Quote from: FinalFrontier on 07/10/2010 10:09 pmQuote from: yg1968 on 07/10/2010 09:47 pmULA 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.
Quote from: yg1968 on 07/10/2010 09:47 pmULA 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?
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.
Quote from: yg1968 on 07/10/2010 09:47 pmQuote from: SpacexULA on 07/10/2010 09:12 pmQuote from: Ben the Space Brit on 07/10/2010 06:46 pmNot 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?
Quote from: SpacexULA on 07/10/2010 09:12 pmQuote from: Ben the Space Brit on 07/10/2010 06:46 pmNot 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.
Quote from: Ben the Space Brit on 07/10/2010 06:46 pmNot 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.
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.
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.
Quote from: Florida TodayA 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?
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.
"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.
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?
Quote from: rcoppola on 07/10/2010 01:52 pm5 seg SRBs ...check.J2...check.Quote from: Drapper23 on 07/10/2010 01:02 pmNelson said the giant launcher -- capable of lifting at least 75 metric tonsA 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
5 seg SRBs ...check.J2...check.
Nelson said the giant launcher -- capable of lifting at least 75 metric tons
...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 ?
A 75mT launcher probably won't need either 5-segs or J-2X.
Quote from: 2552 on 07/10/2010 03:26 pmQuote from: Florida TodayA 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.
Quote from: spacetraveler on 07/11/2010 01:04 pmSo 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.QuoteAlso, 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.
So if Orion would be launched on whatever this HLV will be,
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.
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.
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 -
Quote from: nooneofconsequence on 07/11/2010 08:17 pmOh dear god no - Not literally. Central core = the core fibre of HLV development, i.e. propulsion. Just Ares I.
Quote from: renclod on 07/11/2010 08:33 pmQuote from: nooneofconsequence on 07/11/2010 08:17 pmOh 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.
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.