Thank you so much for distilling down the mammoth 700+ page study into more manageable chunks.
As a legendary hater of the ISS, its too bad there's no focus on utilizing such a heavy lift vehicle for a new generation of large space stations deployed with a single launch or rotational artificial gravity space stations that might require three or four HLV launches. Marcel F. Williams
Quote from: hydra9 on 06/25/2010 06:44 pmAs a legendary hater of the ISS, its too bad there's no focus on utilizing such a heavy lift vehicle for a new generation of large space stations deployed with a single launch or rotational artificial gravity space stations that might require three or four HLV launches. Marcel F. WilliamsI'd rather see us focus on beyond-LEO missions rather than spending scarce resources on more of the same.
Quote from: vt_hokie on 06/25/2010 07:46 pmQuote from: hydra9 on 06/25/2010 06:44 pmAs a legendary hater of the ISS, its too bad there's no focus on utilizing such a heavy lift vehicle for a new generation of large space stations deployed with a single launch or rotational artificial gravity space stations that might require three or four HLV launches. Marcel F. WilliamsI'd rather see us focus on beyond-LEO missions rather than spending scarce resources on more of the same.It is interesting, because, if an HLV is developed, you know the press is going to ask this. It sure would look funny having the ISS, being constructed of tiny little pieces as it is, alongside an HLV with such a huge lift capacity that it could produce the equivalent in so few launches. And each being cheaper than an individual Shuttle launch... Isn't it potentially kind of embarrassing for NASA to have such a capable SDHLV?I always wonder about the potential effect of that.- Mike
...ISS construction did not take too long because of small modules but because of shuttle standdowns and delayed hardware. Larger modules do not provide any extra benefit. Larger open volume is just wasted volume.
As a legendary hater of the ISS, its too bad there's no focus on utilizing such a heavy lift vehicle for a new generation of large space stations deployed with a single launch or rotational artificial gravity space stations that might require three or four HLV launches.
Quote from: hydra9 on 06/25/2010 06:44 pmAs a legendary hater of the ISS, its too bad there's no focus on utilizing such a heavy lift vehicle for a new generation of large space stations deployed with a single launch or rotational artificial gravity space stations that might require three or four HLV launches. Bad logic. If we can't full utilize the existing ISS, there is no reason for a larger station or even thinking about the next generation. Anyways, inflatables negate the need for an HLV for a larger station.
The first review to gain mention in the SD HLV presentation was the vehicle’s potential use for logistics transfer of 45 to 65 metric tons – depending on the configuration of the payload flown – to the ISS, a payload to ISS capability that far exceeds any existing vehicle for ISS resupply efforts.
The primary use of any HLV is not ISS but BEO.
QuoteThe first review to gain mention in the SD HLV presentation was the vehicle’s potential use for logistics transfer of 45 to 65 metric tons – depending on the configuration of the payload flown – to the ISS, a payload to ISS capability that far exceeds any existing vehicle for ISS resupply efforts.Why would NASA want such capability?
1. With a heavy lift vehicle, you can actually deploy much larger inflatable space stations. 2. An HLV also allows you to deploy larger space stations beyond LEO at one of the Lagrange points. Such stations would still require significant amounts of mass shielding from galactic radiation possibly from the import of asteroid materials by light sails or water shielding imported from the lunar poles.
We could develop, test, and launch an SDHLV. Then, use a payload adapter to send payloads to ISS.Or, we just use a payload adapter to send payloads to the ISS using the launchers we already have (EELVs).Both are more than capable of providing ISS logistics. Both can also carry crew if we want to. Which will take less time and money?
We are going to be building an HLV. Both the administration and Congress agree on this. There is a debate about what the HLV will look like and when it will be available. They differ in the details such as time frame, and needed R&D. I know people like to debate if we need an HLV or not on this forum but as far as the United States government and NASA are concerned this debate is over. Thats the situation on the ground. Considering that an HLV is going to be built and used anyway for exploration then flying one or two extra missions per year to supply the ISS is cheaper. A separate program to upgrade the EELVs for crew and cargo would be extra. Lets keep in ming that this is not the sole reason or justification for building an HLV yet this is an important benefit we get if we build one anyway.
Or, we just use a payload adapter to send payloads to the ISS using the launchers we already have (EELVs).Both are more than capable of providing ISS logistics. Both can also carry crew if we want to. Which will take less time and money?
But will Nelson, Shelby, Hutchinson continue to run Defense for NASA once NASA has a greatly reduced workforce?Currently Michael Bennett, and Mark Udall of Colorado, nor Jeff Sessions and Richard Shelby have came out strongly to support commercial launch. A post HLV NASA will be a smaller footprint NASA. A smaller footprint NASA represents less votes and contractors to support Senators. Senators who don't get money or votes don't care nearly as much.I support Commercial launch, but Commercial Launch might lead to a downsized NASA budget because of less Senatorial support. I'm not saying to keep HLV because of this, but it might be a side result from the choice of MLV HSF.
In reality, no one is "against" what has been called "commercial". It would be foolish to be. What you are seeing is politics being played that reflect opinions on the state of readiness and how it will work and what the probability of it being successful really are. I firmly believe that if more of a transition was the baseline plan and details of how this "private/public partnership" were known then much of the debate would evaporate.
Quote from: hydra9 on 06/26/2010 07:30 pm1. With a heavy lift vehicle, you can actually deploy much larger inflatable space stations. 2. An HLV also allows you to deploy larger space stations beyond LEO at one of the Lagrange points. Such stations would still require significant amounts of mass shielding from galactic radiation possibly from the import of asteroid materials by light sails or water shielding imported from the lunar poles. 1. why? There is no need for larger2. Why? We have no need for L based stations. Nor do we have the money.
NASA has an $18 billion a year budget. So it does have money. The question is, how should that money be used.
Don't want to take this thread off topic but there is a place where the HLV and the EELV-CLV come together extremely nicely. Go check out the "All-Liquid SDLV options" thread. http://forum.nasaspaceflight.com/index.php?topic=21938.new;topicseen#new
(btw, I just noticed I dont actually know where fuel depots appear in the budget either. Are they not early on?)
This seems very much against what the current administration intends as I understood it. Commercial crew to the ISS an optional extra on top of an assured HLV crew to ISS? I might not be reading you right.What actually is the current administration's commitment to an HLV? I thought they wanted a five year research period focusing just on the propulsion before committing to anything. People have been saying we just don't need this period, the choices will be the same (but fewer). I interpreted this as a move to delay HLV until Commercial crew and cargo were established, and we knew more about Fuel Depots.What am I missing?(btw, I just noticed I dont actually know where fuel depots appear in the budget either. Are they not early on?)
I think the best idea is to build the biggest rocket possible for maximum viewer enjoyment.
Quote from: hydra9 on 06/27/2010 01:00 amNASA has an $18 billion a year budget. So it does have money. The question is, how should that money be used. And all of the existing money is spoken for and that is not going to change. The sooner that you learn this, the sooner you will stop your meaningless points. Large payloads would take too large of a portion of the existing budget. That is one of the reason CxP failed.
1. It is not spoken for until Congress decides what it wants to fund. 2The Ares I/V architecture is probably dead. And the politically unsustainable Obama plan is probably also dead. 3. Right now, it looks like Congress is going to endorse the immediate development of an HLV. And even the Obama administration claims that they also want to build an HLV-- eventually.