NASA may use only expendable SRBs (as suggested on ghostNASA)

[gaetanomarano]

...ensuring the propellant geometry is correct and there was no insulation delamination...
it's not my job (nor I'm paid to) solve the minute manufacturing problems of a product...
the way to have (many) EXPERT solutions is to assign pre-contract studies to many aerospace companies (like already done with the Orion contract) and evaluate the engineers' proposals
of course, if the engineers will NOT find any solution to that (not so complex) problem... their companies will NOT have that (multi-billion$) contract........
this is the right way

.

[Larry Jacks]

it's not my job (nor I'm paid to) solve the minute manufacturing problems of a product...

Because you don't know what you're talking about. It's plainly obvious that you've never engineered anything. All you're about is making pronouncements without a shred of knowledge to back up your claims. Meanwhile, when those of us who actually work with space systems point out the obvious flaws in your claims, you ignore us and resort to your usual hand-waving. Really, when it comes to space science, you're little better than a troll. I don't see any reason to waste any more time on you.

[gaetanomarano]

...you don't know what you're talking about...
if only those who design solid boosters CAN talk of them, the number of forums' users will falls from many thousands to less than a dozen...
of course, not ALL forums' users are engineers, but ALL are free to propose their ideas and suggestions
clearly, a non-seg. SRB needs some researches to know if it can be built, at what price, weight, etc.
but the SAME preliminary researches are necessary ALSO to claim that it absolutely CAN'T be built
however, do that researches is not my job... but, if someone will do them, we will know the answer
until that day, my opinion is that it's not a "so complex" problem... it only needs some expert thinking

.

[cjl]

The difference is, however, that some of us are not suggesting that the people who do design them are clueless. You make statements suggesting that they don't have any idea what they're doing, and are screwing up horribly, when you yourself don't have the background or the knowledge to be able to design them yourself, and therefore do not have the ability to complain about the current design.

[gaetanomarano]

...that the people who do design them are clueless...
no, I only give some suggestions to save time and money, to add safety and reliability to the space-hardware and to have more features built-in

.

[Dave J]

Lets suppose that a large, RSRM scale monolithic SRB can indeed be manufactured, more cheaply than the current design, and indeed stronger, safer, and cheaper.
Do you not believe that a manufacturer would have built such a motor? Certainly, if such a design was so technically feasible with all the gains involved, ATK would be rushing in this direction.
Propellant slump, manufacture and transport issues, GSE equipment requirements, ground handling, propellant pour quality assurance...there are many reasons these large boosters are segmented.

[danscope]

Lets suppose that a large, RSRM scale monolithic SRB can indeed be manufactured, more cheaply than the current design, and indeed stronger, safer, and cheaper.
Do you not believe that a manufacturer would have built such a motor? Certainly, if such a design was so technically feasible with all the gains involved, ATK would be rushing in this direction.
Propellant slump, manufacture and transport issues, GSE equipment requirements, ground handling, propellant pour quality assurance...there are many reasons these large boosters are segmented.

Hi Dave, I have sometime thought that for the transportational aspect alone, it seems foolhardy to manufacture the SRB's anywhere but Cape Canaveral.
Would manufacture on site be desirable, more efficient, safer....
just plain make sense, or is making sense too much to ask of the program?
Just a thought.
Best regards, Dan

[gaetanomarano]

Do you not believe that a manufacturer would have built such a motor? Certainly, if such a design was so technically feasible with all the gains involved, ATK would be rushing in this direction.
I suppose that "segmentation" was (first) dictated by NASA decision to build them in Utah and assemble/launch in Florida. I don't know if different solutions was evaluated in the early days, nor if ATK has projects/plans of non-seg. boosters.

.

[Doodler]

Too environmentally sensitive. The Canaveral complex is already sprawling, and bordered on most sides by protected wetlands. You just couldn't expand the site locally without major major headaches from zoning regulations. Its amazing they even get away with launches near such locations, but full out rocket manufacturing and testing facilities? The EPA would have a stroke.

Second thing is the local weather conditions. The buildings there are impressive structures, but would we want to put the whole kit and kaboodle in the line of fire of hurricane alley? Its bad enough, in my opinion, that these very unique launch facilities are already in a volatile area, despite the relative advantages of using them, but there's no reason to increase exposure to that risk by moving everything there.

From an operational standpoint, would it be wise to risk an accident at the Cape during a launch endangering the manufacturing side, or an industrial accident potentially compromising the launch and landing operations? Its not so much a destruction of property issue, but when the smelly stuff hits the fan, the usual procedure is to shut down the facility, which means what affects one could potentially affect the other without intention.

[gaetanomarano]

...manufacture on site be desirable, more efficient, safer...
that's true, but now is too late and too expensive to move the entire "segments' factory" near KSC to save on trasport, while, build a small unit to fill the non-seg. SRBs, may have a reasonable cost (and, of course, it must be made only if researches/tests will give good results about newSRB's safety increase and weight reduction)

.

[danscope]

Too environmentally sensitive. The Canaveral complex is already sprawling, and bordered on most sides by protected wetlands. You just couldn't expand the site locally without major major headaches from zoning regulations. Its amazing they even get away with launches near such locations, but full out rocket manufacturing and testing facilities? The EPA would have a stroke.

Second thing is the local weather conditions. The buildings there are impressive structures, but would we want to put the whole kit and kaboodle in the line of fire of hurricane alley? Its bad enough, in my opinion, that these very unique launch facilities are already in a volatile area, despite the relative advantages of using them, but there's no reason to increase exposure to that risk by moving everything there.

From an operational standpoint, would it be wise to risk an accident at the Cape during a launch endangering the manufacturing side, or an industrial accident potentially compromising the launch and landing operations? Its not so much a destruction of property issue, but when the smelly stuff hits the fan, the usual procedure is to shut down the facility, which means what affects one could potentially affect the other without intention.

Hi, I should think that the testing facility would remain in Utah, research and development are well situated there. As far as Cape Canaveral, they have remarkable canals that allow the convenient transportation of extraordinary
loads via dedicated barge to CC, so the manufacture within a reasonable
viscinity , and yet not directly on the coast,respecting weather,salt etc would seem to be plausible. The point is to facilitate the manufacture and assembly
of improved SRB's to accomplish desired tasks. It would appear logistically efficient, and would seem to have the promise of "The Right Stuff".
Best regards, Dan

[gaetanomarano]

...environmentally sensitive...
if launches are too dangerous for a building, then they are much more dangerous for the KSC control team, employees, press, etc.
clearly, that risk exists ONLY in a limited range and under the rockets' trajectories
about hurricane, etc... the SRB factory, can (simply) be built mainly underground (like great part of security and military facilities)

.

[Doodler]

/trumpcard PLAY ;)

Reasonable, now tell the Congressmen who's districts play host to the current manufacturing facilities that you're yanking the plug on his homegrown pork spending and costing his constituents thousands of jobs in the shuffle, along with the collateral economic loss of the businesses that support those workers.

It may well be possible to defend the idea of more local manufacturing, but there's a certain level of interia that keeps things where they are currently, and the cost of the trauma of relocation can often outweigh the savings benefits for the end user.

Forgive the delve into politics, but in this particular case, its cogent.

[gaetanomarano]

I should think that the testing facility would remain in Utah, research and development are well situated there.
in my proposal I suggest to BUILD the non-seg. SRB in UTAH factories and (only) FILL them near KSC (in a smaller factory) ...the costs to move each empty "newSRB" with a 747-100 will be LESS than 1% of the SRB's price since I evaluate that a 5-segments SRB may cost around $60M of hardware and $60M of shared R&D costs in the next 20 years: $3B/50 SRBs (36 SRBs for 12 moon missions in 2020-2025 and 24 SRBs for LEO missions from 2015)

.

[gaetanomarano]

Reasonable...
why the SAME proposals are "unreasonable" if come from me?

...Congressmen...
"politics" is (in EVERY country) the REAL "unknow variable" of EVERY project (that's why I never talk of it in my proposals/suggestions/evaluations)

.

[cjl]

in my proposal I suggest to BUILD the non-seg. SRB in UTAH factories and (only) FILL them near KSC (in a smaller factory) ...the costs to move each empty "newSRB" with a 747-100 will be LESS than 1% of the SRB's price since I evaluate that a 5-segments SRB may cost around $60M of hardware and $60M of shared R&D costs in the next 20 years: $3B/50 SRBs (36 SRBs for 12 moon missions in 2020-2025 and 24 SRBs for LEO missions from 2015)

.

:eh: :eh: :eh:

Where do you get these numbers?

The 747 is hardly cheap to fly, and to have 2 of them fly to the cape carrying the boosters would be prohibitively expensive compared to the current railroad method.

Here's an idea for you: rather than tossing out unsubstantiated numbers, try actually basing your numbers on reality. Give cost estimates for each portion of the item, and give REASONS why it would cost that much. I.E. instead of stating "it will cost $50M for the new boosters", state what the cacsing will cost, what the propellant will cost, what the transportation will cost, and state something that will BACK IT UP. For example, if you stated that "the propellant will cost $1M because the current booster's propellant costs $800k, and the new boosters will have slightly more propellant", that would be valid (I have no idea if those numbers are at all close - it is just an example). However, simply stating "it will cost $1M" is not valid. Anyone can pull numbers out of a hat, howver they are not useful or relevant numbers unless they are substatiated.

[Larry Jacks]

can pull numbers out of a hat

He's pulling numbers out of somewhere. I suspect it's a bit lower than his hat.

[cjl]

OK, anyone know the best way to get hot chocolate off a monitor and keyboard :D

[Doodler]

OK, anyone know the best way to get hot chocolate off a monitor and keyboard :D

:D

[gaetanomarano]

Where do you get these numbers?
it's very hard to know/find the real number about costs... but the most credible price (read many times) for a standard SRB is $40M... adding a 5th segment, the attitude controls for the Ares-I, a +10% increase of price for the expendable version... the "hardware" price of the new 5-segments SRB may be close to $60M... TODAY... but they will be built, sold (and fly) from 2015 on the Ares-I and from 2020 on the AresV ...then... if we add the inflation, cost growth (since there is no competition between companies...) and (now) "unknown" costs... the price of the newSRB hardware may reach $80M per unit from 2015 and $100M per unit from 2020... (of course, with some competition... the price may falls...)

the shared R&D costs per SRB launched are easy to calculate since the R&D costs for the newSRB are known from months ($3 billion... + cost growth...) and also the planned moon missions (each needs 3 newSRB) are well known (12 missions in 2020-2025, 36 newSRB in total) while, the number of orbital missions (one newSRB each) is unknown and unpredictable

some say that Orion will have up to 4 orbital missions per year... but, since the ISS will remains small and the (cargo and crew) Orion will have MANY (5+ times cheaper) competitors for that job (Digital-Soyuz, Progress, ATV, COTS, ACTS and, maybe, Shenzhou...) I think we will see (no more than) one-two missions per year (15-25 missions in 2015-2025, my guess is "24")

with only (around) 60 newSRB built/launched in 2015-2025... the shared R&D costs of each newSRB will be (around) $3000M / 60 units = $50M... or $60M per unit including some (traditional...) cost growth in the next ten years...

then, each newSRB built/launched will cost between $120M and $160M... and the price per unit will be similar also with the non-segmented SRB

about the costs to move each non-seg. SRB from Utah to Florida with the 747-100 used for the Shuttle... it will be very small (less than 1%) compared with the newSRB price and may fall very much since (now) the 747-100 is used a few times, while, using it to move the SRB, the shared fixed-costs must be divided for (up to) eight SRBs launched per year (two lunar missions x 3 SRB each + two orbital with single SRB each)

that said my hat... :)

.

[cjl]

What makes you think that the $3B R&D is only for the SRB's?

I find it rather difficult to believe that such a simple change would cost that much...

[danscope]

OK, anyone know the best way to get hot chocolate off a monitor and keyboard :D

Hi, Windex is a good start..for the monitor. And spray some on a clean tee-shirt and try the keyboard. Keyboards are less expensive,anyway.
Good luck,young Sir. Cleaning builds character.!!!
Best regards, Dan

[gaetanomarano]

What makes you think that the $3B R&D is only for the SRB's?
15 months ago the NASA claim about Ares-I (full) R&D costs was $5B ($1B of which to modify the SRB) but, a few months after (and the shift from 4-seg. to 5-seg.) the press revealed an R&D extra costs of $2B to add the 5th segment... then, the total R&D costs of the newSRB will be $3B (+ traditional costs growth...)

I find it rather difficult to believe that such a simple change would cost that much...
in all forums I've read, all users wonder about this high cost, but (probably) that "simple change" is NOT so "simple", involving the nozzle redesign and needing new tests, man-rating, etc.

.

[cjl]

The nozzle change is easy. It keeps practically the same shape, with a 9% larger throat. That's all there is to it. New tests do not add up to that much money, unless they do a ridiculous number of tests considering the changes. Basically, it IS a simple change, and I would bet that the R&D costs are going to something other than just the booster change.

[Doodler]

Define "traditional costs growth".

[gaetanomarano]

...the R&D costs are going to something other than just the booster change...
probably the newSRB will be made of pure gold :)

.

[gaetanomarano]

Define "traditional costs growth".
Shuttle, ISS, Concorde... all big (space and non-space) projects experienced giant (sometimes "astronomical") costs' growth... then, it's a "tradition"

.

[djellison]

So - are you ACTUALLY saying that a brand new, totally untested, ground breaking non segmented booster an order of magnitude larger than any single segment booster ever made, using new manufacturing techniques and the manufacture and pouring of half a million tons of propellant in one go will be cheaper and safer than making alterations to a current, well tested, process mature segmented booster that has been flying for >25 years with 1 failure (via a failure mode now eliminated) in nearly 250 flights.

Is that REALLY what you're trying to say

Doug

[gaetanomarano]

...a brand new, totally untested, ground breaking non segmented booster an order of magnitude larger than any single segment booster ever made will be cheaper and safer...
I've already explained that point... the costs to add the 5th segment are so high to be sufficient to design a brand new rocket!

...with more than 200 succesfull flights...
that record refer to the standard SRB ...the REAL success record of the newSRB will be known ONLY after a similar amount of flights

[djellison]

How long have you been in the solid rocket motor industry to know that the development of an utterly ground breaking man rated single segment rocket motor an order of magnitude larger than any built before will be cheaper than the current plans? Where is your business plan that outlines the facts behind this assumption?

Doug

[gaetanomarano]

...larger than any built before will be cheaper than the current...
already explained also that point
not cheaper, but safer and LIGHTER (to increase the payload launched)
the costs may be similar or higher, but I think it's better to spend that money to have a brand new booster rather than a "refurbished" design

.

[cjl]

probably the newSRB will be made of pure gold :)

.
Don't be ridiculous.

As for your other claims, you have yet to explain why you think a 9% increase in nozzle area and the addition of one segment is equivalent to a complete redesign...

It seems to me that a design that has ALREADY BEEN TESTED (http://www-pao.ksc.nasa.gov/kscpao/videos/metafiles/ksc_102803_srb.ram) would be a little cheaper to finalize than to fully develop a brand new SRB...

As for your "refurbished" claims, what does that have to do with anything? Other than some minor changes (mainly, the binder used), solid rocket motor design really has not changed significantly since the SRB's were originally made. What is the matter with using an old desing? In fact, weren't you arguing to use them unchanged just a few months ago?:eh:

[gaetanomarano]

...why you think a 9% increase in nozzle area and the addition of one segment is equivalent to a complete redesign...
no, it's not a "redesign" but a "refurbished" design (and I don't know WHY a 9% increase of the nozzle and a 5th segment will costs so much!)

...would be a little cheaper to finalize than to fully develop a brand new SRB...
if it's so easy... WHY they need 3+ years and $3+ billion to finish the new booster?

...you arguing to use them unchanged just a few months ago...
you interpret my words the way you like... so, I try to explain you my true opinion
NASA has three possible choices about SRB:
1. use ONLY the (ready available, cheap and man-rated) standard SRB, or...
2. spend 3+ years and $3+ billion to have only a "refurbished" design, or...
3. spend 3/4+ years and $3/4+ billion to have a brand new, safer and LIGHTER booster
as explained many times in my articles and posts, the choice #1 is the BEST to save time and money (and, also, it's "my" 1st choice)
but, if NASA absolutely want to spend money and lose years, the BEST choice is the #3 since, they SPEND time and money, but to have something NEW and BETTER than an old ("refurbished") design!

.

[cjl]

no, it's not a "redesign" but a "refurbished" design (and I don't know WHY a 9% increase of the nozzle and a 5th segment will costs so much!)


Answer: it doesn't, those development costs are probably for more than just the SRB upgrade



if it's so easy... WHY they need 3+ years and $3+ billion to finish the new booster?

See above



you interpret my words the way you like... so, I try to explain you my true opinion
NASA has three possible choices about SRB:
1. use ONLY the (ready available, cheap and man-rated) standard SRB, or...
2. spend 3+ years and $3+ billion to have only a "refurbished" design, or...
3. spend 3/4+ years and $3/4+ billion to have a brand new, safer and LIGHTER booster
as explained many times in my articles and posts, the choice #1 is the BEST to save time and money (and, also, it's "my" 1st choice)
but, if NASA absolutely want to spend money and lose years, the BEST choice is the #3 since, they SPEND time and money, but to have something NEW and BETTER than an old ("refurbished") design!
.
Again, the complete new design would cost FAR MORE than the simple upgrades to the current design. Also, it would not have the safety record of the current design, something you seem to like to wave around. In solid rocket motor design, newer is NOT always better - sometimes the older, proven design is better than trying to reinvent the wheel.

Also, as I said earlier, stop pulling numbers out of your (insert favorite location here), and give some ANALYSIS for the numbers. Your numbers are useless until you do that.

[gaetanomarano]

...those development costs are probably for more than just the SRB upgrade...
do a Google search to find yourself articles and news about the newSRB costs

...the safety record of the current design, something you seem to like to wave around...
that "safety records" are TRUE but are ENTIRELY a "standard SRB" property!
you can't give to the (unexisting) newSRB merits it DOESN'T HAVE until it will perform (at least) 232 successful flights!
if you're not a "5-seg.SRB's PR-man" don't use similar tricks!
about "new rockets" R&D costs... read my previous posts!
the FULL Ariane5 design (solid boosters, 1st stage, 2nd stage, launch pad, attitude controls, complex electronics and two brand new engines!) have had an R&D price of $8 billion (source: astronautix)
then, $3 billion MUST be sufficient to design TWO brand new boosters! (adding some competition between aerospace companies, of course...)

.

[cjl]

Note that the new SRB's use EXACTLY THE SAME joints, EXACTLY THE SAME casings, EXACTLY THE SAME propellant (OK, there's a slight change in the binding agent, but that's insignificant), and EXACTLY THE SAME peak internal pressure.

Overall, the slight changes to the design do not eliminate its saftey record, and the extensive reuse of the current design use proven components, with proven safety records. So, I can absolutely transfer the safety record of the old one to the new one, because of the extensive reuse of components.

[djellison]

the FULL Ariane5 design (solid boosters, 1st stage, 2nd stage, launch pad, attitude controls, complex electronics and two brand new engines!) have had an R&D price of $8 billion (source: astronautix)
.

Are you trying to tell us that by guessing (there is no other word for it) how much of the development of commercial launch vehicle was spent developing a segmented booster one third the size of the Shuttle's - you can thus state, with confidence, that the development of a brand new booster three times larger, which would require massive ammounts of development for an industry redefining single casing and techniques for the pouring of half a million tons of propellant, would - catagorically - be less than $3B.

How can you guess that figure and state your conclusion with such confidence when we can all see you understand so little of the principles involved - be they about launch vehicles, politics, or business and manufacturing.

Doug

[gaetanomarano]

...EXACTLY...EXACTLY...EXACTLY...EXACTLY...
EXACTLY... NOT
every SMALL change transforms a rocket in a NEW "thing" that needs DEEP tests and REAL launches to know if the "mix of changes" works well together!
that's (probably) why the newSRB needs so much time and money (and why "current safety records" can't be transfered to the newSRB)
also, the main problem of the newSRB (that NASA clearly admits) is about its flight stability, since, the standard SRB, has so high "safety records" ONLY thanks to Orbiter's attitude controls and throttleable engines!
the newSRB will fly ALONE in the (manned) Ares-I and NO ONE knows (now) if it can REALLY do that SAFELY (or will "fly" like the jettisoned Shuttles' SRBs...)

.

[gaetanomarano]

...be less than $3B...
less, WITH competition... more, WITHOUT... however, $4B or $5B are not so much, if the result is a brand new and advanced rocket with lots of advantages, while, $3B (really) are TOO MUCH for a "refurbished" design

.

[gaetanomarano]

.

a (possible) SMART solution of ALL segmented boosters' problems may be a design like this (http://www.astronautix.com/lvs/arie5fls.htm) or this (http://www.astronautix.com/lvs/arie5rrl.htm) or this (http://www.starbooster.com/)

no segments to trasport and assemble, no refurbished or expendable boosters, no (very expensive) sea retrieval, no travel of segments back to its factory, throttleable engines to have less G and safer (on pad) abort-modes, no dozens of solid boosters built, hundreds flights with a small fleet of boosters, FULL launch/landing/maintenance/refuel/assembly/relaunch at KSC, etc.

.

[djellison]

You mean the liquid fly back boosters investigated for Shuttle useage previously.
http://www.nap.edu/html/upgrading/ch4.htm
http://www.nasa.gov/centers/johnson/news/releases/1996_1998/97-120.html

You've heard of LFBB right? You must have to speak so confidently about such matters.

Let's boil things down once more...

You've given up arguing against the price of the segmented SRB upgrade and claim that $4 or $5 billion isn't 'so much' to develop something new.

We know you have no grounds for your argument based on safety - you've attempted to claim that a brand new, massively ground breaking, industry redefining, half million ton propellant pouring booster would be safer than one derived from more than 200 succesfull flights. That much we know to be utter nonsense.

And NOW - you're advocating the development of an entirely new, recovered liquid fueled first stage. Surely - if you're going down that route, then just using a man rated EELV (see the recent bigelow/lo-mart colab.) would be more sensible AND cheaper AND safer.

Doug

[gaetanomarano]

...arguing against the price of the segmented SRB upgrade and claim that $4 or $5 billion isn't 'so much' to develop something new...
exact! $3B are TOO MUCH for a "refurbished" design, while, $5B are NOT so much for a NEW and advanced design!
and (again, again, again, again) I've suggested to use ONLY ready available engines and motors (to save time and money) but, if NASA absolutely want to spend so much time and money, it's BETTER to use that time an money to have something of (really!) NEW and ADVANCED instead of some "refurbished" designs!

...one derived from more than 200 succesfull flights...
also the Shuttles have had 214 "succesfull flights" ...but they will be retired in 2010... and changed with something new (and, now, untested) like the Orion...
NASA have CHANGED his plans MANY TIMES, so, we have seen Mercury, Gemini, Apollo, Shuttle, Orion, etc.
Russia have NEVER changed his plans, the, fly from '60s with the SAME (reliable but primitive) vehicle!
"CHANGE" is a risk, but is, also, the ONLY WAY to the have a REAL PROGRESS

...man rated EELV...
no, a (man-rated) Delta IV Heavy (the only EELV able to launch the Orion) may cost up to $500M per launch and is EXPENDABLE while, the fly-back boosters, may cost a little more to design and have some risks (like all "new" devices) but, NASA must build ONLY half dozen boosters in the next 20 years (instead of the 50-70 expendable newSRB needed for the planned orbital/lunar missions)
all the extra-money spent on R&D will be saved (many times) on hardware, retrieval, refurbishing, trasport, assembly, etc. etc. etc.

.

[djellison]

no, a (man-rated) Delta IV Heavy (the only EELV able to launch the Orion) may cost up to $500M per launch and is EXPENDABLE
.

Actually - the estimated price of both the DIVH and the Atlas V heavy is approx $254M in 2004 dollars - and is not expendability the very thing you were advocating when you began this thread!!!

Personally, I advocate the Lo-Mart plan to use EELV's for Orion launches...
http://www.lockheedmartin.com/wms/findPage.do?dsp=fec&ci=17607&rsbci=14917&fti=0&ti=0&sc=400

Doug

[gaetanomarano]

...is approx $254M in 2004 dollars...
my "$500M" figure refers to a (possible) price of a man-rated version of DIVH
the price I've read for the standard DIVH is $450M and I think that price (in "2006" dollars...) is credible
one Delta IV Medium+ 5.4 launch (http://www.astronautix.com/lvs/delium54.htm)costs $160M (in 2004 dollars) and great part of the price is due to its core stage (maybe, around $130M)
then, if you sum the price of three Delta IV core stages ($390M) and one 2nd stage ($30M) the total price goes over $400M (+ man-rating costs)
the ONLY way to (really) save money, is to build a smaller "3-seats" (15 mT max) Orion and launch it with a (man-rated) Delta IV Medium + 5.6 (with six GEMs) or build a (smaller) 4-seats Orion and launch it with a (21 mT payload) Ariane5...

.

[djellison]

and great part of the price is due to its core stage (maybe, around $130M)
.

Once more, you draw conclusions of price without any actual idea of where the money for a launch vehicle goes. Have you read ANY of the excellent articles at http://www.lockheedmartin.com/wms/findPage.do?dsp=fec&ci=17607&rsbci=14917&fti=0&ti=0&sc=400 ?

Again - why do you now advocate a reuseable liquid fueled fly-back booster, when just a few short pages ago when you started this thread, you were advocating a solid fueled, single segment, expendable booster.

And now - you're suggesting launching Orion with Ariane demonstrating once more a complete lack of political and international understanding. Do you understand how complete and totally impossible that is?

Doug

[gaetanomarano]

...a launch vehicle goes...
I've seen many drawings of superEELVs' evolution but they don't exist now (their design need very much time and money) and (probably) will never exist since they are too big for satellites... only military and NASA can have/give the funds to develop these big rockets, but the first don't need them and the latter prefer its own shuttle-derived Ares, then...

...you now advocate a reuseable liquid fueled fly-back booster...
I don't advocate nothing ...fly-back boosters are only another possible alternative that has some advantages (a few, fully reusable, units and low operating costs) and the risks of all new and advanced designs

...suggesting launching Orion with Ariane demonstrating once more a complete lack of political and international understanding...
do a search on BAUT... I've opened a full thread about this argument
I perfectly understand all the "political problems" of the "Ariane5 solution" but (simply) these are not "my problems" since I only talk of new proposals and ideas (no matter if they will really happen or not!)

.

[djellison]

their design need very much time and money) and (probably) will never exist since they are too big for satellites...
.

Whaddayouknow -the same is true of the expendable single segment SRB you speak of.


I perfectly understand all the "political problems" of the "Ariane5 solution" but (simply) these are not "my problems" since I only talk of new proposals and ideas (no matter if they will really happen or not!)

Then why have you not suggest the single most obvious solution if you throw away any and all political, governmental, international and ITAR related limitations. Proton and Energia.

Doug

[gaetanomarano]

...the same is true of the expendable single segment SRB you speak of...
no, both Ares need that power (and the non-seg. is an option)

...Proton and Energia...
Proton (http://www.astronautix.com/lvs/pro8k82k.htm) may be a further option but needs to be man-rated, its payload is 19 mT max (two mT less than Ariane5) and can't be launched from KSC with the right inclination for a moon mission, while the Ariane5, from Guiana, (probably) can be
Energia (http://www.astronautix.com/lvs/energia.htm) is a preistoric rocket now out of production

.

[Dave J]

Gaetano,

a) what is your specific official source for the $3b figure for the 5SRB?

b) What is the specific weight difference between a monolithic one piece SRB case and the segmented version? I 1/8" steel cylinder ain't going to cut it...what thickness variations will be required for the one piece case? The joints add strength, with their weight, to the present design. The one piece design will need thicker skin as needed to withstand the firings.

I hesitate to say it, bit this is "common sense". The jointed design is not all wasted mass.

[djellison]

is a preistoric rocket now out of production


That really does show how much you know about the world of rockets. The Energia LV's engines formed the basis for those found at the bottom of an Atlas V. It's out of production? Yup - so's your blue-sky $4-5bn, single segment half-million-ton prop-pour SRB or liquid fly-back booster.

The J2 engine that forms the basis of the second stage for the Ares 1 vehicle ( you've not started on that yet - I look forward to it ) dates from 1966. The current space shuttle main engine is a design now 30 years old. The Soyuz LV (which you propose to use to move Hubble) is 40 years old.... Using the word 'prehistoric' for Energia - a design that is barely 20 years old is not just wrong, it's blatently ignorant.


Now you're saying that the ability to put 25 tonnes into LEO is not redundant if you use a single segment SRB, but it IS redundant if one dares to suggest EELV-derivatives. Utterly utterly crazy. You propose the spending of billions and billions of dollars to develop either a new massive single-casing SRB or liquid fly back booster to launch Orion - but oppose the derivation of EELV vehicles to launch it because 'they are too big for satellites'. Reality check for you - Orion will be a Satellite. The use of an derived EELV to launch Orion is fundamentally more reasonable and realistic than a brand new ground breaking design SRB or LFFB.

At this point - I have to believe you are trolling/flame baiting because I refuse to believe that someone would try and conduct a debate whilst remaining so detached from facts, reality and common sense and exercising such incoherance as to confuse not only ones opinion with fact, but ones opinion with itself.

Doug

[gaetanomarano]

...what is your specific official source for the $3b figure...
since I'm not a CNN reporter, I can't have "my sources"
in last ten months I've read that figure in dozens sites and forums
most important, in last ten months NASA and ATK have never denied that news
to know more you can read this (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ares_I) at "Criticism of the Ares I"

...the specific weight difference between a monolithic one piece SRB case and the segmented version...
the expendable SRB saved only 10-12 mT, so, I feel that, using the same technology, the weight saved in a non-seg. SRB may be in the range of some tons
but, if NASA decides to design a new non-seg. SRB, will (clearly) use lighter materials, composite, carbon fibers, new alloys, etc.
it's impossible to know how much weight can be saved without a (real) preliminary research
hovewer, 20-30 mT less dry-mass may (already) be a great result
also, a new design may include the use of better solid propellent (but this is an ATK & C. domain)

.

[gaetanomarano]

...out of production...
Energia (the rocket, designed mainly to launch the Buran) IS out o production
the facts that old tecnologies are reused for new rockets has nothing strange (and the engine you quote, J2, is a good example of that)

...$4-5bn, single segment half-million-ton prop-pour SRB or liquid fly-back booster...
I think that $4B (or less, with competition...) is a realistic figure of the R&D costs to design a non-seg. SRB
the fly-back boosters R&D may cost more, but that money will be compensated with less hardware and operational costs

...Soyuz LV (which you propose to use to move Hubble) is 40 years old...
no, I suggest to use the (same age...) Progress or the (new) ATV... however, Soyuz is so old that Russia is working hard to have (as soon as possible) a new (digital) version

...design that is barely 20 years old is not just wrong...
the project Energia was DELETED (about) 20 years ago, but its design is older (probably 40+ years ago) and made with the reliable but (clearly) preistoric soviet technology (the fact that Soyuz works well doesn't change that its technology is "preistoric")

...but it IS redundant if one dares to suggest EELV-derivatives...
that depends of the design and engines used, some design may be redundant, other can't

...but oppose the derivation of EELV vehicles...
I don't "oppose" nothing... simply they DON'T EXIST... excluding the Delta IV Heavy (that does a pair of launches) all these superEELV (now) are only "concepts"

...Orion will be a Satellite...
probably you confuse them because (both) goes to orbit... but they are two different "markets"
Orion (and its rocket) doen't need to be "small" or "economic" since it's paid with (plenty) public funds
while, commercial rockets can't be too big if there are not customers (and payloads) that need (and pay) them
a 50 mT payload EELV is USELESS (and never sold/launched) if you don't build (first) many 50 mT satellites (and that is, and will be, very difficult, since, thanks to, every day better, technologies, the new satellites can do more but weigh less!)

...an derived EELV to launch Orion is fundamentally more reasonable and realistic than a brand new ground breaking design SRB or LFFB...
no, if both don't exist

.

[djellison]

a 50 mT payload EELV is USELESS (and never sold/launched) if you don't build (first) many 50 mT satellites (and that is, and will be, very difficult, since, thanks to, every day better, technologies, the new satellites can do more but weigh less!).

That is just complete nonsense - you have clearly not read the link I cited previously - both Boeing and Lo-Mart have done major research into, proposed and to this day continue to advocate the use of EELV derivatives for CLV purposes. If such a thing was 'useless' and 'never sold/launched' then they would not be spending significant ammounts of money research, conducting feasability studies and conducting publicity for it.

A requriement to put Orion into orbit is a requirement. Full stop. It is no more valid to say that a 50mT EELV is useless than it is to say that Ares 1 is useless. A requirement to put Orion on orbit exists - an EELV derivative will fullfill that requirement. The lack of 50mt commercial satellite payloads invalidates the proposal for EELV derivatives no more than it invalidates the proposal for the current Ares 1 design. The market for putting 50mT into orbit exists in the form of Orion and thus Lo-Mart and Boeing have been promoting, for a couple of years, the use of EELV derivatives to do that job.

Are you claiming that you understand the launch market and indeed the abilities and plans for launch vehicles better than two of its largest players?

From the GAO
"NASA could save billions by just admitting the obvious and use an EELV derived system for the Ares 1 that would dramatically narrow the requirements definition process for the CEV as well."


simply they DON'T EXIST..

Does your ground breaking single-segment SRB or LFFB? No. That point is fundamentally moot - as are your constant references to Ariane or other international partnerships - to discuss them is total nonsense, and it would do your case no harm to stop doing so. Unfortunately, you've gone beyond the point of no return in what you have attempted to cite as facts in this thread.

Doug

[gaetanomarano]

...both Boeing and Lo-Mart have done major research into, proposed and to this day continue to advocate the use of EELV derivatives for CLV purposes...
I perfectly know from months that "Boeing and Lo-Mart have done major research" and "advocate the use of EELV derivatives for CLV purposes" (also stones knows that!) but NASA seems don't hears from this ear...
and, if a (too big) rocket has no public nor private customers (simply) never borns (and remains a "study" like thosuands others big companies do/pay but never become real products)
"money" is the right keyword talking of big projects (not "studies")

...is no more valid to say that a 50mT EELV is useless than it is to say that Ares 1 is useless...
unfortunately (for EELV) the NASA choice is Ares...

...market for putting 50mT into orbit exists in the form of Orion and little else...
right, Orion is the only possible market for a 50 mT EELV (but NASA has refused it!)

...and Lo-Mart and Boeing have been promoting, for a couple of years, the use of EELV derivatives to do that job...
true, but add "without succeed"

...claiming that you understand the launch market and indeed the abilities and plans for launch vehicles better than two of its largest players...
the Boeing/LockMart ULA and the growth of launchers' price are two clear signals of crisis in the commercial rockets' market (due, also, to the increased number of low-cost competitors... Russia, China, India, privates, etc.)

...NASA could save billions by just admitting the obvious and use an EELV derived...
my opinion is that the main NASA mistake is NOT the use of SRBs, but the use of a "new" SRB (and a new J-2x, non-man-rated RS-68, etc.) that needs too much time and money without have really new and advanced devices

...other international partnerships - to discuss them is total nonsense...
I think that big plans (like Moon return and Mars travels) can be (only or better) accomplished with an "international cooperation" (and I'm not alone in that opinion... since Mr. Griffin have said, many times, the same "total nonsense" in his interviews and visits to other space agencies...)

.

[djellison]

NASA choice is Ares...

So your entire argument is moot.

Great

We can all go home now.

Seriously - if you're prepared to try and deabte as fact things which you admit can never happen - then let's debate the use of fairy dust to levitate Orion in to orbit - just as valid a suggestion as a single segment SRB or LFFB.

Doug

[gaetanomarano]

...things which you admit can never happen...
99% of the "things" published on websites and/or discussed on forums and/or developed by aerospace compaines (inlcuding the EELV/CLV you support) will never happen... I'm aware that, things like the "crewless Shuttle" or the "safe Shuttle", will never fly... but I/we talk of these arguments only for my/our intellectual pleasure

.

[cjl]

I believe the things you mention already have flown actually...

It's called a Buran. Crewless capable shuttle, perfect safety record...

Retired because it's too expensive...

[gaetanomarano]

...Crewless capable shuttle...
in my article I refer (only) to the US' Shuttles and to modify them to fly crewless

...because it's too expensive...
for the past Soviet economy

.

[djellison]

in my article I refer (only) to the US' Shuttles and to modify them to fly crewless.

Modifications have already been made for the unmanned landing of a Shuttle - an unmanned launch capacity would not be a massive undertaking.

Doug

[gaetanomarano]

Modifications have already been made...
I know that and I've added an update to my article ten months ago

...unmanned launch capacity would not be a massive undertaking...
great part of the Shuttle launch (already) is computer-controlled, I suggest to automate/remote-control the last functions that still need a pilot

.

[cjl]

for the past Soviet economy

.
And yet they can afford the supposedly "crude" expendable launch vehicles...

What does this tell you about how much a shuttle costs compared to expendables?

[gaetanomarano]

And yet they can afford the supposedly "crude" expendable launch vehicles... What does this tell you about how much a shuttle costs compared to expendables?
now, Russia and China are two capitalist countries and act under the market's logic... with "expendables" they can earn profit NOW, while, "reusables" (like a 1000+ times reusable small shuttle) may give more profits but only in the long term

.

[Doodler]

now, Russia and China are two capitalist countries and act under the market's logic...


What planet have you been living on in the last decade?

[gaetanomarano]

What planet have you been living on in the last decade?
this planet, and, in this planet, Russia and China are two capitalist countries
Russia is so capitalist that sells Soyuz seats for tourists' travels in space!
and China will (probably) sell (soon!) its DIY Shenzhou-kit at your local Wal-Mart store... :) :) :)

.

[cjl]

now, Russia and China are two capitalist countries and act under the market's logic... with "expendables" they can earn profit NOW, while, "reusables" (like a 1000+ times reusable small shuttle) may give more profits but only in the long term

.
Not really...

They had the shuttles BUILT - and yet it was still cheaper to fly expendables. This would imply that they would never break even, something obvious if you look at the cost of a shuttle flight today.

[SpaceNutNewmars]

Estimating the real cost of shuttle use is at best a function of the budget dollars divided by the number of flights in a given year plus or minus depending on the count but that changes if you average all the years all together for you will come up with another number.

The other area is how much do the actual hands touching and working on the shuttles really cost as a function of wages.

On Fri Dec 08, 2006 Discovery’s last launch:
The shuttle got clouded out with regards to launch for they must be able to see the rocket all the way from the launch pad to orbit. It is a no go for Friday with only a small chance for liftoff on Saturday. An while this is not to significant the size of the army is. Space Flight Operations Contract with United Space Alliance. That contract employs about 6,500 workers at KSC. I am sure that with a little more poking around the true size of all hands on deck can be found for a launch.


A typical weekday scrub like Discovery’s carries an estimated cost of about $500,000 on top of the mission’s total price tag due to the additional unloading and later reloading the spacecraft’s 15-story external tank of the more than 500,000 gallons of super-cold propellant required for launch. If the launch on Saturday of Discovery is scrubbed again it will add $600,000 more of which the extra $100,000 is because it’s a weekend.

[gaetanomarano]

...divided by the number of flights in a given year...
great part of the Shuttle launch costs comes from its flights' rate (due to shared fixed costs) however, with two-three flights per year, the price-per-launch is around $600M (excluding the payload) $120-150M of which are for hardware (SRB, ET, fuel) $300M for maintenance/servicing/refurbishing, others are for assembly, personnel, SRBs' retrieval (a shared $500M/year) etc.

.

[gaetanomarano]

.

a story from astronautix SRB page (http://www.astronautix.com/engines/srb.htm):

"The decision to use segmented solid rocket boosters for the compromised space shuttle design, and the selection of Thiokol as the contractor, was with political overtones. Aerojet in particular offered to build monolithic non-segmented SRB's from the Florida facility it had built in the 1960's for its 260 inch motors. The monolithic approach completely eliminated a number of potential failure modes, and should have resulted in considerably lower cost. One of these failure modes resulted in the Challenger disaster."

then, a non-segmented SRB was already possible to build with '70s technology...

.

[Bob B.]

then, a non-segmented SRB was already possible to build with '70s technology....
Yes, this was mentioned way back in Post #36 and #37 (page 2).

[gaetanomarano]

Yes, this was mentioned way back in Post #36 and #37 (page 2).
then... all critics I've received so far about my suggestion to develop and build a (safer and lighter) non-segmented expendable SRB was wrong...
.

[Bob B.]

then... all critics I've received so far about my suggestion to develop and build a (safer and lighter) non-segmented expendable SRB was wrong...
Hogwash. The fact a non-segmented SRB is theoretically possible in no way implies it is the better choice. (If it where clearly better then why didn't NASA choose it in the first place?) The benefits of one versus the other must be analyzed and weighed. Many people in this thread produced very valid arguments in favor of the segmented SRB design. In support of the non-segmented design you could provide nothing but handwaving. You lost this debate convincingly.

[gaetanomarano]

The fact a non-segmented SRB is theoretically possible in no way implies it is the better choice.
a non-segmented SRB is safer and lighter and, build in Florida, offers many advantages on logistic problems and costs (best if expendable)
of course, that doens't matter now, since the NASA choice was "segmented"

...why didn't NASA choose it in the first place?
mmmh... :think: ...maybe... politics? ;)
.

[cjl]

"Politics" is a cop out - use SPECIFICS

[gaetanomarano]

"Politics" is a cop out - use SPECIFICS
it's a rhetoric comment, I suppose ...all peoples in all countries know the influence of politics on industry and (especially) public agencies (and how politics often impose their bad choices...)
.

[NEOWatcher]

.
a story from astronautix SRB page (http://www.astronautix.com/engines/srb.htm):
.
I just want to point out the source of information for this article.


Bibliography and Further Reading
Dorman, Bernie, et. al., Aerojet: The Creative Company, Stuart F Cooper Company, Los Angeles, 1995.. ISBN: 0-9659769-0-4. Out of print unauthorised history of Aerojet
Although I may be wrong, this doesn't sound like an un-biased source.

[gaetanomarano]

...this doesn't sound like an un-biased source...
but he talks to the vast aerospace companies/engineers community that's able to know if he said (or not) unbiased claims
.

[cjl]

That doesn't make it unbiased.

[Nicolas]

The most biased non-political talks I've ever heard were directed at the aerospace community :)

[gaetanomarano]

That doesn't make it unbiased.
30+ years from proposal and 10+ years from the book (with hundreds aerospace companies and hundreds of thousands engineers around) without any critics, articles and books against them, appear too much... or... do you have any source/article/book that slate/refute the Aerojet (non-segmented booster) proposal?
.

[NEOWatcher]

... or... do you have any source/article/book that slate/refute the Aerojet (non-segmented booster) proposal?.
Yes; and it's the most important one. NASA.
Why should someone criticize something that doesn't or didn't happen? That would be a waste of time.

[gaetanomarano]

Yes; and it's the most important one. NASA.
Why should someone criticize something that doesn't or didn't happen? That would be a waste of time.
read the second part of the Astronautix article... NASA choice was NOT technical (as everybody knows) ...you CAN'T say/know for sure that a rocket can't be made if you don't actually give FUNDS to develop and build it (and the 30-years lack of critics from Aerojet's competitors clearly demonstrate they're right)
.

[NEOWatcher]

read the second part of the Astronautix article... NASA choice was NOT technical (as everybody knows) ....
EVERYBODY? Name one person other than an Aerojet person. And the reporter doesn't count because he is just repeating what the Aerojet person is saying.

you CAN'T say/know for sure that a rocket can't be made if you don't actually give FUNDS to develop and build it.
But when you only have funds to develop along one path, you are going to choose the one with the most chance of success, no matter how close the chances are. And this applies not only in design, but in stability and flexibility, and scale. Non-technical issues are extremely important.

[gaetanomarano]

EVERYBODY?
everybody knows (as I've read in dozens comments on the web, you can find googling) that ATK choice was (mainly, but not only, of course) "political"

...when you only have funds to develop along one path, you are going to choose the one with the most chance of success...
since the ATK choice was (mainly) "political" you can't say they "choose the one with the most chance of success" also because it's NOT "the one with the most chance of success" since (using ELEMENTARY LOGIC) a single-segment rocket build a few km. from VAB is (clearly) BETTER than a segmented rocket build thousands miles away, railways dispatched, assembled in Florida, etc. ...my opinion is that NASA was VERY LUCKY to succeed since they have taken VERY MUCH RISKS with the (political obliged) segmented-SRB choice...
.

[Bob B.]

everybody knows (as I've read in dozens comments on the web, you can find googling) that ATK choice was (mainly, but not only, of course) "political"
What choice? The choice of ATK as the SRB contractor for Ares or the choice of ATK (then Morton-Thiokol) as the Shuttle SRB contractor in the 1970s.

[NEOWatcher]

(as I've read in dozens comments on the web, you can find googling) .
Sorry, it's YOUR claim so it's YOUR responsibilty.

since the ATK choice was (mainly) "political"...
The government is Political? Imagine that.

I don't care how good their concept was, if Aerojet didn't have the means to get it done, then no amount of funding from the government would do it. I see it all the time where I work. A project is going downhill or being delayed, and executives throw money at it as a solution. All that does is bring more people and confusion and makes things worse.

And NASA is not alone. Look at history at the Bantam Car Company. They designed an incredible vehicle for the military at the time. They didn't get the contract because they didn't have the production facilities to build enough of them. Willys won the contract and built Bantam's jeep. (and throw some Ford into that too).
And similar stories are repeated over and over, again and again.

Let's say two plumbers came to your house to give an estimate. One gives an estimate of 1100 the other for 1050.

The first has a uniform, well equipped truck, answered your phone call on the first try and put the estimate in writing.
The second is in jeans and Tshirt. Has a couple of bent pipes sticking out the trunk of his car, and it took you 3 days to finally get a hold of him.
Who do you chose? Number 2 because he's less expensive? Most people would not.

[Doodler]

Sorry, it's YOUR claim so it's YOUR responsibilty.

The government is Political? Imagine that.

I don't care how good their concept was, if Aerojet didn't have the means to get it done, then no amount of funding from the government would do it. I see it all the time where I work. A project is going downhill or being delayed, and executives throw money at it as a solution. All that does is bring more people and confusion and makes things worse.

And NASA is not alone. Look at history at the Bantam Car Company. They designed an incredible vehicle for the military at the time. They didn't get the contract because they didn't have the production facilities to build enough of them. Willys won the contract and built Bantam's jeep. (and throw some Ford into that too).
And similar stories are repeated over and over, again and again.

Let's say two plumbers came to your house to give an estimate. One gives an estimate of 1100 the other for 1050.

The first has a uniform, well equipped truck, answered your phone call on the first try and put the estimate in writing.
The second is in jeans and Tshirt. Has a couple of bent pipes sticking out the trunk of his car, and it took you 3 days to finally get a hold of him.
Who do you chose? Number 2 because he's less expensive? Most people would not.

You'd be amazed, and not in a good way.

[NEOWatcher]

You'd be amazed, and not in a good way.
Yep; thus the word "most". :D

[Doodler]

Yep; thus the word "most". :D

Hehe, that's kinda what I was aiming at. I work in a field of competitive bidding, and believe me, I think "most" substantially underestimates the power of the lowest bid. ;)

There are some who break through, and God knows we go to bat for the people who are worth the money they ask for, but it is so rare to see clients actually buy into it.

[gaetanomarano]

What choice? The choice of ATK as the SRB contractor for Ares or the choice of ATK (then Morton-Thiokol) as the Shuttle SRB contractor in the 1970s.
the Astronautix article reports on the Shuttle contract, while, the Ares contract, is mainly aimed to save current factories and jobs
.

[gaetanomarano]

...YOUR claim so it's YOUR responsibilty...
do you've even seen (in every country, field and era) a giant, big, mid, small, very small or microscopical contract paid with public funds but WITHOUT political influence???

...if Aerojet didn't have the means to get it done...
or... maybe... they (simply) have had no "good" lobbyists... ;)

if (in your opinion) this is ATK:

The first has a uniform, well equipped truck, answered your phone call on the first try and put the estimate in writing.

this (in your opinion) is Aerojet:

The second is in jeans and Tshirt. Has a couple of bent pipes sticking out the trunk of his car, and it took you 3 days to finally get a hold of him.


Who do you chose? Number 2 because he's less expensive?
the (segmentedSRB+Utah+travels+assembly) ATK choice for the Shuttles' SRB (clearly) was the MOST COMPLEX rather than (or ALSO) the "most expensive" vs. the (NONsegmented+[nearKSC]Florida+NOtravel+NOassembly) Aerojet choice... then...
.

[Bob B.]

the Astronautix article reports on the Shuttle contract
I don't understand the relevance of the Astronautix article to my question. When you say the ATK contract was politically motivated, do you mean the Ares contract only or do you also mean the original Shuttle SRB contract?


while, the Ares contract, is mainly aimed to save current factories and jobs.
And this is a bad thing?

[gaetanomarano]

I don't understand the relevance of the Astronautix article to my question.
if I've correctly read it... ATK was the only choice despite there was other and (maybe) better options

And this is a bad thing?
no: ...if the current design choice is the best possible
yes: ...if there are (or may be) faster, better, safer and cheaper choices
.

[NEOWatcher]

Originally Posted by NEOWatcher http://www.bautforum.com/images/buttons/viewpost.gif (http://www.bautforum.com/showthread.php?p=917197#post917197)
...YOUR claim so it's YOUR responsibilty...
do you've even seen (in every country, field and era) a giant, big, mid, small, very small or microscopical contract paid with public funds but WITHOUT political influence???

I DIDN'T SAY THAT... My point was that you made a claim, it is up to you to back it up. Yes, I FEEL there is SOME political influence, but I am not speaking for anyone else but myself. Since you are making claims for others, you should show us an example.

If you had understood the tone of all my posts, cost and speed is not the only factors involved in NASA decisions, although they are important considerations.

NASA is not Business, NASA is part of government. Government is mostly interested in keeping the economy going, keeping people employed, and keeping technology within it's borders. NASA is one way to do it while still providing other benefits for mankind.

[gaetanomarano]

...you should show us an example...
it's my opinion about some bad choices (and I'm not alone thinking that) but I can't give you any evidence (since no one can give it)

...Government is mostly interested in keeping the economy going, keeping people employed, and keeping technology within it's borders...
I don't suggest to assign contracts to foreign companies ...all companies can be american... but (if I understand something of the US politics) every State (and its companies) has its own (different) "weight" and influence in government's contracts assignation...
.

[Bob B.]

yes: ...if there are (or may be) faster, better, safer and cheaper choices.
What if the other option is only marginally better? Is that worth closing factories and laying off thousands of workers? Sometimes the political decision is the correct one for the greater good. You treat politics like it's a dirty word.

[Bob B.]

if I've correctly read it... ATK was the only choice despite there was other and (maybe) better options
Now or then? I still don't know whether you are talking about the award of the Shuttle SRB contract, the Ares SRB contract, or both.

[NEOWatcher]

it's my opinion about some bad choices (and I'm not alone thinking that) but I can't give you any evidence (since no one can give it)
You have no idea what I am telling you. I know your opinion, and I am not arguing what that opinion is. I am annoyed at the way you are backing it up without any proof.

Your quote was: "(As everybody knows)"
That quote speaks for other people than yourself, so show me who they are.

[gaetanomarano]

What if the other option is only marginally better?
starting from a clean sheet, we can find dozens of better vehicles and architectures
the early "stick" was conceived in 1993 and it was the Griffin's rocket of choice before he become the NASA chief
so, we can't talk of any (largerly nor marginally) "better" vehicles and projects because they (simply) ...don't exist!
.

[gaetanomarano]

Now or then? I still don't know whether you are talking about the award of the Shuttle SRB contract, the Ares SRB contract, or both.
both ...the Shuttles' SRB was not the only (nor the better) choice while, to-day, the Ares' SRB is only a conservative choice
.

[gaetanomarano]

That quote speaks for other people than yourself, so show me who they are.
to post the answer you want I must read again (literally) thousands posts, articles and websites to find them (that, clearly, I can't do)
however, using the "nasa ares I critics" keywords, Google give me 48,700 results...
.

[NEOWatcher]

to post the answer you want I must read again (literally) thousands posts, articles and websites to find them (that, clearly, I can't do)
See? For you to print what "everybody" says, you would have to be able to cite them, and you would have to show that the opposite is not true.

But; If you had just said that you formed an opinion from many articles, referenced any non-editorial source of information to base your opinion, and state it as your own perception of what you have read, then I would have no problem.

[gaetanomarano]

See? For you to print what "everybody" says, you would have to be able to cite them, and you would have to show that the opposite is not true. But; If you had just said that you formed an opinion from many articles, referenced any non-editorial source of information to base your opinion, and state it as your own perception of what you have read, then I would have no problem.
clearly... "official sources" never critics their own companies/agencies... so, when I write "everybody" I can't refer to any "official source" but to all peoples that keep theirself informed (like I do) about space news, programs, press conferences, opinions, interviews, events, critics, rumors, etc.
.