SMetch - 15/8/2006 1:19 AM
Strongly disagree, ELV for CLV and SD for HLV is the best balance of economics, politics and physics. We keep bouncing between the extremes. Under Sean only ELV, Mike only SD. Can’t we all just get along?
It actually costs a lot more, and forces a huge number of workers out of jobs nationwide.
If NASA goes down the Atlas branch for CLV, there is not going to be much on the way of work available for any people with experience of Shuttle. EELV's are already fully-staffed right now, and other than some NASA management personnel needed to oversee the start of the new program, the rest are out of luck because there is no Shuttle, no SD CLV and no CaLV will be ready for at least 7 more years.
NASA would be forced to sack almost all the STS staff and just hope to re-hire enough of the experienced people again later when they finally do get the CaLV ready to deliver.
That's precisely what happened after Apollo, and that experience has taught NASA that a ~5-year long gap in contracts will cause 80-90% of trained staff to leave and NEVER return because they become disillusioned with the space program and find completely alternate careers. When approached down the line, virtually none of them are willing to change direction back to NASA knowing their jobs can come and go at a whim.
That's precisely what NASA has been instructed NOT to do this time, so I just can't see it happening.
Further, if NASA chose to do the Atlas, I would predict they'd choose not to try to run two completely different and unrelated LV programs which share no commonality. They'd close LC-39 and SD related ops completely and just follow the Atlas path alone.
The issue is this: If you go all-SD, you can share the cost of LC-39 and all of it's facilities, share a lot of the staff, expertise and resources between both of your launcher systems. For example: Both SRB processing and J-2X processing is the same for both CLV and CaLV, so only requires one facility and one team of workers to do both LV's. That's a major cost saving right there.
Alternatively, if you chose both Atlas derivatives, you can share all RD-180, Centaur and also RL-10 processing costs between both programs and save a lot of expenditure that way.
Howevere, by running two programs concurrent with each other, two completely unrelated launch systems would offer no cost-savings at all. You'd have to operate two separate vehicles, double the number of engine processing facilities, two unrelated launch complexes - 39 and 41, all the while incurring ALL the associated costs of both systems and being able to share none of the experience and facilities between them.
Whichever CLV we get, I predict its 95% certain that the CaLV will end up being directly related to it.
Of course, I'll plug my "Direct" SDLV solution
One single launcher based on all the good bits of current STS hardware, with very few modifications. Only one development cost, not two. The same vehicle is powerful enough to fly crew or cargo - or both! It uses well-known, already man-rated, systems throughout and has a full workforce ready to work on it right now. Cut the cost and dangers of the Orbiter completely out of the program and open the moon up with just one payment for one launch vehicle to develop, not two.
Direct Shuttle Derivative. 2x4seg, 3xSSME, 73.5mT to LEO. Add an EDS and this 2.0 launch solution costs about half the cost of Ares-I and Ares-V together per year, yet it does more. For a total of less than $2.5Bn, you could launch 3 complete 4-man Lunar missions, plus two 6-man missions to the ISS, each of which would allow an extra 48 ton payload module to be brought along at the same time to resupply the station.
The unlikely looking Ares-I & Ares-V choice NASA had been planning, would have cost about $3.2Bn for just TWO 150mT Lunar missions with TWO CEV-only ISS missions, and would not offer any extra payload capacity to ISS. Resupply missions would cost extra again.
Looks like a very good alternative to me.
Ross.
