Ye Olde Rocket Forum

Go Back   Ye Olde Rocket Forum > Weather-Cocked > FreeForAll
User Name
Password
Auctions Register FAQ Members List Calendar Today's Posts Search Mark Forums Read


Reply
 
Thread Tools Search this Thread Display Modes
  #11  
Old 11-20-2017, 02:21 AM
blackshire's Avatar
blackshire blackshire is offline
Master Modeler
 
Join Date: Jan 2009
Location: Fairbanks, Alaska
Posts: 5,203
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by frognbuff
You can talk all day about "historic significance" (and I KNOW you will), but the company forced to make real business decisions is ULA, not Boeing. That's why I brought it up. Sentimentality and history don't factor in. You can pump up the "street cred" of your unnamed LtCol all day long - but he doesn't know the cost of things like AJ-27 engines (which I still believe is an integral part of your "Delta Lite" concept). Therefore, he is (at best) guessing at what his "cheap" LV would really cost.

The economic reality of today's launch market is the Air Force's minimal need for relatively small spacelift can be met by the Minotaur family. NASA, as a Government organization, can also use the Minotaur family. The wonderful gap filled by Delta II will probably be filled by Falcon 9 and Atlas V with huge lift margins.

Ten years from now we can all look back and see if the folks calling for more, smaller satellites win the day or if we continue to build bigger SVs. Then we can all "Monday Morning Quarterback" the demise of the Delta II. We'll either say "sad, but necessary," or "man, I wish we had it now!!" Only time will tell.
Marketing experience and analysis have shown that company names--as well as product names--*do* make a difference, which can be positive or negative. Also, history has shown--the events of 1986, in particular, provide a poignant example--that having multiple launch vehicles, especially for military spacecraft, is a good idea, despite the higher costs. As well:

Actually, he does know the costs of the AJ-27 and other current and historic engines, and he thought this launch vehicle concept should be examined by those in the USAF who make the analyses and the procurement decisions. (There is also no immutable reason why the AJ-27's production cost cannot be reduced [including by simplifying it and reducing its parts count], with today's new manufacturing technologies such as 3D printing, which is already being used to produce rocket engines.) That doesn't mean that the "Delta II-Lite" will be built, of course, but progress doesn't occur if new ideas are not considered. In this connection (examining new ideas, that is):

During the X-43 program I was the volunteer range historian for the Poker Flat Research Range (PFRR), and I contacted the NASA Dryden Flight Research Center--now re-named the Armstrong Flight Research Center--with a suggestion. The X-43 scramjet test vehicles had no recovery systems (mass, complexity, the available onboard volume, or budget limitations [or several or even all four of these factors] resulted in that), and I asked them if they would like to recover the vehicles, even in damaged condition, for physical post-flight examination; they said "Yes." I then suggested that flying the X-43 vehicles over PFRR (which is well-instrumented, both at the launch site and downrange) could facilitate recovery, by landing the vehicles on snow, tundra, or (during the warm months) shallow lakes downrange, and:

They were so interested in this possibility that the X-43 project managers came up here and met with the range personnel, including myself. This option was ultimately not proceeded with (the cost of re-locating here for the missions, since they'd already set up everything at the Pacific Missile Range for mission support, was the major factor). But this operation was not a waste, because they had never even *thought* of flying hypersonic test vehicles up here, an option which they would keep in mind for future programs, and they thanked me for making them aware of this possibility. At the time, follow-on X-43-type test vehicles were planned (these were subsequently cancelled), and Poker Flat was one of the ranges that would be considered for supporting their missions. Since NASA's funding and priorities wax, wane, wax again, and change over time, such hypersonic flight test programs may become "a hot item" again, and Poker Flat may support such missions in the future. In addition:

Recently I made a suggestion to the U.S. Geological Survey Astrogeology Science Center concerning their photo-mapping techniques related to spacecraft camera and instrument targeting for examining irregular bodies, such as asteroids and comets. They utilize rectangular "photo-boxes," with each face being a two-dimensional image of the body as seen from its "front," "rear," "top," "bottom," and "left side" and "right side," which they use to visualize its shape. I suggested--to someone there with whom I correspond--that they could use stereo-pair photographs for each face of the box, so that they could visualize the surface site targeting in 3D. He asked for my permission--which I gratefully gave--to pass my idea (with acknowledgement to me as the source of it) along to the relevant USGS imaging and mapping scientists because they had not thought of doing such a thing, even though most spacecraft missions take enough images from different angles to produce usable stereo-pair photographs. Now:

I did not recount these occurrences to brag, but simply to illustrate that new ideas should be put forward to be examined and considered by those who could benefit from them. Sometimes the ideas will be workable and beneficial, sometimes they will not; but *not* suggesting them at all will not lead to progress (which sometimes even occurs when it is discovered *why* an unworkable idea is unworkable).
__________________
Black Shire--Draft horse in human form, model rocketeer, occasional mystic, and writer, see:
http://www.lulu.com/content/paperba...an-form/8075185
http://www.lulu.com/product/cd/what...of-2%29/6122050
http://www.lulu.com/product/cd/what...of-2%29/6126511
All of my book proceeds go to the Northcote Heavy Horse Centre www.northcotehorses.com.
NAR #54895 SR

Last edited by blackshire : 11-20-2017 at 02:26 AM. Reason: I had written the clauses in one sentence in the incorrect order.
Reply With Quote
  #12  
Old 11-20-2017, 08:52 AM
jetlag jetlag is offline
Old BAR
 
Join Date: Aug 2006
Posts: 2,007
Default

The British used this stereo imaging technique during WWII. Intelligence personnel were stationed at Bletchley Park (sp?). The intelligence officer would bend over the reconnaissance photos usually taken by a specially equipped Spitfire. He would examine the photos through special optical glasses to view the image in 3D.
Much easier to discern axis hardware this way.
Allen
Reply With Quote
  #13  
Old 11-20-2017, 07:21 PM
blackshire's Avatar
blackshire blackshire is offline
Master Modeler
 
Join Date: Jan 2009
Location: Fairbanks, Alaska
Posts: 5,203
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by jetlag
The British used this stereo imaging technique during WWII. Intelligence personnel were stationed at Bletchley Park (sp?). The intelligence officer would bend over the reconnaissance photos usually taken by a specially equipped Spitfire. He would examine the photos through special optical glasses to view the image in 3D.
Much easier to discern axis hardware this way.
Allen
Ah--those Spitfires sound like the RF-101 Voodoo reconnaissance aircraft, which screamed overhead at low altitude to photograph their targets (they were used during the Cuban Missile Crisis, and some flew so low that their shadows were clearly visible in the pictures). I hadn't known that (thank you for posting this information!), but I'm not surprised, and it makes perfect sense, and:

I've seen, in books (in 2D, of course), British reconnaissance photographs of the Peenemünde facility, with V-2 missiles standing on their launching tables; viewing those scenes in stereo, I'm sure that the V-2s (as well as the gantries, vehicles, and buildings) stood out like so many sore thumbs! Also, 3D stereo viewers--which were very popular in the late 1800s and early 1900s (a late friend of mine had a vintage one and several vintage stereo picture cards, and he also took his own stereo photographs to view through it)--would have been quite familiar to the Bletchley Park personnel (yes, you spelled it correctly). In addition:

The slight settling of the U.S.S.R.'s Luna 9 (the first spacecraft to successfully soft-land on the Moon) after its first television transmission session provided an unexpected opportunity to take stereo pictures, which enabled Soviet and U.S. scientists to measure the sizes of the rocks and the grains of lunar regolith close to the lander. The Viking Mars landers also (intentionally) took stereo pictures of their surroundings; I have a large-format ("coffee table book"-size) NASA book that contains several stereo-pair Viking lander images, and it came with a folding stereo viewer made of thick cardboard, which contains two plastic lenses; it came in an envelope-like sleeve glued inside the book's back cover.
__________________
Black Shire--Draft horse in human form, model rocketeer, occasional mystic, and writer, see:
http://www.lulu.com/content/paperba...an-form/8075185
http://www.lulu.com/product/cd/what...of-2%29/6122050
http://www.lulu.com/product/cd/what...of-2%29/6126511
All of my book proceeds go to the Northcote Heavy Horse Centre www.northcotehorses.com.
NAR #54895 SR

Last edited by blackshire : 11-20-2017 at 07:42 PM.
Reply With Quote
  #14  
Old 11-20-2017, 07:31 PM
blackshire's Avatar
blackshire blackshire is offline
Master Modeler
 
Join Date: Jan 2009
Location: Fairbanks, Alaska
Posts: 5,203
Default

I tried to post this early this morning, but YORF wouldn’t open then (a prompt said that there was a database error). The penultimate Delta II flew perfectly, scoring its 99th success in a row (hopefully its final launch, next year, will make that an even 100)! Video coverage included the vehicle's build-up on the launch pad, the countdown and launch, and--from a camera on the second stage--the separation of the JPSS 1 satellite (which is working perfectly, as are the CubeSats that were deployed afterward). Below are links to an article, photos, and video coverage of the flight:

Article: http://spaceflightnow.com/2017/11/1...ther-satellite/

JPSS 1 satellite pre-launch preparation photos: http://spaceflightnow.com/2017/11/1...-encapsulation/

Launch video: http://spaceflightnow.com/2017/11/1...delta-2-rocket/

Delta II assembly, preparation, launch, and JPSS 1 separation video: www.youtube.com/watch?v=bcDqPXB_ELo (launch is at ~30:00, JPSS 1 separation at ~1:27)

Live coverage page with countdown events: http://spaceflightnow.com/2017/11/1...-status-center/

I hope this material will be helpful.
__________________
Black Shire--Draft horse in human form, model rocketeer, occasional mystic, and writer, see:
http://www.lulu.com/content/paperba...an-form/8075185
http://www.lulu.com/product/cd/what...of-2%29/6122050
http://www.lulu.com/product/cd/what...of-2%29/6126511
All of my book proceeds go to the Northcote Heavy Horse Centre www.northcotehorses.com.
NAR #54895 SR
Reply With Quote
  #15  
Old 11-20-2017, 09:37 PM
frognbuff frognbuff is offline
Aggressor Aerospace
 
Join Date: Oct 2012
Location: Colorado Springs, CO
Posts: 208
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by blackshire
Marketing experience and analysis have shown that company names--as well as product names--*do* make a difference, which can be positive or negative. Also, history has shown--the events of 1986, in particular, provide a poignant example--that having multiple launch vehicles, especially for military spacecraft, is a good idea, despite the higher costs. As well:

Actually, he does know the costs of the AJ-27 and other current and historic engines, and he thought this launch vehicle concept should be examined by those in the USAF who make the analyses and the procurement decisions. (There is also no immutable reason why the AJ-27's production cost cannot be reduced [including by simplifying it and reducing its parts count], with today's new manufacturing technologies such as 3D printing, which is already being used to produce rocket engines.) That doesn't mean that the "Delta II-Lite" will be built, of course, but progress doesn't occur if new ideas are not considered. In this connection (examining new ideas, that is):

During the X-43 program I was the volunteer range historian for the Poker Flat Research Range (PFRR), and I contacted the NASA Dryden Flight Research Center--now re-named the Armstrong Flight Research Center--with a suggestion. The X-43 scramjet test vehicles had no recovery systems (mass, complexity, the available onboard volume, or budget limitations [or several or even all four of these factors] resulted in that), and I asked them if they would like to recover the vehicles, even in damaged condition, for physical post-flight examination; they said "Yes." I then suggested that flying the X-43 vehicles over PFRR (which is well-instrumented, both at the launch site and downrange) could facilitate recovery, by landing the vehicles on snow, tundra, or (during the warm months) shallow lakes downrange, and:

They were so interested in this possibility that the X-43 project managers came up here and met with the range personnel, including myself. This option was ultimately not proceeded with (the cost of re-locating here for the missions, since they'd already set up everything at the Pacific Missile Range for mission support, was the major factor). But this operation was not a waste, because they had never even *thought* of flying hypersonic test vehicles up here, an option which they would keep in mind for future programs, and they thanked me for making them aware of this possibility. At the time, follow-on X-43-type test vehicles were planned (these were subsequently cancelled), and Poker Flat was one of the ranges that would be considered for supporting their missions. Since NASA's funding and priorities wax, wane, wax again, and change over time, such hypersonic flight test programs may become "a hot item" again, and Poker Flat may support such missions in the future. In addition:

Recently I made a suggestion to the U.S. Geological Survey Astrogeology Science Center concerning their photo-mapping techniques related to spacecraft camera and instrument targeting for examining irregular bodies, such as asteroids and comets. They utilize rectangular "photo-boxes," with each face being a two-dimensional image of the body as seen from its "front," "rear," "top," "bottom," and "left side" and "right side," which they use to visualize its shape. I suggested--to someone there with whom I correspond--that they could use stereo-pair photographs for each face of the box, so that they could visualize the surface site targeting in 3D. He asked for my permission--which I gratefully gave--to pass my idea (with acknowledgement to me as the source of it) along to the relevant USGS imaging and mapping scientists because they had not thought of doing such a thing, even though most spacecraft missions take enough images from different angles to produce usable stereo-pair photographs. Now:

I did not recount these occurrences to brag, but simply to illustrate that new ideas should be put forward to be examined and considered by those who could benefit from them. Sometimes the ideas will be workable and beneficial, sometimes they will not; but *not* suggesting them at all will not lead to progress (which sometimes even occurs when it is discovered *why* an unworkable idea is unworkable).


What does that "branding" stuff have to do with anything? You like Boeing over ULA? Fantastic. It means nothing. ULA owns the rocket, Boeing does not.

I'm sorry, but NO, your friend does not know the cost of an AJ-27 engine today. Only an employee of Aerojet Rocketdyne would know for sure - and getting a cost proposal would require definition of things such as the lot size being purchased. Bulk purchasing isn't just for Costco and Sam's Club! Your friend may have had a snapshot in time, but there's a reason that type of information has an "as of" date. The older his information is, the less reliable it is, and not just due to inflation.

As for "putting ideas forward," do you REALLY think you or your friend are the only ones who have considered these ideas? NOBODY else has ever tried to simplify a design? By even implying that, you spit in the eyes of people who build rockets for a living. Improvements - including in 3D printing to reduce part count and complexity - ARE being made, but they're being made on engines that are still in demand. Look for Aerojet Rocketdyne press releases on the subject.

As I tried to explain, the main driver behind the demise of Delta II is the Air Force EELV contract. The System Performance Requirements Document (SPRD) contains "reference missions" which EELV entrants are supposed to be able to perform. The Delta II doesn't do any of these missions. The best NASA could do for Delta II is issue an IDIQ contract (indefinite delivery, indefinite quantity). Sadly, for those who have to make business decisions (even decisions for companies with yucky names), this is a terrible contract type, as you have to guess how many rockets are needed. Guess too low (and build too few) and your cost per rocket goes way up - which can in turn limit the number purchased.. Guess to high and buy too many parts and you can get left holding the proverbial bag.

At least we can agree we hope to see Delta II go out on top, which a successful launch of ICESAT.
Reply With Quote
  #16  
Old 11-20-2017, 10:54 PM
blackshire's Avatar
blackshire blackshire is offline
Master Modeler
 
Join Date: Jan 2009
Location: Fairbanks, Alaska
Posts: 5,203
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by frognbuff
What does that "branding" stuff have to do with anything? You like Boeing over ULA? Fantastic. It means nothing. ULA owns the rocket, Boeing does not.

I'm sorry, but NO, your friend does not know the cost of an AJ-27 engine today. Only an employee of Aerojet Rocketdyne would know for sure - and getting a cost proposal would require definition of things such as the lot size being purchased. Bulk purchasing isn't just for Costco and Sam's Club! Your friend may have had a snapshot in time, but there's a reason that type of information has an "as of" date. The older his information is, the less reliable it is, and not just due to inflation.

As for "putting ideas forward," do you REALLY think you or your friend are the only ones who have considered these ideas? NOBODY else has ever tried to simplify a design? By even implying that, you spit in the eyes of people who build rockets for a living. Improvements - including in 3D printing to reduce part count and complexity - ARE being made, but they're being made on engines that are still in demand. Look for Aerojet Rocketdyne press releases on the subject.

As I tried to explain, the main driver behind the demise of Delta II is the Air Force EELV contract. The System Performance Requirements Document (SPRD) contains "reference missions" which EELV entrants are supposed to be able to perform. The Delta II doesn't do any of these missions. The best NASA could do for Delta II is issue an IDIQ contract (indefinite delivery, indefinite quantity). Sadly, for those who have to make business decisions (even decisions for companies with yucky names), this is a terrible contract type, as you have to guess how many rockets are needed. Guess too low (and build too few) and your cost per rocket goes way up - which can in turn limit the number purchased.. Guess to high and buy too many parts and you can get left holding the proverbial bag.

At least we can agree we hope to see Delta II go out on top, which a successful launch of ICESAT.
I don't take too kindly to being called a liar, and I'm sick of your negative attitude, your constant pedantic nit-picking, and your pathological need to one-up everyone here. You have done these things to others here as well, and they didn't provoke it or deserve it, either. But don't change a hair; keep acting the way you've been acting; keep insulting and belittling others.

One day it will boomerang back on you. If you're lucky, you just won't advance in your career as you expect, and you'll wonder why. If you're not so lucky, you'll offend the wrong person, someone with less inhibition than you surmise, and a bloody nose--or worse--will be your just reward. In the excessively unlikely event that I was there to see it (I wouldn't particularly want to), I wouldn't lift a finger to help you.
__________________
Black Shire--Draft horse in human form, model rocketeer, occasional mystic, and writer, see:
http://www.lulu.com/content/paperba...an-form/8075185
http://www.lulu.com/product/cd/what...of-2%29/6122050
http://www.lulu.com/product/cd/what...of-2%29/6126511
All of my book proceeds go to the Northcote Heavy Horse Centre www.northcotehorses.com.
NAR #54895 SR
Reply With Quote
  #17  
Old 11-20-2017, 11:19 PM
frognbuff frognbuff is offline
Aggressor Aerospace
 
Join Date: Oct 2012
Location: Colorado Springs, CO
Posts: 208
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by blackshire
I don't take too kindly to being called a liar, and I'm sick of your negative attitude, your constant pedantic nit-picking, and your pathological need to one-up everyone here. You have done these things to others here as well, and they didn't provoke it or deserve it, either. But don't change a hair; keep acting the way you've been acting; keep insulting and belittling others.

One day it will boomerang back on you. If you're lucky, you just won't advance in your career as you expect, and you'll wonder why. If you're not so lucky, you'll offend the wrong person, someone with less inhibition than you surmise, and a bloody nose--or worse--will be your just reward. In the excessively unlikely event that I was there to see it (I wouldn't particularly want to), I wouldn't lift a finger to help you.


Nobody called you a liar. I'm saying you're putting faith in data that can't be proven to be correct - data that are most likely old. Costs are very fluid.

As for being pedantic or nit-picky, that is one heckuva case of the pot calling the kettle black. I was trying to give you background on programs like EELV. I've been fortunate to have unique insight into that world. I had no idea it would upset you so completely.

If I've upset anybody else, they should be the ones letting me know, not you. You are not the YORF "feelings police." We've all been rubbed the wrong way at one time or another. Stated another way - lighten WAY up.
Reply With Quote
Reply


Thread Tools Search this Thread
Search this Thread:

Advanced Search
Display Modes

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

vB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off
Forum Jump



All times are GMT -5. The time now is 11:41 AM.


Powered by: vBulletin Version 3.0.7
Copyright ©2000 - 2017, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.
Ye Olde Rocket Shoppe © 1998-2017