Author Topic: Senate Committee proposing building heavy-lift rocket immediately  (Read 284947 times)

Offline FinalFrontier

  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 3945
  • Space Watcher
  • Liked: 377
  • Likes Given: 154
ULA received money under CCDev. Blue Origin received money for a LAS under CCDev. So I imagine that it is more than money for just a spacecraft. ULA is asking for $1B-$2B to manrate the Atlas V.
When did ULA ask for that much?

I seem to remember seeing that number also, but I was under the impression that number was for a full program.  I thought the 2 billion number included upgrade to RS-68 regen domestically manufactured, upgraded avionics for Atlas 5, and a few test flights.

IF ULA is offering all that for 1-2 billion it seems like a steal compared to what we have sunk into Ares 1 at this point.

My thoughts as well. It seems it would be a heck of alot less just to manrate atlas. That larger number was for RS68 regen as well, I thought....

Atlas only needs the EDSP.
3-30-2017: The start of a great future
"Live Long and Prosper"

Offline yg1968

  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 9673
  • Liked: 1387
  • Likes Given: 875
Not really, when you realise that commercial crew is also a large multi-year program that is greatly dependent on public funding.  Commercial crew is also vulnerable to defunding, political feuds and unexpected technical issues.

I though Commercial Crew was more of a spacecraft program than a launcher program.  All the launchers being seriously considered for Commercial crew need "minimum" alteration to become manned launchers.

On the other hand HLV, would be a launcher and a spacecraft program mixed together, therefore by it's very nature much larger and more "vulnerable" than a commercial operation.

Your right though both would be vulnerable to budget cuts, but commercial crew only the spacecraft would be vulnerable, with HLV both launcher and spacecraft are vulnerable.

ULA received money under CCDev. Blue Origin received money for a LAS under CCDev. So I imagine that it is more than money for just a spacecraft. ULA is asking for $1B-$2B to manrate the Atlas V.
When did ULA ask for that much?

Here:
http://www.nytimes.com/2010/04/12/science/space/12rocket.html?_r=1

Quote
Michael C. Gass, president and chief executive of United Launch Alliance, has said that upgrading the low-end version of the Atlas V for astronauts — adding a monitoring system to alert controllers of problems with the rocket and modifying the launching pad to handle astronauts — would cost $400 million.

“When you start getting into a heavier crew transfer vehicle and a dedicated launch facility, it’s over a billion dollars, but less than two,” Mr. Gass said. Those improvements “should be funded by the U.S. government” without additional investment from Boeing and Lockheed, he said.
« Last Edit: 07/11/2010 12:08 AM by yg1968 »

Offline Jeff Bingham

  • Extreme Veteran
  • Full Member
  • ****
  • Posts: 1590
  • aka "51-D Mascot"
  • Liked: 38
  • Likes Given: 38
Quote from: Florida Today
A more cautious approach to commercial crew taxis. Nelson said that $6 billion Obama wants to help ready commercial rockets and spacecraft for human flight would be spread out over six years instead of five, adopting a "walk before you run" approach.

So that's how the "walk before you run" Commercial Crew works? 6 billion is over 6 years instead of 5? I was afraid they might underfund it, but this isn't so bad.

Quote from: Florida Today
"In the development of a heavy-lift (vehicle), you have a central core that could be a back-up" if the commercial initiative fails, he said.

Does "central core" = ET? Is he talking about the SSTO crew launcher from the Boeing SD-HLV proposal?





I assure you, the FY 2011 numbers will appear to be "underfunded" for Commercial crew, because activities in that year wiill be focused heavily on concept development, common technology development, human-rating requirements, review of procurement approaches and performance milestones and funding "gates' that must be accomplished with assurance before any authority to proceed o a procurement effort is initiated, and not before the end of FY 2011. But there will still be a stated commitment to the support and development of such capabilities--including requirements for a crew-rescue capability, meaning six-month on-orbital lifetime certification, etc. Those are the kinds of things that you might expect would constitute the closet thing to articulating the "walk before you run" approach for which there is large consensus in the Congress vis-a-vis commercial crew.
Offering only my own views and experience as a long-time "Space Cadet."

Offline A_M_Swallow

  • Elite Veteran
  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 8459
  • South coast of England
  • Liked: 338
  • Likes Given: 146
Are similar rules being applied to Orion and HLV?

Offline libs0n

  • Member
  • Full Member
  • ****
  • Posts: 476
  • Ottawa
  • Liked: 5
  • Likes Given: 2
FY2011 one flight shuttle extension money has to come from somewhere, and it clearly comes from pushing commercial crew into FY2012 in this proposal.

Offline spacetraveler

  • Full Member
  • ****
  • Posts: 640
  • Atlanta, GA
  • Liked: 138
  • Likes Given: 22
So if Orion would be launched on whatever this HLV will be, will they be able to put back all the stuff they had to strip out to accommodate Ares I?

Also, would this mean the HLV would be able to be used for cargo or crew?
« Last Edit: 07/11/2010 01:06 PM by spacetraveler »

Offline Ben the Space Brit

  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 7126
  • A spaceflight fan
  • London, UK
  • Liked: 646
  • Likes Given: 759
So if Orion would be launched on whatever this HLV will be, will they be able to put back all the stuff they had to strip out to accommodate Ares I?

That would be a goal for a 'block-II', certainly.  However, if gap reduction is the goal, then 'block-I' would be a minimum-modification development of the four-seat ascent/six-seat descent Ares-I-carried version for ISS crew transfer only.  Block-I could be available as quickly as in three years (about the same most-optimistic timescale as the core-only version of the launcher).  Block-II would require considerable design work and I, for one, would not believe it could be available before 2015/16 at the earliest.

Quote
Also, would this mean the HLV would be able to be used for cargo or crew?

That is the objective.  Indeed, if the JSC study on HLV applications for ISS support is to believed, NASA believes that it could launch both cargo and crew on the same flight.
"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 JDCampbell

  • Full Member
  • *
  • Posts: 124
  • Liked: 0
  • Likes Given: 0
5 seg SRBs ...check.
J2...check.

Nelson said the giant launcher -- capable of lifting at least 75 metric tons

A 75mT launcher probably won't need either 5-segs or J-2X. (But yes, "at least" could encompass a much bigger launcher with either or both).

cheers, Martin

True. There is a lot of squabbling going on between commercial companies about who may have the best shot. They can't meet the requirements or promote a viable solution because they just don't have the power to get off the pad. I think Congress has the opportunity now because of Obama's lack of leadership to delay any firm action or allow the dust to settle so to speak. Retaining jobs temporary is important even though the original objective was not well thought out.

     

 

Offline renclod

  • Extreme Veteran
  • Full Member
  • ****
  • Posts: 1663
  • EU.Ro
  • Liked: 8
  • Likes Given: 2
Quote from: 2552
...
Quote from: Florida Today
"In the development of a heavy-lift (vehicle), you have a central core that could be a back-up" if the commercial initiative fails, he said.

Does "central core" = ET? Is he talking about the SSTO crew launcher from the [] Boeing SD-HLV proposal ?

As an opinion, more likely "central core" = Ares I.

Quote from: Drapper23
Nelson said the giant launcher -- capable of lifting at least 75 metric tons

Quote from: MP99
A 75mT launcher probably won't need either 5-segs or J-2X.

Maybe the good Senator [Nelson] forgot to add, 75 mT "through TLI" ;)
When you say "giant", it must be some variant of Ares V. IMO.

As the Congress' opposition to FY2011 moves forward , it must be co-substantial with the basic elements of PoR (5-segment solid motor, J-2X based stage). In other words, if the Congress does not mandate NASA to keep the current momentum in new rocket development, then the opposition to FY2011 does not make sense.

Clean sheet HLV design (Ed Kyle) means current contracts (RSRM-V, J-2X, etc.) will be cancelled. If Congress' opposition to FY2011 would agree to that, the opposition fails. FY2011 wins. Exploration must wait in line.

« Last Edit: 07/11/2010 05:37 PM by renclod »

Offline yg1968

  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 9673
  • Liked: 1387
  • Likes Given: 875
Quote from: Florida Today
A more cautious approach to commercial crew taxis. Nelson said that $6 billion Obama wants to help ready commercial rockets and spacecraft for human flight would be spread out over six years instead of five, adopting a "walk before you run" approach.

So that's how the "walk before you run" Commercial Crew works? 6 billion is over 6 years instead of 5? I was afraid they might underfund it, but this isn't so bad.

Quote from: Florida Today
"In the development of a heavy-lift (vehicle), you have a central core that could be a back-up" if the commercial initiative fails, he said.

Does "central core" = ET? Is he talking about the SSTO crew launcher from the Boeing SD-HLV proposal?





I assure you, the FY 2011 numbers will appear to be "underfunded" for Commercial crew, because activities in that year wiill be focused heavily on concept development, common technology development, human-rating requirements, review of procurement approaches and performance milestones and funding "gates' that must be accomplished with assurance before any authority to proceed o a procurement effort is initiated, and not before the end of FY 2011. But there will still be a stated commitment to the support and development of such capabilities--including requirements for a crew-rescue capability, meaning six-month on-orbital lifetime certification, etc. Those are the kinds of things that you might expect would constitute the closet thing to articulating the "walk before you run" approach for which there is large consensus in the Congress vis-a-vis commercial crew.

It's good news that they are thinking about commercial companies for the crew rescue vehicle. I don't think that Orion should be used in that role. I also suspect that the money for the Shuttle for most of FY2011 also makes it difficult to fund commercial crew in FY2011.

51D Mascot, do you believe that the President will veto this bill?
« Last Edit: 07/11/2010 05:25 PM by yg1968 »

Offline yg1968

  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 9673
  • Liked: 1387
  • Likes Given: 875
So if Orion would be launched on whatever this HLV will be, will they be able to put back all the stuff they had to strip out to accommodate Ares I?

That would be a goal for a 'block-II', certainly.  However, if gap reduction is the goal, then 'block-I' would be a minimum-modification development of the four-seat ascent/six-seat descent Ares-I-carried version for ISS crew transfer only.  Block-I could be available as quickly as in three years (about the same most-optimistic timescale as the core-only version of the launcher).  Block-II would require considerable design work and I, for one, would not believe it could be available before 2015/16 at the earliest.

Quote
Also, would this mean the HLV would be able to be used for cargo or crew?

That is the objective.  Indeed, if the JSC study on HLV applications for ISS support is to believed, NASA believes that it could launch both cargo and crew on the same flight.

Since Orion would not be used as a CRV under this bill, is there a need for a LEO (block I) Orion?

Could a BEO Orion be used for servicing the ISS (as a stop gap measure if it is ready before commercial crew)?
« Last Edit: 07/11/2010 05:28 PM by yg1968 »

Offline rcoppola

  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 2016
  • USA
  • Liked: 1294
  • Likes Given: 566
So if Orion would be launched on whatever this HLV will be, will they be able to put back all the stuff they had to strip out to accommodate Ares I?

That would be a goal for a 'block-II', certainly.  However, if gap reduction is the goal, then 'block-I' would be a minimum-modification development of the four-seat ascent/six-seat descent Ares-I-carried version for ISS crew transfer only.  Block-I could be available as quickly as in three years (about the same most-optimistic timescale as the core-only version of the launcher).  Block-II would require considerable design work and I, for one, would not believe it could be available before 2015/16 at the earliest.

Quote
Also, would this mean the HLV would be able to be used for cargo or crew?

That is the objective.  Indeed, if the JSC study on HLV applications for ISS support is to believed, NASA believes that it could launch both cargo and crew on the same flight.

Personally, I'd rather go BEO block 2 now, have it ready for HLV and support commercial space for LEO HSF.
Sail the oceans of space and set foot upon new lands!
http://www.stormsurgemedia.com

Offline renclod

  • Extreme Veteran
  • Full Member
  • ****
  • Posts: 1663
  • EU.Ro
  • Liked: 8
  • Likes Given: 2
Quote
So if Orion would be launched on whatever this HLV will be,

It just won't happen.

Manned launches on super-heavy boosters is a thing of the past.
IMO.


Offline neilh

  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 2365
  • Pasadena, CA
  • Liked: 43
  • Likes Given: 148
True. There is a lot of squabbling going on between commercial companies about who may have the best shot. They can't meet the requirements or promote a viable solution because they just don't have the power to get off the pad.

Do you have a source for these (IMHO bizarre) claims?
Someone is wrong on the Internet.
http://xkcd.com/386/

Offline SpacexULA

  • Full Member
  • ****
  • Posts: 1756
  • Liked: 46
  • Likes Given: 73
True. There is a lot of squabbling going on between commercial companies about who may have the best shot. They can't meet the requirements or promote a viable solution because they just don't have the power to get off the pad. I think Congress has the opportunity now because of Obama's lack of leadership to delay any firm action or allow the dust to settle so to speak. Retaining jobs temporary is important even though the original objective was not well thought out.

Where?  Elon Musk openly stated the day after the Falcon 9 maiden launch that ULA was the more likely primary contractor for Commercial HSF, he wants SpaceX to be backup.

Orbital isn't even developing a reusable capsule, they are straying strictly to cargo at this time.

Bigelow/Boeing, SpaceX, ULA, & Orbital have all spoken quite highly of each other. 

There is MUCH more "squabbling" going on in the SDLV community, between Cxp, Sidemount, and Inline.

No Bucks no Buck Rogers, but at least Flexible path gets you Twiki.

Offline nooneofconsequence

  • Full Member
  • ****
  • Posts: 1391
  • no one is playing fair ...
  • Liked: 0
  • Likes Given: 0
Political will is about to undergo a considerable test.  Not only do we have a down economy ... but we have other long term financial uncertainty over a massive oil spill, the fact we are heading into another hurricane season, ...

Certain options haven't died yet. New options have been added. There are more wildcards in the mix too. Add to that a peculiar election year. All adds up to political high stakes poker for typical low space "return on political capital".

The big consideration here is "blame" - is it safer to blame Obama, be blamed for letting Obama dominate w/Cx loss,  be blamed later for continuing loser Ares I (potentially made costly this year by spectacular  Space-X follow-on success), and the outlier losses to be  blamed for in busted quid pro quos.

"Every way you go is wrong". Very dangerous environment.
"Wise men talk because they have something to say; fools, because they have to say something" - Plato

Offline nooneofconsequence

  • Full Member
  • ****
  • Posts: 1391
  • no one is playing fair ...
  • Liked: 0
  • Likes Given: 0
Quote from: 2552
...
Quote from: Florida Today
"In the development of a heavy-lift (vehicle), you have a central core that could be a back-up" if the commercial initiative fails, he said.

Does "central core" = ET? Is he talking about the SSTO crew launcher from the [] Boeing SD-HLV proposal ?

As an opinion, more likely "central core" = Ares I.
...

Oh dear god no - not the SRB-X again. Illustrates the dangers of when politicians solve problems:



http://www.flightglobal.com/articles/2007/07/06/215384/spaceflight-picture-of-the-week-6-july-2007.html

http://www.globalsecurity.org/space/systems/srb-x.htm
"Wise men talk because they have something to say; fools, because they have to say something" - Plato

Offline renclod

  • Extreme Veteran
  • Full Member
  • ****
  • Posts: 1663
  • EU.Ro
  • Liked: 8
  • Likes Given: 2
Oh dear god no -

Not literally. Central core = the core fibre of HLV development, i.e. propulsion. Just Ares I.


Offline Ben the Space Brit

  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 7126
  • A spaceflight fan
  • London, UK
  • Liked: 646
  • Likes Given: 759
Oh dear god no -

Not literally. Central core = the core fibre of HLV development, i.e. propulsion. Just Ares I.

That is an extremely tenuous conclusion.  From what Senator Nelson seems to be proposing, he is referring to the central core of an SD-HLV - i.e. a SSME/SRM-powered ET-derived core.

Simple fact: No matter how they juggle the funding, holding out for Ares-I means a longer gap, possibly as long as eight years, just for crewed spaceflight to resume.  Then there is another gap, possibly as long as another ten years, before the cargo lifter required to do anything useful with Orion becomes available.  Instead, Senator Nelson's plan appears to be to have the cargo lift capability sooner.  That means a directly-derived SD-HLV.  A side-mount or in-line based on the 8.4m-diameter ET with a no-upper stage crew launch variant.  Seven or eight years maximum to get both crew and cargo launch to both ISS and BEO.
"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 2552

  • Full Member
  • ****
  • Posts: 486
  • Liked: 41
  • Likes Given: 519
Oh dear god no -

Not literally. Central core = the core fibre of HLV development, i.e. propulsion. Just Ares I.

That is an extremely tenuous conclusion.  From what Senator Nelson seems to be proposing, he is referring to the central core of an SD-HLV - i.e. a SSME/SRM-powered ET-derived core.

Simple fact: No matter how they juggle the funding, holding out for Ares-I means a longer gap, possibly as long as eight years, just for crewed spaceflight to resume.  Then there is another gap, possibly as long as another ten years, before the cargo lifter required to do anything useful with Orion becomes available.  Instead, Senator Nelson's plan appears to be to have the cargo lift capability sooner.  That means a directly-derived SD-HLV.  A side-mount or in-line based on the 8.4m-diameter ET with a no-upper stage crew launch variant.  Seven or eight years maximum to get both crew and cargo launch to both ISS and BEO.

Agreed. Nelson isn't even talking about Ares 1 testing anymore. Also, there was a meeting in May between Nelson and some people from Boeing about the Boeing SD-HLV proposal:

Quote
Meanwhile, big aerospace contractors are trying to sell members of Congress on a new $8 billion rocket that could be fashioned from pieces of the space shuttle, which is supposed to be retired later this year. Last week, a group of contractors led by aerospace giant Boeing Co. met Sen. Bill Nelson, D-Fla., to push the new rocket idea.
« Last Edit: 07/11/2010 10:22 PM by 2552 »

Tags: