Monday, June 22, 2009

The Daily Blotter, Take 2

Speaking of missing appendices...

Last week, Michael Gass, the CEO of United Launch Alliance, told Norm's 475 nm ribbon panel that the company could use the existing Delta IV rocket to launch the Orion capsule into orbit sooner and at a lower cost than the former Emperor's planned Ares 1 rocket.

Gass was backed up by Gary Pulliam from the Aerospace Corp. He agreed with ULA's assessment and said that a modified Delta IV Heavy rocket could save between $3 billion and $6 billion compared with the Ares 1.

We think back on the clothless wonder's proclamations, when he perhaps "perjured" himself by saying that building the brand new Ares system was the ONLY way to replace the shuttle in soon, simple, and safe fashion. Ditto for the Italian Waiter and the tour guide for the Welsh. Those, like Gass and Pulliam, who were selling an alternative were foolhardy and/or bitter about not winning related contracts, or so we were told.

Where's an IG when you need him/her?

9 comments:

kT said...

Where's an IG when you need him/her?

Golfing naked with the emperor, of course.

Martijn Meijering said...

The study concluded that Delta-IV-Heavy would be good enough for ISS missions, but not for ISS missions. To my great pleasure a panel member asked if that could not be easily solved with a LEO propellant depot. As a big fan of getting a foot in the door for depots as soon as possible, I found this great news. It's still only a hypergolics depot, but it's a good start. Add another hypergolics depot at L1 and make your lander hypergolic and you can do Constellation-sized moon missions with EELV Phase 1.

Water Landing Man said...

Just curious,

Does IG stand for Inert Gas?

http://acronyms.thefreedictionary.com/I+G

Anonymous said...

Aerospace wasn't bitter. And their message could be read as a victory for both sides. EELV is possible (EELV) but will take 5-7 years and cost MORE money if you plan to go to the Moon, and especially if you plan to go to Mars. Griffin's architecture was analyzed to be safest, simplest, and soonest given those criteria (Moon/Mars), but the models lied to him.

Martijn Meijering said...

According to ULA is only 4.5 years. The 5-7 is with a new upper stage, which is not a bad idea if it is RL-10 or RL-60 powered and used as a new common upper stage for Atlas and Delta.

And the higher costs are only true if NASA continues with Ares V, which it shouldn't. There's an oversupply of launch capacity and NASA's building an HLV. Brilliant.

kT said...

the models lied to him

Oh really. Last time I checked, most models where DETERMINATE.

What was he using, a neural network? My non-determinate model - my brain, easily excluded Ares I from the appropriate phase space of credible launch vehicle architectures.

Anonymous said...

Inspector General, the entity that is tasked to investigate charges of waste, fraud and abuse of government resources.

Anonymous said...

The ESAS Models were based upon lies and delusions.
"Ares 1 can be done for $4 Billion, Ares 5 can
be done for 10 Billion".

When you take into account the real costs which
is Ares 1 is $100 Billion and Ares 5 is $200 Billion,
then EELV looks very economical.

Anonymous said...

"Just curious,

Does IG stand for Inert Gas?"


In this case I believe it refers to the Inspector General

http://oig.nasa.gov/