Author Topic: SD HLV Review Outlines ISS Logistics and Transport  (Read 20302 times)

Offline Chris Bergin

Part 2 on the 726 page SD HLV final assessment presentation (L2):

SD HLV Review Outlines ISS Logistics and Transport - by Chris Gebhardt:

http://www.nasaspaceflight.com/2010/06/sd-hlv-review-iss-transport-reliability-of-design/


----

Part 1:

http://www.nasaspaceflight.com/2010/06/sd-hlv-assessment-highlights-post-shuttle-solution/ - by me :)


Part 3 - next week.
« Last Edit: 06/24/2010 11:22 pm by Chris Bergin »
Support NSF via L2 -- Help improve NSF -- Site Rules/Feedback/Updates
**Not a L2 member? Whitelist this forum in your adblocker to support the site and ensure full functionality.**

Offline neilh

  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 2365
  • Pasadena, CA
  • Liked: 46
  • Likes Given: 149
Thank you so much for distilling down the mammoth 700+ page study into more manageable chunks. ;)
Someone is wrong on the Internet.
http://xkcd.com/386/

Offline DaveJSC

  • Full Member
  • ***
  • Posts: 399
  • ISS FCR. Former Shuttle FCR
  • Liked: 1341
  • Likes Given: 18
Thank you so much for distilling down the mammoth 700+ page study into more manageable chunks. ;)

Agree and it's doing it justice.  Very impressed by the work conducted on the assessment.

Offline David AF

  • F-22 Raptor Instructor / Fighter Pilot
  • Full Member
  • ****
  • Posts: 824
  • Liked: 16
  • Likes Given: 0
Two MPLMs. How many CRS vehicles would it take to achieve that amount of upmass?
F-22 Raptor instructor

Offline hydra9

  • Full Member
  • ***
  • Posts: 349
  • Liked: 16
  • Likes Given: 6
Re: SD HLV Review Outlines ISS Logistics and Transport
« Reply #4 on: 06/25/2010 06:44 pm »
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

Offline vt_hokie

  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 3054
  • Hazlet, NJ
  • Liked: 118
  • Likes Given: 436
Re: SD HLV Review Outlines ISS Logistics and Transport
« Reply #5 on: 06/25/2010 07:46 pm »
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

I'd rather see us focus on beyond-LEO missions rather than spending scarce resources on more of the same.

Offline Michael Bloxham

  • Regular
  • Full Member
  • ****
  • Posts: 645
  • Auckland, New Zealand
  • Liked: 10
  • Likes Given: 20
Re: SD HLV Review Outlines ISS Logistics and Transport
« Reply #6 on: 06/25/2010 08:00 pm »
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

I'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

Offline Downix

  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 7082
  • Liked: 22
  • Likes Given: 1
Re: SD HLV Review Outlines ISS Logistics and Transport
« Reply #7 on: 06/25/2010 08:05 pm »
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

I'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
Easiest solution, build a gigantic CAM module and have the HLV lift it up.  "NASA took our experience with the ISS to learn what we need and don't need in a lift vehicle.  We now have greatly expanded the ISS's capability with a single lift, verses the dozens we previously needed.  Now we can show for the world the real strength of American Engineering."
chuck - Toilet paper has no real value? Try living with 5 other adults for 6 months in a can with no toilet paper. Man oh man. Toilet paper would be worth it's weight in gold!

Offline Robotbeat

  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 39271
  • Minnesota
  • Liked: 25240
  • Likes Given: 12115
Re: SD HLV Review Outlines ISS Logistics and Transport
« Reply #8 on: 06/25/2010 08:06 pm »
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

I'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
That's silly. Why do people always think the launcher is the most expensive part? Payloads are NOT free!
EDIT:The cynical part of me would say that those who imply the launcher is the most important/expensive part (and thus we somehow need an uber-HLV) are going to CAUSE the launcher to be the most expensive part by starting development of a new launch vehicle which will be far underutilized, and thus be more expensive than the payloads we can afford to launch on it.

Jim has a mythbuster thread on this very topic:
http://forum.nasaspaceflight.com/index.php?topic=22021.0
...
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.
« Last Edit: 06/25/2010 08:13 pm by Robotbeat »
Chris  Whoever loves correction loves knowledge, but he who hates reproof is stupid.

To the maximum extent practicable, the Federal Government shall plan missions to accommodate the space transportation services capabilities of United States commercial providers. US law http://goo.gl/YZYNt0

Offline clongton

  • Expert
  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 12053
  • Connecticut
    • Direct Launcher
  • Liked: 7348
  • Likes Given: 3749
Re: SD HLV Review Outlines ISS Logistics and Transport
« Reply #9 on: 06/25/2010 08:15 pm »
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

In real estate, if you look around, you will see lots and lots of empty buildings, not for sale, but for LEASE, with the building owner saying they will customize to suit. They purposely built them for that, to lease space and not to sell. It has always been this way, recession or not. And there is usually no end to the companies willing to pay a lease, do their business for a few years and then depart. They do that so they don't have to pay the enormous expense of building the buildings.

We now have a comparable situation wrt space. We have a contractor willing to bear the expense of building the buildings and putting them out for lease; Robert Bigelow. It is a very good business model. If the American, Russian, Japanese or European governments, among others, want to conduct some research, they can simply lease space on one of his stations and stay as long as they like. That way we don't have to bear the expense of creating a space station; just pay the annual lease. THAT frees up tremendous amounts of money to put instead into exploration beyond earth orbit.

The only research funds that I am willing to have NASA spend in space are for things that are directly related to exploration. Everything else is not specifically space-related and the appropriate agencies or NGO's should pay the tab for those, like the National Science Foundation for example. Let them and others like them have a line item in their own budgets to pay for their own research. NASA's charge is Aeronautics and Space. It's hard to see how aeronautics research can be conducted in space so that lets that part out, leaving space. So repeating myself; the only research funds that I am willing to have NASA spend *in space* are for things that are directly related to space exploration in one way or another. NASA can have a line item in its budget to pay the annual lease on one of Bigelow's stations and for the research that it appropriately conducts there.

Even universities from around the world could join together and do the same thing; lease one of his stations and make a "university extension campus" out of it to do some of their research. Many of them are researching things that would benefit greatly from being done in zero-g, especially some of the medical universities.

So no, I do NOT want to see even one thin dime of my tax money go into building another research station. Instead I want to see MY money spent on moving us out into space, away from the earth. That's where I want my money to go, *not* spent on more of the same old LEO financial black holes.

If we need to do research beyond the usable lifespan of ISS, then we should lease a station from Bigelow - *not* build an ISS-2!

Access to the station will be by CCDev spacecraft, bought and paid for the same way you fly from London to New York; buy a round trip ticket. Logistic resupply will be by commercial carriers, with the occasional visit by the NASA HLV when the needed supplies exceed the commercial carrier's capability. That will free NASA to spend its money on exploration, where the HLV will shine. The HLV is not intended for nominal LEO operations. It is intended for exploration, and that's where it will be primarily used.

Having said all that I would support NASA building a station that is specifically designed to facilitate exploration, like a depot or space dock where inbound and outbound spacecraft are refurbished and restocked for their next mission; that kind of thing. Even that kind of a station however could make extensive use of Bigelow's inflatable modules. But I digress.
« Last Edit: 06/25/2010 09:11 pm by clongton »
Chuck - DIRECT co-founder
I started my career on the Saturn-V F-1A engine

Offline Jim

  • Night Gator
  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 37441
  • Cape Canaveral Spaceport
  • Liked: 21451
  • Likes Given: 428
Re: SD HLV Review Outlines ISS Logistics and Transport
« Reply #10 on: 06/25/2010 08:42 pm »
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.


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.

Offline JDCampbell

  • Full Member
  • *
  • Posts: 124
  • Liked: 0
  • Likes Given: 0
Re: SD HLV Review Outlines ISS Logistics and Transport
« Reply #11 on: 06/25/2010 08:58 pm »
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.


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.

Agreed. I think if NASA decides we need a new space/research station, it won't be built in this neighborhood.

 

Offline Chris Bergin

Re: SD HLV Review Outlines ISS Logistics and Transport
« Reply #12 on: 06/25/2010 10:48 pm »
My mistake as I thought I had posted this earlier in the thread, but this article went on with an additional section on reliability numbers.

Immediately after the article was published, an issue with part of the content was flagged by a source. Given we want to be 100 percent accurate (it wasn't an error on Chris G's part) we deleted that section of content from the article, all within minutes. Literally a few hundred people had read the article by that point, but I wanted to note this regardless.

We will ensure the removed section is 100 percent accurate and then publish it with one of the future articles on the SD HLV assessment.
Support NSF via L2 -- Help improve NSF -- Site Rules/Feedback/Updates
**Not a L2 member? Whitelist this forum in your adblocker to support the site and ensure full functionality.**

Offline parham55

Re: SD HLV Review Outlines ISS Logistics and Transport
« Reply #13 on: 06/25/2010 10:56 pm »
Fantastic work Chris.
I see the potential problem with this approach would be finding funding for the payloads.  It won't be any good to have a HLV if we can't afford the payloads. 
I also am left wondering exactly what MUST we launch that MUST use an HLV.  I think it is Jim that says something like 'build it and they will come doesn't work in the rocket world'

Offline Ben the Space Brit

  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 7206
  • A spaceflight fan
  • London, UK
  • Liked: 806
  • Likes Given: 900
Re: SD HLV Review Outlines ISS Logistics and Transport
« Reply #14 on: 06/26/2010 01:09 pm »
I was very impressed by the amount of thought that went into this part of the presentation.  NASA has obviously never been monolithically behind the abandonment of the ISS given the plans shown in this presentation.  I also note, with a certain degree of amazing peopleish glee, the the similarities between JSC's ISS support system and the DIRECT Jupiter/SSPDM system.

It is, speaking with a little historical dispassion, something of a pity that this path was not selected from the outset.  Who knows how much further along the path NASA would be if it had?

Of course, if the Wooden Horse of Troy had foals, horses these days would cost a lot less to keep... :P
"Oops! I left the silly thing in reverse!" - Duck Dodgers

~*~*~*~

The Space Shuttle Program - 1981-2011

The time for words has passed; The time has come to put up or shut up!
DON'T PROPAGANDISE, FLY!!!

Offline khallow

  • Extreme Veteran
  • Full Member
  • ****
  • Posts: 1954
  • Liked: 8
  • Likes Given: 4
Re: SD HLV Review Outlines ISS Logistics and Transport
« Reply #15 on: 06/26/2010 01:59 pm »
Quote
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.

Why would NASA want such capability? In other words, how does this improve the ISS enough to justify doing it over other choices (particularly, service with EELV-class rockets)? As some may recall, I had similar complaints about a Shuttle extension (solely for the purpose of serving the ISS). The capability comes at some cost. In this case, it is the marginal cost of the proposed SD HLV launch (since this vehicle would be used for other purposes than just ISS service) plus a potential cost from not using commercial LVs (in particular, that the commercial US LVs would be a bit more expensive for NASA launches and a bit less competitive globally).
Karl Hallowell

Offline clongton

  • Expert
  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 12053
  • Connecticut
    • Direct Launcher
  • Liked: 7348
  • Likes Given: 3749
Re: SD HLV Review Outlines ISS Logistics and Transport
« Reply #16 on: 06/26/2010 02:49 pm »
The primary use of any HLV is not ISS but BEO.
Chuck - DIRECT co-founder
I started my career on the Saturn-V F-1A engine

Offline Robotbeat

  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 39271
  • Minnesota
  • Liked: 25240
  • Likes Given: 12115
Re: SD HLV Review Outlines ISS Logistics and Transport
« Reply #17 on: 06/26/2010 03:44 pm »
The primary use of any HLV is not ISS but BEO.
But we don't have a lander. The only firm target we can hit without a lander (or MTV) is a NEO. And landers take a while to develop.
Chris  Whoever loves correction loves knowledge, but he who hates reproof is stupid.

To the maximum extent practicable, the Federal Government shall plan missions to accommodate the space transportation services capabilities of United States commercial providers. US law http://goo.gl/YZYNt0

Offline simonth

  • Full Member
  • ****
  • Posts: 472
  • Liked: 0
  • Likes Given: 0
Re: SD HLV Review Outlines ISS Logistics and Transport
« Reply #18 on: 06/26/2010 04:19 pm »
The primary use of any HLV is not ISS but BEO.

Which translates into "any HLV is useless until 2025" if we take NASA's BEO plans at face value.

And I agree, ISS logistics are not and should not be the primary use of any HLV (Super-HLV that is). We have CRS contractors, ATV, HTV and potentially Progress again for ISS logistics.

Offline Ben the Space Brit

  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 7206
  • A spaceflight fan
  • London, UK
  • Liked: 806
  • Likes Given: 900
Re: SD HLV Review Outlines ISS Logistics and Transport
« Reply #19 on: 06/26/2010 04:32 pm »
Quote
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.

Why would NASA want such capability?

Actually, it only needs to fly about the same amount as the shuttle.  After all, what we want is a replacement for shuttle upmass to the ISS until (if) CRS can get the necessary flight rate going.  The fact that the HLV could theoretically carry twice the shuttle's load opens up options for the 2020 and beyond period of ISS utilisation, if the station's structural integrity lasts that long.  Oh, I imagine the fact that it can carry double the shuttle's cargo load may be utilised in time (carry all the engineering spares for that year in one flight rather than two or three).

However, ultimately, it is most likely only to be used to suppliment CRS by delivring unpressurised and outsized cargo (for which there is currently no launch vehicle) as well as maybe carrying experiments in an expendable logistics module for replacement crew members.  It is also likely to be considered a backup for CRS with the option of carrying crew and cargo in one launch rather than two.

I, personally, think that the 2025 BEO timeline is overly pessimistic.  With the enormous developmental overhead of the two Ares rockets gone, I think it is possible to get either a lander or an orbiter operational by 2020.  Remember, there is essentially a five-year built-in pause to the Obama plan.  You are removing this by utilising SD-HLV.


[edit]
Modified last paragraph
« Last Edit: 06/26/2010 04:33 pm by Ben the Space Brit »
"Oops! I left the silly thing in reverse!" - Duck Dodgers

~*~*~*~

The Space Shuttle Program - 1981-2011

The time for words has passed; The time has come to put up or shut up!
DON'T PROPAGANDISE, FLY!!!

Offline clongton

  • Expert
  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 12053
  • Connecticut
    • Direct Launcher
  • Liked: 7348
  • Likes Given: 3749
Re: SD HLV Review Outlines ISS Logistics and Transport
« Reply #20 on: 06/26/2010 04:36 pm »
Remember that even the Aerospace Corp said DIRECT's budget numbers were "in the ballpark" and we had full blown lunar surface missions underway by 2017-2018 using the existing NASA budget. But that was almost a year ago now so slip that to 2018-2019.
Chuck - DIRECT co-founder
I started my career on the Saturn-V F-1A engine

Offline hydra9

  • Full Member
  • ***
  • Posts: 349
  • Liked: 16
  • Likes Given: 6
Re: SD HLV Review Outlines ISS Logistics and Transport
« Reply #21 on: 06/26/2010 07:30 pm »
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.


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.

With a heavy lift vehicle, you can actually deploy much larger inflatable space stations.

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.

Marcel F. Williams

Offline Jim

  • Night Gator
  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 37441
  • Cape Canaveral Spaceport
  • Liked: 21451
  • Likes Given: 428
Re: SD HLV Review Outlines ISS Logistics and Transport
« Reply #22 on: 06/26/2010 07:37 pm »

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.


1.  why?   There is no need for larger

2.  Why?  We have no need for L based stations. Nor do we have the money.



Offline mmeijeri

  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 7772
  • Martijn Meijering
  • NL
  • Liked: 397
  • Likes Given: 822
Re: SD HLV Review Outlines ISS Logistics and Transport
« Reply #23 on: 06/26/2010 07:59 pm »
Nor do we even need an HLV to get sizeable payloads to L1/L2. SDLV concepts typically use EOR anyway, so why not use it with smaller launchers too? With propellant transfer it gets even easier.
Pro-tip: you don't have to be a jerk if someone doesn't agree with your theories

Offline ChrisGebhardt

  • Assistant Managing Editor
  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 7842
  • ad astra scientia
  • ~1 AU
  • Liked: 7877
  • Likes Given: 853
Re: SD HLV Review Outlines ISS Logistics and Transport
« Reply #24 on: 06/26/2010 11:13 pm »
I think we're all forgetting a rather large point here. This is not a "THIS IS WHAT WE'RE GOING TO DO WITH SD HLV" it is a "THIS IS WHAT THE SD HLV IS CAPABLE OF."   

The presentation is an assessment of the SD HLV's abilities... not a road map for what it will do.

Offline Robotbeat

  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 39271
  • Minnesota
  • Liked: 25240
  • Likes Given: 12115
Re: SD HLV Review Outlines ISS Logistics and Transport
« Reply #25 on: 06/26/2010 11:18 pm »
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?
Chris  Whoever loves correction loves knowledge, but he who hates reproof is stupid.

To the maximum extent practicable, the Federal Government shall plan missions to accommodate the space transportation services capabilities of United States commercial providers. US law http://goo.gl/YZYNt0

Offline notsorandom

  • Full Member
  • ****
  • Posts: 1740
  • Ohio
  • Liked: 438
  • Likes Given: 91
Re: SD HLV Review Outlines ISS Logistics and Transport
« Reply #26 on: 06/27/2010 12:03 am »
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.

Offline Namechange User

  • Elite Veteran
  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 7301
  • Liked: 0
  • Likes Given: 0
Re: SD HLV Review Outlines ISS Logistics and Transport
« Reply #27 on: 06/27/2010 12:06 am »
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.

Well said.
Enjoying viewing the forum a little better now by filtering certain users.

Offline SpacexULA

  • Full Member
  • ****
  • Posts: 1756
  • Liked: 53
  • Likes Given: 73
Re: SD HLV Review Outlines ISS Logistics and Transport
« Reply #28 on: 06/27/2010 12:10 am »
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.
No Bucks no Buck Rogers, but at least Flexible path gets you Twiki.

Offline mmeijeri

  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 7772
  • Martijn Meijering
  • NL
  • Liked: 397
  • Likes Given: 822
Re: SD HLV Review Outlines ISS Logistics and Transport
« Reply #29 on: 06/27/2010 12:12 am »
That would force NASA to become efficient if it wants to have any hope of doing manned exploration.
Pro-tip: you don't have to be a jerk if someone doesn't agree with your theories

Offline Namechange User

  • Elite Veteran
  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 7301
  • Liked: 0
  • Likes Given: 0
Re: SD HLV Review Outlines ISS Logistics and Transport
« Reply #30 on: 06/27/2010 12:17 am »

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.
Enjoying viewing the forum a little better now by filtering certain users.

Offline SpacexULA

  • Full Member
  • ****
  • Posts: 1756
  • Liked: 53
  • Likes Given: 73
Re: SD HLV Review Outlines ISS Logistics and Transport
« Reply #31 on: 06/27/2010 12:32 am »
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.

I agree, I don't think anyone is against it, that would be foolish.  But they are not for it because there's very little in it for Congress. 

As far as the transition, I think a lot of people are being intellectually dishonest.  As I see it we have 3 choices, and all of them are not pleasant:

-Go Fy2011 all the way, but accept that it will cause the budget for NASA to drop at a yet to be determined rate because of lack of patronage.

-Extend Shuttle and Build an SDHLV, which requires up front money this year to the tune of a 3 Billion or a 15% increase (which would be higher than anything since Reagan).

-Build SDHLV minus Shuttle extension, and accept that NASA is likely to loose money between the end of Shuttle and the 1st flight of SDHLV, meaning the SDHLV development will get stretched out.  Meaning at some point your SDHLV might suffer the same fate as Ares 1 has.

Only way I see us ever getting a HLV is with Shuttle extension, but I really don't see it getting the funding necessary to extend shuttle and develop HLV.   
« Last Edit: 06/27/2010 12:33 am by SpacexULA »
No Bucks no Buck Rogers, but at least Flexible path gets you Twiki.

Offline hydra9

  • Full Member
  • ***
  • Posts: 349
  • Liked: 16
  • Likes Given: 6
Re: SD HLV Review Outlines ISS Logistics and Transport
« Reply #32 on: 06/27/2010 01:00 am »

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.


1.  why?   There is no need for larger

2.  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.

Marcel F. Williams

Offline mmeijeri

  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 7772
  • Martijn Meijering
  • NL
  • Liked: 397
  • Likes Given: 822
Re: SD HLV Review Outlines ISS Logistics and Transport
« Reply #33 on: 06/27/2010 01:04 am »
I think the best idea is to build the biggest rocket possible for maximum viewer enjoyment.
Pro-tip: you don't have to be a jerk if someone doesn't agree with your theories

Offline Jim

  • Night Gator
  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 37441
  • Cape Canaveral Spaceport
  • Liked: 21451
  • Likes Given: 428
Re: SD HLV Review Outlines ISS Logistics and Transport
« Reply #34 on: 06/27/2010 02:18 am »

NASA 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.
« Last Edit: 06/27/2010 02:20 am by Jim »

Offline clongton

  • Expert
  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 12053
  • Connecticut
    • Direct Launcher
  • Liked: 7348
  • Likes Given: 3749
Re: SD HLV Review Outlines ISS Logistics and Transport
« Reply #35 on: 06/27/2010 02:27 am »
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
Chuck - DIRECT co-founder
I started my career on the Saturn-V F-1A engine

Offline HappyMartian

  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 2713
  • Tap the Moon's water!
  • Asia
  • Liked: 16
  • Likes Given: 2
Re: SHLVD Review Outlines ISS Logistics and Transport
« Reply #36 on: 06/27/2010 04:54 am »
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


I like it! It is nice to read something positive and doable. For now, focusing our efforts on maintaining a robust ISS support capability is a good idea. The LEO and the ISS missions are likely to be mainly what we do for the next ten to thirty years. Such an economical heavy lift launcher would be quite useful in doing those missions well, and also some BEO missions when the opportunities occur.

The future is hard to predict, but inexpensive robust launch capabilities are a great way to maintain and modify the ISS and gain viable options for a wide variety of 'flexible path' missions. Over the last 58 years of my life most things have gotten much better. Progress isn't perfect, but it exists.

Cheers!
"The Moon is the most accessible destination for realizing commercial, exploration and scientific objectives beyond low Earth orbit." - LEAG

Offline KelvinZero

  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 4286
  • Liked: 887
  • Likes Given: 201
Re: SD HLV Review Outlines ISS Logistics and Transport
« Reply #37 on: 06/27/2010 10:34 am »
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.

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?)

Offline Cog_in_the_machine

  • Full Member
  • ****
  • Posts: 1232
  • Liked: 2
  • Likes Given: 0
Re: SD HLV Review Outlines ISS Logistics and Transport
« Reply #38 on: 06/27/2010 10:53 am »
(btw, I just noticed I dont actually know where fuel depots appear in the budget either. Are they not early on?)

The first fuel depot technology demonstrator would be launched in 2015.

Pages 10 and 11- http://www.nasa.gov/pdf/457439main_EEWS_FlagshipTechnologyDemonstrations.pdf
^^ Warning! Contains opinions. ^^ 

Offline notsorandom

  • Full Member
  • ****
  • Posts: 1740
  • Ohio
  • Liked: 438
  • Likes Given: 91
Re: SD HLV Review Outlines ISS Logistics and Transport
« Reply #39 on: 06/27/2010 09:00 pm »
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 might have been able to word that better. The point I was trying to make is that all the various government groups support an HLV. Congress seems to want one sooner using the workforce and components of the Shuttle. The White House wants to decide on one no later then 2015. Bolden himself said he wanted to make a decision and start working on one long before then in his congressional testimony. Even the original FY2011 budget has quite a bit of money set aside specifically for HLV R&D work. No budget or plan is being talked about with out an HLV somewhere in it. The debate over building an HLV has pretty much been settled as far as the government is concerned.

Offline FinalFrontier

  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 4490
  • Space Watcher
  • Liked: 1332
  • Likes Given: 173
Re: SD HLV Review Outlines ISS Logistics and Transport
« Reply #40 on: 06/27/2010 09:48 pm »
I think the best idea is to build the biggest rocket possible for maximum viewer enjoyment.
I hear that :D

If only money grew on trees :( Then I would be an Ares 5 lover.............
3-30-2017: The start of a great future
"Live Long and Prosper"

Offline hydra9

  • Full Member
  • ***
  • Posts: 349
  • Liked: 16
  • Likes Given: 6
Re: SD HLV Review Outlines ISS Logistics and Transport
« Reply #41 on: 06/29/2010 05:36 pm »

NASA 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.

It is not spoken for until Congress decides what it wants to fund. The Ares I/V architecture is probably dead. And the politically unsustainable Obama plan is probably also dead.

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.

There's probably also going to be some public funds to help the private industry development of  space capsules and aerospace planes. I think the Boeing space capsule looks like a sure thing and the Dream Chaser, may also have a chance.

Whether there is going to be an extension of the space shuttle until these vehicles are ready is the only real mystery, IMO.

Marcel F. Williams

Offline Jim

  • Night Gator
  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 37441
  • Cape Canaveral Spaceport
  • Liked: 21451
  • Likes Given: 428
Re: SD HLV Review Outlines ISS Logistics and Transport
« Reply #42 on: 06/29/2010 09:27 pm »

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.

1.  Which proves my point. Congress has spoken for all the NASA money and there isn't enough for the moon

2.  No Ares I/V architecture means the Obama plan is in place

3.  Endorsing does not mean NASA has to do it.

Offline Chris Bergin

Re: SD HLV Review Outlines ISS Logistics and Transport
« Reply #43 on: 10/18/2011 04:10 pm »
Move and bump to the HLV section
Support NSF via L2 -- Help improve NSF -- Site Rules/Feedback/Updates
**Not a L2 member? Whitelist this forum in your adblocker to support the site and ensure full functionality.**

Tags:
 

Advertisement NovaTech
Advertisement Northrop Grumman
Advertisement
Advertisement Margaritaville Beach Resort South Padre Island
Advertisement Brady Kenniston
Advertisement NextSpaceflight
Advertisement Nathan Barker Photography
0