Well, the "safe, simple, soon" launch vehicle doesn't seem to be as simple or soon as advertised. I'm shocked, shocked, I tell you.

Whether or not it's safe remains to be seen.

[Update on Thursday morning]

Chair Force Engineer has some further uncharitable thoughts:

It would be wise to ask the engineers behind the Exploration Systems Architecture Study, Was "The Stick" really better than Delta & Atlas, or did you just do what Scott Horowitz told you to do?

[Another update on Thursday afternoon]

Jon Goff isn't impressed, either.

"whether its safe remains to be seen" : well, even that is doubtful. to establish its safety for example at 98% success rate, you'd have to launch it a hundred times .. how long is this going to take ?
im pretty sure the we will never actually see how safe it is, because if it ever gets off the ground at all, theres very high probability of it becoming obsolete before reaching statistically significant number of launches

"Sources report problems have been encountered in designing an expendable version (RS–25) of the current SSME."

So, after decades of problems making the SSME reusable, now they're having trouble making it non-reusable? :-)

The trouble appears to be making the SSME into an 'air startable' engine.

Seems the want to go to a 5 segment SRB and increase the thrust and mass of the 1st stage so the can decrease the mass of the second and get by with a J2S. Apparently the 4 segemnt SRB puts too much burden onto the second stage for the J2S to shoulder it.

While being a bigger development bite up front, at least that way they are not pitching a uber expensive SSME every flight and that will hopefully make things a bit cheaper in the long run.

Plus, they are going to have to go with the 5 segment SRB's for the CDV anyway later.

At least they got away from the er er er of better faster cheaper. The sss slogan sounds sexier. Maybe it's time to add "between the sheets" to the end of NASA slogans, like I do with cookie fortunes.

> at least that way they are not pitching a uber expensive SSME every flight

At least, until they run out of J-2s and have to pay Rocketdyne to build an uber expensive plug-compatible replacement.

Unless they're counting on the program ending before they use that many.

Can't we just go back to the Saturn 1B? It was much prettier, for one thing...

Seems to me that Keiths' article is a bit skimpy on facts and specifics for everyone to start crying the sky is falling quite yet.

And did anyone really expect that there would not eve be "some problems"? That would be a bit naive.

It's not like Keith is noted for crying wolf about NASA hardware problems.

But, yeah, saying 'there's trouble,' without specifying what it is and then spending all the info of the article on alternatives reads a bit like the NYT.

I think a partner, while happy about the safe, would not be satisified with simple and soon "between the sheets".

Good comments otherwise.

same with 'better'

Chairforce Engineer doesn't post comments and doesn't list a contact email, so there's no way to tell him that Scott Horowitz no longer heads up ATK human flight systems -- he's now the director of Exploration Systems Directorate.

I do wonder, however--why wasn't an RS-68 considered? Since it's going to be started out of the atmosphere, a skirt extension could reasonably improve the Isp to be competitive with SSME--and the price is unbeatable.

cuddihy: I was wondering that myself. Perhaps the RS-68's thrust (which is nearly 50% higher than the SSME's in vacuum) is too high? RS-68 can be throttled, but then so can the SSME; I'm wondering if an acceleration limit near burnout would require the RS-68 to throttle too deeply.

I think it's a little too early to be criticizing here. Rockets are difficult things to get right; let's not make them afraid of blowing stuff up in early development, otherwise that'll make matters worse and create an arse-covering environment in which even more bureaucracy flourishes.

Stick, shaft... I can see where this is all going. Next they'll need a plug nozzle to boost performance or something.

"> at least that way they are not pitching a uber expensive SSME every flight

At least, until they run out of J-2s and have to pay Rocketdyne to build an uber expensive plug-compatible replacement.

Unless they're counting on the program ending before they use that many. "

They are going to be comitting to the J2S anyway for the Earth Departure Stage of Heavy Lifter so this is not anything extra from that perspective.

Just means they are going to have to move up the 5 segment SRB and J2S development a bit sooner than planned.

A wee bit more info here:

http://www.space.com/news/060120_cev_overhaul.html

Doesn't sound quite so bad as some would have us to believe.

You know, the way the new article is phrased, it looks like NASA is actually getting some of the message: they may have dropped the methane requirement, but it's now left up to the individual contracter, not a NASA-mandated hydrazine solution. In addition, the CEV size requirement has been reduced some(the excessive size has seen a lot of comment here and at sci.space.policy).

The article doesn't mention any increased timeline for the 5-segment RSRM though.

Just goes to show that certain parties might want to wait before jumping to conclusions. This development may actually be a net plus for the project, if it saves operational costs in the long run.

> Doesn't sound quite so bad as some would have us to believe.

No worse than a dozen other attempts NASA has made to replace the Shuttle, all of which you forgive and forget.

I can only imagine how much hay Griffin would make if a private company had these problems. It would be more "proof" that private enterprise cannot be trusted with anything "in the critical path."

NASA seems to be the living embodiment of Kennedy liberalism, where big government is seen as the solution to every problem.

"No worse than a dozen other attempts NASA has made to replace the Shuttle, all of which you forgive and forget."

Yaaaaawn..... you have no idea what I forgive and forget.. whoever you are.

> Yaaaaawn..... you have no idea what I forgive and forget.. whoever you are.

How original. Didn't Mark Whittington just use that line?

If readers "have no idea" what you think, that's a harsh indictment of your writing ability.

Anyone who reads your posts knows that you never critiicize NASA's past or present failures. Instead, you tear down private enterprise -- a "radical idea" that has "accomplished nothing" according to you.

Nothing, apart from little things like producing the first manned spacecraft in 25 years for only $25 million.

I know, you diss SpaceShip One because it's "only" suborbital. Yet, not too long ago, NASA spent over $100 million trying to build a suborbital vehicle and failed. The contractor for the project was OSC. The chief technologist for the contractor was Dr. Mike Griffin. Yet, you still cling to the old belief that big government is the solution to every problem.

Ohhh...... Hi Ed!