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?
Altas Phase 2? Delta IV Heavy with 4 to 7 CCBs?
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?
Quote from: DLR on 08/22/2009 09:36 amAs 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.
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
Quote from: simon-th on 08/22/2009 07:56 amOption 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/resourcesb = A must to continue developing space systems/sciencec = Almost guaranteedd = Should push 2011 CCDev(Dragon) with Soyuz as back-upe = Kill AresI, but develop 150-200mt AresV family by ~2017f = For Orion, 25mt Delta/Dragon-H is fine. No need for C-HLV for NASAg = As always, work within the budget, but push NE&TP by ~2015h = Keep Orion of schedule for ~2015 (NE&TP test and prelude AresV)i = Not going to happen$0.02