Author Topic: Potential frontrunner option: Option 7; commercial HLV; ISS to 2020; Deep Space  (Read 150226 times)

Offline simon-th

  • Full Member
  • ****
  • Posts: 952
  • Liked: 0
  • Likes Given: 0
According to the latest media articles citing "inside White House sources", the Obama admin leans towards the most fully commercialized option available.

That is Option 7:
 - Destination: Deep Space
 - ISS extension to 2020 (looking at the Sally Charts - maybe even beyond 2020)
 - STS ends in 2011 (maybe 1 flight added)
 - commercial crew to LEO with IOC 2016 - 2.5 billion for commercial crew development
 - Ares I dead; Ares V dead
 - HLV development commercially - potentially Atlas V Phase 2 (see attached chart)
 - however not 3 billion per year more in budget; maximum 1 billion per year more - this means the "technology line-item" will be cut in half; and probably HLV development delayed
 - potential savings: Orion contract maybe axed in favor of commercial crew capsule
 - other potential savings (not likely IMO): private company takes over ISS operations

http://www.hobbyspace.com/nucleus/index.php?itemid=14756

EDIT: actually it's Option 7 - Option 6 is "Deep Space Ares V" - sorry...
« Last Edit: 08/22/2009 09:24 am by simon-th »

Offline Bubbinski

Could this emerging option be why the "dual Orion" asteroid mission was put out there by Lockheed Martin?  So that Orion could stay alive for consideration? 

If they do go for the "deep space" option and give NASA orders to go to asteroids, when would the architecture be developed and outlined for this?  Would the results of the architecture development or the initial COTS-D flights be the decision point for killing Orion or saving it?
I'll even excitedly look forward to "flags and footprints" and suborbital missions. Just fly...somewhere.

Offline DLR

  • Full Member
  • ****
  • Posts: 497
  • Liked: 20
  • Likes Given: 0
Wouldn't this mean "goodbye" to the 15,000 strong Shuttle standing army employed by NASA, with no Shuttle extension and no other in-house space launch programme on the horizon?

I would like that to happen, since it would free up a lot of funding to go into mission planning as well as technology development, but would Congress tolerate such a reduction in workforce?


Offline Bubbinski

Good question, if they decide Shuttle goes bye bye in 2011 and they don't develop Direct or not Shuttle C, or Ares V, and instead lean on the commercial sector for a heavy lifter, what does happen to that workforce?  I would think it would be gone.

I imagine that the FL congressional delegation would have a lot to say about that.  And as I recall, Florida is a highly important "swing state" where the difference between winning and losing the Presidential electoral vote is very slim.  I have to think that would factor into any decisions made regarding NASA.
I'll even excitedly look forward to "flags and footprints" and suborbital missions. Just fly...somewhere.

Offline simon-th

  • Full Member
  • ****
  • Posts: 952
  • Liked: 0
  • Likes Given: 0
Wouldn't this mean "goodbye" to the 15,000 strong Shuttle standing army employed by NASA, with no Shuttle extension and no other in-house space launch programme on the horizon?



It's actually not 15,000. Sure, if you factor in contractors, yes. But  contractors have already started to lay off people - and considering that STS was planned to be phased out in 2010/2011 in any event, it's not a surprise to anyone anymore that jobs are lost in the near and mid-term.

In any event, if e.g. the HLV selected is a heavy version of an EELV launching from KSC, while employees currently working on Shuttle are "phased out", you get a whole program "phased in" which is centered around launches from KSC. While you got a net loss of jobs now, commercial Super-Heavy EELV would mean a long-term solution to retain jobs in the aerospace industry in Florida and elsewhere.
« Last Edit: 08/22/2009 09:33 am by simon-th »

Offline DLR

  • Full Member
  • ****
  • Posts: 497
  • Liked: 20
  • Likes Given: 0
As far as I understood it the Super-Heavy EELV wouldn't be operated by NASA, but flights would only be purchased?

And since the operator of this EELV might chose to rung things differently than NASA with the Shuttle (i.e. more efficient), this could lead to significant layoffs?

Or would the Super-Heavy EELV be operated by NASA directly?

Offline DLR

  • Full Member
  • ****
  • Posts: 497
  • Liked: 20
  • Likes Given: 0
What are the candidates for the Super-Heavy EELV?

Altas Phase 2? Delta IV Heavy with 4 to 7 CCBs?

Offline simon-th

  • Full Member
  • ****
  • Posts: 952
  • Liked: 0
  • Likes Given: 0

Altas Phase 2? Delta IV Heavy with 4 to 7 CCBs?

Essentially.

Considering the two charts Sally Ride showed at the Aug 12th meeting, my bet is clearly on Atlas V Phase 2.

Offline simon-th

  • Full Member
  • ****
  • Posts: 952
  • Liked: 0
  • Likes Given: 0
As far as I understood it the Super-Heavy EELV wouldn't be operated by NASA, but flights would only be purchased?

And since the operator of this EELV might chose to rung things differently than NASA with the Shuttle (i.e. more efficient), this could lead to significant layoffs?

Or would the Super-Heavy EELV be operated by NASA directly?

Layoffs are inevitable. They have been for quite some time. The STS to 2015 option has been discarded already due to budget constraints.

And no, NASA would not operate a Super-Heavy EELV. If ULA can provide HLV launches for less money than NASA with fewer people working on them, why should that be bad? The problem is always the transition between two programs, but as I said above, that has already begun. Layoffs at contractors have started and rehiring people really just doesn't make much sense - except if e.g. Shuttle-ETs are required for the new HLV.
« Last Edit: 08/22/2009 09:56 am by simon-th »

Offline docmordrid

  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 6334
  • Michigan
  • Liked: 4207
  • Likes Given: 2
As to the vehicle(s); for long duration flights perhaps a combo of a less expensive and lighter crew-return-only capsule, a smallish Bigelow type habitat (better rad shielding and micro-meteoroid protection) and a drive section with connecting bits.  Assemble in LEO.  Keep dual-Orion's arm.
« Last Edit: 08/22/2009 10:22 am by docmordrid »
DM

Offline grdja

  • Full Member
  • ***
  • Posts: 322
  • Liked: 33
  • Likes Given: 13
If Shuttle is cut, facilities shut down and workers laid off. NASA can forget about that money. It has never happened and will never happen. If money is "free" than it will be cut from NASA. Next congress, next administration, irrelevant. If this goes on NASA will shrink to some $10-12Bn (if not worse) in 2017.

There is no reason but NASA to develop or to keep a 75ton EELV.  It will most likely be eventually cut too.  And of course even that is a if. Other topic says that exploration budget will be cut and only thing coming is COTS. No HLV of any kind, no beyond LEO program of any kind before 2020.

ISS modules are old, without shuttle even if no one gets hurt, chances of a critical malfunction happening long before 2020. are high. We could be lucky if HSF doesn't end in 2015. or 2016.
You cant count on SpaceX and Bieglow, even if their systems work, it is highly unlikely they will be able to achieve sufficient profit to keep in business for long. At such high prices they will ran out of customers in less than 10 years of operations. There simply aren't enough billionaires that want to go to space around.

Offline docmordrid

  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 6334
  • Michigan
  • Liked: 4207
  • Likes Given: 2
And if they provide orbital services to nations or businesses who are locked out of ISS?  Not everyone would necessarily be a joyrider.
DM

Offline DLR

  • Full Member
  • ****
  • Posts: 497
  • Liked: 20
  • Likes Given: 0
As far as I understood it the Super-Heavy EELV wouldn't be operated by NASA, but flights would only be purchased?

And since the operator of this EELV might chose to rung things differently than NASA with the Shuttle (i.e. more efficient), this could lead to significant layoffs?

Or would the Super-Heavy EELV be operated by NASA directly?

Layoffs are inevitable. They have been for quite some time. The STS to 2015 option has been discarded already due to budget constraints.

And no, NASA would not operate a Super-Heavy EELV. If ULA can provide HLV launches for less money than NASA with fewer people working on them, why should that be bad? The problem is always the transition between two programs, but as I said above, that has already begun. Layoffs at contractors have started and rehiring people really just doesn't make much sense - except if e.g. Shuttle-ETs are required for the new HLV.

I'm not against layoffs, on the contrary. I think a reduction in personnel is necessary to make NASA more efficient. Operating costs are killing human spaceflight.

The problem is, the political class is very much opposed to layoffs. For them NASA is first and foremost a job's programme, making an option which doesn't retain most of the Shuttle workforce rather unlikely IMO.

Offline tamarack

  • Full Member
  • **
  • Posts: 275
  • Liked: 0
  • Likes Given: 0
Option 7:
 (a)- Destination: Deep Space
 (b)- ISS extension to 2020 (looking at the Sally Charts - maybe even beyond 2020)
 (c)- STS ends in 2011 (maybe 1 flight added)
 (d)- commercial crew to LEO with IOC 2016 - 2.5 billion for commercial crew development
 (e)- Ares I dead; Ares V dead
 (f)- HLV development commercially - potentially Atlas V Phase 2 (see attached chart)
 (g)- however not 3 billion per year more in budget; maximum 1 billion per year more - this means the "technology line-item" will be cut in half; and probably HLV development delayed
 (h)- potential savings: Orion contract maybe axed in favor of commercial crew capsule
 (i)- other potential savings (not likely IMO): private company takes over ISS operations

a = Deep space is a waste of time/money/resources
b = A must to continue developing space systems/science
c = Almost guaranteed
d = Should push 2011 CCDev(Dragon) with Soyuz as back-up
e = Kill AresI, but develop 150-200mt AresV family by ~2017
f = For Orion, 25mt Delta/Dragon-H is fine. No need for C-HLV for NASA
g = As always, work within the budget, but push NE&TP by ~2015
h = Keep Orion of schedule for ~2015 (NE&TP test and prelude AresV)
i = Not going to happen

$0.02

Offline simon-th

  • Full Member
  • ****
  • Posts: 952
  • Liked: 0
  • Likes Given: 0
Option 7:
 (a)- Destination: Deep Space
 (b)- ISS extension to 2020 (looking at the Sally Charts - maybe even beyond 2020)
 (c)- STS ends in 2011 (maybe 1 flight added)
 (d)- commercial crew to LEO with IOC 2016 - 2.5 billion for commercial crew development
 (e)- Ares I dead; Ares V dead
 (f)- HLV development commercially - potentially Atlas V Phase 2 (see attached chart)
 (g)- however not 3 billion per year more in budget; maximum 1 billion per year more - this means the "technology line-item" will be cut in half; and probably HLV development delayed
 (h)- potential savings: Orion contract maybe axed in favor of commercial crew capsule
 (i)- other potential savings (not likely IMO): private company takes over ISS operations

a = Deep space is a waste of time/money/resources
b = A must to continue developing space systems/science
c = Almost guaranteed
d = Should push 2011 CCDev(Dragon) with Soyuz as back-up
e = Kill AresI, but develop 150-200mt AresV family by ~2017
f = For Orion, 25mt Delta/Dragon-H is fine. No need for C-HLV for NASA
g = As always, work within the budget, but push NE&TP by ~2015
h = Keep Orion of schedule for ~2015 (NE&TP test and prelude AresV)
i = Not going to happen

$0.02

Just to be clear, the above points are not my opinion, they seem to be the option of choice by the White House.

ad a. If Deep Space is a waste, what isn't? Deep Space missions are the next stepping stone to Mars. Lunar missions really aren't. So if Deep Space is a waste, then human lunar return even more so.

ad d. You can't push a crewed commercial vehicle to 2011. Hey, NASA will be glad if SpaceX can demonstrate cargo missions to the ISS by 2011.

ad e. The budget will not be increased much above the FY2010 guidance. You can't develop Ares V by 2017, at the current budget an IOC for Ares V in 2027 is even challenging.

ad f. Most likely thing to do with Orion is put it on hold. It's a fixed cost that isn't necessary for NASA in the next 10-12 years. Develop a commercial alternative (which can be a Orion derivative) instead.

ad g. You can't push anything to 2015 with the current budget.

ad h. Even with all the money in the world Orion IOC 2015 is impossible.

ad i. I agree, I don't think it will happen. But that is what the White House wants NASA to look into. Basically, what they want is a private entity formed by the government which takes over all NASA ISS employees and facilities and THEN look into efficiency gains etc.

Offline MATTBLAK

  • Elite Veteran & 'J.A.F.A'
  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 5362
  • 'Space Cadets' Let us; UNITE!! (crickets chirping)
  • New Zealand
  • Liked: 2239
  • Likes Given: 3883
"Those who can't, Blog".   'Space Cadets' of the World - Let us UNITE!! (crickets chirping)

Offline Svetoslav

  • Veteran
  • Full Member
  • ****
  • Posts: 1667
  • Bulgaria
  • Liked: 1184
  • Likes Given: 114
I am happy with this option. It's the right one - especially with the mistake called Ares I. We don't need this rocket if we have Falcon 9.
« Last Edit: 08/22/2009 12:04 pm by Svetoslav »

Offline PaulL

  • Member
  • Full Member
  • **
  • Posts: 232
  • Ottawa, Canada
  • Liked: 0
  • Likes Given: 0
I don't think that this option is politically acceptable.  Florida politicians and the ATK lobbying group would actively work against it.

PaulL

Offline MATTBLAK

  • Elite Veteran & 'J.A.F.A'
  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 5362
  • 'Space Cadets' Let us; UNITE!! (crickets chirping)
  • New Zealand
  • Liked: 2239
  • Likes Given: 3883
I'm astonished and a little alarmed that people are showing SO much faith in Commercial Space being able to achieve what even NASA cannot do. Although good things are coming from Commercial Space -- I have NO DOUBT (don't ignore or forget I said it) -- people shouldn't make the mistake of projecting their rabid hopes upon Elon Musk etc like they were harbingers of guaranteed 'Hope & Change'.

This era we are in now is NOT the space equivalent of the Obama campaign. Healthy doses of sober realism are needed here, not blind science-fiction optimism! Commercial Space will earn the right to be venerated to Messiah status when it actually achieves something concrete and spectacular.

None of these companies have even done what China, Japan or India have done yet!!

"Falcon 9", "Dragon" etc will SAVE us!! Come oonnnn... :(
« Last Edit: 08/23/2009 05:06 am by MATTBLAK »
"Those who can't, Blog".   'Space Cadets' of the World - Let us UNITE!! (crickets chirping)

Offline Svetoslav

  • Veteran
  • Full Member
  • ****
  • Posts: 1667
  • Bulgaria
  • Liked: 1184
  • Likes Given: 114
And what is a politically acceptable option? Funding Ares I? What you will get is an ISS deorbit in 2016 and an Ares I flying to nowhere for the next ten years. It's unacceptable.

Tags:
 

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