehicle?!?! What a crappy proposal!!!

Do you realize that multiple exclamations make you look like a nut?

What SSME costs? They exist, they may even fly tomorrow, and there is an existing contract for the maintenance of roughly 50 equivalent engine flights. As far as I can tell, they're good to go.

If you are so opposed to flying them on the shuttle, why are you (dare I say) hysterical and irrational about flying them in development vehicles, when they are already bought and paid for, and good certainly for one last flight apiece? Or would you prefer to retire them for 30 years and bring them back for one last attempt at low earth orbit space flight, the Apollo capsule on steroids, which is precisely what we are doing with the J2. Everyone I talk to is eager to continue flying high performance cryogenic engines on modern unmanned spacecraft. Use as many exclamation points as you need in your response.

Major said...

"What SSME costs? They exist, they may even fly tomorrow, and there is an existing contract for the maintenance of roughly 50 equivalent engine flights."

OMG, you are serious! Are you a college engineering major? The quality of the proposal is about on that level.

You have no idea what it costs to refurb an SSME, do you?

Oh well, in a wide open program like COTS, some goofy and stupid ideas are bound to come out of the woodwork. Just gotta separate the wheat from the chaff.

kT said...

You have no idea what it costs to refurb an SSME, do you?

Sure I do, approximately $20 million dollars per engine flight, based upon an existing SSME refurbishment contract for approximately $1 billion dollars spread over approximately 50 equivalent engine flights. It's right there in the proposal. I can only assume that in the true ESAS spirit you haven't actually read the proposal before you came to that conclusion.

http://www.globalsecurity.org/space/library/news/2007/space-070806-pratt-whitney01.htm

All I'm proposing is hitching onto the back end of that contract, to get this vehicle built and launched. I'm not planning on using SSMEs forever, just until we develop something better. We do intend to continue core stage engiene development right? Or do you just plan or bringing the SSMEs back to life in 40 years or so, after all skill is lost?

Oh well, in a wide open program like COTS, some goofy and stupid ideas are bound to come out of the woodwork. Just gotta separate the wheat from the chaff.

Indeed we do. Where I come from, it's called sifting and winnowing. Of course, we'll be happy to evaluate your COTS proposal, as soon as you supply us with a link.

You did take the time to perform a two year ESAS of your own, and then publish a COTS proposal in 60 days, right? Oops, I guess I meant 30 days. Time sure flies when you're working your ass off to try and salvage a disaster, doesn't it.

Major said...

"Sure I do, approximately $20 million dollars per engine flight,"

No you don't. You don't even have a clue about direct versus indirect costs on the Shuttle program. Your proposal is going to have to pick up both for the SSMEs when the Shuttle program goes away, and the total is a helluva lot more than $20 million.

And who the hell publishes an ongoing business proposal to a federal agency on the web? Incredibly amateurish and juvenile...

"You did take the time to perform a two year ESAS of your own, and then publish a COTS proposal in 60 days, right?"

I don't approve of ESAS any more than this amateurish COTS proposal. No one does who visits this blog. What gave you that idea? Are you smoking something in your college dormroom?

kT said...

No you don't. You don't even have a clue about direct versus indirect costs on the Shuttle program. Your proposal is going to have to pick up both for the SSMEs when the Shuttle program goes away, and the total is a helluva lot more than $20 million.

Indirect costs are included in the integration and launch costs. We're trying to reduce costs, remember? We're also trying to get to orbit. If you have a better or more capable reusable cryogenic engine actually capable of making orbit, I would be more than happy to look at it, but barring that, I'm going with the engine that works, is in service, has well known costs, and is a national treasure that only a complete idiot would want to retire. If I need a launch vehicle for manned missions, or if I want to fly the RS-68, I can order one at any time from ULA - the Delta IV Medium. The COTS proposal is for something new.

And who the hell publishes an ongoing business proposal to a federal agency on the web?

Those of us who are interested in the truth. Truth and honesty is something severely lacking in this administration, and it appears to be something you have a problem with also.

Incredibly amateurish and juvenile...

And incredibly honest and truthful. Life is tough, isn't it.

I don't approve of ESAS any more than this amateurish COTS proposal. No one does who visits this blog.

But you didn't care enough to stand up and say something about it in September of 2005, did you, nor do you care about it enough to start your own blog. I ran a blog for two full years starting in September of 2005, for the sole purpose of bringing these problems to the attention of the aerospace engineering community, and it took two full years for the magnitude of the tragedy to sink into your thick dumb skulls.

What gave you that idea?

You think retiring the SSMEs is a good idea, the result naturally follows.

Are you smoking something in your college dormroom?

Is that some sort of retarded conservative method of debate?

I can see already I've been successful with this considering the feathers I have ruffled already. The chance of me lightening up on you idiots is nil.

So please feel free to give us the link to your launch vehicle architecture, and a link to your dissenting opinion, whenever you get round to it.

Major said...

"Indirect costs are included in the integration and launch costs."

Integration and launch are direct costs, college boy. You've got sustaining engineering, propulsion testing, and scores of other indirect costs

Try again.

"Those of us who are interested in the truth."

Oh, so now you've got a Godcomplex and a persecution complex, on top of the self-appointed amateur armchair aerospace engineering degree and the dormroom drug-smoking?

Nice. Must be fun having you for a roommate.

"But you didn't care enough to stand up and say something about it in September of 2005, did you"

Some people lost positions and income over opposition to ESAS, dumbass. You don't know what sacrifices others have made. Your amateur-hour COTS proposal and blog ravings don't even begin to make the grade.

"I ran a blog for two full years starting in September of 2005, for the sole purpose of bringing these problems to the attention of the aerospace engineering community"

Oh, please provide the link. That would be such great humor.

"I can see already I've been successful with this considering the feathers I have ruffled already."

Those are feather ruffling... they're bellies laughing.

"The chance of me lightening up on you idiots is nil."

Shaking in my boots.

What a bozo...

kT said...

Integration and launch are direct costs, college boy. You've got sustaining engineering, propulsion testing, and scores of other indirect costs

Well, in the true ESAS fashion I guess you didn't actually read the proposal, otherwise you wouldn't have missed the part where we launch the SSMEs to low Earth orbit and leave them there at a vast orbiting hotel and tank farm, one that gets larger with every launch.

Oh, so now you've got a Godcomplex and a persecution complex, on top of the self-appointed amateur armchair aerospace engineering degree and the dormroom drug-smoking?

Is this the only debating strategy in your repertoire?

Some people lost positions and income over opposition to ESAS, dumbass. You don't know what sacrifices others have made. Your amateur-hour COTS proposal and blog ravings don't even begin to make the grade.

I see, and was one of those people you? Anonymous blogs are wonderful.

Oh, please provide the link. That would be such great humor.

It was indeed, but we've moved onto a new phase, as our two year ESAS is finished. It was fun while it lasted, though :

http://cosmic.lifeform.org

When I ran across this blog, I realized that the message finally got through, and that job was done.

What a bozo...

The NYT already apologized to Dr. Goddard.

Rocket Man said...

we'd comment, but if you are a regular reader of R&S you know where we stand already. as we always say, "don't drink the water you find around a blind horse."

Major said...

"the part where we launch the SSMEs to low Earth orbit and leave them there at a vast orbiting hotel and tank farm"

Oh I read that part. Aside from the fact that storing and firing the SSME's in new environments will drive your testing, qualification, and other costs higher, who in their right mind would propose going to all the cost and schedule of creating and supplying another space station just to supply the ISS? Could you take a more indirect and costly route to solving the problem that COTS is trying to address?

"http://cosmic.lifeform.org"

The link is dead, dummy.

"The NYT already apologized to Dr. Goddard."

Yeah, your amateur COTS proposal and make-believe blog rank you right up there with the father of liquid rocketry.

Please get some counseling for your megalomania.

"don't drink the water you find around a blind horse."

Enough said.

And enough time wasted on KT and this thread.

kT said...

Aside from the fact that storing and firing the SSME's in new environments will drive your testing, qualification, and other costs higher, who in their right mind would propose going to all the cost and schedule of creating and supplying another space station just to supply the ISS?

I never said anything about firing them in space, I only intend to store them there, until which time they can be returned to earth, in a suitable shipping container, which in my case happens to look a lot like the nose cone of a rocket.

As for creating another space station, that's just a revenue producing side effect of servicing the space station we already have. Unless, of course, you intend to dispose of your upper stages as well, after they deliver your payload to low earth orbit, and find themselves in low earth orbit. I can think of quite a few things to do with a Delta IV upper stage and RL-10 in orbit as well, but that's a different rocket, with different missions and payloads.

The link is dead, dummy

Of course it is, the party's over.

We've moved on to attempting to solve the problems with VSE, ESAS and Constellation, now that everyone is aware of their existence. I admit it is unfortunate that it took two full years to make most people aware of those problems.

Yeah, your amateur COTS proposal and make-believe blog rank you right up there with the father of liquid rocketry.

Would you like me to post the entire archived logs of my non-existent blog? It's a regular who's who of the aerospace industry and the scientific community. I also freely admit my proposal was rushed, everybody knows launch vehicle architectures take 60 days to develop. It was a whole week before I even understood the opportunity to publish my treatise.

If you want to get a feel for the blog, which is irrelevant now that the failure of the program is inevitable (we knew that in September of 2005, some people are just slow learners) some of it might still be available in cache.

As far as I know, I am the only person in the US backing the preservation of ground started fully regenerative cryogenic engine capabilities, so I guess that does make me extra special. I am so grateful to NASA for providing me with the opportunity to commit my enthusiasm to print, it is a huge load off my shoulders, no matter how rushed or incompetent it was, and even with the many spelling and grammar mistakes which crept in because of the deadline.

I took my load off, my ass is thus suitably covered.

nuff said

That's a new debating tactic. Keep up the good work!